Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 49
  1.    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    Ironically this is what I meant. Always a complaint about current efforts but never commitment and/or responsibility to a solution. (Just read DA's CYA post in the begining of the thread)

    I remember complaints that the military was already spread way too thin. Please tell me how more leave would help this.

    Obviously we mourn the losses and sympathise with the harsh reality they live in, but that is their chosen profession. I for one am grateful for their choice.
    So denying our troops leave time is our way of thanking them? I disagree.

    Also while we are on the subject of "liberals are always against and never for", maybe you can tell me who is on the AGAINST side here and who is on the FOR side here. Its actually a rather interesting video.



    I'll give you a hint, it involves promoting education.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    So denying our troops leave time is our way of thanking them? I disagree.
    Typical spin! They're not denied leave time. The request for EXTENDED leave time was rejected.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    It sure as hell aint the liberals. If not for them, the troops might actually be able fight the war, instead of worrying about how the world might "feel" about it. With this respect the refrence to Vietnam couldn't be more accurate.
    Wow. So you're blaming the "liberals" for this disaster? I can't say that I am not surprised. I knew the holyier-than-thou chickenhawk right-winger "moral majority" wouldn not have the balls to owe up to the disaster.

    BTW - what are the "liberals"? I've asked this before and nobody ever wants to reply. What is the definition of a liberal?

    BTW2 - I am not a liberal and I knew this war was a crock of Cheney/Rumsfield/Rove crap from day one.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post

    Also while we are on the subject of "liberals are always against and never for", maybe you can tell me who is on the AGAINST side here and who is on the FOR side here. Its actually a rather interesting video.



    I'll give you a hint, it involves promoting education.
    I am not familair with the entire bill and/or what type of junk was trying to be pushed through under the good parts.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Wow. So you're blaming the "liberals" for this disaster? I can't say that I am not surprised. I knew the holyier-than-thou chickenhawk right-winger "moral majority" wouldn not have the balls to owe up to the disaster.

    BTW - what are the "liberals"? I've asked this before and nobody ever wants to reply. What is the definition of a liberal?

    BTW2 - I am not a liberal and I knew this war was a crock of Cheney/Rumsfield/Rove crap from day one.
    Not blaming either party for starting te war just the libs for restricting our military's abilities.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    Obviously we mourn the losses and sympathise with the harsh reality they live in, but that is their chosen profession.
    Last time I checked President Braveheart never attended a single funeral of any of the fallen (read: his victims) yet.

    I for one am grateful for their choice.
    You're welcome.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    Not blaming either party for starting te war just the libs for restricting our military's abilities.
    Is that right? Be specific. Because I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Is that right? Be specific. Because I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about.
    You don't think the public being over stimulated with graphic images had anyting to do with the approval declining?

    I already said. I think if you go to war you should go to win, instead of being careful not to upset anyone's feelings, or disrupt their way of life. It's their way of life that threatens us. It should be disrupted.
  9.    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    Typical spin! They're not denied leave time. The request for EXTENDED leave time was rejected.
    Either way you look at it, it doesn't seem like a great way to thank those who are risking their lives for this war which you are promoting, but I guess we all need to buckle down and make sacrifices don't we?
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    You don't think the public being over stimulated with graphic images had anyting to do with the approval declining?
    Thats the best you got? The media, who was invited in to travel with the troops as "embedded" reporters when the war started but when they stayed there and kept reporting on the conditions on the ground suddenly became "liberals" because they reported the truth?

    I already said. I think if you go to war you should go to win
    I agree and I know Colin Powell would agree. So did everyone else in this country when we first went in.

    instead of being careful not to upset anyone's feelings, or disrupt their way of life.
    Right...so instead of sending adequate troop levels as General Shinseki had requested it was much more politcally advantageous to fire him and get someone to tow the GOP party line and sell the war to the American people for a mere $750MM and 150,000 troops. I am sure that by playing politics with the troop levels DAY ONE the Bushies had NOTHING to do with the inevitable outcome of the war. Nope, must have been those darn liberals again.........puhleez.

    It's their way of life that threatens us. It should be disrupted.
    Agreed....sort of. The way of life in Afghanistan needed to be disrupted. Then it was (as it should have been). Then it wasn't and they've reconstituted. Iraq did not pose a near and present danger to the US. Our troops should have been kept in Afghanistan. Instead we went into Iraq without enough troops and spread our forces out paper-thin and have now ground them into the ground.

    Oh and by the way, when I was in the military if I requested 14 days leave and was denied 7 days of it, I considered that to be denying my leave request. You can "spin" that however you want but our military is stretched so thin now that it will take years to recover. The backdoor draft has further compounded this problem.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    With the US gone, we will have another Viet Nam on our hands and in our history. Millions were killed when the North Vietnamese assumed control. Genocide in the scale of Dufar look like a minor situation. Many on both sides of the political street consider Dufar to be important. I wonder if that will also be felt when Iraq becomes an extension of Iran and the cleansing begins in earnest.

    Ben
    What all you military geniuses cannot seem to wrap your mind around is the fact that we cannot sustain the troop levels in Iraq for much longer. Some of these guys are on their 3rd and 4th tour of duty. We should have taken the time to build a real coalition, with real money and troops to contribute like we did the first time around. Instead we flipped off our closest allies and "went it alone" and now we are a laughing stock.

    But all of the politcally charged reasons for going in and how we'll get out are moot in many respects. We went in without enough troops and lost control of things the day Saddam's statue fell and there is no way back now.
  12. #32  
    So you don't think democratic pressure had anything to do with the sparing use of troops?
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    So you don't think democratic pressure had anything to do with the sparing use of troops?
    No I don't. But can you even hear yourself? Even if there were pressures, when has Bush ever bowed to any kind of Democratic pressure? He flips them off in every way possible. He is the President of the Republican Party by his own choice (vs. the President of the United States). He does not want any discourse - it's his way or the highway. In light of his consistent posturing as the "decider", and sole decider at that, how in the world can you possibly blame the Dems - who were not in power when this thing started - for vastly friggin' this thing up from the beginning by not sending enough troops in?

    No, this was not the Dems fault. This was brazen arrogance on Rummy's part and part of the overall plan to sell this pile of crap to the American people. Do you think American's would have supported the war if they had been honest day-one and said, "we'll be needing a half-trillion dollars and 400,000 troops for the next 4 years"? HELL NO. Those of us who knew the $750MM and bologny guesstimates that we'd only be there 6 months to a year (like me) knew they were being disingenious at best and I knew they were lying. As a veteran, I get a little pissed off about chickenhawks who want to go to war without proper troop levels, funding, and a clear mission.

    So the buck stops at the White House my friend. Of course you can continue to cry your crocodile tears about the losses and blame the Dems (or the "liberals"...whatever that means...you still haven't answered me on that) but this is not their war. It will go down in history as a bigger f&ck up than Vietnam and the fault for that lies right at Bush's feet since he is the Commander and Chief "decider".
  14. #34  
    I think it was just the "IN" thing to do at the time for the republicans. Cheney dug in and decided to send in an inadequate number of troops to Iraq and Bushie was "right there with him".
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    No I don't. But can you even hear yourself? Even if there were pressures, when has Bush ever bowed to any kind of Democratic pressure? He flips them off in every way possible. He is the President of the Republican Party by his own choice (vs. the President of the United States). He does not want any discourse - it's his way or the highway. In light of his consistent posturing as the "decider", and sole decider at that, how in the world can you possibly blame the Dems - who were not in power when this thing started - for vastly friggin' this thing up from the beginning by not sending enough troops in?

    No, this was not the Dems fault. This was brazen arrogance on Rummy's part and part of the overall plan to sell this pile of crap to the American people. Do you think American's would have supported the war if they had been honest day-one and said, "we'll be needing a half-trillion dollars and 400,000 troops for the next 4 years"? HELL NO. Those of us who knew the $750MM and bologny guesstimates that we'd only be there 6 months to a year (like me) knew they were being disingenious at best and I knew they were lying. As a veteran, I get a little pissed off about chickenhawks who want to go to war without proper troop levels, funding, and a clear mission.

    So the buck stops at the White House my friend. Of course you can continue to cry your crocodile tears about the losses and blame the Dems (or the "liberals"...whatever that means...you still haven't answered me on that) but this is not their war. It will go down in history as a bigger f&ck up than Vietnam and the fault for that lies right at Bush's feet since he is the Commander and Chief "decider".
    Oh
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214 View Post
    I think it was just the "IN" thing to do at the time for the republicans. Cheney dug in and decided to send in an inadequate number of troops to Iraq and Bushie was "right there with him".

    Strangely enough I don't think Bush was necessarily "right there with him". My problem with Bush is that he is intellectually incapable of being the President and his distaste for discourse is born out of his inability as an intellectual to debate with those around him who clearly are smarter than he is. Now I don't excuse him as I would a murderer who is found to be mentally retarded, but I do think that many of his mistakes he was led into by outside influencers and he lacked the intellectual capacity to formulate his own plans or correct poor decisions when they were made. In short, he is a muppet.
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    Oh
    Thought so.
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Strangely enough I don't think Bush was necessarily "right there with him". My problem with Bush is that he is intellectually incapable of being the President and his distaste for discourse is born out of his inability as an intellectual to debate with those around him who clearly are smarter than he is. Now I don't excuse him as I would a murderer who is found to be mentally retarded, but I do think that many of his mistakes he was led into by outside influencers and he lacked the intellectual capacity to formulate his own plans or correct poor decisions when they were made. In short, he is a muppet.
    So he can be influenced by all other sources as long as they are not Democrat
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Thought so.
    Unforunately there is no way to type a quizzical questioning tone. So "oh" was the best I could do.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    Unforunately there is no way to type a quizzical questioning tone. So "oh" was the best I could do.
    Fair enough. Lack of body language, tonality, expressions, etc. continues to plague the cyber world.

    That said, I can only hope you inquisitiveness is indicative of a willingness on your part to undergo a true re-examination of the events leading to our failure in Iraq.

    There have been many instances throughout history whereby arrogant commanders have spread their forces too thin and while they won many a battle invariably they lost the war. Itís too bad Bush isnít much of a reader or he could have benefited from the many lessons in military history and blunders.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions