Contact these turncoats...

[TheStripey1]

Who has been in power for the last six years? Who's had majorities in both the House and Senate for the last FOUR YEARS???

And you want to blame the Democrats?!? Don't be ridiculous...

certainly you don't expect them to judge the repubicans by the same yardstick they apply to the demorats do you?

[jimnyc]

even so, who invaded?

The United States Military, based on that very intel I spoke of from throughout the world, and even what the Democrats spoke of for years leading up to the invasion.

[avatar4321]

everyone has an opinion, some just weigh more than others...

So why should we give weight to the opinions of people, who while they might have once served their country in the military, are now espousing an opinion that will lead to destruction and blood shed to not only our men current serving in the military but also hundreds of thousands of people our troops are not protecting?

[jimnyc]

everyone has an opinion, some just weigh more than others...

Do you seriously believe the opinions of those who served in the past weigh more or are more valid because of their service?

This is the United States of America, we are all equally entitled to our opinions. Of course, I 'might' listen more closely when a current or former General speaks, but otherwise my opinion on world politics carries just as much weight as others.

[TheStripey1]

Denmark - http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040419181733.x7tow1jx.html

French, British, Germans and the UN - http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/01/iraq-040129-afps01.htm



Hell, Saddam's own Generals believed they possessed WMD's - http://www.brocktonmass.com/news/publish/5000639.shtml

of course he possessed them... the US gave them to him, remember? but that was before Gulf War I... if your military force had been severely damaged, would you say that you had no WMD?

Saddam was bluffing... and everyone believed him...

they were no WMD, there's an democratically elected government in Iraq, the Iraqis are free to kill themselves by engaging in their centuries old blood feud and Saddam is dead...

can we go home now?

[TheStripey1]

Originally Posted by TheStripey1
Sure... bring it on... but seriously, what do YOU consider to be support for the troops?

Adequate body armor? we citizens shouldn't have to provide our military with support like that, that should come from the government...

Proper training? see above...

Adequate rest between deployments? ditto...


All three are provided by the government.

all three SHOULD be provided by the government... yes... but my question to gunny was:

what do you consider to be support for the troops?

and now, I ask it of you as well...

[jimnyc]

of course he possessed them... the US gave them to him, remember? but that was before Gulf War I... if your military force had been severely damaged, would you say that you had no WMD?

Saddam was bluffing... and everyone believed him...

they were no WMD, there's an democratically elected government in Iraq, the Iraqis are free to kill themselves by engaging in their centuries old blood feud and Saddam is dead...

can we go home now?

Well, I guess Saddam shouldn't have bluffed then, huh? I guess coming clean and cooperating with inspectors is a bit better than swinging on the end of a rope.

The troops will come home when the field Generals feel they have secured things enough so that Iraq's own men can handle things.

[TheStripey1]

Would his service in the military or lack thereof really change the fact that advocating a "slow bleed" policy to make us retreat and thus give Iraq to Al Qaida (or any other group who wants to walk in) endangers our troops lives and plays into the hands of our enemies?

It serves me to find out who had the courage to stand up when it was their turn to do so and who had better things to do than be a patriot... so avatar... same question...

have YOU served?

[jimnyc]

have YOU served?

I'm curious, why that question? Why does someones service, or lack of, have any bearing on their opinions or beliefs here?

[avatar4321]

It serves me to find out who had the courage to stand up when it was their turn to do so and who had better things to do than be a patriot... so avatar... same question...

have YOU served?

There is more to patriotism than military service. but if i were called I would serve. Of course, thats easy to say with my health issues keeping me from doing so.

However, you seem to miss the point that serving in the past doesnt excuse betrayal in the future. If that were so Benedict Arnold would be one of the greatest American heros.

[TheStripey1]

So Saddam had the whole world flummoxed. He sure missed his calling as a poker player.

:coffee:

yep... Texas Hold'em anyone? I play at PokerStars.com... you can sometimes find me there... and I use the same handle, granted a different avatar, but I use the same handle...

shuffle up and deal...

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a367/TheStripey1/poker_TS1.jpg

[avatar4321]

I'm curious, why that question? Why does someones service, or lack of, have any bearing on their opinions or beliefs here?

It has nothing to do with it. its just his way to try to say we cant have a say on the debate. Typical liberal tactic against the exercise of free speech.

[Grumplestillskin]

Would his service in the military or lack thereof really change the fact that advocating a "slow bleed" policy to make us retreat and thus give Iraq to Al Qaida (or any other group who wants to walk in) endangers our troops lives and plays into the hands of our enemies?

That will happen anyway, whether it is AQ or another group, time will tell. Whether the US pulls out now, or 20 years, the result will be the same. The only salvation will be splitting the country in three, with the oil spoils devided by population. Other than that, same old same old. The only other saving grace is if the oil ever runs out, then the rest of the world - and the US especially - won't give a rat's about the shithole.

[darin]

Adequate body armor? we citizens shouldn't have to provide our military with support like that, that should come from the government...


What soldiers HAVE and what they choose to wear are two different things. You're drinking KookAide, brother.




"I'm in the infantry," McNerney said. "Most of the time I'm climbing over walls, jumping through windows, kicking down doors, I need the most mobility with most protection I can get which was the setup I had right here. If I put those [shoulder protectors] on, I can barely extend my arms over my head. I can't climb a six-foot wall, hop over it, hop a fence, jump through a three-foot window. There's a lot of stuff I have to do with my arms, that's the reason I choose not to wear my shoulder pads."



Proper training? see above...


What is proper training? Do you know to what training standards units were held prior to deployment? What could they have done differently? Do you want to train soldiers for EVERY POSSIBLE SCENARIO they could encounter?



Adequate rest between deployments? ditto...


Again - what is the deployment cycle? Do you have ANY information on how and when Units deploy? Do you have any insider information about unit strength and morale and ability?



what do you consider to be support for the troops?

and now, I ask it of you as well...

I support the troops by coming to work every day. I support the troops by doing what I can for Military families around me.

What you have done is NOT what was asked. You've made up little bullet statements consisting of half-truths and are basing your debate around foggy information.

[jimnyc]

It has nothing to do with it. its just his way to try to say we cant have a say on the debate. Typical liberal tactic against the exercise of free speech.

I think it's unbecoming to any military person to belittle those who haven't served, or somehow lessen their opinion.

[darin]

I'm curious, why that question? Why does someones service, or lack of, have any bearing on their opinions or beliefs here?

Those who have served know things others simply will not. That's what it boils down to. Having served, in all but a few cases, brings a modicum more credibility to one's argument when they argue AGAINST service, and spew hatred for our Troops (see: kerry/Murtha). If nothing else it provides at least ONE redeeming quality to a person, no matter how large of an ass they are (see: Kerry/Murtha), because one can ALWAYS say... "Well...at least he's a veteran"

[TheStripey1]

The United States Military, based on that very intel I spoke of from throughout the world, and even what the Democrats spoke of for years leading up to the invasion.

we didn't find any... saddam is gone... the iraqis are free to kill themselves willynilly and there's a democratically elected government...

why can't we go home now?

Halliburton needs a few more billions of taxpayer monies?

[5stringJeff]

Sure... bring it on... but seriously, what do YOU consider to be support for the troops?

Adequate body armor? we citizens shouldn't have to provide our military with support like that, that should come from the government...

Proper training? see above...

Adequate rest between deployments? ditto...



all three SHOULD be provided by the government... yes... but my question to gunny was:

what do you consider to be support for the troops?

and now, I ask it of you as well...


All three are provided by the government. I do my part to ensure it (at least the first two) as part of my job.

What do I consider supporting the troops?

- Letting the troops know that we are supportive of them as they go out to accomplish their mission, and not providing material and/or moral support to their enemies. Any/every citizen can do this.

- Ensuring that troops are adequately trained and equipped. Military leadership, from NCOs to the CinC, plus the Congress, are responsible for this.

[TheStripey1]

So why should we give weight to the opinions of people, who while they might have once served their country in the military, are now espousing an opinion that will lead to destruction and blood shed to not only our men current serving in the military but also hundreds of thousands of people our troops are not protecting?

and who might those hundreds of thousands be?

did you serve ava?

[jimnyc]

we didn't find any... saddam is gone... the iraqis are free to kill themselves willynilly and there's a democratically elected government...

why can't we go home now?

I already answered that question, call up the field Generals if you prefer a more direct answer.


Halliburton needs a few more billions of taxpayer monies?

And if they do a job better, and that they are more qualified to do, and it needs to be done... Well then that's ok with me. Are you going to chant about the war being about oil now?

[jimnyc]

did you serve ava?

I'm getting a bit tired of you asking people if they served, as if they don't have a right to an opinion if they don't. Here's a link on the board that will show those that have served, from those who have replied so far...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=1201

[TheStripey1]

Do you seriously believe the opinions of those who served in the past weigh more or are more valid because of their service?

This is the United States of America, we are all equally entitled to our opinions. Of course, I 'might' listen more closely when a current or former General speaks, but otherwise my opinion on world politics carries just as much weight as others.

In My Opinion... yes... I value the opinions of those that have served more than I value the opinions of those that haven't... at least when it comes to the topic of military action...

now there are a plethora of topics that yours or anyone elses opinion might have weight to me, but not in ones about the military... or about the war...

I've been to war... and I'm proud of my service to my country... but I just don't like chickenhawks... :no: nope, not at all...

[avatar4321]

That will happen anyway, whether it is AQ or another group, time will tell. Whether the US pulls out now, or 20 years, the result will be the same. The only salvation will be splitting the country in three, with the oil spoils devided by population. Other than that, same old same old. The only other saving grace is if the oil ever runs out, then the rest of the world - and the US especially - won't give a rat's about the shithole.

I dont believe that is true. Why on earth should we not try simply because you dont believe it can be done?

Do you really think splitting the country is going to prevent war? far from it. You create three homogenious nations in the place of Iraq I guarentee you will have war. The only way to avoid it is to establish one nation and get the various populations to work together despite their difference. I am more than happy to admit that is going to take lots of work, but its far superior then th alternative your side of the debate is proposing which will result in mass genocide.

[avatar4321]

I think it's unbecoming to any military person to belittle those who haven't served, or somehow lessen their opinion.

I think arrogance weakens anyone's opinion.

[TheStripey1]

Well, I guess Saddam shouldn't have bluffed then, huh? I guess coming clean and cooperating with inspectors is a bit better than swinging on the end of a rope.

The troops will come home when the field Generals feel they have secured things enough so that Iraq's own men can handle things.

as I recall, he was cooperating with the inspectors... albeit, reluctantly and not very quickly, but he was cooperating...

bush invaded anyway...

[jimnyc]

In My Opinion... yes... I value the opinions of those that have served more than I value the opinions of those that haven't... at least when it comes to the topic of military action...

now there are a plethora of topics that yours or anyone elses opinion might have weight to me, but not in ones about the military... or about the war...

I've been to war... and I'm proud of my service to my country... but I just don't like chickenhawks... :no: nope, not at all...

Well, the majority of this board has not served in the military. Are you going to just ignore and/or skip over their posts that have to do with the military?

[avatar4321]

Those who have served know things others simply will not. That's what it boils down to. Having served, in all but a few cases, brings a modicum more credibility to one's argument when they argue AGAINST service, and spew hatred for our Troops (see: kerry/Murtha). If nothing else it provides at least ONE redeeming quality to a person, no matter how large of an ass they are (see: Kerry/Murtha), because one can ALWAYS say... "Well...at least he's a veteran"

I tend to think it disgraces earlier service. Bad actions now always trump good actions in the past. Id rather stand with the person who was bad in the past and trying to do good now than someone who was good in the past and trying to do bad now.

[jimnyc]

as I recall, he was cooperating with the inspectors... albeit, reluctantly and not very quickly, but he was cooperating...

bush invaded anyway...

Well, you recall incorrectly then. Instead of questioning everyone here as to whether or not they served, why don't you read the resolutions they were in breach of right before the war where it clearly stated they were still in breach and were not cooperating with inspectors.

[avatar4321]

and who might those hundreds of thousands be?

did you serve ava?

The innocent Iraqis you want to abandon to those who wish to wage war, use and oppress them.

And ive answered your question already. I have no desire to answer it again because its completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Deal with the facts. Maligning your opponents will not change the fact that abandoning the Iraqis to these terrorists and also the Iranians is going to create a conflict 100 times more bloody than right now and resulting in far too many deaths. We still havent recovered for the way we abandoned South East Asia to the Killing fields. Yet the left wants to act as though our act in abandoning them was somehow the right thing to do.

[TheStripey1]

I'm curious, why that question? Why does someones service, or lack of, have any bearing on their opinions or beliefs here?

you righties always attack the lefties as being unpatriotic because we don't support your war on Iraq... so I turn the tables and find out exactly who had the balls (or ovaries as the case may be) to serve and who didn't...

If you don't like the question, then perhaps you should persuede your righty pals to can their calling lefties unpatriotic because we oppose the war...

[TheStripey1]

There is more to patriotism than military service. but if i were called I would serve. Of course, thats easy to say with my health issues keeping me from doing so.



sure there is... uh huh... right... what ever you say, ava, whatever you say...

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

[avatar4321]

but I just don't like chickenhawks... :no: nope, not at all...

Then you, my friend, are a hypocrite because the policies you advocate are cowardly and will harm the troops.

[jimnyc]

you righties always attack the lefties as being unpatriotic because we don't support your war on Iraq... so I turn the tables and find out exactly who had the balls (or ovaries as the case may be) to serve and who didn't...

If you don't like the question, then perhaps you should persuede your righty pals to can their calling lefties unpatriotic because we oppose the war...

When have I called anyone unpatriotic? Please shoot me a link...

And I might not be as far right as you think, maybe you should learn whom your speaking to before painting with such a large brush...

[avatar4321]

as I recall, he was cooperating with the inspectors... albeit, reluctantly and not very quickly, but he was cooperating...

bush invaded anyway...

You have an odd way of defining cooperating.

[avatar4321]

you righties always attack the lefties as being unpatriotic because we don't support your war on Iraq... so I turn the tables and find out exactly who had the balls (or ovaries as the case may be) to serve and who didn't...

If you don't like the question, then perhaps you should persuede your righty pals to can their calling lefties unpatriotic because we oppose the war...

Stop advocating policies that are going to get our troops and people killed and you wont be called unpatriotic.

[jimnyc]

as I recall, he was cooperating with the inspectors... albeit, reluctantly and not very quickly, but he was cooperating...

bush invaded anyway...

http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/resolutions2.html

Read the last 1 specifically, resolution 1441

[avatar4321]

When have I called anyone unpatriotic? Please shoot me a link...

And I might not be as far right as you think, maybe you should learn whom your speaking to before painting with such a large brush...

The fact that the left defends that attack without people making it demonstrates much more about how they think of their own actions then what others do.

[TheStripey1]

It has nothing to do with it. its just his way to try to say we cant have a say on the debate. Typical liberal tactic against the exercise of free speech.

poah ting... :dev3: poah poah ting... I have shut off your free speech... poah ting...

define victory in Iraq... there... have a say on that one...

define support the troops... have a say on that one...

do you think our wounded troopers should have to rehabilitate in squallid conditions?

have a say on that one...

[avatar4321]

sure there is... uh huh... right... what ever you say, ava, whatever you say...

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Do you have anything but ridicule to add to this debate?

Why are you on the left so afraid to actually discuss the ramifications of your actions? Why are you so focused on stalling any kind of discussion to attack the person?

Sounds like you are afraid of the truth. Thats cowardly.

[TheStripey1]

That will happen anyway, whether it is AQ or another group, time will tell. Whether the US pulls out now, or 20 years, the result will be the same. The only salvation will be splitting the country in three, with the oil spoils devided by population. Other than that, same old same old. The only other saving grace is if the oil ever runs out, then the rest of the world - and the US especially - won't give a rat's about the shithole.

there was a time... in the far distant past, when the lands around baghdad were referred to as the Garden of Eden... not any more... and even far into the future, not even then thanks to all the Depleted Uranium dust lying about...

:dev:

[Birdzeye]

Stop advocating policies that are going to get our troops and people killed and you wont be called unpatriotic.

Using that "logic," Bush is unpatriotic because he is advocating policies that are getting our troops and people killed.

[TheStripey1]

A) What soldiers HAVE and what they choose to wear are two different things. You're drinking KookAide, brother.

B) What is proper training? Do you know to what training standards units were held prior to deployment? What could they have done differently? Do you want to train soldiers for EVERY POSSIBLE SCENARIO they could encounter?

C) Again - what is the deployment cycle? Do you have ANY information on how and when Units deploy? Do you have any insider information about unit strength and morale and ability?

D) I support the troops by coming to work every day. I support the troops by doing what I can for Military families around me.

E) What you have done is NOT what was asked. You've made up little bullet statements consisting of half-truths and are basing your debate around foggy information.





A) not wearing their armor is not the same thing as not being issued it in the first place

B) Rep Murtha wants to ensure they have the proper training... and he introduced a bill saying just that, do you oppose the bill just because he's, omg, a dem?

C) too often... there are some units going back for their third tour... that's pretty darn shitty for a war that's only four years old... one of my pals' girl friend has a son in the Army... he's going back for his third tour soon... she used to be a bush supporter... not any more...

D) that's nice... no yellow ribbon? :eek:

E) If they are half truths, then why did Rep Murtha have to proffer a bill to ensure that all three of those are done?

[jimnyc]

as I recall, he was cooperating with the inspectors... albeit, reluctantly and not very quickly, but he was cooperating...

bush invaded anyway...

I would also like to add, that it appears that this non-serving gentleman knew more about the inspectors, and Iraq's failure to fully comply, than someone who has served. Thank you for proving my point...

[TheStripey1]

I think it's unbecoming to any military person to belittle those who haven't served, or somehow lessen their opinion.

just as I think it unbecoming of you righties to call anyone unpatriotic just because we oppose the war...

it's a two way street...

[TheStripey1]

Those who have served know things others simply will not. That's what it boils down to. Having served, in all but a few cases, brings a modicum more credibility to one's argument when they argue AGAINST service, and spew hatred for our Troops (see: kerry/Murtha). If nothing else it provides at least ONE redeeming quality to a person, no matter how large of an ass they are (see: Kerry/Murtha), because one can ALWAYS say... "Well...at least he's a veteran"


yep... at least he served his country... stood up to the plate and swung the bat instead of lollygagging about in the stands... yep...

[jimnyc]

just as I think it unbecoming of you righties to call anyone unpatriotic just because we oppose the war...

it's a two way street...

And this has what to do with me? And where's the link of me calling someone unpatriotic, or are you just debating dishonestly?

[Birdzeye]

Stripey's right about the troops not getting adequately equipped:


The Army has coughed up $127,700 to pay back soldiers for body armor and other protective gear they had to buy themselves before going to war.

Congress authorized the reimbursement program in 2005 after many soldiers and their families spent their own money on body armor, helmets, protective eyewear, hydration systems, lightweight gloves and knee and elbow pads before military supply systems could provide them.

http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/1-292925-2386453.php

At least Congress authorized reimbursement, but IMO the troops should have been issued the equipment before they got sent over.

[TheStripey1]

A) All three are provided by the government. I do my part to ensure it (at least the first two) as part of my job.

What do I consider supporting the troops?

B) - Letting the troops know that we are supportive of them as they go out to accomplish their mission, and not providing material and/or moral support to their enemies. Any/every citizen can do this.

C) - Ensuring that troops are adequately trained and equipped. Military leadership, from NCOs to the CinC, plus the Congress, are responsible for this.

A) All three are SUPPOSED to be provided by the government...

B) I support them by wanting them home... protecting OUR borders... OUR citizens...

C) no arguement there... too bad you weren't an advisor to the prez way back in '03 before our troops were sent in WITHOUT the proper gear...

and obtw, which part of bush's challenge to the burgeoning insurgency in July of '03 amounted to good training?

[Birdzeye]

And this has what to do with me? And where's the link of me calling someone unpatriotic, or are you just debating dishonestly?

In all fairness, Jimnyc, some of the conservatives here here have accused those who believe the war was a mistake of being unpatriotic, or even traitors.

:mad:

[jimnyc]

In all fairness, Jimnyc, some of the conservatives here here have accused those who believe the war was a mistake of being unpatriotic, or even traitors.

:mad:

Then maybe he should reply to them when they state that instead of using it against me. Rather dishonest debate against me, wouldn't you admit?

[TheStripey1]

A) I already answered that question, call up the field Generals if you prefer a more direct answer.



And if they do a job better, and that they are more qualified to do, and it needs to be done... Well then that's ok with me. Are you going to chant about the war being about oil now?

A) hahahaha... got a phone number? never mind, I just call my congress critters...

B) why not, bush says it... can't let all that oil fall into the hands of the terra-ists...

[5stringJeff]

Stripey's right about the troops not getting adequately equipped:


http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/1-292925-2386453.php
The Army has coughed up $127,700 to pay back soldiers for body armor and other protective gear they had to buy themselves before going to war.

Congress authorized the reimbursement program in 2005 after many soldiers and their families spent their own money on body armor, helmets, protective eyewear, hydration systems, lightweight gloves and knee and elbow pads before military supply systems could provide them.

At least Congress authorized reimbursement, but IMO the troops should have been issued the equipment before they got sent over.

I bolded and enlarged the pertinent part of that story. The key is that the military had the equipment, but there were issues getting it to all the soldiers in time. If the soldiers had been patient, they would have been issued the equipment.

[TheStripey1]

I'm getting a bit tired of you asking people if they served, as if they don't have a right to an opinion if they don't. Here's a link on the board that will show those that have served, from those who have replied so far...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=1201

want me to stop asking them if they served? then tell them to stop with the allegations that because we oppose the war, we are unpatriotic...

IF you can accomplish that, I will gladly not ask those that impugn my service if they too have served... but I am not going to hold my breath waiting... even you, as powerful as you are here on this board, can't accomplish that... cuz I don't think anyone can... :dunno:

not until we get Mandatory Military Service for ALL... yes even the infirm can serve... if you can type, you can be a clerk... there used to be millions of clerks in the military... not everyone is a warrior, ya know...

[5stringJeff]

A) All three are SUPPOSED to be provided by the government...

You keep saying this, as to imply that they aren't. Birdzeye already talked about the 210 soliders who didn't get body armor fast enough. What other failures on these points do you see?


B) I support them by wanting them home... protecting OUR borders... OUR citizens...

I want them home as well. However, I also want them to accomplish the mission we've charged them with. I personally think we should be able to start bringing home troops soon - like towards the end of the year.


C) no arguement there... too bad you weren't an advisor to the prez way back in '03 before our troops were sent in WITHOUT the proper gear...

and obtw, which part of bush's challenge to the burgeoning insurgency in July of '03 amounted to good training?

I think, if anything, it was his way of stating his confidence in American troops.

[jimnyc]

want me to stop asking them if they served? then tell them to stop with the allegations that because we oppose the war, we are unpatriotic...

Fair enough... Not saying nobody has said that to you, but would you like to link me to the posts where that was said to you? Since your asking just about everyone that posts, I'm curious just how many people have said this to you in regards to you opposing the war...

[OCA]

Do you think that our wounded soldiers should have to be rehabilitated in rat and roach infested buildings?

Stopped by there today and walked through for 10 minutes, not 1 roach, not 1 rat and nary a contractor, the place looked fucking splendid. Can anyone say libel?

[TheStripey1]

A) Do you really think splitting the country is going to prevent war? far from it. You create three homogenious nations in the place of Iraq I guarentee you will have war.

B) The only way to avoid it is to establish one nation and get the various populations to work together despite their difference.

C) I am more than happy to admit that is going to take lots of work, but its far superior then th alternative your side of the debate is proposing which will result in mass genocide.

A) No... it is already split along ethnic lines and there happily going about killing each other now.

B) bush already tried to do that... it didn't work...

C) Well if our troops leave, it won't be them doing the dying... let the Iraqis kill themselves if that's what they want to do...

how are YOU going to stop it?

[OCA]

even so, who invaded?

We did, we were the only ones with big enough balls.

[TheStripey1]

Well, the majority of this board has not served in the military. Are you going to just ignore and/or skip over their posts that have to do with the military?

maybe... maybe not... we'll just have to see... but if they impugn my patriotism because I oppose the war then I will respond in kind...

flexes claws...

[OCA]

of course he possessed them... the US gave them to him, remember? but that was before Gulf War I... if your military force had been severely damaged, would you say that you had no WMD?

Saddam was bluffing... and everyone believed him...

they were no WMD, there's an democratically elected government in Iraq, the Iraqis are free to kill themselves by engaging in their centuries old blood feud and Saddam is dead...

can we go home now?

I guess the Kurds were gassed by what, helium?

[OCA]

have YOU served?

Doesn't matter if one has served or not, their opinion still matters. That question is moot.

[TheStripey1]

Well, you recall incorrectly then.

Instead of questioning everyone here as to whether or not they served, why don't you read the resolutions they were in breach of right before the war where it clearly stated they were still in breach and were not cooperating with inspectors.

I question those that impugn my patriotism by asking have they served? more often than not the answer is no...

Hans Blix was the head of the inspectors... he said they were complying... bush didn't listen.. he told them to leave and then invaded anyway...

[OCA]

yep... Texas Hold'em anyone? I play at PokerStars.com... you can sometimes find me there... and I use the same handle, granted a different avatar, but I use the same handle...

shuffle up and deal...

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a367/TheStripey1/poker_TS1.jpg

I play at bodog and i'll take you heads up anyday.

[Birdzeye]

I bolded and enlarged the pertinent part of that story. The key is that the military had the equipment, but there were issues getting it to all the soldiers in time. If the soldiers had been patient, they would have been issued the equipment.


And I say that there's no excuse for the delay. There's something really indecent about sending people into harm's way without giving them everything they need to improve their chances of survival.

[OCA]

why can't we go home now?

Halliburton needs a few more billions of taxpayer monies?

Nope, no coming home, the job isn't done, sorry but we can't take your halfassed approach.

Halliburton? LMFAO! I knew the whacko talking points would come out sooner or later. Who gives you your daily briefing? Marko Moulitsas over at Daily Kos?

[OCA]

and who might those hundreds of thousands be?

did you serve ava?


Doesn't matter if Avatar served, get it through your fucking head.

[OCA]

In My Opinion... yes... I value the opinions of those that have served more than I value the opinions of those that haven't... at least when it comes to the topic of military action...

now there are a plethora of topics that yours or anyone elses opinion might have weight to me, but not in ones about the military... or about the war...

I've been to war... and I'm proud of my service to my country... but I just don't like chickenhawks... :no: nope, not at all...

Well tough shit, guess you'll be bowing out of this thread because everyone's opinion is welcome service or no service.

[TheStripey1]

A) The innocent Iraqis you want to abandon to those who wish to wage war, use and oppress them.

B) Deal with the facts. Maligning your opponents

C) will not change the fact that abandoning the Iraqis to these terrorists and also the Iranians is going to create a conflict 100 times more bloody than right now and resulting in far too many deaths.

D) We still havent recovered for the way we abandoned South East Asia to the Killing fields. Yet the left wants to act as though our act in abandoning them was somehow the right thing to do.

A) sorry... I'm an american... I choose to value the lives of americans over those of other countries... are you iraqi?

B) I ask those that malign me if they served... more often than not they haven't...

C) it's their country, if they want to kill each other off, then it's their problem... not mine...

D) millions of people have died in a lot of places around the world... so? does that mean we have to be their policeman? are we to be globalcop now? who gave US that job?

and obtw, for a region that was abandoned SEA seems to be doing quite well now... didn't bush make a trip to Viet Nam recently?

[avatar4321]

just as I think it unbecoming of you righties to call anyone unpatriotic just because we oppose the war...

it's a two way street...

No one has called anyone unpatriotic. We are questioning your judgment by advocating policies that undermine our nations, benefit our enemies and result in our troops and those they protect ending up dead. The fact that you keep defending against a claim of being unpatriotic when no one makes it indicates that you think your actions are unpatriotic and need defending.

[5stringJeff]

And I say that there's no excuse for the delay. There's something really indecent about sending people into harm's way without giving them everything they need to improve their chances of survival.

Then your beef isn't with the Bush administration, it's with the military supply system.

[TheStripey1]

Then you, my friend, are a hypocrite because the policies you advocate are cowardly and will harm the troops.

I want the troops HOME... which part of that will cause them harm?
You want them IN IRAQ... which part of that makes them safe?

[TheStripey1]

Then you, my friend, are a hypocrite because the policies you advocate are cowardly and will harm the troops.


and obtw, I'm not your friend... :dev3:

[Birdzeye]

and obtw, I'm not your friend... :dev3:



:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[TheStripey1]

When have I called anyone unpatriotic? Please shoot me a link...

And I might not be as far right as you think, maybe you should learn whom your speaking to before painting with such a large brush...


I didn't say you did... but I ask it of those that do... you just defended them, that's all...

and obtw, I'm not a liberal... but that doesn't stop the righties from calling me one just because I'm left of them...

[jimnyc]

I question those that impugn my patriotism by asking have they served? more often than not the answer is no...

Hans Blix was the head of the inspectors... he said they were complying... bush didn't listen.. he told them to leave and then invaded anyway...

Then please explain why the last resolution before invasion clearly stated that Iraq remained in breach, and would not allow inspectors unfettered access, which was outlined in said resolutions.

Are you saying that Blix came out afterwards, and before the war, and stated that Saddam WAS allowing unfettered access to all locations for inspectors?

[TheStripey1]

You have an odd way of defining cooperating.


complain to Blix, he's the one that said the Iraqis were cooperating...

[jimnyc]

I didn't say you did... but I ask it of those that do... you just defended them, that's all...

and obtw, I'm not a liberal... but that doesn't stop the righties from calling me one just because I'm left of them...

Ok, and where have I defended anyone in this thread? I made my own statements, backed them up with proof, and replied to your posts. YOU are the one who keeps throwing in the patriotism in reply to my posts. Should I reply to you based on what Cindy Sheehan does or says?

[TheStripey1]

Stop advocating policies that are going to get our troops and people killed and you wont be called unpatriotic.

which is what again? wanting them home? granted the streets of anywhere USA can be mean streets, but they don't hold a candle to those in Iraq...

I want the troops HOME... you want them IN IRAQ...

which place has more potential to harm them?

[jimnyc]

complain to Blix, he's the one that said the Iraqis were cooperating...

Provide a link showing that shows Blix claiming Iraq came in compliance with resolutions and their references to their cooperation. I'll be waiting...

[avatar4321]

I want the troops HOME... which part of that will cause them harm?
You want them IN IRAQ... which part of that makes them safe?

The war isnt going to be over simply because the troops are at home. All that will do is abandon Iraq to the terrorist and bring the battle back to the states where American citizens and troops will be murdered.

How the hell does that make them safe?!?

More to the point if you really believe that why dont you just publically defund the troops and force them back home? Why are you covertly trying to defend the troops in a "slow bleed" method. They call it the "slow bleed" for a reason. Because using your method to get out of Iraq will cause our troops to bleed.

[jimnyc]

complain to Blix, he's the one that said the Iraqis were cooperating...

Didn't you state Blix was in charge of the inspectors? Here's the UN report dated 11/08/02


Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

[avatar4321]

and obtw, I'm not your friend... :dev3:

It's apparant that you arent a friend to the troops or the Iraqis either

[TheStripey1]

http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/resolutions2.html

Read the last 1 specifically, resolution 1441

sure...

now please read this:


wikipedia
United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Monitoring%2C_Verification_and_Insp ection_Commission)

...snip

Following the mandate of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, Saddam Hussein allowed UN inspectors to return to Iraq in December 2002. UNMOVIC led inspections of possible nuclear, chemical, and biological facilities in Iraq until shortly before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, but did not find any weapons of mass destruction. Based on its inspections and examinations during this time, UNMOVIC inspectors determined that UNSCOM had successfully dismantled Iraq’s unconventional weapons program during the 1990s.

..snip

[TheStripey1]

Do you have anything but ridicule to add to this debate?

Why are you on the left so afraid to actually discuss the ramifications of your actions? Why are you so focused on stalling any kind of discussion to attack the person?

Sounds like you are afraid of the truth. Thats cowardly.


I challenge those that impugn me... he didn't you did...

cowardly?

you're one to talk... :lmao: got feathers?

[OCA]

I want the troops HOME... which part of that will cause them harm?
You want them IN IRAQ... which part of that makes them safe?

Stripey does sacrifice scare you? Do you find it hard most times to finish even the most simplest of jobs?

[TheStripey1]

Do you have anything but ridicule to add to this debate?

Why are you on the left so afraid to actually discuss the ramifications of your actions? Why are you so focused on stalling any kind of discussion to attack the person?

Sounds like you are afraid of the truth. Thats cowardly.

all of my responses to this thread can be found on about page 22 and beyond... go read some...

and obtw... I started at the beginning and have read, and responded to, portions of this entire thread... have you?

[darin]

I tend to think it disgraces earlier service. Bad actions now always trump good actions in the past. Id rather stand with the person who was bad in the past and trying to do good now than someone who was good in the past and trying to do bad now.

That is the other side of the coin...Kerry and Murtha's service makes their recent comments THAT MUCH WORSE. :(

[jimnyc]

sure...

now please read this:

And again, they were in breach of the last resolution which declared they must cooperate "immediately, unconditionally and actively" which they never did. Sure, there were some improvements, but his cat and mouse games had went on long enough. It was NEVER immediate, NEVER unconditionally and rarely actively because they changed their minds about allowing certain access as much as most normal people change their underwear.

[Birdzeye]

Stripey does sacrifice scare you? Do you find it hard most times to finish even the most simplest of jobs?

To borrow some words from Avatar:

Do you have anything but ridicule to add to this debate?

Why are you on the right so afraid to actually discuss the ramifications of your actions? Why are you so focused on stalling any kind of discussion to attack the person?

Sounds like you are afraid of the truth. Thats cowardly.

[TheStripey1]

Using that "logic," Bush is unpatriotic because he is advocating policies that are getting our troops and people killed.

his Bring 'Em On did that quite badly in '03... his stay the course too... yep... by ava's "logic", bush is definitely unpatriotic...

[TheStripey1]

I would also like to add, that it appears that this non-serving gentleman knew more about the inspectors, and Iraq's failure to fully comply, than someone who has served. Thank you for proving my point...


nope... see above... Blix was allowed INTO Iraq per 1441 in December of '02... where he stayed inspecting until March of '03... he didn't find anything either...

[OCA]

You cannot support the soldiers and at the same time actively undermine their job and mission, I challenge anyone to prove that wrong.

Also i'll stand up and say that no it is not unpatriotic to oppose any war but it IS UNPATRIOTIC to oppose it simply for political gain which is what Demos have and continue to do.

Can anyone say white flag? Retreat? Surrender? I say even if we were getting completely smoked(which is FAR from reality) we should have some balls and fight to the last man.

Now this leads me to my next point, there are those that say we are Bushies and in complete lockstep with the man, not so. I have issues with the war and our BATTLEFIELD tacticts, we have tried to fight this war as pc as possible, we shouldn't worry about what the MSM or Demos think, we should be fighting a WWII style front and shelling towns and villages then sweeping through. Civilians should not be a factor, think Roosevelt gave a shit about civilians when we bombed the shit out of the Ruhr valley in WWII? Hell no, his priorities were in the right place, win the war as fast as possible and with the least amount of casualties as possible, Bush has not done this.

[TheStripey1]

And this has what to do with me? And where's the link of me calling someone unpatriotic, or are you just debating dishonestly?

I said... not you...

you just defended those that do...

please don't make me go through this thread looking for those that called me or any other lefty unpatriotic... cuz it's over 40 pages now...

:eek:

but I'll keep track now, if you like... shall I send you PMs with the post number?

[TheStripey1]

In all fairness, Jimnyc, some of the conservatives here here have accused those who believe the war was a mistake of being unpatriotic, or even traitors.

:mad:

yep... that's why I'm a peace TIGER not a peace dove... flexes claws...

:thewave:

[TheStripey1]

Then maybe he should reply to them when they state that instead of using it against me. Rather dishonest debate against me, wouldn't you admit?

I do... that's when I ask THEM if they served... you do recall me asking several posters on this thread if they served, don't you?

:lmao:

[OCA]

To borrow some words from Avatar:

Do you have anything but ridicule to add to this debate?

Why are you on the right so afraid to actually discuss the ramifications of your actions? Why are you so focused on stalling any kind of discussion to attack the person?

Sounds like you are afraid of the truth. Thats cowardly.

Just firing back some of the vitriol that Striper is throwing out, but maybe he could answer those questions.......chicken wing? Don't want to hurt your sensibilities.

BTW i'll add to this fucking debate in any way I want, you have no say on that. I've earned that right, have you?

[avatar4321]

I challenge those that impugn me... he didn't you did...

cowardly?

you're one to talk... :lmao: got feathers?

If you dont want to be impugned stop impugning others. Then maybe they would treat you with respect.

And yes you are a coward.

[OCA]

I said... not you...

you just defended those that do...

please don't make me go through this thread looking for those that called me or any other lefty unpatriotic... cuz it's over 40 pages now...

:eek:

but I'll keep track now, if you like... shall I send you PMs with the post number?

Send him this post number, I think your stance is a front for pure hatred of Bush, in that fashion I find you unpatriotic. I'm not even sure of your service, but it would be easy for you to prove me wrong. I'm often skeptical of people who continuously bring up service to show that their opinion might carry more weight, such is the case here.

[OCA]

If you dont want to be impugned stop impugning others. Then maybe they would treat you with respect.

And yes you are a coward.

Absolutely correct.

[TheStripey1]

I bolded and enlarged the pertinent part of that story. The key is that the military had the equipment, but there were issues getting it to all the soldiers in time. If the soldiers had been patient, they would have been issued the equipment.

a lot of soldiers died waiting for that gear...

but why should they have to wait? shouldn't they have been PROPERLY equipped in the first place? BEFORE they were sent to war? the republican led congress and the republican executive branch sent them in ill equipped... we lefties condemn them for it but you righties excuse it...

I really do not understand why that is... other than blind partisanship on y'all's part, that is...

seriously tho, can you explain it?

[TheStripey1]

A) You keep saying this, as to imply that they aren't. Birdzeye already talked about the 210 soliders who didn't get body armor fast enough. What other failures on these points do you see?

B) I want them home as well. However, I also want them to accomplish the mission we've charged them with. I personally think we should be able to start bringing home troops soon - like towards the end of the year.

C) I think, if anything, it was his way of stating his confidence in American troops.

A) If that is so, then why did Murtha propose a bill ensuring it?

B) careful now Jeff, you'll be labeled as a cut and runner... but not by me, of course... :beer:

C) I found it despicable then and I feel the same way now...

[jillian]

shirley you jest... :lmao:

No, I don't. And don't call me Shirley. :cheers2:

[TheStripey1]

Fair enough... Not saying nobody has said that to you, but would you like to link me to the posts where that was said to you? Since your asking just about everyone that posts, I'm curious just how many people have said this to you in regards to you opposing the war...

at least a half dozen here... maybe more...

hell, I've only been on two substantive threads here... this one and one about the sgt back from afghanistan... in all, probably less than ten... but I get it all the time, on every board I post at... for some reason which I can't fathom, you righties seem to think you have a lock on patriotism because you support the war on Iraq... you don't... and obtw, that's a generalized you, not a you you...

and obtw, about that brush... I'm a retired painter... I used brushes all the time... funny you should know that... :lmao:

[TheStripey1]

Stopped by there today and walked through for 10 minutes, not 1 roach, not 1 rat and nary a contractor, the place looked fucking splendid. Can anyone say libel?

if you didn't see any contractors then you were in the wrong building... the contractors are there doing whatever it is the contractors are supposed to be doing... sheet rock, plumbing, painting, exterminating pests...

saw them on the news... MSNBC...

[TheStripey1]

We did, we were the only ones with big enough balls.


and now, 3000+ deaths later? when will be enough?

when did the USA become the world's cop?

[TheStripey1]

I guess the Kurds were gassed by what, helium?

Kurds? who gave it to him? and when exactly did that happen?

[TheStripey1]

Doesn't matter if one has served or not, their opinion still matters. That question is moot.

not to ME!

:lmao: that answer is moot... :lmao:

figures...

[TheStripey1]

I play at bodog and i'll take you heads up anyday.

not familiar with bodog... got a link?

what's your game?

[TheStripey1]

And I say that there's no excuse for the delay. There's something really indecent about sending people into harm's way without giving them everything they need to improve their chances of survival.

what was it that rummy said when asked by a trooper in country about the lack of armor, both personal and vehicle?

you have to go to war with the army you have...

easy for him to say, since HE wasn't IN harm's way...

[Gaffer]

They believed the same intel as the US. Believing the same intel is different from believing indepedent, varifiable intel.

Do you want me to link to the UN inspectors who thought otherwise?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix

Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the Bush administration, [6] and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC TV on 8 February 2004, Dr. Blix accused the U.S. and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein.

With references

They didn't have the SAME intel, they each had their own intel. Every country has its own intelligence organization. They don't all use one source.

[TheStripey1]

Nope, no coming home, the job isn't done, sorry but we can't take your halfassed approach.

Halliburton? LMFAO! I knew the whacko talking points would come out sooner or later. Who gives you your daily briefing? Marko Moulitsas over at Daily Kos?


define victory then...

WHEN can the troops come home? when pigs fly?

sorry charlie, I don't DO talking points...

[TheStripey1]

Doesn't matter if Avatar served, get it through your fucking head.

I've already had this discussion with jimnyc... and we're in a tentative agreement about it...

[TheStripey1]

Well tough shit, guess you'll be bowing out of this thread because everyone's opinion is welcome service or no service.

and miss all this fun?

nope...

:lmao: :lmao: :dev: :lmao: :lmao:

define victory...

[Gaffer]

Just like my dislike of bush is my opinion but I base it on all the crap he has done since forgetting about Osama Been Forgotten in the spring of '02...

I would buy that if you weren't constantly spouting the democratic talking points.

[TheStripey1]

No one has called anyone unpatriotic. We are questioning your judgment by advocating policies that undermine our nations, benefit our enemies and result in our troops and those they protect ending up dead. The fact that you keep defending against a claim of being unpatriotic when no one makes it indicates that you think your actions are unpatriotic and need defending.


It's my choice to be against the war...

you keep saying that I'm advocating a policy that will get the troops killed, but my policy is to have them at home... it is YOU who wants them in harm's way in Iraq... it is YOU that are putting them in danger by supporting the war...

not me...

[OCA]

if you didn't see any contractors then you were in the wrong building... the contractors are there doing whatever it is the contractors are supposed to be doing... sheet rock, plumbing, painting, exterminating pests...

saw them on the news... MSNBC...

MSNBC LOL

[TheStripey1]

Then your beef isn't with the Bush administration, it's with the military supply system.

jeff jeff jeff... bush sent them to war... not the military supply system... bush... he's the CinC, remember?

[OCA]

and miss all this fun?

nope...

:lmao: :lmao: :dev: :lmao: :lmao:

define victory...

When we have loaded all the oil onto tankers and the country is bone dry victory will be at hand.:dance:

[TheStripey1]

Then please explain why the last resolution before invasion clearly stated that Iraq remained in breach, and would not allow inspectors unfettered access, which was outlined in said resolutions.

Are you saying that Blix came out afterwards, and before the war, and stated that Saddam WAS allowing unfettered access to all locations for inspectors?


yes... and somewhere between the post I'm responding to and this one, I posted a link that said it...

long threads... wow... I don't know about y'all but I'm having fun now.... :beer: :cheers2: :beer:

flexes claws...

[TheStripey1]

Ok, and where have I defended anyone in this thread? I made my own statements, backed them up with proof, and replied to your posts. YOU are the one who keeps throwing in the patriotism in reply to my posts. Should I reply to you based on what Cindy Sheehan does or says?


uhhhh, ava... you defended ava... as did oca... and another before him... merlin perhaps...

y'all are good at defending your own, I'll grant you that...

off topic: what was the name of the board y'all came from?

[TheStripey1]

The war isnt going to be over simply because the troops are at home. All that will do is abandon Iraq to the terrorist and bring the battle back to the states where American citizens and troops will be murdered.

How the hell does that make them safe?!?

More to the point if you really believe that why dont you just publically defund the troops and force them back home? Why are you covertly trying to defend the troops in a "slow bleed" method. They call it the "slow bleed" for a reason. Because using your method to get out of Iraq will cause our troops to bleed.


Iraqis are too busy killing themselves to follow us here... but... if the bush administration actually cared about border security, we wouldn't have much to worry about them being here... now would we?

slow bleed... now where have I heard that before... ohhhhhhhh yeahhhhh... all the right wingers media types were mouthing that last week... that your white house latest talking point?

define victory in Iraq...

[TheStripey1]

It's apparant that you arent a friend to the troops or the Iraqis either

yes to the troops, no to the Iraqis... was there some part of my saying I am for americans that you don't comprehend?

and you? you want the troops in harm's way so they can protect the innocent Iraqis from killing each other... with a friend like you, they don't need any enemies...

[glockmail]

BS.

have you served in the military, glock? Have not had the priveledge, no. So that disqualifies me from voicing my opinion?

[glockmail]

It's my choice to be against the war...

you keep saying that I'm advocating a policy that will get the troops killed, but my policy is to have them at home... it is YOU who wants them in harm's way in Iraq... it is YOU that are putting them in danger by supporting the war...

not me...

Theyn volunteered to fight for our country. Why not let them do their job?

[TheStripey1]

Stripey does sacrifice scare you? Do you find it hard most times to finish even the most simplest of jobs?

no, but how about you? sacrifice... done any?

[TheStripey1]

That is the other side of the coin...Kerry and Murtha's service makes their recent comments THAT MUCH WORSE. :(

please be specific... with links... thanks...

[jimnyc]

yes... and somewhere between the post I'm responding to and this one, I posted a link that said it...

long threads... wow... I don't know about y'all but I'm having fun now.... :beer: :cheers2: :beer:

flexes claws...

No, the link you provided showed he said there were improvements, but they NEVER allowed full unfettered access.

[5stringJeff]

jeff jeff jeff... bush sent them to war... not the military supply system... bush... he's the CinC, remember?

I understand quite well. All I'm saying is that lots of people are on this bandwagon to blame Bush for troops not having body armor. The simple fact is that the equipment existed and the troops didn't get it. Is Bush to blame for that?

[TheStripey1]

wikipedia
United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Monitoring%2C_Verification_and_Insp ection_Commission)

...snip

Following the mandate of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, Saddam Hussein allowed UN inspectors to return to Iraq in December 2002. UNMOVIC led inspections of possible nuclear, chemical, and biological facilities in Iraq until shortly before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, but did not find any weapons of mass destruction. Based on its inspections and examinations during this time, UNMOVIC inspectors determined that UNSCOM had successfully dismantled Iraq’s unconventional weapons program during the 1990s.

..snip




And again, they were in breach of the last resolution which declared they must cooperate "immediately, unconditionally and actively" which they never did. Sure, there were some improvements, but his cat and mouse games had went on long enough. It was NEVER immediate, NEVER unconditionally and rarely actively because they changed their minds about allowing certain access as much as most normal people change their underwear.

they were doing it when bush asked them to leave so he could unleash shock and awe...

[5stringJeff]

a lot of soldiers died waiting for that gear...

That's the first I heard of that. :link:

[Gaffer]

want me to stop asking them if they served? then tell them to stop with the allegations that because we oppose the war, we are unpatriotic...

IF you can accomplish that, I will gladly not ask those that impugn my service if they too have served... but I am not going to hold my breath waiting... even you, as powerful as you are here on this board, can't accomplish that... cuz I don't think anyone can... :dunno:

not until we get Mandatory Military Service for ALL... yes even the infirm can serve... if you can type, you can be a clerk... there used to be millions of clerks in the military... not everyone is a warrior, ya know...

So according to you anyone that hasn't served has no right saying you and other democrats are unpatriotic.

Well I served in combat and I say you and the other democrats ARE unpatriotic. Does that carry more weight than someone else? I don't think so. I think you and others calling for cut and run are ignorant of the real situation over there at the least. People like murtha are playing politics with the troops lives and you and those like you are going along with him. He and comrade polisi are doing everything they can to undermine the war effort. Why? so they can get back in power, its that simple. And their media machine the MSM is doing all it can to help them. And you dumbasses buy into all of it.

you have the dem talking points down real good there tigger. The comrades will be proud of you.

[jimnyc]

uhhhh, ava... you defended ava... as did oca... and another before him... merlin perhaps...

y'all are good at defending your own, I'll grant you that...

off topic: what was the name of the board y'all came from?

I've defended NO ONE, other than to say we are all equally entitled to our opinions, regardless of service to country. I've yet to mention any other names and defend them, I think they're all highly capable of doing so themselves. You might want to link to said posts if you're going to accuse me of things.

The other board is talked about plenty below in the 'steel cage' forum.

[TheStripey1]

You cannot support the soldiers and at the same time actively undermine their job and mission, I challenge anyone to prove that wrong.

Also i'll stand up and say that no it is not unpatriotic to oppose any war but it IS UNPATRIOTIC to oppose it simply for political gain which is what Demos have and continue to do.

Can anyone say white flag? Retreat? Surrender? I say even if we were getting completely smoked(which is FAR from reality) we should have some balls and fight to the last man.

Now this leads me to my next point, there are those that say we are Bushies and in complete lockstep with the man, not so. I have issues with the war and our BATTLEFIELD tacticts, we have tried to fight this war as pc as possible, we shouldn't worry about what the MSM or Demos think, we should be fighting a WWII style front and shelling towns and villages then sweeping through. Civilians should not be a factor, think Roosevelt gave a shit about civilians when we bombed the shit out of the Ruhr valley in WWII? Hell no, his priorities were in the right place, win the war as fast as possible and with the least amount of casualties as possible, Bush has not done this.

I was hoping one of you would bring up WWII... thanks OCA...

about that war... yep... it had front lines, there are no front lines in Iraq... but that's not the point I want to make about WWII...

Our military did not come home during that war... not once... no rest between beachheads... no rest between attacks... all there all the time... is that what you want now? if not, why not? if yes, then when will you be leaving? cuz there weren't any slackers during WWII...

fight to the last man? easy for you to say...

[jimnyc]

they were doing it when bush asked them to leave so he could unleash shock and awe...

No they didn't, and no matter how many times you state that it won't be true. There were 'improvements' but full unfettered access was still not forthcoming. Blix's own final report to the UN stated that there were improvements, but much time would be needed, as well as full cooperation AND disclosure AND full documentation that they had asked for and never received.

[jillian]

No they didn't, and no matter how many times you state that it won't be true. There were 'improvements' but full unfettered access was still not forthcoming. Blix's own final report to the UN stated that there were improvements, but much time would be needed, as well as full cooperation AND disclosure AND full documentation that they had asked for and never received.

Actually, Blix's final report said the problems with access that had existed previously had been resolved.

[TheStripey1]

Just firing back some of the vitriol that Striper is throwing out, but maybe he could answer those questions.......chicken wing? Don't want to hurt your sensibilities.

BTW i'll add to this fucking debate in any way I want, you have no say on that. I've earned that right, have you?

I asked you yesterday if you served...

:lmao:

How? which branch? which war? did you volunteer to go?

[TheStripey1]

If you dont want to be impugned stop impugning others. Then maybe they would treat you with respect.

And yes you are a coward.

I served you didn't... I volunteered for Viet nam, you didn't...

got feathers? why yes... yes you do...

[Gaffer]

I didn't say you did... but I ask it of those that do... you just defended them, that's all...

and obtw, I'm not a liberal... but that doesn't stop the righties from calling me one just because I'm left of them...

Your a bonified liberal.

[TheStripey1]

Send him this post number, I think your stance is a front for pure hatred of Bush, in that fashion I find you unpatriotic. I'm not even sure of your service, but it would be easy for you to prove me wrong. I'm often skeptical of people who continuously bring up service to show that their opinion might carry more weight, such is the case here.

I don't care what you think... and who cares how skeptical you are...

certainly not I...

so, did you serve?

[Grumplestillskin]

It has nothing to do with it. its just his way to try to say we cant have a say on the debate. Typical liberal tactic against the exercise of free speech.

Actually, I find it very interesting. Having perused boards for the best part of five years, my lack of service has been pointed out more times than I can remember – including on this board. On every occasion it has been by a neocon or conservative – every occasion. First time I’ve seen a centrist/conservative do it to other conservatives and they get all defensive. Gee, wonder why?

[Gaffer]

To borrow some words from Avatar:

Do you have anything but ridicule to add to this debate?

Why are you on the right so afraid to actually discuss the ramifications of your actions? Why are you so focused on stalling any kind of discussion to attack the person?

Sounds like you are afraid of the truth. Thats cowardly.

Have you looked at the ramifications of your proposed actions? what would happen in the region?

[Grumplestillskin]

I dont believe that is true. Why on earth should we not try simply because you dont believe it can be done?

Because you make the same mistake Bush and other Americans make. You are trying to put western values on a medieval culture. Trying to impose your western morals/values/mores on a culture that simply isn’t interested in it, is doomed to failure


Do you really think splitting the country is going to prevent war?

Absolutely. As long as the oil is split in equality and most lands that belong to either of the three groups stay in said groups, it should be fine. Look at India/Pakistan/Bangladesh. Outside of Kashmir, things have worked out for the better.


You create three homogenious nations in the place of Iraq I guarentee you will have war.

If things are not divided fairly, you are right. Outsida that, there is no reason for a war.


The only way to avoid it is to establish one nation and get the various populations to work together despite their difference. I am more than happy to admit that is going to take lots of work, but its far superior then th alternative your side of the debate is proposing which will result in mass genocide.

No way, no how. You really don’t understand the arab mindset do you Avatar? These guys have been going hammer and tongs at each other for centuries.


I am more than happy to admit that is going to take lots of work, but its far superior then th alternative your side of the debate is proposing which will result in mass genocide.

How would there be mass genocide if the country is split like I suggest? Mass genocide? The chances of genocide happening now – due to Bush’s folly of interfering – are far greater when the US pulls out – no matter when that occurs. You heard it here first.

[TheStripey1]

I would buy that if you weren't constantly spouting the democratic talking points.

I am? hell, if we are that much alike, I might actually become a democrat...

:eek: nahhhhhhhhhhh... :eek:

furrgetaboutit... :lmao:

[stephanie]

Actually, I find it very interesting. Having perused boards for the best part of five years, my lack of service has been pointed out more times than I can remember – including on this board. On every occasion it has been by a neocon or conservative – every occasion. First time I’ve seen a centrist/conservative do it to other conservatives and they get all defensive. Gee, wonder why?

Bs.....That's a famous line that the left uses...

And tiger using it in every post, is become stale...

But hey, I guess if he feels he needs to do it......:uhoh:

[TheStripey1]

MSNBC LOL

why I bet you're a Fox noise Channel guy... and I bet billo is your fav too... right? or are you a seanity man?

:lmao:

[jimnyc]

Actually, Blix's final report said the problems with access that had existed previously had been resolved.

The following quotes certainly don't sound like "immediately, unconditionally and actively" to me - and they are directly from Blix's last statement to the UN on 3/7/03


Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure.


This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions


Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections. It was a disappointment that Iraq’s Declaration of 7 December did not bring new documentary evidence. I hope that efforts in this respect, including the appointment of a governmental commission, will give significant results. When proscribed items are deemed unaccounted for it is above all credible accounts that is needed – or the proscribed items, if they exist.


Even a week ago, when the current quarterly report was finalized, there was still relatively little tangible progress to note. Hence, the cautious formulations in the report before you.


This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear.


It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.

[Gaffer]

if you didn't see any contractors then you were in the wrong building... the contractors are there doing whatever it is the contractors are supposed to be doing... sheet rock, plumbing, painting, exterminating pests...

saw them on the news... MSNBC...

MSNBC says it all.

[TheStripey1]

When we have loaded all the oil onto tankers and the country is bone dry victory will be at hand.:dance:

then you ARE saying that we want their oil... that the war was about their oil all the time... what do you want to do about the iraqis? kill them all?

[Gaffer]

Kurds? who gave it to him? and when exactly did that happen?

The russians gave it to him. Actually sold it to him.That's why it disappeared. The stuff can be traced and the russians didn't want it traced back to them. Blix didn't find anything in Dec because they had removed it in Oct and Nov. Lots of convoys going from iraq to syria at that time.

[TheStripey1]

Have not had the priveledge, no. So that disqualifies me from voicing my opinion?

no... everyone has an opinion... some of them weigh more than others...

duly noted... but thanks for answering... cuz there are many who don't...

so can you define victory in Iraq for me?

thanks...

[TheStripey1]

Theyn volunteered to fight for our country. Why not let them do their job?

uhhhh, they're IN Iraq... I'd rather they were on our southern border, protecting our sovereignty from an invading horde...

[avatar4321]

I served you didn't... I volunteered for Viet nam, you didn't...

got feathers? why yes... yes you do...

Tell me, exactly how was i supposed to volunteer for Vietnam before I was born?

And tell me exactly why do you think it is at all relevant to the discussion at hand. For all I know you are a 12 year old boy pretending to be some war veteran. It means absolutely nothing to me whether you went to Vietnam or not. It doesn't give any credibility to your arguments. President Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam as well, he wasn't sent but he volunteered to go. Yet you and others like you malign him as a coward all the time.

This is a public message board. No one knows or can verify the backgrounds of anyone here. In fact, people lie about their background pretty frequently to try to lend credence to their arguments... not that you have presented any arguments to begin with other than "I went to war, you need to shut up."

This tells me you are completely afraid of engaging in actual discussion of the facts. Rather you seem to think you are immune to any criticism and can get away with any position because you claim to have served in Vietnam. This is cowardly.

The war will not end if we pull out of Iraq. More people with die in Iraq and in the States because our enemies will continue the fight regardless of whether we fight them back. If we stop fighting we are inviting mass genocide. I don't understand why that is so difficult for you guys to realize.

[TheStripey1]

No, the link you provided showed he said there were improvements, but they NEVER allowed full unfettered access.

bush kicked them out... and then started with the shock and awe campaign soon thereafter...

Blix wanted more time... bush wouldn't give it to him... but the proof was in the pudding, wasn't it? how many wmd did they find?

[TheStripey1]

I understand quite well. All I'm saying is that lots of people are on this bandwagon to blame Bush for troops not having body armor. The simple fact is that the equipment existed and the troops didn't get it. Is Bush to blame for that?

being the man that sent them to war ill equipped, then yes... he is to blame... he is the C-in-C, right? the buck should stop with him...

[jimnyc]

bush kicked them out... and then started with the shock and awe campaign soon thereafter...

Blix wanted more time... bush wouldn't give it to him... but the proof was in the pudding, wasn't it? how many wmd did they find?

In other words, you were wrong, they never fully cooperated. Thanks for coming clean!

[TheStripey1]

That's the first I heard of that. :link:

are you saying no one has died in Iraq? surely you aren't saying that...

and no, I don't have an accurate count of how many of the 3100+ troopers that have died in Iraq died because of a lack of body or vehicle armor... but... I'd say offpaw, that any of them that died because of IEDs, would qualify...

[Grumplestillskin]

Bs.....That's a famous line that the left uses...

And tiger using it in every post, is become stale...

But hey, I guess if he feels he needs to do it......:uhoh:

Utter crap. This is first time on any MB I have seen conservatives asked if they have served. Ever. Ironically, he has been proven right. OFA and Avatar, sure enough, have called him a coward. Go figure...yet those two haven't put their balls on the line...

[jimnyc]

Utter crap. This is first time on any MB I have seen conservatives asked if they have served. Ever. Ironically, he has been proven right. OFA and Avatar, sure enough, have called him a coward. Go figure...yet those two haven't put their balls on the line...

I don't think he's been proven right. He's claimed several times now that I have backed up others in this thread - I have not. He keeps fitting me in with supposed comments that he is a traitor because he doesn't support the war, yet I have told him at least 3x now that I never spoke those words. Why would he keep repeating them to me? Because it's easier than debating fairly and honestly.

[Grumplestillskin]

President Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam as well.

Really? When?

[Grumplestillskin]

I don't think he's been proven right. He's claimed several times now that I have backed up others in this thread - I have not. He keeps fitting me in with supposed comments that he is a traitor because he doesn't support the war, yet I have told him at least 3x now that I never spoke those words. Why would he keep repeating them to me? Because it's easier than debating fairly and honestly.

I always took his stance as a generic "you", not YOU specifically. In fact, in one of his past posts he even said that to you. The number of times people on this board have said to me "you liberals think this, that and the other" is untold. Doesn't mean they were meaning me specifically. Find it weird that you would think he meant you specifically. That aside, the post where he said he'd keep count of how many times he's been called a coward or traitor? I count three so far and that has been in the past couple of hours and by two chickenhawks no less. Point proved, no?

[stephanie]

Utter crap. This is first time on any MB I have seen conservatives asked if they have served. Ever. Ironically, he has been proven right. OFA and Avatar, sure enough, have called him a coward. Go figure...yet those two haven't put their balls on the line...


Live on in your own dream world....
I take a look at all kinds of boards..And most of the ones that ask that question, is a lefty board...

But if asking that question over and over and over, makes you feel big and powerful...:cow:

It's really becoming old and boring...

[jimnyc]

I always took his stance as a generic "you", not YOU specifically. In fact, in one of his past posts he even said that to you. The number of times people on this board have said to me "you liberals think this, that and the other" is untold. Doesn't mean they were meaning me specifically. Find it weird that you would think he meant you specifically. That aside, the post where he said he'd keep count of how many times he's been called a coward or traitor? I count three so far and that has been in the past couple of hours and by two chickenhawks no less. Point proved, no?

When you quote someone else's post, and write "you" in response, it sure sounds like it's directed at the party you quoted. While you very well may be right, it might be best to actually quote those who say things you disagree with rather than quoting someone else and saying "you" just because we are of similar political affiliation.

[Grumplestillskin]

Live on in your own dream world....
I take a look at all kinds of boards..And most of the ones that ask that question, is a lefty board...

But if asking that question over and over and over, makes you feel big and powerful...:cow:

It's really becoming old and boring...

Haven't even asked the question.

[stephanie]

Haven't even asked the question.

I'm beginning to suspect....That you sir, is actually the spidey...

There's only two people on this board who call me Steffy....

And your one of them....

:coffee:

[OCA]

no, but how about you? sacrifice... done any?

I sacrifice everytime I pay my fucking taxes.

[Grumplestillskin]

I'm beginning to suspect....That you sir, is actually the spidey...

There's only two people on this board who call me Steffy....

And your one of them....

:coffee:

I've never called you Steffy...well, that I can recall..

[TheStripey1]

So according to you anyone that hasn't served has no right saying you and other democrats are unpatriotic.

Well I served in combat and I say you and the other democrats ARE unpatriotic. Does that carry more weight than someone else? I don't think so. I think you and others calling for cut and run are ignorant of the real situation over there at the least. People like murtha are playing politics with the troops lives and you and those like you are going along with him. He and comrade polisi are doing everything they can to undermine the war effort. Why? so they can get back in power, its that simple. And their media machine the MSM is doing all it can to help them. And you dumbasses buy into all of it.

you have the dem talking points down real good there tigger. The comrades will be proud of you.

well I guess we won't be sharing a beer and commiserating about old times...

no loss...

so do you think the brits are guilty of cut and run since they are going to pull out of iraq soon?

define victory in Iraq...

[Grumplestillskin]

I sacrifice everytime I pay my fucking taxes.

What a hardship....:pee:

[TheStripey1]

I've defended NO ONE, other than to say we are all equally entitled to our opinions, regardless of service to country. I've yet to mention any other names and defend them, I think they're all highly capable of doing so themselves. You might want to link to said posts if you're going to accuse me of things.

The other board is talked about plenty below in the 'steel cage' forum.

that's defending them...

I haven't made it there yet... and if all the threads are as long as this one, I doubt if I do...

[OCA]

That's the first I heard of that. :link:

Its the first you heard about it because its just a talking point, meant to arouse emotions not intellect.

[jimnyc]

so do you think the brits are guilty of cut and run since they are going to pull out of iraq soon?

define victory in Iraq...

No to the Brits, the area they are running is much smoother than Baghdad and Iraqi's will soon be able to handle that area themselves.

Victory in Iraq is when the full democratic government is recognized and their own military is trained and capable of handling security themselves. Why don't you just start a thread asking this question instead of looking foolish asking it over and over and over and over...

[Grumplestillskin]

Why don't you just start a thread asking this question instead of looking foolish asking it over and over and over and over...

Why don't people just answer the question...(shrug)

[jimnyc]

that's defending them...

Ummmm, no, it's not. This board was created with the idea of allowing all viewpoints to be heard. You seem to be insinuating that those who haven't served don't have that right. I'm defending the board, not individuals. But if it helps you make your argument, sure, go ahead and accuse me of things I haven't done.

I'm done here, I'll save my time for those who enjoy debating openly and honestly.

[jimnyc]

Why don't people just answer the question...(shrug)

Maybe because they are nauseated with it being asked in EVERY SINGLE POST of his. How come you aren't yelling to Jillian and Stripey to answer my questions and/or assertions about Blix? Oh, thats right, because there's no need to be debating honestly here.

[TheStripey1]

No they didn't, and no matter how many times you state that it won't be true. There were 'improvements' but full unfettered access was still not forthcoming. Blix's own final report to the UN stated that there were improvements, but much time would be needed, as well as full cooperation AND disclosure AND full documentation that they had asked for and never received.


Who didn't give him the time to do the job?

bush...

[OCA]

I was hoping one of you would bring up WWII... thanks OCA...

about that war... yep... it had front lines, there are no front lines in Iraq... but that's not the point I want to make about WWII...

Our military did not come home during that war... not once... no rest between beachheads... no rest between attacks... all there all the time... is that what you want now? if not, why not? if yes, then when will you be leaving? cuz there weren't any slackers during WWII...

fight to the last man? easy for you to say...

I'd go in a friggin heartbeat, do they still take 39 yr olds married with children?

Yeah, i'd go for that, keep em fighting daily with RNR to maybe Cyprus or Australia. There is no reason there cannot be an established front, you surround a town, give the locals 24 hrs to give up the whereabouts of the insurgents(terrorists) because we all know everyone knows who and where they are, if they don't cooperate we turn the town into rubble, nothing left. If people are faced with the loss of home they will give up the info.

This is what should've happened in Fallujah.

[OCA]

I asked you yesterday if you served...

:lmao:

How? which branch? which war? did you volunteer to go?

And I told you kitty kat it don't matter if anyone has served.

You are making a complete ass of yourself.

[Grumplestillskin]

Maybe because they are nauseated with it being asked in EVERY SINGLE POST of his. How come you aren't yelling to Jillian and Stripey to answer my questions and/or assertions about Blix? Oh, thats right, because there's no need to be debating honestly here.

I have seen nothing by honest debate from Stripey. Jillian ain't around. How come you aren't yelling and Avatar and OCA for calling him a coward? Both Stripey and Jillian have at least answered your posts on Blix...

[TheStripey1]

Your a bonified liberal.

oh well, there are worse labels... Jesus was a Liberal you know...

[jimnyc]

Who didn't give him the time to do the job?

bush...

That doesn't change the fact that they WERE in breach of resolutions, and they WERE NOT fully cooperating as of the invasion. Thanks anyway!

[OCA]

why I bet you're a Fox noise Channel guy... and I bet billo is your fav too... right? or are you a seanity man?

:lmao:

Don't watch tv much and don't pay attention to either, nice try though. You among others need to find your A game fast, time is running out.

[TheStripey1]

Actually, I find it very interesting. Having perused boards for the best part of five years, my lack of service has been pointed out more times than I can remember – including on this board. On every occasion it has been by a neocon or conservative – every occasion. First time I’ve seen a centrist/conservative do it to other conservatives and they get all defensive. Gee, wonder why?

It's the same on all the boards, Grump... they can sure dish it out, but when the tables are turned, they run home squealing with their crooked tail tucked up between their legs...

:lmao:

[TheStripey1]

Have you looked at the ramifications of your proposed actions? what would happen in the region?


did bush look into the ramifications of what would happen in the region BEFORE he invaded Iraq?

nope... he thought it would be an easy victory... the initial campaign was... toppling the statue was great theatre...

it's the occupation and nation building part that failed...

[stephanie]

It's the same on all the boards, Grump... they can sure dish it out, but when the tables are turned, they run home squealing with their crooked tail tucked up between their legs...

:lmao:

You've got a real love affair going on with the one smilie....:laugh2:

[OCA]

then you ARE saying that we want their oil... that the war was about their oil all the time... what do you want to do about the iraqis? kill them all?

You really are a gullible douchebag, aren't ya?

[OCA]

uhhhh, they're IN Iraq... I'd rather they were on our southern border, protecting our sovereignty from an invading horde...

Hey Striper my amnesty is coming soon, you know that right?:thewave:

[jimnyc]

I have seen nothing by honest debate from Stripey. Jillian ain't around. How come you aren't yelling and Avatar and OCA for calling him a coward? Both Stripey and Jillian have at least answered your posts on Blix...

Um, no, they both claim that Iraq was fully cooperating as per Blix, which I have proven to be not true with his own damn words. You call coming back with "well who wouldn't wait and invaded anyway" to be honest? Why not just be HONEST and admit their statements were incorrect?

And why yell at them for calling him a coward? Are they stating it over and over and over in every post?

I think you see what you want to see. I claimed I never defended anyone in this thread, and that's a FACT. All I said was that we were all entitled to our opinions. Yet he continues to say that I am defending them. You call that honest?

You guys sure have an odd way of debating, and popping in to have one another's backs when proven wrong.

[TheStripey1]

Bs.....That's a famous line that the left uses...

And tiger using it in every post, is become stale...

But hey, I guess if he feels he needs to do it......:uhoh:

hardly every post... you exaggerate, steffy...

[Grumplestillskin]

You really are a gullible douchebag, aren't ya?

IOW, you have no plan. WHy am I not surprised....

[OCA]

Utter crap. This is first time on any MB I have seen conservatives asked if they have served. Ever. Ironically, he has been proven right. OFA and Avatar, sure enough, have called him a coward. Go figure...yet those two haven't put their balls on the line...

Doesn't matter if one has served and for the record i've never asked you if you served, don't give a shit because you're opinions are so far out in the stratosphere it couldn't possibly have even the most minimal effect.

[TheStripey1]

MSNBC says it all.

you don't watch it? I'm not surprized...

I don't watch Fox Noise Channel either... in fact, I deleted it from my remote so it gets absolutely NO play when I surf...

so we're even...

[OCA]

I always took his stance as a generic "you", not YOU specifically. In fact, in one of his past posts he even said that to you. The number of times people on this board have said to me "you liberals think this, that and the other" is untold. Doesn't mean they were meaning me specifically. Find it weird that you would think he meant you specifically. That aside, the post where he said he'd keep count of how many times he's been called a coward or traitor? I count three so far and that has been in the past couple of hours and by two chickenhawks no less. Point proved, no?


He's a traitor and a coward, there's #4.

[TheStripey1]

The russians gave it to him. Actually sold it to him.That's why it disappeared. The stuff can be traced and the russians didn't want it traced back to them. Blix didn't find anything in Dec because they had removed it in Oct and Nov. Lots of convoys going from iraq to syria at that time.

funny, I thought we had done it... got a link?

I will look for the one that said we gave him some... wait... maybe that was against the Iranians...

who knows... I'll look...

[stephanie]

you don't watch it? I'm not surprised...

I don't watch Fox Noise Channel either... in fact, I deleted it from my remote so it gets absolutely NO play when I surf...

so we're even...
:lol:


How childish....

I don't watch msnbc, CNN and a few others..
But I don't have to hate them so much, that I must take them off my remote...

[5stringJeff]

are you saying no one has died in Iraq? surely you aren't saying that...

and no, I don't have an accurate count of how many of the 3100+ troopers that have died in Iraq died because of a lack of body or vehicle armor... but... I'd say offpaw, that any of them that died because of IEDs, would qualify...

I meant to ask how many troops died because of lack of body armor specifically caused by the insufficient supply of body armor in the beginning of the war. Sorry if I didn't word it correctly.

I think your answer that "any of them that died because of IEDs, would qualify" is incorrect. Body armor will not stop all the shrapnel from an IED. Someone could be patrolling on foot and get hit with shrapnel in the legs or neck and bleed to death, even with body armor.

[Grumplestillskin]

Um, no, they both claim that Iraq was fully cooperating as per Blix, which I have proven to be not true with his own damn words. You call coming back with "well who wouldn't wait and invaded anyway" to be honest? Why not just be HONEST and admit their statements were incorrect?

And why yell at them for calling him a coward? Are they stating it over and over and over in every post?

I think you see what you want to see. I claimed I never defended anyone in this thread, and that's a FACT. All I said was that we were all entitled to our opinions. Yet he continues to say that I am defending them. You call that honest?

You guys sure have an odd way of debating, and popping in to have one another's backs when proven wrong.

Actually I thought you both (I mean you, and Jill/Stripey) kinda proved your points, which just goes to show different folks different strokes. Hardly wrong in any way, shape or form.

I guess he’s asking the question because nobody is answering it. And when you think about it, it’s a damn fucking good question. I mean all the neocons and conservatives are so keen for US troops to be over there, so it’s only fair that they stump up with a good plan to get out or what constitutes victory and how it will be achieved. I don’t see anything wrong with him asking it.

It’s funny that you see the question the way you do and yet you want honest debate. If the Bush shills on this board were being honest, they would have answered the question a long time ago.

As for like-minded people sticking up for each other, I see it all the time by everybody – especially when the other side see it nothing more than grandiose backslapping. You want me to point it out when folks on your side of the aisle do it?

[OCA]

:lol:


How childish....

I don't watch msnbc, CNN and a few others..
But I don't have to hate them so much, that I must take them off my remote...

Although Striper would like us to believe he's a former Repub its bullshit because libs typically don't like to hear differing opinions as libs struggle in the arena of ideas.......so he deletes Fox News because it offers a differing opinion than his and man he just can't have that!

[Grumplestillskin]

He's a traitor and a coward, there's #4.

And you're a coward for not serving...:puke3:

[OCA]

I have seen nothing by honest debate from Stripey.

Sure you have.

"have you served"

[OCA]

IOW, you have no plan. WHy am I not surprised....


My plan is all over this board and the old board Chump. Are we back to the falsification game again?

[jimnyc]

Actually I thought you both (I mean you, and Jill/Stripey) kinda proved your points, which just goes to show different folks different strokes. Hardly wrong in any way, shape or form.

How did she prove her point? She claimed that Blix said Iraq was fully cooperating, that was proven to be incorrect. No point proven at all.


I guess he’s asking the question because nobody is answering it. And when you think about it, it’s a damn fucking good question.

I've answered it.

[TheStripey1]

A) Tell me, exactly how was i supposed to volunteer for Vietnam before I was born?

B) And tell me exactly why do you think it is at all relevant to the discussion at hand. For all I know you are a 12 year old boy pretending to be some war veteran. It means absolutely nothing to me whether you went to Vietnam or not. It doesn't give any credibility to your arguments.

C) President Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam as well, he wasn't sent but he volunteered to go. Yet you and others like you malign him as a coward all the time.

D) This is a public message board. No one knows or can verify the backgrounds of anyone here. In fact, people lie about their background pretty frequently to try to lend credence to their arguments... not that you have presented any arguments to begin with other than "I went to war, you need to shut up."

E) This tells me you are completely afraid of engaging in actual discussion of the facts. Rather you seem to think you are immune to any criticism and can get away with any position because you claim to have served in Vietnam. This is cowardly.

F) The war will not end if we pull out of Iraq. More people with die in Iraq and in the States because our enemies will continue the fight regardless of whether we fight them back. If we stop fighting we are inviting mass genocide. I don't understand why that is so difficult for you guys to realize.

A) Pick a war... any war since Viet Nam... did you volunteer for it?
you still have time to sign up now... they raised the limit on age to 42... why are you still here? they need you over there... you can protect the Iraqis... the innocent ones... uhhhh, how can you tell which ones are the innocent ones?

B) It's as relevent as calling me unpatriotic because I don't support the war...
I'm not 12, but you sure sound like it... :lmao:

C) Show me the link...

D) Catch me if you think you can, but I don't lie... I despise liars almost as much as I despise chickenhawks... in fact, I just quit a lefty board because one of the mods defended a proven liar...

E) I frankly don't care what happens to the iraqis when we pull out... and I didn't care about them BEFORE the war... but if they are smart, they'll stop fighting each other and try to rebuild their country...

and no, I won't be holding my breath on that happening, either....

[TheStripey1]

In other words, you were wrong, they never fully cooperated. Thanks for coming clean!

no... we were both wrong and both right....

[OCA]

And you're a coward for not serving...:puke3:

No, not really, its a VOLUNTEER military, or haven't you heard?

Have you served?

Shit I heard you aren't even American which makes you triple the troll you've been up to now.

[TheStripey1]

Utter crap. This is first time on any MB I have seen conservatives asked if they have served. Ever. Ironically, he has been proven right. OFA and Avatar, sure enough, have called him a coward. Go figure...yet those two haven't put their balls on the line...

maybe they don't have any...

:dev:


and obtw, I ask it of ALL the righties I come in contact with... ask Mr.P... ask gadget... they know...

[jillian]

How did she prove her point? She claimed that Blix said Iraq was fully cooperating, that was proven to be incorrect. No point proven at all.



I've answered it.

Actually, what I said was that Blix said the problems with access had been resolved. He wasn't allowed to finish the job, was he now? Nopers... he was told to get out just before the invasion.

Oh...and re the final report. I tend to like going to original sources instead of reading what another source (left or right) says about them.

So here ya go...

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html

[OCA]

maybe they don't have any...

:dev:


and obtw, I ask it of ALL the righties I come in contact with... ask Mr.P... ask gadget... they know...

I do, only they are in your mouth right now.:boom2:

[glockmail]

.....

so can you define victory in Iraq for me?

......


Kill all the terrorists, a stable democracy?:boom2:

[TheStripey1]

I don't think he's been proven right. He's claimed several times now that I have backed up others in this thread - I have not. He keeps fitting me in with supposed comments that he is a traitor because he doesn't support the war, yet I have told him at least 3x now that I never spoke those words. Why would he keep repeating them to me? Because it's easier than debating fairly and honestly.


now jimnyc, you know very good and well that that just isn't true...

but... got a 3x link? :dev:

[Grumplestillskin]

No, not really, its a VOLUNTEER military, or haven't you heard?

Have you served?

Shit I heard you aren't even American which makes you triple the troll you've been up to now.

Nope. Haven't served in the military. Was a cop for a while, does that count.

You're right. I ain't a Yank. But the good news is I ain't a greasy Greek either...

[jillian]

No, not really, its a VOLUNTEER military, or haven't you heard?

Have you served?

Shit I heard you aren't even American which makes you triple the troll you've been up to now.

He isn't the one saying other people should die for something HE thinks they should be doing.

I love chickenhawks who won't go themselves but want our best and bravest to die for them.

You believe in it so much, get your butt over there, boy! Go support the troops.

[jimnyc]

Actually, what I said was that Blix said the problems with access had been resolved. He wasn't allowed to finish the job, was he now? Nopers... he was told to get out just before the invasion.

Oh...and re the final report. I tend to like going to original sources instead of reading what another source (left or right) says about them.

So here ya go...

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html

Left or right? I provided direct quotes from the the UN resolutions themselves, and Blix's exact report as stated on the UN's page.

And the problems weren't fully resolved, as quoted in my initial post after yours, with direct quotes from Blix himself on 3/7/03

[glockmail]

Actually, what I said was that Blix said the problems with access had been resolved. He wasn't allowed to finish the job, was he now? Nopers... he was told to get out just before the invasion.

....

Rummy wasn't allowed to finish his job either, and he wasn't given nearly the leeway you gave Blix.

[TheStripey1]

Live on in your own dream world....
I take a look at all kinds of boards..And most of the ones that ask that question, is a lefty board...

But if asking that question over and over and over, makes you feel big and powerful...:cow:

It's really becoming old and boring...

where have you posted? cuz I have asked that question at nonviolence, capital hill blue, capital hill coffee house, and all of them were righty boards...

you go to lefty boards? why?

if that question were asked on a lefty board, it was probaly directed at a righty with NO military service... :lmao:

:tank:

[OCA]

He isn't the one saying other people should die for something HE thinks they should be doing.

I love chickenhawks who won't go themselves but want our best and bravest to die for them.

You believe in it so much, get your butt over there, boy! Go support the troops.

Not much use for a 39 yr old with kids but if I was younger and single i'd be there in a heartbeat.

Chickenhawks, is that the key word of the day?

Did you send a pm to Stripey when he registered?

[jimnyc]

Oh...and re the final report. I tend to like going to original sources instead of reading what another source (left or right) says about them.

So here ya go...

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html

Actually, the original source for the resolutions would be the UN, which I cited, and Blix's statements came directly from the IAEA page, which I also cited. Please try not to make it sound as if I posted biased info.

[TheStripey1]

When you quote someone else's post, and write "you" in response, it sure sounds like it's directed at the party you quoted. While you very well may be right, it might be best to actually quote those who say things you disagree with rather than quoting someone else and saying "you" just because we are of similar political affiliation.

I am guilty of using you when meaning a generic you... and I will also admit that I am guilty of lumping all supporters of the war into the right wing loony bin...

but if you don't think you belong in that bin, just say so... and I'll take you out...

:lmao:

[TheStripey1]

Haven't even asked the question.

I think she meant me with that one, Grumpy... I answered it too...

[jillian]

Not much use for a 39 yr old with kids but if I was younger and single i'd be there in a heartbeat.

Chickenhawks, is that the key word of the day?

Did you send a pm to Stripey when he registered?

Funny, I hear they're going to be taking enlistees over 40 pretty soon if they aren't already. So apparently they need bodies. See... they have a use for you.

And the overweight, 51 year old lawyer I know who got sent over because he thought it was fun to be a weekend warrior and stayed in the Guard shouldn't have been there either. I'm sure his wife and kids appreciate the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder he came home with.

Nah.. .didn't know stripey before he registered. Some words just say it all.

[OCA]

Nope. Haven't served in the military. Was a cop for a while, does that count.

You're right. I ain't a Yank. But the good news is I ain't a greasy Greek either...


Do you even live in the states? And yes it matters, if not you are in a class with Roomy.

[jillian]

Actually, the original source for the resolutions would be the UN, which I cited, and Blix's statements came directly from the IAEA page, which I also cited. Please try not to make it sound as if I posted biased info.

Same report, but I might have missed your link when I was looking for mine.

I wasn't saying you posted biased info.. but that you might have *read* biased info.

[jimnyc]

I am guilty of using you when meaning a generic you... and I will also admit that I am guilty of lumping all supporters of the war into the right wing loony bin...

but if you don't think you belong in that bin, just say so... and I'll take you out...

:lmao:

While we have a few that ventured here that follow their party lock, stock and barrel - I don't believe those you have been debating with fit that mold. We are all different, with different views on different subjects. It just so happens that we are all vehement in our beliefs.

I just want it on record that I don't consider anyone that disagrees with the war a traitor. I may debate with them, and get emotional at times, but thats what this board is all about. I try my best to treat each poster independently based on their own beliefs.

[OCA]

Funny, I hear they're going to be taking enlistees over 40 pretty soon if they aren't already. So apparently they need bodies. See... they have a use for you.

And the overweight, 51 year old lawyer I know who got sent over because he thought it was fun to be a weekend warrior and stayed in the Guard shouldn't have been there either. I'm sure his wife and kids appreciate the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder he came home with.

Nah.. .didn't know stripey before he registered. Some words just say it all.

Got a link for that 51 yr old with the mystical PTSD?

They won't be taking 40 plus, but if they do i'll signup if you do, we'll make a day of it.

[glockmail]

Got a link for that 51 yr old with the mystical PTSD?

They won't be taking 40 plus, but if they do i'll signup if you do, we'll make a day of it. I can see that. Two pees in a pod! lol.

[jimnyc]

Same report, but I might have missed your link when I was looking for mine.

I wasn't saying you posted biased info.. but that you might have *read* biased info.

Although I'll admit to reading Newsmax and other supposed right leaning sites, I always make sure to reach out to the original sources as much as I can. I just get a bit PO'd about the whole initial invasion thing, they were given 12 years of resolutions and they played their games long enough. Since they weren't "fully" cooperating, I personally didn't see a need to continue their games. IMO, action was needed to make sure they didn't have a chance to utilize any weapons.

[pegwinn]

Sheesh, I go to work for a mere ten hours and there are well over a hundred posts kickin around. So, I skipped to the end. If I missed something send a courier.


Originally Posted by Gunny:
<SNIP>
Sure... bring it on... but seriously, what do YOU consider to be support for the troops?

Adequate body armor? we citizens shouldn't have to provide our military with support like that, that should come from the government... Ah yes, the ever present body armor mythinformation..... What the mythinformation leaves out is that this is about the newest interceptor body armor that was initially being fielded at the outbreak of hostilities. Those who didn't get Interceptors, still had the standard Kevlar flak vests which had been first fielded and continuously upgraded since the 1980's..

Proper training? see above... Who's responsible for training? Everyone from the Coporals thru the Commandant and up to the JCS, the SECDEF, and the CinC. The current mythinformation is being bandied about by amateurs who know zip about the process from recruiter to the two-way rifle range. This charge is really, really, bad since it implies that everyone in the leadership chain everywhere is incompetent. I know that no one who posts on this board is silly enough to try and assert that. I cannot speak for the other services, but all Marine units to include the reserves are required to be combat ready ... period. If you fail the MCCRES or the MORDT entire chains of command (there is that Cpl to Col thing) have been relieved. Instead of a blanket accusation, lets find a unit (any service) and analyse the training or alleged lack and go from there ok?

Adequate rest between deployments? ditto... More mythinformation. Truth is that there is never enough rest between deployments, ever. Since you are a vet I assumed you understood this. Perhaps we should simply go back to the WWII policy of leaving units overseas for years at a time. Pull them out of the line at the 65% casualty mark and reinforce and retrain. Or simply rotate them from the bayonet end to the rear for a couple weeks of hard likker, hookers, and other boyish pastimes to blow off steam.

<SNIP>


that's dumb, gaffer... plain and simple...

but tell me, if the repubs are so great, why did they sent the troopers INTO Iraq without the proper gear in the first place? Mythinformation that is easily debunked by three skills. First is the knowledge of what "proper gear" is or isn't. Second is the ability to look at it with a realists eye instead of focusing on a person or persons you don't like. Finally, cross check the media, all are in business to sell papers, magazines, air space, or bandwidth. None are reliable 100%. The mantra is "if it bleeds, it leads".

And, note to others, especially those without the service time to've learned some logistics, Please don't bring up the unarmored hummers. It's just more mythinformation.

BTW, I am not intentially bagging on you. It's just that you posted and by that time I wasn't reading any further.

[jillian]

Although I'll admit to reading Newsmax and other supposed right leaning sites, I always make sure to reach out to the original sources as much as I can. I just get a bit PO'd about the whole initial invasion thing, they were given 12 years of resolutions and they played their games long enough. Since they weren't "fully" cooperating, I personally didn't see a need to continue their games. IMO, action was needed to make sure they didn't have a chance to utilize any weapons.

And I think invading Iraq when we were attacked by Saudi nationals trained in Afghanistan was wholly and totally uncalled for. The money we've spent and the lives we've lost when the Inspectors were doing their thing... one of the most bizarre missteps I've ever seen. And if I didn't know that the neo-cons and PMRC were pushing for this since as far back as 1998, I wouldn't have resented their misstatements as to Iraq's capabilities so much.

IMO, Bush Jr. wanted to show he could do the job his Daddy didn't finish. But his Dad actually listened to his State Department, so understood that if Baghdad fell, there would be an insurgency and the one thing keeping Iran in it's place would be destabilized. (And if you're wondering, it's all documented in Bush I's book... not exactly a left wing tome.)

And fair enough about using original sources.

BTW, Newsmax isn't a "supposed" right wing site. It's the admins' propaganda arm. ;o)

[jillian]

Got a link for that 51 yr old with the mystical PTSD?

They won't be taking 40 plus, but if they do i'll signup if you do, we'll make a day of it.

Why would there be a link to someone I know personally?

Why should I sign up?? I don't support Bush's war and I wouldn't have any of our troops there. You're the one who wants people to die for you there. I figure it's real easy to support something when it's not *your* life on the line.

[OCA]

Why would there be a link to someone I know personally?

Why should I sign up?? I don't support Bush's war and I wouldn't have any of our troops there. You're the one who wants people to die for you there. I figure it's real easy to support something when it's not *your* life on the line.

Don't believe ya but then again I think you're disingenuous about 97.3% of the time anyway.

Its not Bush's war, its America's war.

[jillian]

Don't believe ya but then again I think you're disingenuous about 97.3% of the time anyway.

Its not Bush's war, its America's war.

I don't really care. I KNOW *I* tell the truth. Do you?

It's not America's war.... it's Bush's war of adventure. You should try actually reading things that don't agree with your foregone conclusion. I'd recommend Bush I's book as well as State of Denial, but I doubt you'll spend the time.. even though they're quite good.

[Dilloduck]

And I think invading Iraq when we were attacked by Saudi nationals trained in Afghanistan was wholly and totally uncalled for. The money we've spent and the lives we've lost when the Inspectors were doing their thing... one of the most bizarre missteps I've ever seen. And if I didn't know that the neo-cons and PMRC were pushing for this since as far back as 1998, I wouldn't have resented their misstatements as to Iraq's capabilities so much.

IMO, Bush Jr. wanted to show he could do the job his Daddy didn't finish. But his Dad actually listened to his State Department, so understood that if Baghdad fell, there would be an insurgency and the one thing keeping Iran in it's place would be destabilized. (And if you're wondering, it's all documented in Bush I's book... not exactly a left wing tome.)

And fair enough about using original sources.

BTW, Newsmax isn't a "supposed" right wing site. It's the admins' propaganda arm. ;o)

Oh crap---We're there---take the next step instead of this incessant whining.

[manu1959]

And I think invading Iraq when we were attacked by Saudi nationals trained in Afghanistan was wholly and totally uncalled for. The money we've spent and the lives we've lost when the Inspectors were doing their thing... one of the most bizarre missteps I've ever seen. And if I didn't know that the neo-cons and PMRC were pushing for this since as far back as 1998, I wouldn't have resented their misstatements as to Iraq's capabilities so much.

IMO, Bush Jr. wanted to show he could do the job his Daddy didn't finish. But his Dad actually listened to his State Department, so understood that if Baghdad fell, there would be an insurgency and the one thing keeping Iran in it's place would be destabilized. (And if you're wondering, it's all documented in Bush I's book... not exactly a left wing tome.)

And fair enough about using original sources.

BTW, Newsmax isn't a "supposed" right wing site. It's the admins' propaganda arm. ;o)


that is not why iraq was invaded....that is the lefts reason why we invaded....but the left has never let facts get in the way of a good argument....

[jillian]

that is not why iraq was invaded....that is the lefts reason why we invaded....but the left has never let facts get in the way of a good argument....

Funny. My pov is bourne out by Bush I and corroborated by the PNAC letter of 1998 as well as by Woodward's book and others. So I figure it appears it's the right that isn't letting the facts get in the way of justifying a badly run, badly managed misadventure. At least if they were going to do this, Rumsfeld shouldn't have done it on the cheap, should have known that you go in with overwhelming force.

[glockmail]

And I think invading Iraq when we were attacked by Saudi nationals trained in Afghanistan was wholly and totally uncalled for. .... Sorry sweetcheeks, but facts is facts:
This is to serve as a semi-chronological guide to Iraq’s sponsorship of terrorism throughout the years beginning with 1990. I personally have not taken a firm position as to if Saddam personally supported any anti-American terrorist attack, but the information is presented here for you to make up your mind. Some may say that Wahhabists like Bin Laden, Shiites like the Iranians, and Sunnis like the Iraqis won’t work together do to theological differences. This argument has obviously been disproved, as today we see Saddam’s loyalists, Wahhabists and all sorts of terrorists today cooperating in the war against Coalition forces.http://www.milnet.com/geo-pol/iraq-terror.html

Saddam and bin Laden were practically butt fucking each other. :ssex:

[Gaffer]

did bush look into the ramifications of what would happen in the region BEFORE he invaded Iraq?

nope... he thought it would be an easy victory... the initial campaign was... toppling the statue was great theatre...

it's the occupation and nation building part that failed...

That didn't answer my question. It's just more Bush bashing.

[Gaffer]

oh well, there are worse labels... Jesus was a Liberal you know...

I wouldn't know I'm an athiest.

[OCA]

I don't really care. I KNOW *I* tell the truth. Do you?

It's not America's war.... it's Bush's war of adventure. You should try actually reading things that don't agree with your foregone conclusion. I'd recommend Bush I's book as well as State of Denial, but I doubt you'll spend the time.. even though they're quite good.

I tell the truth about everything, you know this. Used to think you did too until a few things came to light.

Thanks for the book suggestions, have to skip the Woodward rag has it will be highly biased, you know, Woodward and all. Maybe i'll check out George's book.

[jillian]

I tell the truth about everything, you know this. Used to think you did too until a few things came to light.

Thanks for the book suggestions, have to skip the Woodward rag has it will be highly biased, you know, Woodward and all. Maybe i'll check out George's book.

Well, you can call Woodward's book what you will. But a good start is the pnac letter and Daddy's book... so at least it's something.

Nothing came to light, dear... although I've been able to find out you haven't been quite the beacon of truth. :salute:

[OCA]

Well, you can call Woodward's book what you will. But a good start is the pnac letter and Daddy's book... so at least it's something.

Nothing came to light, dear... although I've been able to find out you haven't been quite the beacon of truth. :salute:

Find a lie of mine, I dare ya. Or you can quit libeling me publicly. Hell pm it to me. I guess if there is no pm we can assume you were blowing smoke out your ass?

[jillian]

Find a lie of mine, I dare ya. Or you can quit libeling me publicly. Hell pm it to me. I guess if there is no pm we can assume you were blowing smoke out your ass?

I think you'll find that it was *you* who libeled me. So do stop being so sensitive. I also think it's inappropriate for mods to carry on a disagreement on a public thread.

Cheers.

[glockmail]

I think you'll find that it was *you* who libeled me. So do stop being so sensitive. I also think it's inappropriate for mods to carry on a disagreement on a public thread.

Cheers.

Disagreement? Is that what you call it? Looks like an ass whoopin' to me.

[OCA]

I think you'll find that it was *you* who libeled me. So do stop being so sensitive. I also think it's inappropriate for mods to carry on a disagreement on a public thread.

Cheers.

Not true.

And you'll not tell me what is inappropriate, thank you very much.

[manu1959]

Funny. My pov is bourne out by Bush I and corroborated by the PNAC letter of 1998 as well as by Woodward's book and others. So I figure it appears it's the right that isn't letting the facts get in the way of justifying a badly run, badly managed misadventure. At least if they were going to do this, Rumsfeld shouldn't have done it on the cheap, should have known that you go in with overwhelming force.

you changed the subject.....

[OCA]

Disagreement? Is that what you call it? Looks like an ass whoopin' to me.

She thinks that because I repped RSR for outdebating her and forgot that I had did it(this happened weeks ago) that i'm libeling her. Meanwhile she's pm'n newbies telling them that I will goad them and ban them when they return fire, as if that ever happens.

Enough said here. Pm me if you got anything to say as i'll probably get ripped for this post....oh well.

[glockmail]

She thinks that because I repped RSR for outdebating her and forgot that I had did it(this happened weeks ago) that i'm libeling her. Meanwhile she's pm'n newbies telling them that I will goad them and ban them when they return fire, as if that ever happens.

Enough said here. Pm me if you got anything to say as i'll probably get ripped for this post....oh well.

It won't be you're first time. You prolly have 12, mayber 14 new assholes right now. :salute:

[TheStripey1]

President Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam as well, he wasn't sent but he volunteered to go. Yet you and others like you malign him as a coward all the time.



I asked you for a link to this knowing full well you would be unable to provide one.

Try this on, ava... it's an article from 1999...



At Height of Vietnam, Bush Picks Guard
By George Lardner Jr. and Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 28, 1999; (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm)

..snip

Four months before enlisting, Bush reported at Westover Air Force Base in Massachusetts to take the Air Force Officers Qualification Test. While scoring 25 percent for pilot aptitude – "about as low as you could get and be accepted," according to Martin – and 50 percent for navigator aptitude in his initial testing, he scored 95 percent on questions designed to reflect "officer quality," compared with a current-day average of 88 percent.

Among the questions Bush had to answer on his application forms was whether he wanted to go overseas. Bush checked the box that said: "do not volunteer."

Bush said in an interview that he did not recall checking the box. Two weeks later, his office provided a statement from a former, state-level Air Guard personnel officer, asserting that since Bush "was applying for a specific position with the 147th Fighter Group, it would have been inappropriate for him to have volunteered for an overseas assignment and he probably was so advised by the military personnel clerk assisting him in completing the form."

During a second interview, Bush himself raised the issue.

"Had my unit been called up, I'd have gone . . . to Vietnam," Bush said. "I was prepared to go."

But there was no chance Bush's unit would be ordered overseas.

...snip



:finger3:

[TheStripey1]

A) I'd go in a friggin heartbeat, do they still take 39 yr olds married with children?

Yeah, i'd go for that, keep em fighting daily with RNR to maybe Cyprus or Australia. There is no reason there cannot be an established front, you surround a town, give the locals 24 hrs to give up the whereabouts of the insurgents(terrorists) because we all know everyone knows who and where they are, if they don't cooperate we turn the town into rubble, nothing left. If people are faced with the loss of home they will give up the info.

This is what should've happened in Fallujah.

A) yes... they raised the age so chest thumpers like you could do their patriotic duty... and to meet the enlistment goals...

so when are you leaving?

B) RnR? I don't think these troopers get RnR... any of you active duty or recently retired troops know?

C) It's an occupied country... there are NO front lines...

so your idea is to level the country, kill all the iraqis and then steal their oil... am I correct in assessing your policy?

doesn't sound very christian to me...

[glockmail]

I didn't know it was a bad thing to serve your country in the National Guard. :lame2:

[TheStripey1]

And I told you kitty kat it don't matter if anyone has served.

You are making a complete ass of yourself. right shit taco, you haven't and yet, you want the troops to fight to the last man... very brave of you... very very brave...

[TheStripey1]

I have seen nothing by honest debate from Stripey. Jillian ain't around. How come you aren't yelling and Avatar and OCA for calling him a coward? Both Stripey and Jillian have at least answered your posts on Blix...


or at least enforced the new rules...

Has anyone here, besides me, even read the rules jimnyc put up on the 21st?

tis obvious OCA hasn't...