Do you guys think we are winning the war?

[Legend]

And how do you define victory of a war like that? I was watching fox news and it seems like every journalist on there was acting pro-bush defending him left and right,personally i think that too many soldiers are dying over bush's personal war and it needs to end.

Did you catch what Jon kerry said this week us soldiers are terrorizing Iraq women and children those are pretty strong words.

[DHaswood]

We can't stop the war now. We just found weapons of ass destruction...

































...In my pants!

[GroobySteven]

Legend,
Check out other new sources other than Fox news which is massively bias.
BBC.com is good.

seanchai

[Felicia Katt]

SeanChai, he said he was watching Fox news and he still thinks the war is about Bush's ego and is a needless waste of good soldier's lives.

There is hope for our democracy after all
Thank you Legend!

FK

[kieron]

The Iraqi war was ILLEGAL! also an NZer who went in as part of Britains army is going against Blair (because a top lawyer in the UK said it was illegal) and the UK which could turn out to be a huge lot of media 'fun'...Fox is somehow connected with Bushs family (i think his cousin or someone is a top person at Fox).

[goldtop]

The notion that any war might be 'legal' is laughable, and we dont need top lawyers dictating the tennents of human decency. Nobody wins wars, one side occasionally loses less badly, thats all.

[chefmike]

:arrow:

[MoonAndStar]

in war there are no winners only losers.....

Fuck bush, fuck cheeny, fuck powell, fuck rice, fuck da republicans....

these bitches best run cos the truth is gonna cum out real soon..... 300 bars and running!

[chefmike]

:arrow:

[fishman33]

, they're all either current or ex-business associates of this administration. That includes Osama.

okay, okay, you're going to have to explain that one to me. How was Osama ever a business associate of this administration when he's been a fugutive in hiding since even before the first attacks on the Towers during Clinton's run? Rip on Bush and his idiocy all you want. Be it his terrible fiscal policies or his even worse educational edicts- hell, I'll even laugh at a cheap shot at his linguistic abiliites, but when you make a statement like that you just make yourself out to be a died-in the wool liberal who'll believe any leftwing horseshit they read or hear from random talking heads and I'm pretty sure you're too smart for that. Now you can call him a former associate of the US government if you want...that, I can't necessarilly argue with.

[Trogdor]

If ya ask me, Dubya would THANK Osama, since Osama pretty much saved Dubya's ass, cause if none of this happened, we'd have someone else in the oval office last year.

And I am still waiting for the words "War Criminal" to be planted on president hillbilly's ass.

[BlackAdder]

"Even the Texas Mafia will be without the Black Gold one day, admittedly everything seems to boil down to the Bushes and The Saudi's (The Saudi Royal Family even have a pet name for Dubya). Remember that Osama is a Saudi and NOT an Iraqi, it's all a giant clusterfuck according to Michael Moore books (Dude, Where's my Country and Stupid White Men). "


Yes thats true, and ive talked to several people working on alternate fuels....And we all agree that the Texas Mafia is gearing up to control whatever that commodity turns out to be..

Fuel cells.....very simple hydrogen fuel cells, but the gubment already has plans so you cant refuel them yourself and you have to stop at fueling stations just like fucking gas today....FUCKING FORBID we ever free people from the need to pay for energy.....Sick bastards want to maintain the status quo down through the millenia....why not?, its worked for the Catholics.....

[jt money]

Yes thats true, and ive talked to several people working on alternate fuels....And we all agree that the Texas Mafia is gearing up to control whatever that commodity turns out to be..

Fuel cells.....very simple hydrogen fuel cells, but the gubment already has plans so you cant refuel them yourself and you have to stop at fueling stations just like fucking gas today....FUCKING FORBID we ever free people from the need to pay for energy.....Sick bastards want to maintain the status quo down through the millenia....why not?, its worked for the Catholics.....Next they'll be selling us oxygen and water. Why do you think they love fucking up the environment?

Uh, they are selling us water? Funny that fuel cells were originally supposed to be run on water. See what they run on now? Gasoline!

I can't say I blame them, if I owned oil I would pay off whoever I could to make sure I stayed making money. That is rich people in general, not just politicians.

[jt money]

Uh, they are selling us water? Funny that fuel cells were originally supposed to be run on water. See what they run on now? Gasoline!

I can't say I blame them, if I owned oil I would pay off whoever I could to make sure I stayed making money. That is rich people in general, not just politicians.But the conflict of interest, that exists within the current administration, is the worst this country has ever had to bear imho.

The worst? How do you rank them? It is no coincedence that all politicians are rich, they are all dirty!! The sooner we accept it the less pissed off we will all feel!

[yourdaddy]

I guess, because Kennedy and Johnson were dems, that you conveniently left out how screwed up this country was in the late 60's and early 70's. The "Weather Underground", SNCC, the Black Panthers, assasinations, bombings in NY, SF, riots in Chicago, Detroit, etc. People these days have such short memories. Don't forget, we lost 58,000 soldiers during Viet Nam, and when we pulled out, the vacuum in S.E. Asia caused 2 million more deaths. Things aren't near as bad as the left would want you to believe.

[jt money]

Uh, they are selling us water? Funny that fuel cells were originally supposed to be run on water. See what they run on now? Gasoline!

I can't say I blame them, if I owned oil I would pay off whoever I could to make sure I stayed making money. That is rich people in general, not just politicians.But the conflict of interest, that exists within the current administration, is the worst this country has ever had to bear imho.

The worst? How do you rank them? It is no coincedence that all politicians are rich, they are all dirty!! The sooner we accept it the less pissed off we will all feel!I say the "worst", because they've fucked this country up across the board in a very short period of time. And there's very little indication that we'll bounce back from it any time soon. I'm not a liberal or a democrat, because I don't have faith in politicians. Period. But I am a realist.

Not having faith in politicians is a good start!

[chefmike]

I guess, because Kennedy and Johnson were dems, that you conveniently left out how screwed up this country was in the late 60's and early 70's. The "Weather Underground", SNCC, the Black Panthers, assasinations, bombings in NY, SF, riots in Chicago, Detroit, etc. People these days have such short memories. Don't forget, we lost 58,000 soldiers during Viet Nam, and when we pulled out, the vacuum in S.E. Asia caused 2 million more deaths. Things aren't near as bad as the left would want you to believe.

I guess, because Nixon was a repug, that you conveniently left him out of your little analogy. 58,000 deaths. I suppose we should wait until the death toll in Iraq climbs just as high, before we admit what a neocon sham the whole thing was...

Weather Underground, Black Panthers...the good old days.

Ho Ho, Ho Chi Minh, bring the war back home again....

[yourdaddy]

You're too young to remember Mike, that Nixon didn't preside over the war until 1968. The troop level was over 500,000 when he came in, and 3 years later, he had drawn it down to 170,000. His approval level in 1969 was 67%, according to the Gallup poll. Too bad you were still shittin' yellow, or you could have ranted and railed about Nixon, like you do now about Pres. Bush.

[chefmike]

And speaking of Nixon, you neglected to mention how low his approval ratings dropped, dumbdaddy. Bush is the first prez since to match that low. :lol:

[jt money]

Don't forget, we lost 58,000 soldiers during Viet Nam, I'm fully aware of that, I can assure you. But I'm also aware of Bush Sr's ties to the Dulles brothers; not to mention what took place on 11/22/63, WHERE that event happened to take place, and the laughable Warren Report. But if we need to go back even further in history, I guess we should take a look at what Prescott Bush was up to before, during, and after WWII. And while the life's blood of the American automotive industry is on the table, let's discuss Henry Ford's politics; and how both the auto and oil industries have made life so convenient for each other.

I wouldn't lump the oil and auto industries together. One is booming and the other is on life support.

[chefmike]

Don't forget, we lost 58,000 soldiers during Viet Nam, I'm fully aware of that, I can assure you. But I'm also aware of Bush Sr's ties to the Dulles brothers; not to mention what took place on 11/22/63, WHERE that event happened to take place, and the laughable Warren Report. But if we need to go back even further in history, I guess we should take a look at what Prescott Bush was up to before, during, and after WWII. And while the life's blood of the American automotive industry is on the table, let's discuss Henry Ford's politics; and how both the auto and oil industries have made life so convenient for each other.

The Bush Family Criminal Empire

[chefmike]

....

[December]

....

"Liberal" has been hijacked by "Leftists", and the hijacking was abetted by a right-wing-funamentalist fat whacko who, like a blind pig, has occasionally come across an acorn or two of truth in the midst of his rantings.

I really hate it when my first post on a forum is political, it leaves a bad taste and usually pisses people off...

"Liberal" used to mean "In Favour of Liberty" (which is freedom, but used responsibly-ie not hurting or burdening others. Make your own choices, and accept the consequences.)

Today, "Liberal" in the modern American Political Lexicon, means "I'm being so moral and generous with other people's money and restricting your rights because I know better what's good for you than you do". It's the modern Puritanism, with its own irrational and controlling morality-plays.

They're as bad as Fallwellite Republicans in their own, special way, and the attitude that anyone holding an opposing view is either evil, or stupid, well...

forget talking "Tolerance", without compromise, there IS no "Tolerance".

[Copenhagen]

George Bush is a great president for 2 reasons.

The first, Al Gore never became president.

The second, John Kerry never became president.

[chefmike]

George Bush is a great president for 2 reasons.

The first, Al Gore never became president.

The second, John Kerry never became president.

Yes, we should all be thankful for the fraudulent elections that left us with our glorious chimp-in-chief...and god speaks directly to him! Another bonus, indeed!

Let's see...

Al Gore - decorated war veteran

John Kerry - decorated war veteran

shrubya - a chickenhawk who couldn't even hack it in the National Guard

born on third base and thinks he hit a triple

a failure at every business his daddy's cronies ever threw his way...

up to, and including the presidency.

[chefmike]

George Bush is a great president for 2 reasons.

The first, Al Gore never became president.

The second, John Kerry never became president.

At 22, Al Gore went to Vietnam, because he felt that not only the "have-nots" should serve in that terrible war.

At 22, George Bush's daddy got him in the national guard.


At 30, Al Gore was a congressman, G.W. Bush was drunk.

At 35, Al Gore was a U.S. Senator, G.W. Bush was STILL drunk, doing cocaine, and losing his daddy's money.


As someone put it, he couldn't even find oil in Texas.

[Nardo_7]

game - set - match > chefmike


In the end, though, they're all Skull & Bones. Dem or Republican is like shirts and skins. Doesn't matter at all if you're one of us who's not allowed to play.

[yourdaddy]

mike, you are such a transparent idiot. Al Gore served 5 months in Vietnam as an Army journalist. He received the same medal we all got for serving....that's all. George Bush was the successful general manager of the Texas Rangers and took them to first place, before he resigned to run for Governor of Texas. He was the first Governor ever elected to consecutive 4 year terms. His office was noted for exceptional bi-partisanship. By the way, in the Guard he flew fighter jets, a little more complicated than frying eggs, I'd say. Take a deep breath, remove your nose from Allanah's ass, and for once, admit you might be wrong.

[Legend]

You can't even compare being a texas ranger to going to vietnam non-compareable.

[December]

mike, you are such a transparent idiot. Al Gore served 5 months in Vietnam as an Army journalist. He received the same medal we all got for serving....that's all. George Bush was the successful general manager of the Texas Rangers and took them to first place, before he resigned to run for Governor of Texas. He was the first Governor ever elected to consecutive 4 year terms. His office was noted for exceptional bi-partisanship. By the way, in the Guard he flew fighter jets, a little more complicated than frying eggs, I'd say. Take a deep breath, remove your nose from Allanah's ass, and for once, admit you might be wrong.

Allanah's ass is quite nice, very shapely, and has nothing to do with either the war, or the current inhabitant of the Oval Office.

That said, your point is valid. Gore, like many a ticket-punching officer, got time in and got out early. Same with John Kerry-neither did eighteen months like the real grunts did, and in at least one case, one racked up three Purples without visible long-term effects-other than getting to go home while better men were kept in-theatre, or only allowed to leave early if they had serious injuries with long-term consequences.

Of the three, I don't think I would want to count on any of them as the man next to me in the shit... one man was a bodyguarded journo, another stabbed his subordinates in the back and racked up cosmetic achievements, and the third...well... not much of any accomplishments besides flying one of the more demanding aircraft of the Era.

(Fighters are NOT like airliners)

But we don't hire Presidents to stand in the mud and slug it out with enemy troops in person, we hire them to manage the national government, a decidedly civilian activity.

Johnnie went from Officer to Protestor straight into Government, essentially never having to live in the Private sector or deal with said government from a position of disadvantage.

Al's daddy was a safe-seat Senator, and he virtually inherited the position.

George? failed at one business, ran another one successfully (oddly enough, the successful one had nothing to do with his family's bread-and-butter...), beat a popular and long-serving incumbent to run a state that's notorious in several ways going back a long time, and went from state-level (where you're at a disadvantage) to Federal (where the other two were well-encamped) in a highly contested race that was close enough that the margin of victory would be, in polling terms, smaller than the margin of error.

It is only in a close race, that the Florida-style accusations even approach the level of being worth serious consideration. Gore was coming off a relatively popular presidency as the 'heir apparent'.

[scipio]

Amazing. Talk about blind loyalty to the President, whoever he may be.

Completely negate the military service of two others, in fact even make it seem as though their military service was a sham, in order to follow and even glorify a couple of draft-dodging scions of the military indsutrial complex.

Sheep. Meh.

[Felicia Katt]

George Bush was the successful general manager of the Texas Rangers and took them to first place, before he resigned to run for Governor of Texas.
Bush was allowed to buy 1.8% of the team for $600,000 of borrowed money, and was even made one of the two general managers.

Under Junior's management, the deal was about to fall apart until baseball commissioner Peter Uebberoth brought in another investment group which included Dallas investor "Rusty" Rose who became the other general manager of the team. Under the team partnership agreement, Bush Junior couldn't take any "material actions" wihtout Rose's prior approval. There was also a method for removing Junior as a general partner, but no way to remove Rose.

Rose described Bush's role this way:
"George was the front man. George was the guy that you met when you wanted to be introduced to Ranger baseball. He was the spokesperson. He dealt with the media, he dealt with the fans, and it was obvious to us right from the start that that's what he was made for... George chose to sit right next to the dugout, with the fans, every day... I mean, it's 100 degrees down there. He's there from before the game, half an hour before the game, didn't leave his seat except to go to the bathroom, cheering for the ball club, signing autographs, listening to hecklers, accepting well-wishes from season-ticket customers"

Unlike some major-league baseball owners, Bush avoided day-to-day operations. He stayed out of personnel and staffing issues. He didn't make strategy. He didn't handle player trades. All of that stuff was left to other people. He attended the games, arranged for promotional events, even had baseball cards printed up with his own face on them.

Bush also resigned as general manager in 1994 and the Ranger's didn't win the league until 1996. Most of their success after Bush became an owner was because that was the same year they acquired Nolan Ryan.

Doing little, and taking credit for the accomplishments of others. Par for the course

FK

[BOATER]

However we all may feel about how and why we are over there. We may not all agree with the political powers that got us there. BUt do remember that the Soldiers, themselves, are there with good intentions, and hoping to complete their commitment to the military and return to their families safe.
As an Gulf Veteran this is touching.

http://www.clermontyellow.accountsupport.com/flash/UntilThen.swf

[yourdaddy]

Amen, Boater. Thanks !!!!

[Realgirls4me]

Amazing. Talk about blind loyalty to the President, whoever he may be.

Completely negate the military service of two others, in fact even make it seem as though their military service was a sham, in order to follow and even glorify a couple of draft-dodging scions of the military indsutrial complex.

Sheep. Meh.

It's amazing isn't it. Sheep they are. Not only did he nullify and diminish their service to their country, but completely sidestepped the fact that a candidate's service record is, right or wrong, like it or not, an issue brought to the fore by the media, and -- AND -- completely overlooked Dubya's awol status when his time came to serve his country. This is the way these narrowminded Rightwing basket cases generally operate: Ignore your own party's fuck-ups and shortcomings while piling it on the other side.

[Realgirls4me]

However we all may feel about how and why we are over there. We may not all agree with the political powers that got us there. BUt do remember that the Soldiers, themselves, are there with good intentions, and hoping to complete their commitment to the military and return to their families safe.
As an Gulf Veteran this is touching.

http://www.clermontyellow.accountsupport.com/flash/UntilThen.swf

Boater,

Care to name one -- ONE -- poster on this site that is against the troops themselves and doesn't recognize what they're up against ? Not policies that put them there, but the troops themselves. Name one please.

[Vicki Richter]

One day that oil will be gone, I say get the scientists working on a substance like oil, so we can stick up the middle finger to the camel jockeys and make all the oily-stuff we need cheaply!Not profitable enough for the Texas mafia. And whatever you want to refer to those people as, they're all either current or ex-business associates of this administration. That includes Osama.

God you people are fucking whack. Osama is not personally a former business associate of the current administration. Even Michael Moore would have a hard time pressing that one. I love how people go see Farenheit 911 and decide they know everything about politics.

[Realgirls4me]

Listing to the Right today, Vicki ? I think what she was alluding to was the fact that Osama Bin Laden was armed, trained, and funded by the CIA, thus in the hip pocket of the United States at one time. I personally don't require a Michael Moore production to criticize the moron in office right now.

[Vicki Richter]

Listing to the Right today, Vicki ? I think what she was alluding to was the fact that Osama Bin Laden was armed, trained, and funded by the CIA, thus in the hip pocket of the United States at one time. I personally don't require a Michael Moore production to criticize the moron in office right now.

Well, the current administration had nothing to do with giving him any of those things. You are drawing a link to the US government in general (at best his father's administration) and pointing it at someone who had nothing to do with it in any capacity.

[Mugai_hentaisha]

Listing to the Right today, Vicki ? I think what she was alluding to was the fact that Osama Bin Laden was armed, trained, and funded by the CIA, thus in the hip pocket of the United States at one time. I personally don't require a Michael Moore production to criticize the moron in office right now.

Well, the current administration had nothing to do with giving him any of those things. You are drawing a link to the US government in general (at best his father's administration) and pointing it at someone who had nothing to do with it in any capacity.

Actually i am not so sure about that Vicki. Rumsey and Cheney were Quite active in the Reagan Admin when we were arming people like the Taliban and Osama to fight the Russians.

Going out to everyone on this No war is a good war, and that goes double when your enemy is an Idealogy. How do you defeat that? To all the neocons out there the only terrorists out there are Muslim extremist, but are they correct? Never forget that the Federal building in OK. was did in by Americans. The Idealogy we are at war with if far larger than the bushites would let you believe.

[BOATER]

However we all may feel about how and why we are over there. We may not all agree with the political powers that got us there. But do remember that the Soldiers, themselves, are there with good intentions, and hoping to complete their commitment to the military and return to their families safe.
As an Gulf Veteran this is touching.

http://www.clermontyellow.accountsupport.com/flash/UntilThen.swf

Boater,

Care to name one -- ONE -- poster on this site that is against the troops themselves and doesn't recognize what they're up against ? Not policies that put them there, but the troops themselves. Name one please.

Relax, Realgirls4me, your still a hot, sorry I didn't PM you to hit on you. lol j/k.

Now seriously, I would hope there is none to name. My point wasn't to call anyone out here. Nor will I dig through post searching to blast anyone. I was just sharing a good tribute to the troops. But there are many outside here that hate military and anyone that served.
I had a recent arguement with someone questioning how I could be proud about serving 6 years in the military and that I was no different in her eyes that the WTC bomber. It's her view of this, she has that right. And America is a wonderful country for the freedom of expression.
That said, I hope the Patriot Act initiatives do not set us back with losing certain our liberties and freedoms. For this goes against the said freedom we were told we were fighting for.

[chefmike]

Veterans Against The Iraq War

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php


Statement of Purpose




Veterans Against Iraq War is a coalition of American veterans who support our troops but oppose war with Iraq or any other nation that does not pose a clear and present danger to our people and nation.

Until and unless the current U.S. Administration provides evidence which clearly demonstrates that Iraq or any other nation poses a clear, direct and immediate danger to our country, we oppose all of this Administration's pre-emptive and unilateral military activities in Iraq. Furthermore, we cannot support any war that is initiated without a formal Declaration of War by Congress, as our Constitution requires.

Although we detested the dictatorial policies of Saddam Hussein and sympathized with the tragic plight of the Iraqi people, we opposed unilateral and pre-emptive U.S. military intervention on the grounds that it established a dangerous precedent in the conduct of international affairs, that it could easily lead to an increase of violent regional instability and the spread of much wider conflicts, that it places needless and unacceptable financial burdens on the American people, that it diverts us from addressing critical domestic priorities, and that it distracts us from our goals of tracking down and destroying international terrorists and their lairs.

Furthermore, we do not believe that the American military can or should be used as the police force of the world by any administration, Republican or Democrat. Consequently, we believe that the lives and well being of our nation's soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines should not be squandered or sacrificed for causes other than in the direct defense of our people and nation.

Finally, we believe that a doctrine of pre-emptive and unilateral U.S. military attack on Iraq or any other nation is illegal, unnecessary, counter-productive and presents a truly dire and distressing threat to our vital international interests and basic national security. As military veterans, we have a unique understanding of war and know the many hidden truths that lie behind war's easy theories and promises, as well as behind the tragic consequences that even, "victory" brings. We therefore call on all like-minded veterans and family members to endorse this statement and support us in our efforts to help avert, mitigate or stop a national tragedy and an international calamity.


We ask that you support our troops, by demanding that they be brought home from Iraq immediately. We ask that you support our nation's vital interests, by demanding that our troops should never be placed in harm's way except to meet and defeat any direct and immediate threat to our people.

[Vicki Richter]

Veterans Against The Iraq War

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php


Statement of Purpose




Veterans Against Iraq War is a coalition of American veterans who support our troops but oppose war with Iraq or any other nation that does not pose a clear and present danger to our people and nation.

Until and unless the current U.S. Administration provides evidence which clearly demonstrates that Iraq or any other nation poses a clear, direct and immediate danger to our country, we oppose all of this Administration's pre-emptive and unilateral military activities in Iraq. Furthermore, we cannot support any war that is initiated without a formal Declaration of War by Congress, as our Constitution requires.

Although we detested the dictatorial policies of Saddam Hussein and sympathized with the tragic plight of the Iraqi people, we opposed unilateral and pre-emptive U.S. military intervention on the grounds that it established a dangerous precedent in the conduct of international affairs, that it could easily lead to an increase of violent regional instability and the spread of much wider conflicts, that it places needless and unacceptable financial burdens on the American people, that it diverts us from addressing critical domestic priorities, and that it distracts us from our goals of tracking down and destroying international terrorists and their lairs.

Furthermore, we do not believe that the American military can or should be used as the police force of the world by any administration, Republican or Democrat. Consequently, we believe that the lives and well being of our nation's soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines should not be squandered or sacrificed for causes other than in the direct defense of our people and nation.

Finally, we believe that a doctrine of pre-emptive and unilateral U.S. military attack on Iraq or any other nation is illegal, unnecessary, counter-productive and presents a truly dire and distressing threat to our vital international interests and basic national security. As military veterans, we have a unique understanding of war and know the many hidden truths that lie behind war's easy theories and promises, as well as behind the tragic consequences that even, "victory" brings. We therefore call on all like-minded veterans and family members to endorse this statement and support us in our efforts to help avert, mitigate or stop a national tragedy and an international calamity.


We ask that you support our troops, by demanding that they be brought home from Iraq immediately. We ask that you support our nation's vital interests, by demanding that our troops should never be placed in harm's way except to meet and defeat any direct and immediate threat to our people.

I am going to ask a simple question... What do you think would happen in Iraq if we just pulled out now? Anyone who says that is not our concern now is smoking more than reefer. I'm not saying it was the right thing to do in the first place, but now that it's done, you can't just pull out the troops and think "it's not our problem."

I do agree with some of what is being said here. Unless it is an allied action (meaning NATO ponies up people too) I don't think we should be world police. However, there are a lot of injustices in the world (genocide, terrorism, etc) that don't directly impact us... today.

However, with the above policy Iraq would still own Kuwait and all Korea would be communist. It's a slippery slope right?

V

[Felicia Katt]

I have never said ONE thing against the troops. And never will. My father was in the military for over 20 years, and was decorated for his service in Vietnam. Our soldiers are brave men, doing a thankless job, in a horrible place. Criticizing their commander, who never served in combat, or his admiinistration, many of whom avoided any military serice whatsoever, is not criticizing them. That those men, who send them to death, but would not face it themselves, continue to hide behind them this way by equating poltical discourse with disrepect for our soldiers is shameful.

So is this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301888.html

Bush, who accuses of not supporting the troops, underfunded health care for them by a billion dollars.

and this
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1468

Many of our returning troops are ending up homeless, because of underfunded VA programs, joining the estimated 300,000 already homeless veterans of other conflicts who survived their wars, but not their government's indifference.

Military service deserves more than the present Adminstration's lip service.

FK

[jt money]

I have never said ONE thing against the troops. And never will. My father was in the military for over 20 years, and was decorated for his service in Vietnam. Our soldiers are brave men, doing a thankless job, in a horrible place. Criticizing their commander, who never served in combat, or his admiinistration, many of whom avoided any military serice whatsoever, is not criticizing them. That those men, who send them to death, but would not face it themselves, continue to hide behind them this way by equating poltical discourse with disrepect for our soldiers is shameful.


Anyone who says you don't support the troops because you want to bring them home is an idiot! Also, anyone who says you don't support the troops because you want them to stay and finish the job is also an idiot. This is usually a ploy used by either side when their arguments have failed (just like attacking people personally regardless the side of the argument they are on.)

When did they make it a requirement that to serve in a presidential cabinet you had to have served in the military? George Bush didn't go to Vietnam? No shit! His father used his pull to get him into the reserves? No shit, just like tons of other people with money or power did for their own children or they themselves signed up for college so they wouldn't have to go. George Bush is the commander in chief so he and his cabinet will choose what to do with the military (they already got it approval from congress, ya, I know, they got tricked but it's too late to change your mind now.) So what was the question: Are we winning the war? Some people think yes, many here think no and no one will know for years to come.

jt

[south ov da border]

wars start b/c of politicians. They use soldiers as resources, but don't give them enough to really defend what they are "supposed" to be there for. THe horror stories I've heard about Iraq and where the money is really going are sad to me. We're all being lied to on an everyday basis, but even more so than usual. Politicians lobbyists and corporations are the reason this country is screwed...

[yourdaddy]

Legend, most of the responders to your question, except Vicki, are refusing to answer your question. chefmike and the libs will never answer a direct question. I bet mike prepares some awesome waffles at his Waffle House, because waffling is what he does better than anything. YES, we are winning the war. Pretty soon, the Iraqi's will be able to fight their own insurgency, and we'll be out of there, except for a small semi-permanent security force. If the people of Iraq want that force withdrawn, they'll have it. What's so difficult about that? It was the mission from the get-go.

[scipio]

YES, we are winning the war. Pretty soon, the Iraqi's will be able to fight their own insurgency, and we'll be out of there, except for a small semi-permanent security force. If the people of Iraq want that force withdrawn, they'll have it. What's so difficult about that? It was the mission from the get-go.

You are dreaming. Oh, except for a "small semi-permanent security force"? Of, say, 100,000 troops? How many will it be? 10,000? 50,000?

No, the USA is not winning the "war" (it's not a war actually, only Congress can approve an official declaration of war, and obvious The Shrub isn't going to get that). This is another Vietnam and it's going to divide the country worse than it already is, and fuck things up something rotten.

[chefmike]

I know this is WAY over your head, yourdaddygump, but maybe you and the other guys at the bunker can learn something about reality, between target practice and cross-burnings...

The real choice in Iraq
Zbigniew Brzezinski International Herald Tribune

MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 2006


"Bring 'em on" - President George W. Bush on Iraqi insurgents, summer 2003


The insurgency is "in its last throes" - Vice President Dick Cheney, summer 2005


"... There are only two options before our country: victory or defeat" - President Bush, Christmas 2005


WASHINGTON

The administration's rhetorical devolution speaks for itself. Yet, with some luck and with a more open decision-making process in the White House, greater political courage on the part of Democratic leaders and even some encouragement from authentic Iraqi leaders, the U.S. war in Iraq could (and should) come to an end within a year.

"Victory or defeat" is, in fact, a false strategic choice. In using this formulation, the president would have the American people believe that their only options are either "hang in and win" or "quit and lose." But the real, practical choice is this: "persist but not win" or "desist but not lose."

Victory, as defined by the administration and its supporters - a stable and secular democracy in a unified Iraqi state, with the insurgency crushed by the American military assisted by a disciplined, U.S.-trained Iraqi national army - is unlikely.

The U.S. force required to achieve it would have to be significantly larger than the present one, and the Iraqi support for a U.S.-led counterinsurgency would have to be more motivated.

The current U.S. forces (soon to be reduced) are not large enough to crush the anti-American insurgency or stop the sectarian Sunni-Shiite strife. Both problems continue to percolate under an inconclusive but increasingly hated foreign occupation.

Moreover, neither the Shiites nor the Kurds are likely to subordinate their specific interests to a unified Iraq with a genuine, single national army. As the haggling over the new government has already shown, the two dominant forces in Iraq - the religious Shiite alliance and the separatist Kurds - share a common interest in preventing a restoration of Sunni domination, with each determined to retain a separate military capacity for asserting its own specific interests, largely at the cost of the Sunnis.

A truly national army in that context is a delusion. Continuing doggedly to seek "a victory" in that fashion dooms America to rising costs in blood and money, not to mention the intensifying Muslim hostility and massive erosion of America's international legitimacy, credibility and moral reputation.

The administration's definition of "defeat" is similarly misleading. Official and unofficial spokesmen often speak in terms that recall the apocalyptic predictions made earlier regarding the consequences of American failure to win in Vietnam: dominoes falling, the region exploding and U.S. power discredited. An added touch is the notion that the Iraqi insurgents will then navigate the Atlantic and wage terrorism on the American homeland.

The real choice that needs to be faced is between:

An acceptance of the complex post-Saddam Iraqi realities through a relatively prompt military disengagement, which would include a period of transitional and initially even intensified political strife as the dust settled and as authentic Iraqi majorities fashioned their own political arrangements.

An inconclusive but prolonged military occupation lasting for years while an elusive goal is pursued.

It is doubtful, to say the least, that America's domestic political support for such a futile effort could long be sustained by slogans about Iraq's being "the central front in the global war on terrorism."

In contrast, a military disengagement by the end of 2006, derived from a more realistic definition of an adequate outcome, could ensure that desisting is not tantamount to losing.

In an Iraq dominated by the Shiites and the Kurds, who together account for close to 75 percent of the population, the two peoples would share a common interest in Iraq's independence as a state.

The Kurds, with their autonomy already amounting in effect to quasi-sovereignty, would otherwise be threatened by the Turks. And the Iraqi Shiites are first of all Arabs; they have no desire to be Iran's satellites. Some Sunnis, once they were aware that the U.S. occupation was drawing to a close and that soon they would be facing an overwhelming Shiite-Kurdish coalition, would be more inclined to accommodate the new political realities, especially when deprived of the rallying cry of resistance to a foreign occupier.

In addition, it is likely that both Kuwait and the Kurdish regions of Iraq would be amenable to some residual U.S. military presence as a guarantee against a sudden upheaval. Once the United States terminated its military occupation, some form of participation by Muslim states in peacekeeping in Iraq would be easier to contrive, and their involvement could also help to cool anti-American passions in the region.

In any case, as Iraqi politics gradually become more competitive, it is almost certain that the more authentic Iraqi leaders (not handpicked by the United States), to legitimate their claim to power, will begin to demand publicly a firm date for U.S. withdrawal.

That is all to the good. In fact, they should be quietly encouraged to do so, because that would increase their popular support while allowing the United States to claim a soberly redefined "Mission Accomplished."

The requisite first step to that end is for the president to break out of his political cocoon. His policymaking and his speeches are the products of the true believers around him who are largely responsible for the mess in Iraq. They have a special stake in their definition of victory, and they reinforce his convictions instead of refining his judgments. The president badly needs to widen his circle of advisers.

Finally, Democratic leaders should stop equivocating while carping. Those who want to lead in 2008 are particularly unwilling to state clearly that ending the war soon is both desirable and feasible. They fear being labeled as unpatriotic. Yet defining a practical alternative would provide a politically effective rebuttal to those who mindlessly seek an unattainable "victory." America needs a real choice regarding its tragic misadventure in Iraq.

(Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. This Global Viewpoint article was distributed by Tribune Media Services International. )

[chefmike]

New call to impeach Blair over Iraq

Matthew Tempest and agencies
Monday January 9, 2006


Tony Blair should be impeached over the Iraq war, according to one of Britain's most senior former soldiers.
General Sir Michael Rose, who commanded UN forces in Bosnia, accused the prime minister of taking the country to war on what turned out to be "false grounds", saying it is something "no one should be allowed to walk away from".

Despite publicly insisting that his aim was to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, Mr Blair "probably had some other strategy in mind", said Gen Rose.

He makes the call for Mr Blair's impeachment in a documentary by the former BBC correspondent and former independent MP Martin Bell.
Gen Rose told Bell he would have resigned his commission rather than take troops to war on the flimsy basis offered by Mr Blair.

And he said: "The politicians should be held to account, and my own view is that Blair should be impeached.

"That would prevent politicians treating quite so carelessly the subject of taking a country into war."

He added to that criticism on the Today programme, saying: "Certainly from a soldier's perspective there can't be any more serious decision taken by a prime minister than declaring war.

"And then to go to war on what turns out to be false grounds is something that no one should be allowed to walk away from."

The general described Mr Blair's actions in the run-up to war as "somewhere in between" getting the politics wrong and actually acting illegally.

"The politics was wrong, that he rarely declared what his ultimate aims were, as far as we can see, in terms of harping continually on weapons of mass destruction when actually he probably had some other strategy in mind," he said.

"And secondly, the consequences of that war have been quite disastrous both for the people of Iraq and also for the west in terms of our wider interests in the war against global terror."

Gen Rose is one of a number of retired soldiers taking part in a documentary by the former war correspondent Bell, entitled Iraq: The Failure Of War.

In his documentary, Bell denounces the war as an "ill-considered adventure" and suggests it may prove more damaging to those who launched it even than America's involvement in Vietnam.

Bell wrote yesterday: "In March it will be three years since the invasion, yet Iraq remains in the unshakeable grip of sectarian violence and may be on the brink of civil war.

"In just two bloody days last week, more than 170 people were butchered by insurgents.

"We have entered a tunnel with no light at the end of it. The mission has not been accomplished.

"Instead we face the prospect of war without end. Even Vietnam offered a less disastrous outcome."

There has already been an attempt by MPs, led by Plaid Cymru's Adam Price, to impeach Mr Blair for "high crimes and misdemeanours" in taking Britain to war against Iraq. The campaign had backing from Tory MPs such as Boris Johnson, as well as Lib Dem, Plaid and SNP members.

Gen Rose accepted parliament had endorsed the decision to commit British troops to military action, but he said that was because the PM had stressed the argument that dictator Saddam Hussein must be stripped of the power to deploy weapons of mass destruction.

The weapons of mass destruction (WMD) argument used to persuade MPs that war was justified had turned out to be wholly wrong, he told Today.

The intelligence relied upon by Mr Blair should have been tested properly by giving UN weapons inspectors more time to see if Saddam did have WMD.

Gen Rose said he would not have been prepared to lead the army into a war that he believed was wrong and on such weak grounds.

"You cannot put people in harm's way if you don't believe the cause is right or sufficient," he said. Senior soldiers should point out strategic failures, he went on.

He said most people thought the continuing presence of troops in Iraq was achieving little, but he said it would be wrong to just walk away.

Responding to Gen Rose's accusation at this morning's lobby briefing, Mr Blair's official spokesman said: "General Rose is entitled to his view. Equally, the government is entitled to point out that we have had free democratic elections in Iraq for the first time in well over a generation.

"In the last of these elections, 69% of the population of Iraq expressed their view.

"In terms of the reasons why we went to war, that has been investigated by four inquiries, including two select committees of the Houses of Parliament.

"The matter has been gone well over and in terms of the outcome - which is what matters - of course there have been difficulties, but we have in process the creation of a democratically elected government in Iraq and that speaks for itself."

[yourdaddy]

Have any of those butt-wipes answered your question YET?

[chefmike]

Have any of those butt-wipes answered your question YET?

Are we winning the war?

I guess we're gonna have to break it down to your sixth grade educational level, yourdaddyGUMP, since you appear incapable of understanding this thread...

NO !

[yourdaddy]

Can I quote you on that later, waffle boy?

[chefmike]

Can I quote you on that later, waffle boy?

yourdaddygump, please feel free to quote me, or any other person who doesn't have their head firmly implanted up their ass, like yourself...




http://photobucket.com/albums/a78/chefmike_/th_head_in_ass_130.jpg

[Trogdor]

http://photobucket.com/albums/a78/chefmike_/th_head_in_ass_130.jpg

Head in ass guy: Whoa, corn! :mrgreen:

[Felicia Katt]

It was the mission from the get-go.

It was? I thought it was about weapons of mass destruction. and that we would be greeted as liberators and would not sustain any casualties and that Iraqi oil revenues alone would pay to rebuild the country. oh, and I thought the mission was accomplished. thats what the banner said on the aircraft carrier.

oh, and this part of the mission too. Before the invasion, then-White House budget director Mitch Daniels predicted Iraq would be "an affordable endeavor" and rejected an estimate by then-White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey of total Iraq war costs at $100 billion to $200 billion as "very, very high."

Now the estimated cost could top 2 trillion dollars.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060110/ts_nm/iraq_cost_dc;_ylt=AqYQ1dewQvEdi6J8uytc53us0NUE;_yl u=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

This is more about the omissions from the get-go.

FK