What the Democrats really think of the troops

[CoryKS]

Or maybe the whole "stay the course" rhetoric came about because Dubya (or at least his speechwriters) realizes he's gotten us into another Vietnam.

Or, perhaps, because he realized the opposition has been trying to make it fail like Vietnam since before we even crossed the border into Iraq?

 

[Kreth]

Or, perhaps, because he realized the opposition has been trying to make it fail like Vietnam since before we even crossed the border into Iraq?

Because they didn't believe the battle cry of "The sky is falling!" er.... "Weapons of mass destruction!" :idunno:

 

[michaeledward]

"Staying the course" is not stuck. If he got on the news every week to repeat his plan saying, "We're trying to get out", I'd say he is stuck. But he is saying the OPPOSITE. He is saying we are STAYING THE COURSE. Meaning, he wants to stay in Iraq until we are finished.

I guess it is all relative. If you want to get out now, then we are stuck.

If you want to see this thing through, then we are staying the course, decidedly.

Please, please, please.

Tell me what finished will look like?
Nobody seems to be able to tell me that.
How will we know when we reach that point?
Do we have something like those little meat thermometers that pop out of the chicken?
Do we have any way to measure if we are moving toward the finish line, or away from it?


Sure, we get O'Reilly challenging talk show hosts "Do you want American to win? Yes or No". Joy Baher had a great response ... "Define Win".


Right now, we seem to be stumbling blindfolded, down a dark hallway, in a windowless basement, not even sure of what we are looking for.

 

[CoryKS]

Because they didn't believe the battle cry of "The sky is falling!" er.... "Weapons of mass destruction!" :idunno:

Now you're switching from "will it work" to "was it the right thing to do". Different argument.

 

[michaeledward]

Or, perhaps, because he realized the opposition has been trying to make it fail like Vietnam since before we even crossed the border into Iraq?

Please define 'opposition'. And what it is you think they are opposing?

In a war, the 'opposition' is usually the army shooting bullets back at you.

Opposition is not what you are describing.

• It is not those citizens in the nation who are trying to stop the soldiers from dying.
• It is not those citizens who demand clear objectives.
• It is not those citizens who discovered the truth behind the lies that started this war.
• It is not those citizens who call for peace.

I define those who speak clearly to their government as Patriots.

 

[mrhnau]

Tell me what finished will look like?
Nobody seems to be able to tell me that.
How will we know when we reach that point?
Do we have something like those little meat thermometers that pop out of the chicken?
Do we have any way to measure if we are moving toward the finish line, or away from it?

1) We can get out of Iraq with their own government taking control.
2) murders/terrorism are reduced to a rate of other civilized nations.
3) we leave a form of government that is superior to the state before.

how can we tell? insurgents allow law to take hold. The local government is able to take control of the security in more and more of the nation. They request our departure because we are no longer needed to maintain security.

That simple enough?

 

[Kreth]

Now you're switching from "will it work" to "was it the right thing to do". Different argument.

Not really, the answer to both in this case is a resounding no.

 

[CoryKS]

Please, please, please.

Tell me what finished will look like?
Nobody seems to be able to tell me that.
How will we know when we reach that point?
Do we have something like those little meat thermometers that pop out of the chicken?
Do we have any way to measure if we are moving toward the finish line, or away from it?


Sure, we get O'Reilly challenging talk show hosts "Do you want American to win? Yes or No". Joy Baher had a great response ... "Define Win".


Right now, we seem to be stumbling blindfolded, down a dark hallway, in a windowless basement, not even sure of what we are looking for.

Finished means that there is a government in place in Iraq that is not antagonistic to the US or its own neighbors and will not allow terrorists to use its lands.

If you read bin Laden's original fatwa against the US, one of his biggest complaints about the US is that we had troops stationed on the "holy" Saudi peninsula. These troops were in place to enforce the no-fly zone imposed on Iraq as a condition of the cease-fire of GWI. That means, we have been at war for the twelve years between GWI and the 2003 invasion. Bush didn't start a war, he ended one. Having removed Hussein from power, there was no need to keep US troops in SA and they were removed in 2003.

I wonder if there were Americans in 1942 that complained about how we responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor by invading Tunisia?

 

[michaeledward]

1) We can get out of Iraq with their own government taking control.
2) murders/terrorism are reduced to a rate of other civilized nations.
3) we leave a form of government that is superior to the state before.

how can we tell? insurgents allow law to take hold. The local government is able to take control of the security in more and more of the nation. They request our departure because we are no longer needed to maintain security.

That simple enough?

Thank you. That seems to be a cogent answer. Do you think we are moving toward, or away from those goals?

I think we are moving away from those goals, and that we do not have sufficient plans, manpower, or political capital to reach those goals. We seem to be in a downward spiral away from those goals. And only a dramatic 're-declaration of war' is going to get us to be able to meet those goals. We need to 're-declare' war, with a goal of 'unconditional surrender' by all Iraqi's and then implement our own version of a government in order to reach those goals.

The government that is in place now, is made up of militia leaders who seem to be supporting murders and terrorism, if not ethnic cleansing. The state of government in Iraq now, seems to be less effective and less stable than the government that came before.

But, maybe I'm just not seeing things the way they are.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=220858&postcount=1

 

[CoryKS]

1) We can get out of Iraq with their own government taking control.
2) murders/terrorism are reduced to a rate of other civilized nations.
3) we leave a form of government that is superior to the state before.

1 & 2, yes. I don't see 3 as being a necessary condition.

 

[michaeledward]

Finished means that there is a government in place in Iraq that is not antagonistic to the US or its own neighbors and will not allow terrorists to use its lands.

If you read bin Laden's original fatwa against the US, one of his biggest complaints about the US is that we had troops stationed on the "holy" Saudi peninsula. These troops were in place to enforce the no-fly zone imposed on Iraq as a condition of the cease-fire of GWI. That means, we have been at war for the twelve years between GWI and the 2003 invasion. Bush didn't start a war, he ended one. Having removed Hussein from power, there was no need to keep US troops in SA and they were removed in 2003.

I wonder if there were Americans in 1942 that complained about how we responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor by invading Tunisia?

I have not read bin Laden's fatwa. Although, I will point out, bin Laden was no where near Iraq. Nor did he have any relationship with Hussein. And, I think his declaration was against US Troops in Saudi Arabia. The United States has largely acceeded to that request - the vast majority of troops that were in Saudi Arabia have been removed.

In 1942, Our Congress, acting on its constitutional responsibility, Declared War on Japan, which cause Japanese allies Germany and Italy to declare war on the United States, to which we responded with similiar declarations of war, later adding delcarations of war against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. All the declarations of war led to invasions across the globe.

Of course, from Pearl Harbor to Victory in Japan, has taken less time than we have been mired in Iraq since President Bush invaded in March of 2003. Apparently, he hasn't done a very good job of, how did you put it, ending a war.



P.S. And if you don't think the current government in Iraq, under al Maliki is antagonistic to America, why the hell has he demanded we stop searching for our missing soldier? How would you define 'antagonisitic'?

 

[shesulsa]

The people we are fighting in the middle east are EXTREMELY well-funded and spending-prudent. They have been warring for longer than we've considered them a problem and will keep right on warring until we're dead and gone - this will never be over.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

How is telling students "get an education or YOU will get stuck in Iraq" a slam at Bush? You libs are really reaching here.

 

[michaeledward]

The people we are fighting in the middle east are EXTREMELY well-funded and spending-prudent. They have been warring for longer than we've considered them a problem and will keep right on warring until we're dead and gone - this will never be over.

I don't consider that a given.

I believe, with different policies, and some wisdom, we could reduce significantly the size of the problem, to where it would be considered insignificant.

Let me back up a bit ... they need not be warring against us.

Will the Shia and the Sunni's continue their battles .. perhaps. But that does not mean the disputes among Islam need to spill over into bloodshed against Christianity, Judeism, or Hinduism. Seems to me the Catholics and Protestants spent a couple of centuries ravaging Europe before reaching the relative equinamity experienced now.

But, as long as we are painting ourselves at war with 'Radical Islam', we are helping to create a religiously motivated war, which demands deepening of belief structures, which in turn feeds the wars. It is a vicious cycle that can not be broken by might.

Instead, we might be able to find a way through these conflicts if we adopt the ideas of Lao Tzu or Ghandi. Of course, that, we will never try.

 

[mrhnau]

How is telling students "get an education or YOU will get stuck in Iraq" a slam at Bush? You libs are really reaching here.

Its hard for me to see that connection. Depends on the color sunglasses you prefer to wear...

What gets me is that Kerry is refusing to apologize for it. A Republican do something like that, Dems start calling for removal from office.

 

[shesulsa]

How is telling students "get an education or YOU will get stuck in Iraq" a slam at Bush? You libs are really reaching here.

Once a person graduates from high school and has been rejected from many colleges and universities because their grades were too low, they have two choices, essentially: 1. work a **** job or four to pay for some community college and hope to get in after 2 or 3 years or 2. join the military.

Many join the military in an effort to go to college at some point and to get some carreer experience to fall back on. Hardly anyone joins the military because they believe in it or because they WANT to go to war. And alas, there they are ... at war ....

I've rarely met an 18 year old who had a sound enough mind to not be swayed by recruiter tactics if they feel they don't have another good choice.

Stay in school. Get good grades so you don't have to go into the military and go where somebody like Bush decides you should go.

He's placing the fate of these young men and women squarely on the shoulders of our president ... which is right where it should be.

 

[Kreth]

You libs are really reaching here.

I think Bush is a moron and Kerry is a liar. How does that make me a "lib"? Or do you prefer to label anyone who doesn't agree with you? :idunno:

 

[mrhnau]

Once a person graduates from high school and has been rejected from many colleges and universities because their grades were too low, they have two choices, essentially: 1. work a **** job or four to pay for some community college and hope to get in after 2 or 3 years or 2. join the military.

Many join the military in an effort to go to college at some point and to get some carreer experience to fall back on. Hardly anyone joins the military because they believe in it or because they WANT to go to war. And alas, there they are ... at war ....

I've rarely met an 18 year old who had a sound enough mind to not be swayed by recruiter tactics if they feel they don't have another good choice.

He's placing the fate of these young men and women squarely on the shoulders of our president ... which is right where it should be.

Never met a sound minded 18 year old? You let them drive at 16. Let them vote at 18. Let them decide which college they want to go to. Let them work when younger than 18. Can't allow them to make their own decisions about the military? Sure, recruiters do their job, but so do college recruiters, people you date, colleagues/coworkers, etc.

I know alot of kids that joined the military in order to go to college. they can't afford it themselves, so they go for 4 years, get the GI bill, make some money, and go to college when they are done. When they are finished, they don't have a load of debt.

so, when they are in the military, have they been to college yet? nope, but nothing to say they won't in the near future.

you gave three options 1) a low paying job 2) community college 3) military.
I sure did not hear him disparage working at McD's. Nor did I hear him criticize those going to community college.

This part bothered me a bit:

Stay in school. Get good grades so you don't have to go into the military and go where somebody like Bush decides you should go.

We have a commander in chief. When Bush is done, we will have a different one. A soldier follows orders. Just like cops do. If you don't want to follow the orders of Bush, feel free to leave the military. If you don't like your orders as a cop, feel free to leave law enforcement. Here is the problem though. I don't know anyone who has never had to do something unpleasurable at their job. If you are a boss, you still have to do unfavorable things, such as pay taxes, deal with bad employees, pay for their social security, etc.. Its part of living. You are always going to have to do what other people ask you to do.

I also don't like the insuation that you only go if you don't have a choice. One of my best friends is a PhD, DVM and signed up shortly after 9/11. Still in the military and is convinced its one of the best things he has ever done. I don't see him as only being able to flip burgers as an option to military service. There are ALOT of people out there that love their country and are glad to be serving. If not, they have the right to leave. Its a volunteer army.

Don't like Bush? OK, then get out and start making a difference in 2008. We live in a democracy, get your voice heard.

Hardly anyone joins the military because they believe in it or because they WANT to go to war.

Wonder why a draft was not needed for WW2? Wonder why we don't have a draft now? The military are meeting their recruiting needs, and I think will continue to do so.

We went to war shortly after 9/11. Thats been 5ish years now. normal enrollment period last 4 years, I imagine that depends on your contract. At this point, I would believe everyone is aware that going to war is a reality. Those scared of potential combat should have had plenty of time to get out by now.

 

[michaeledward]

How is telling students "get an education or YOU will get stuck in Iraq" a slam at Bush? You libs are really reaching here.

Kerry mis-spoke. No doubt about it.

As I understand it, and as I have posted in this thread - maybe I'm on Hunka's ignore list, so he's not seeing it - Kerry has used language throughout his campaigning stops that played this joke against Bush many times.

"Get a good education, or you'll get us stuck in Iraq".

Of course, it is so much better to assume the worst of Senator Kerry.

The real irony of this all is that President Bush is the king of all malaprops.

"Fool me once, shame on you .... Can't get fooled again."
"Put food on your family"
I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein."
"One has a stronger hand when there's more people playing your same cards."
"I was not pleased that Hamas has refused to announce its desire to destroy Israel."
"I aim to be a competitive nation."
"We're spending money on clean coal technology. Do you realize we've got 250 million years of coal?"

​

Just as long as we aren't talking about Iraq. Increases in attacks against US soldiers. Weapons bought and paid for by the US Taxpayer missing and unaccounted for (why the hell are we buying weapons for a country where everyone already owns a gun?).

Don't look 'Over There".

 

[crushing]

Kerry mis-spoke. No doubt about it.


The real irony of this all is that President Bush is the king of all malaprops.

Given your very low opinion of Bush, I'm surprised you don't hold Kerry to a higher standard than Bush.

Actually, my main reason for responding is to jump on and include one of my favorite quotes:

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -President Bush

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040805-3.html