PDA

View Full Version : Sgt home from afganhistan gives opinion



Pages : [1] 2

Gaffer
02-01-2007, 04:07 PM
I thought this was interesting and really says it like it is.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/

Things that I am tired of in this war:

I am tired of Democrats saying they are patriotic and then insulting my commander in chief and the way he goes about his job.

I am tired of Democrats who tell me they support me, the soldier on the ground, and then tell me the best plan to win this war is with a “phased redeployment” (liberal-speak for retreat) out of the combat zone to someplace like Okinawa.

I am tired of the Democrats whining for months on T.V., in the New York Times, and in the House and Senate that we need more troops to win the war in Iraq, and then when my Commander in Chief plans to do just that, they say that is the wrong plan, it won’t work, and we need a “new direction.”

I am tired of every Battalion Sergeant Major and Command Sergeant Major I see over here being more concerned about whether or not I am wearing my uniform in the “spot on,” most garrison-like manner; instead of asking me whether or not I am getting the equipment I need to win the fight, the support I need from my chain of command, or if the chow tastes good.

I am tired of junior and senior officers continually doubting the technical expertise of junior enlisted soldiers who are trained far better to do the jobs they are trained for than these officers believe.

I am tired of senior officers and commanders who fight this war with more of an eye on the media than on the enemy, who desperately needs killing.

I am tired of the decisions of Sergeants and Privates made in the heat of battle being scrutinized by lawyers who were not there and will never really know the state of mind of the young soldiers who were there and what is asked of them in order to survive.

I am tired of CNN claiming that they are showing “news,” with videotape sent to them by terrorists, of my comrades being shot at by snipers, but refusing to show what happens when we build a school, pave a road, hand out food and water to children, or open a water treatment plant.

I am tired of following the enemy with drones that have cameras, and then dropping bombs that sometimes kill civilians; because we could do a better job of killing the right people by sending a man with a high powered rifle instead.

I am tired of the thousands of people in the rear who claim that they are working hard to support me when I see them with their mochas and their PX Bags walking down the street, in the middle of the day, nowhere near their workspaces.

I am tired of Code Pink, Daily Kos, Al-Jazzera, CNN, Reuters, the Associated Press, ABC, NBC, CBS, the ACLU, and CAIR thinking that they somehow get to have a vote in how we blast, shoot and kill these animals who would seek to subdue us and destroy us.

I am tired of people like Meredith Vieria from NBC asking oxygen thieves like Senator Chuck Hagel questions like “Senator, at this point, do you think we are fighting and dying for nothing?” Meredith might not get it, but soldiers do know the difference between fighting and dying for something and fighting and dying for nothing.

I am tired of hearing multiple stories from both combat theaters about snipers begging to do their jobs while commanders worry about how the media might portray the possible casualties and what might happen to their career.

I am tired of hearing that the Battalion Tactical Operations Center got a new plasma screen monitor for daily briefings, but rifle scope rings for sniper rifles, extra magazines, and necessary field gear were disapproved by the unit supply system.

I am tired of out of touch general officers, senators, congressmen and defense officials who think that giving me some more heavy body armor to wear is helping me stay alive. Speed is life in combat and wearing 55 to 90 pounds of gear for 12 to 20 hours a day puts me at a great tactical disadvantage to the idiot, mindless terrorist who is wearing no armor at all and carrying an AK-47 and a pistol.

I am tired of soldiers who are stationed in places like Kuwait and who are well away from any actual combat getting Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger Pay and the Combat Zone Tax Exclusion when they live on a base that has a McDonald’s, a Pizza Hut, a Subway, a Baskin Robbins, an internet café, 2 coffee shops and street lights.

I am tired of senior officers and commanders who take it out and "measure" every time they want to have a piece of the action with their helicopters or their artillery; instead of putting their egos aside and using their equipment to support the grunt on the ground.

I am tired of senior officers and commanders who are too afraid for their careers to tell the truth about what they need to win this war to their bosses so that the soldiers can get on with kicking the ass of these animals.

I am tired of Rules of Engagement being made by JAG lawyers and not Combat Commanders. We are not playing Hopscotch over here. There is no 2nd place trophy either. I think that if the enemy knew some rough treatment and some deprivation was at hand for them, instead of prayer rugs, special diets and free Korans; this might help get their terrorist minds “right.”

I am tired of seeing Active Duty Army and Marine units being extended past their original redeployment dates, when there are National Guard Units that have yet to deploy to a combat zone in the last 40 years.

I am tired of hearing soldiers who are stationed in safe places talk about how hard their life is.

I am tired of seeing Infantry Soldiers conducting what amounts to “SWAT” raids and performing the US Army’s version of “CSI Iraq” and doing things like filling out forms for evidence when they could be better used to hunt and kill the enemy.

I am tired of senior officers and commanders who look first in their planning for how many casualties we might take, instead of how many enemy casualties we might inflict.

I am tired of begging to be turned loose so that this war can be over.

Those of us who fight this war want to win it and go home to their families. Prolonging it with attempts to do things like collect “evidence” or present whiz bang briefings on a new plasma screen TV is wasteful and ultimately, dulls the edge of our Infantry soldiers who are trained to kill people and break things, not necessarily in that order.

We are not in Iraq and Afghanistan to build nations. We are there to kill our enemies. We make the work of the State Department easier by the results we achieve.

It is only possible to defeat an enemy who kills indiscriminately by utterly destroying him. He cannot be made to yield or surrender. He will fight to the death by the hundreds to kill only one or two of us.

And so far, all of our “games” have been “away games,” and I don’t know about the ignorant, treasonous Democrats and the completely insane radical leftists and their thoughts on the matter, but I would like to keep our road game schedule.

So let’s get it done. Until the fight is won and there is no more fight left.

Hagbard Celine
02-01-2007, 04:14 PM
I thought this was interesting and really says it like it is.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/

Things that I am tired of in this war:

I am tired of Democrats saying they are patriotic and then insulting my commander in chief and the way he goes about his job.

I am tired of Democrats who tell me they support me, the soldier on the ground, and then tell me the best plan to win this war is with a “phased redeployment” (liberal-speak for retreat) out of the combat zone to someplace like Okinawa.

I am tired of the Democrats whining for months on T.V., in the New York Times, and in the House and Senate that we need more troops to win the war in Iraq, and then when my Commander in Chief plans to do just that, they say that is the wrong plan, it won’t work, and we need a “new direction.”

I am tired of every Battalion Sergeant Major and Command Sergeant Major I see over here being more concerned about whether or not I am wearing my uniform in the “spot on,” most garrison-like manner; instead of asking me whether or not I am getting the equipment I need to win the fight, the support I need from my chain of command, or if the chow tastes good.

I am tired of junior and senior officers continually doubting the technical expertise of junior enlisted soldiers who are trained far better to do the jobs they are trained for than these officers believe.

I am tired of senior officers and commanders who fight this war with more of an eye on the media than on the enemy, who desperately needs killing.

I am tired of the decisions of Sergeants and Privates made in the heat of battle being scrutinized by lawyers who were not there and will never really know the state of mind of the young soldiers who were there and what is asked of them in order to survive.

I am tired of CNN claiming that they are showing “news,” with videotape sent to them by terrorists, of my comrades being shot at by snipers, but refusing to show what happens when we build a school, pave a road, hand out food and water to children, or open a water treatment plant.

I am tired of following the enemy with drones that have cameras, and then dropping bombs that sometimes kill civilians; because we could do a better job of killing the right people by sending a man with a high powered rifle instead.

I am tired of the thousands of people in the rear who claim that they are working hard to support me when I see them with their mochas and their PX Bags walking down the street, in the middle of the day, nowhere near their workspaces.

I am tired of Code Pink, Daily Kos, Al-Jazzera, CNN, Reuters, the Associated Press, ABC, NBC, CBS, the ACLU, and CAIR thinking that they somehow get to have a vote in how we blast, shoot and kill these animals who would seek to subdue us and destroy us.

I am tired of people like Meredith Vieria from NBC asking oxygen thieves like Senator Chuck Hagel questions like “Senator, at this point, do you think we are fighting and dying for nothing?” Meredith might not get it, but soldiers do know the difference between fighting and dying for something and fighting and dying for nothing.

I am tired of hearing multiple stories from both combat theaters about snipers begging to do their jobs while commanders worry about how the media might portray the possible casualties and what might happen to their career.

I am tired of hearing that the Battalion Tactical Operations Center got a new plasma screen monitor for daily briefings, but rifle scope rings for sniper rifles, extra magazines, and necessary field gear were disapproved by the unit supply system.

I am tired of out of touch general officers, senators, congressmen and defense officials who think that giving me some more heavy body armor to wear is helping me stay alive. Speed is life in combat and wearing 55 to 90 pounds of gear for 12 to 20 hours a day puts me at a great tactical disadvantage to the idiot, mindless terrorist who is wearing no armor at all and carrying an AK-47 and a pistol.

I am tired of soldiers who are stationed in places like Kuwait and who are well away from any actual combat getting Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger Pay and the Combat Zone Tax Exclusion when they live on a base that has a McDonald’s, a Pizza Hut, a Subway, a Baskin Robbins, an internet café, 2 coffee shops and street lights.

I am tired of senior officers and commanders who take it out and "measure" every time they want to have a piece of the action with their helicopters or their artillery; instead of putting their egos aside and using their equipment to support the grunt on the ground.

I am tired of senior officers and commanders who are too afraid for their careers to tell the truth about what they need to win this war to their bosses so that the soldiers can get on with kicking the ass of these animals.

I am tired of Rules of Engagement being made by JAG lawyers and not Combat Commanders. We are not playing Hopscotch over here. There is no 2nd place trophy either. I think that if the enemy knew some rough treatment and some deprivation was at hand for them, instead of prayer rugs, special diets and free Korans; this might help get their terrorist minds “right.”

I am tired of seeing Active Duty Army and Marine units being extended past their original redeployment dates, when there are National Guard Units that have yet to deploy to a combat zone in the last 40 years.

I am tired of hearing soldiers who are stationed in safe places talk about how hard their life is.

I am tired of seeing Infantry Soldiers conducting what amounts to “SWAT” raids and performing the US Army’s version of “CSI Iraq” and doing things like filling out forms for evidence when they could be better used to hunt and kill the enemy.

I am tired of senior officers and commanders who look first in their planning for how many casualties we might take, instead of how many enemy casualties we might inflict.

I am tired of begging to be turned loose so that this war can be over.

Those of us who fight this war want to win it and go home to their families. Prolonging it with attempts to do things like collect “evidence” or present whiz bang briefings on a new plasma screen TV is wasteful and ultimately, dulls the edge of our Infantry soldiers who are trained to kill people and break things, not necessarily in that order.

We are not in Iraq and Afghanistan to build nations. We are there to kill our enemies. We make the work of the State Department easier by the results we achieve.

It is only possible to defeat an enemy who kills indiscriminately by utterly destroying him. He cannot be made to yield or surrender. He will fight to the death by the hundreds to kill only one or two of us.

And so far, all of our “games” have been “away games,” and I don’t know about the ignorant, treasonous Democrats and the completely insane radical leftists and their thoughts on the matter, but I would like to keep our road game schedule.

So let’s get it done. Until the fight is won and there is no more fight left.

Hmm. I saw some bitching about democrats and then some technical, self-righteous military gobblety-gook about what a badass this guy thinks he is for doing his job. Odd though that I didn't see anything in there about this guy being tired of seeing caskets with US flags draped over them being sent home on cargo planes. Or about him being tired of Republicans continually supporting administrative policies that have resulted in more of those caskets being shipped home than was necessary. Funny he calls the president his "commander in chief" as if the moniker alone should be enough to command respect. Well it isn't. When your policies have failed as miserably as this president's have, US citizens and most importantly, US military personnel should be the first to wake up and say "Gee, maybe something's amiss. Maybe this guy is either stupid or doesn't have my best interests at heart."

You might-as-well have wiped your ass with the flag and splattered it onto your computer monitor. The gist would've been the same. So you're a Republican. I could tell from your militaristic avatar. You didn't have to beat the horse any more. It was already dead!

Gaffer
02-01-2007, 05:33 PM
His primary beef was with the suits and lawyers running war. And the democrats trying to control what the military does and run the war like they did in Vietnam.

Are you against the war in Afganistan? you know the one that gets ignored by the media because we went in to get al queda and doesn't play well with their efforts to make Bush look bad. The war that has been going on longer than iraq.

More flag draped caskets are coming back and will come back because the islamists watch our news reports and know they can manipulate the thinking of Americans like yourself.

Nope, I'm not a republican, I'm an independent conservative athiest. And a combat veteran, so don't even go there that I don't know what's going on over there and am sitting here safe making comments about the war.

The Sergeant did make a point that something is amiss. He stated that there were too many suits and lawyers calling the shots over there. I agree. The troops and the officers shouldn't have to worry about how their action will be percieved, after the fact, by some lawyer.

jillian
02-01-2007, 06:23 PM
His primary beef was with the suits and lawyers running war. And the democrats trying to control what the military does and run the war like they did in Vietnam.

Are you against the war in Afganistan? you know the one that gets ignored by the media because we went in to get al queda and doesn't play well with their efforts to make Bush look bad. The war that has been going on longer than iraq.

More flag draped caskets are coming back and will come back because the islamists watch our news reports and know they can manipulate the thinking of Americans like yourself.

Nope, I'm not a republican, I'm an independent conservative athiest. And a combat veteran, so don't even go there that I don't know what's going on over there and am sitting here safe making comments about the war.

The Sergeant did make a point that something is amiss. He stated that there were too many suits and lawyers calling the shots over there. I agree. The troops and the officers shouldn't have to worry about how their action will be percieved, after the fact, by some lawyer.


Funny... that's not even close to what I read on IAVA.org the Iraq/Afghanistan Vets site. They seem to be far more troubled by other things. Like lack of supplies. Lack of facilities on their return. Long waits for psychiatric treatment for soldiers returning with Post-Traumatic Stress, etc.


Veterans Feel Left Out, Ignored in Bush Speech
January 24, 2007 10:31 AM

Dana Hughes Reports:

It's not what President Bush said but what he left out of his State of the Union address that has outraged a major veteran's group, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

In his nearly one-hour State of the Union address, President Bush never mentioned the 1.6 million veterans the war has already produced, while repeatedly asking the American public and Congress to support his plan to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq.

"For the second year in a row, the president chose to mention the troops only really as a prop for his policies and ignored that these folks are coming home as new veterans," says Paul Rieckhoff, the executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and an Iraq war veteran himself.

The lack of a mention shows "veterans aren't a priority for the Bush administration," says Rieckhoff.

Rieckhoff says, in his view, it's irresponsible for Bush to talk about increasing troops in the ongoing war without addressing shortcomings in health care and economic benefits that now plague an overburdened Veterans Affairs Administration.

"It might not be politically palpable for him, but he's got to talk about how he's gonna deal with folks with no arms, folks who've been paralyzed, folks who're at Walter Reed and also the folks who've come home and are facing their second and third deployment," says Rieckhoff.

Rieckhoff also says addressing the issue of returning veterans is not only the right thing to do but also critical to recruitment and morale. "It sends a bad message to young people if they don't hear that Americans take care of their veterans," he says. "It's going to make them reluctant to join, and it's going to ultimately endanger our national security."

A spokesperson for the White House told ABC News, "The president regularly expresses his strong support for America's veterans and his commitment to insuring they receive the support they've earned," and to expect a large increase for the Veteran's Department in the president's proposed 2008 budget.

http://iava.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2351&Itemid=116

Gunny
02-01-2007, 07:54 PM
Funny... that's not even close to what I read on IAVA.org the Iraq/Afghanistan Vets site. They seem to be far more troubled by other things. Like lack of supplies. Lack of facilities on their return. Long waits for psychiatric treatment for soldiers returning with Post-Traumatic Stress, etc.



http://iava.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2351&Itemid=116

Well, I can hardly wait to see what the Dem's are going to do for the Vets. Matter of fact, I didn't notice a concern for disabled vets anywhere in Pelosi's 100 Hour Paper Drill.

The issue of VA benefits is jsut like the issue of illegal immigration when it comes to Dems pointing fingers at Republicans ... the pot calling the kettle black.

Gaffer
02-01-2007, 08:13 PM
The VA and its facilities have nothing to do with the post I made from the Sergeant.

Ever been to a VA hospital? Its socialized medicine on a small scale. Its a good subject to discuss but prefer to do that in another thread.

jillian
02-01-2007, 08:26 PM
The VA and its facilities have nothing to do with the post I made from the Sergeant.

Ever been to a VA hospital? Its socialized medicine on a small scale. Its a good subject to discuss but prefer to do that in another thread.

It does in the sense that your guy says he is tired of people insinuating that *his* CinC is doing a horrific job. I merely pointed out Reikoff's opinion, and apparently he speaks for a good number of Iraq and Afghanistan vets, that it is irresponsible for the CinC to talk about more troops when he can't take care of the ones he has.

You think troops should have to get their own medical care when they've lost limbs in the service of their country? Also, a good portion of this country was built on the GI Bill after WWII. And I don't think we're any the worse for wear for it.

Gaffer
02-01-2007, 09:31 PM
It does in the sense that your guy says he is tired of people insinuating that *his* CinC is doing a horrific job. I merely pointed out Reikoff's opinion, and apparently he speaks for a good number of Iraq and Afghanistan vets, that it is irresponsible for the CinC to talk about more troops when he can't take care of the ones he has.

You think troops should have to get their own medical care when they've lost limbs in the service of their country? Also, a good portion of this country was built on the GI Bill after WWII. And I don't think we're any the worse for wear for it.

I definately don't think the troops should have to get their own medical care. I am very familiar with the VA benifits which have been getting better over the recent years. I use the VA myself. Went to college on the GI bill and bought my first house with a VA guaranteed loan. The VA has improved greatly under Bush and I expect it will continue.

The CinC makes decisions based on strategies presented to him. If those strategies are wrong or things go bad he must look at new or changed strategies. That doesn't make him a horrific leader. Most strategies need to be upgraded daily. The Sergeant is griping about people who condem, when they really have no clue of what is happening either tactically or strategically.

jillian
02-02-2007, 06:40 PM
I definately don't think the troops should have to get their own medical care. I am very familiar with the VA benifits which have been getting better over the recent years. I use the VA myself. Went to college on the GI bill and bought my first house with a VA guaranteed loan. The VA has improved greatly under Bush and I expect it will continue.

Have facilities improved? Or have they just had to service more people because of the service people returning from Iraq? I'd like to see something credible which supports it. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the statement isn't what appears to be the case based on IAVA's information.


The CinC makes decisions based on strategies presented to him. If those strategies are wrong or things go bad he must look at new or changed strategies. That doesn't make him a horrific leader. Most strategies need to be upgraded daily. The Sergeant is griping about people who condem, when they really have no clue of what is happening either tactically or strategically.

It makes him a horrific leader when he pursues a failed agenda and refuses to listen to anyone who doesn't parrot his already made up mind. I agree that most strategies need to be updated frequently, which is what Bush hasn't done. As for the sarge, he's certainly entitled to his opinion, but I think not criticizing what most of us seem to believe is a misuse of brave young lives, goes against common sense.

Military people are mission driven. That's their job. It's the job of the CinC AND the civilians who send them to battle to define the mission.

Gaffer
02-02-2007, 07:32 PM
Well Jill the wounded returning from iraq and afgan are a drop in the bucket for the VA. And they do not get picked up by the VA until they are discharged. The system is better. The quality of care has improved tremendously. Especially with more facilities being opened. Remember the VA can be used by ALL veterans. So the numbers of those taking advantage of the help are going to vary.

Gunny
02-02-2007, 07:55 PM
The VA and its facilities have nothing to do with the post I made from the Sergeant.

Ever been to a VA hospital? Its socialized medicine on a small scale. Its a good subject to discuss but prefer to do that in another thread.

Yeah, but I can't find much wrong with what the Sgt has to say. His gripes pretty-much mirror my own.

Unfortunately for the Sgt, and anyone else with the same general viewpoint, pragmatism takes a back seat to political ass-kissing and an agenda-driven media.

I CAN however find fault with someone spouting the party rhetoric concerning the VA.:wink2:

TheStripey1
02-02-2007, 07:59 PM
Afghanistan... isn't that the place where Osama Bin Laden was supposedly holed up? what ever happened to bush's edict...

Wanted Dead or Alive?

How come we cut and ran from there to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? Had the 160,000 troops currently in or scheduled to be in Iraq had been sent to Afghanistan we might have actually CAUGHT Osama Bin Laden instead of what we have done now...

Emboldened Iran...

Good job, george...

NOT!!!

TheStripey1
02-02-2007, 08:03 PM
and obtw.... Re: the sarge's post... he's welcome to his opinion... I just don't share it...

but I bet you guessed that by now... :dev:

Gunny
02-02-2007, 08:08 PM
Have facilities improved? Or have they just had to service more people because of the service people returning from Iraq? I'd like to see something credible which supports it. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the statement isn't what appears to be the case based on IAVA's information.

We have a brand new VA facility. And as Gaffer mentioned, the VA doesn't get these people until they are released from their branch of service.

In case you missed it, Billary was here this past week for the opening of a brand-new, state-of-the art rehab facility at Brooke Army Medical Center for vets returning with disabling wounds.



It makes him a horrific leader when he pursues a failed agenda and refuses to listen to anyone who doesn't parrot his already made up mind. I agree that most strategies need to be updated frequently, which is what Bush hasn't done. As for the sarge, he's certainly entitled to his opinion, but I think not criticizing what most of us seem to believe is a misuse of brave young lives, goes against common sense.

Military people are mission driven. That's their job. It's the job of the CinC AND the civilians who send them to battle to define the mission.

Really? You libs bitched for how many years Bush needed to send more troops. Now he's sending more. You're against that. Firmly supports my opinion that no matter what decision he makes, it will be the wrong one to you lefties, and you're more than willing to reverse course in the middle of the dance to make it so.

It may be the job of the civilians and the CinC to define the mission, but it is amateurish interference for them to tell professionals in the field how to get it done.

"Sarge" is a disprespectful term.:no:

You're criticizing what he's doing, and he's dishing it back. You call the Iraq War an "illegal" war, or Bush's War, not our war. There's no united front, and you want to hide behind your right to free speech as an excuse. Undermining the mission and morale goes a lot more against common sense than knowing when and how to voice disagreement.

Gunny
02-02-2007, 08:11 PM
Afghanistan... isn't that the place where Osama Bin Laden was supposedly holed up? what ever happened to bush's edict...

Wanted Dead or Alive?

How come we cut and ran from there to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? Had the 160,000 troops currently in or scheduled to be in Iraq had been sent to Afghanistan we might have actually CAUGHT Osama Bin Laden instead of what we have done now...

Emboldened Iran...

Good job, george...

NOT!!!

Who's cut and run from Afghanistan? Last I heard, the remnants of the Taliban and AQ are holed up in caves while the country enjoys a modicum of freedom.

But if crossed the Pakisatan border without permission, people of your ilk would be screaming your lungs out about that.

Gunny
02-02-2007, 08:14 PM
and obtw.... Re: the sarge's post... he's welcome to his opinion... I just don't share it...

but I bet you guessed that by now... :dev:

Try walking a mile in the Sergeant's shoes before running your suck.

TheStripey1
02-02-2007, 08:19 PM
Try walking a mile in the Sergeant's shoes before running your suck.

Been to Nam... tyvm... how about you, gunny, you been to war?

TheStripey1
02-02-2007, 08:25 PM
Who's cut and run from Afghanistan? Last I heard, the remnants of the Taliban and AQ are holed up in caves while the country enjoys a modicum of freedom.

But if crossed the Pakisatan border without permission, people of your ilk would be screaming your lungs out about that.

We cut and ran from Afghanistan without completing the mission... did we find osama been forgotten? or the one eyed mullah? the Taliban is gaining strength even as we type and Al Qaeda? They're in Iraq... Al Anbar province... bush invited them... don't you recall this little bit of bravado?

Bring 'em ON!

define "my ilk"... you're pretty offensive for not knowing who you're talking to... :upyours:

Gunny
02-02-2007, 08:28 PM
Been to Nam... tyvm... how about you, gunny, you been to war?

I have. Your point is what, exactly?

Gunny
02-02-2007, 11:18 PM
We cut and ran from Afghanistan without completing the mission... did we find osama been forgotten? or the one eyed mullah? the Taliban is gaining strength even as we type and Al Qaeda? They're in Iraq... Al Anbar province... bush invited them... don't you recall this little bit of bravado?

Bring 'em ON!

define "my ilk"... you're pretty offensive for not knowing who you're talking to... :upyours:

The Taliban is "gaining strength" hiding out in caves and across the border in Pakistan? A far cry from controlling the government of Afghanistan as it once did.

It's kind of obvious bin Laden is hiding somewhere we aren't allowed to go. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Or do you think it's not okay to invade Iraq, but is okay to violate the sovereignty of any and every other border we feel like looking for one man?

AQ was in Iraq before the US went in. Not even a good try.

I don't need to know who I'm talking to, I can smell you and your uneducated, extremist rhetoric. All I see are three talking points from the entry-level, left-wingnut handbook.

Gaffer
02-02-2007, 11:47 PM
We cut and ran from Afghanistan without completing the mission... did we find osama been forgotten? or the one eyed mullah? the Taliban is gaining strength even as we type and Al Qaeda? They're in Iraq... Al Anbar province... bush invited them... don't you recall this little bit of bravado?

Bring 'em ON!

define "my ilk"... you're pretty offensive for not knowing who you're talking to... :upyours:

We are still in afganhistan. There are 40,000 NATO troops there now. There is serious fighting going on along the south pak border. Where is the media coverage on that? They are all in iraq trying to make Bush look bad.

bin laden and one eye are either in pakistan or iran. Safe and cozy.

When someone calling himself a vet makes the comments you have I question the vet status, just as Gunny has. I'm a combat vet myself and I don't care who I'm talking too. Get off your high horse.

retiredman
02-02-2007, 11:59 PM
?

AQ was in Iraq before the US went in. Not even a good try.



false.

and even if they WERE there, it was certainly without Saddam's knowledge or approval. Hell AQ was HERE IN THE US before 9/11...in Florida and Oklahoma...in Maine... in Boston..... what does THAT proove?

Gaffer
02-03-2007, 12:30 AM
false.

and even if they WERE there, it was certainly without Saddam's knowledge or approval. Hell AQ was HERE IN THE US before 9/11...in Florida and Oklahoma...in Maine... in Boston..... what does THAT proove?

They are still here, as are hizbollah and hamas.

Al queda had a full blown training camp in northern iraq. There were a couple of hundred men there. The kurds with the help of special forces destroyed the camp and the survivors fled into iran. There's no way that camp could have been there without saddams blessing.

Just because the shea and sunnis hate each other doesn't mean they won't join forces against a common enemy. There are a number of al queda hiding out in iran right now. Including bin ladens son.

Gunny
02-03-2007, 12:38 PM
false.

and even if they WERE there, it was certainly without Saddam's knowledge or approval. Hell AQ was HERE IN THE US before 9/11...in Florida and Oklahoma...in Maine... in Boston..... what does THAT proove?

First, you are incorrect.

Second, can you explain how you can state "false" as your fist statement, then begin your second with "and even if they WERE there ..."?

Third, I did not state whether or not I beleive Saddam had any knowledge or approved.

I doubt that the current Iraqi government approves of AQ's presence.

What it proves, and thank your just strengthening my argument for me, is that AQ is going to be wherever it wants regardless who is in power there, and/or who is President of the US.

theHawk
02-07-2007, 11:00 AM
false.

and even if they WERE there, it was certainly without Saddam's knowledge or approval. Hell AQ was HERE IN THE US before 9/11...in Florida and Oklahoma...in Maine... in Boston..... what does THAT proove?

When 9/11 happened the President said we would treat those that harbor terrorist the same as terrorists. So it means we would round up terrorists and capture/kill them no matter where they are, in the U.S., in Afganistan, in Iraq...

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 11:35 AM
His primary beef was with the suits and lawyers running war. And the democrats trying to control what the military does and run the war like they did in Vietnam.

Are you against the war in Afganistan? you know the one that gets ignored by the media because we went in to get al queda and doesn't play well with their efforts to make Bush look bad. The war that has been going on longer than iraq.

More flag draped caskets are coming back and will come back because the islamists watch our news reports and know they can manipulate the thinking of Americans like yourself.

Nope, I'm not a republican, I'm an independent conservative athiest. And a combat veteran, so don't even go there that I don't know what's going on over there and am sitting here safe making comments about the war.

The Sergeant did make a point that something is amiss. He stated that there were too many suits and lawyers calling the shots over there. I agree. The troops and the officers shouldn't have to worry about how their action will be percieved, after the fact, by some lawyer.

Let me get this straight... the dems are to blame because they didn't do what exactly?

Who has been in charge of the War in Afghanistan since it's beginnning back in October of '01?

Is it the dems? noooooooooo... it's the do nothing repugs who have been doing nothing but flapping their gums SAYING they support the troops...

I supported the War on Afghanistan when we went in... I stopped supporting the war in Afghanistan when bush stopped caring about catching Osama Been Forgotten and I became a staunch anti-bush when he invaded Iraq.

Which war were you in, gaffer? Did you volunteer to go?

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 11:42 AM
"Sarge" is a disprespectful term.:no:




No it isn't... Sergeants have been called sarge for decades... I was called Sarge when I was in back in the 60s... so was my daddy... and his daddy before him, my maternal grandfather didn't make it to sarge status because he was wounded during the invasion at Anzio...

where do you right winged whackoes come up with this crap?

Gunny
02-10-2007, 11:43 AM
Let me get this straight... the dems are to blame because they didn't do what exactly?

Who has been in charge of the War in Afghanistan since it's beginnning back in October of '01?

Is it the dems? noooooooooo... it's the do nothing repugs who have been doing nothing but flapping their gums SAYING they support the troops...

I supported the War on Afghanistan when we went in... I stopped supporting the war in Afghanistan when bush stopped caring about catching Osama Been Forgotten and I became a staunch anti-bush when he invaded Iraq.

Which war were you in, gaffer? Did you volunteer to go?

So capturing or killing OBL will solve the whole, Islamofascist problem, huh?

I don't think so.

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 11:47 AM
I have. Your point is what, exactly?

I didn't say IN the service... I said Have YOU been to WAR... you know... walked in their boots... been shot at...

you asked me the same question... so have you? Or do you think that ONLY right winged war mongers can ask that question?

red states rule
02-10-2007, 11:52 AM
Have facilities improved? Or have they just had to service more people because of the service people returning from Iraq? I'd like to see something credible which supports it. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the statement isn't what appears to be the case based on IAVA's information.



It makes him a horrific leader when he pursues a failed agenda and refuses to listen to anyone who doesn't parrot his already made up mind. I agree that most strategies need to be updated frequently, which is what Bush hasn't done. As for the sarge, he's certainly entitled to his opinion, but I think not criticizing what most of us seem to believe is a misuse of brave young lives, goes against common sense.

Military people are mission driven. That's their job. It's the job of the CinC AND the civilians who send them to battle to define the mission.



Dems claim to support the the troops, but a huge number of Dems do NOT want the US to win the war

What is up with that?

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 11:56 AM
The Taliban is "gaining strength" hiding out in caves and across the border in Pakistan? A far cry from controlling the government of Afghanistan as it once did.

It's kind of obvious bin Laden is hiding somewhere we aren't allowed to go. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Or do you think it's not okay to invade Iraq, but is okay to violate the sovereignty of any and every other border we feel like looking for one man?

AQ was in Iraq before the US went in. Not even a good try.

I don't need to know who I'm talking to, I can smell you and your uneducated, extremist rhetoric. All I see are three talking points from the entry-level, left-wingnut handbook.

Had we applied the same force to Afghanistan that we wasted in attacking Iraq, we might have actually CAUGHT Bin Laden and the one eyed mullah too...

so gunny, where do you get your news?

Yeah... Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the invasion... they were called Al Ansawar (sp?) or something similar... but not to the extent they are there now... cuz they were holed up in KURDISH territory, hiding under the no fly zone umbrella... and had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Saddam...

but now they OWN Al Anbar province... and according to some journalists, have formed their own state within the country... and they've managed to start a civil war in the rest of the country...

but that's for another thread in another forum... I'll find it later... let's get back to Afghanistan...

How about those poppies?

jillian
02-10-2007, 11:57 AM
Really? You libs bitched for how many years Bush needed to send more troops. Now he's sending more. You're against that. Firmly supports my opinion that no matter what decision he makes, it will be the wrong one to you lefties, and you're more than willing to reverse course in the middle of the dance to make it so.

It may be the job of the civilians and the CinC to define the mission, but it is amateurish interference for them to tell professionals in the field how to get it done.

"Sarge" is a disprespectful term.:no:

You're criticizing what he's doing, and he's dishing it back. You call the Iraq War an "illegal" war, or Bush's War, not our war. There's no united front, and you want to hide behind your right to free speech as an excuse. Undermining the mission and morale goes a lot more against common sense than knowing when and how to voice disagreement.

Sarge isn't disrespectful, at all. I have a good buddy in the Air Force (he's going back for his 3rd trip to the desert in September) and I've called him sarge since the day we met online.

The only one who undermined the mission was your CinC and his cronies who mishandled it to the point where even an original PNAC neo-con like Paul Wolfowitz, who supported it say they never would have done so if they'd *known* how badly this would be handled. Iraq was used as an excuse to pursue the agenda of reshaping the middle east as set forth in the PNAC letter to Bill Clinton in 1998. See:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

I will always voice my disagreement when I see people dying for absolutely no reason. Bush has done absolutely nothing to earn my support, respect or silence.

I figure since I have a boy and if they keep this stuff up, there WILL need to be a draft, that I get to have my say. The neo-cons cannot keep using "oh... you're undermining the mission" in order to silence dissent... which comprises approximtely 2/3 of the country right now. Would you prefer we were all silent and the country left ignorant about how bad things are there?

Gunny
02-10-2007, 11:57 AM
I didn't say IN the service... I said Have YOU been to WAR... you know... walked in their boots... been shot at...

you asked me the same question... so have you? Or do you think that ONLY right winged war mongers can ask that question?

I answered the question. To be more specific, I have been in combat, while in the service, and wearing the same crappy, no-support combat boots every other grunt had on his dogs.

But I did not ask a question. I made an assumption that you were some left-wing, armchair quarterback since they are far more abundant than left-wing combat vets who can't see that there's a time to stop talking and start playing the game.

I am far from a war-mongerer. When dealing with an enemy whose idea of "compromise" is us dead, words are wasted air.

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 12:00 PM
I don't need to know who I'm talking to, I can smell you and your uneducated, extremist rhetoric. All I see are three talking points from the entry-level, left-wingnut handbook.

You better pull your head out of your ass, bunny, cuz you ain't seeing anything but shit now...

here's gunny looking for his news...

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

Gunny
02-10-2007, 12:00 PM
Sarge isn't disrespectful, at all. I have a good buddy in the Air Force (he's going back for his 3rd trip to the desert in September) and I've called him sarge since the day we met.

The only one who undermined the mission was your CinC and his cronies who mishandled it to the point where even an original PNAC neo-con like Paul Wolfowitz, who supported it say they never would have done so if they'd *known* how badly this would be handled. Iraq was used as an excuse to pursue the agenda of reshaping the middle east as set forth in the PNAC letter to Bill Clinton in 1998. See:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

I will always voice my disagreement when I see people dying for absolutely no reason. Bush has done absolutely nothing to earn my support, respect or silence.

I figure since I have a boy and if they keep this stuff up, there WILL need to be a draft, that I get to have my say. The neo-cons cannot keep using "oh... you're undermining the mission" in order to silence dissent... which comprises approximtely 2/3 of the country right now. Would you prefer we were all silent and the country left ignorant about how bad things are there.

You are absolutely incorrect. "Sarge" is a disrespectful term, period. Dirtbags get called "Sarge."

Still trying to sell that 2/3's of the country don't support the war crap? Two-thirds don't support the way it is being conducted, a difference you refuse to acknowledge.

Gunny
02-10-2007, 12:01 PM
You better pull your head out of your ass, bunny, cuz you ain't seeing anything but shit now...

here's gunny looking for his news...

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

Oh wow ...I guess you told me.:uhoh:

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 12:03 PM
We are still in afganhistan. There are 40,000 NATO troops there now. There is serious fighting going on along the south pak border. Where is the media coverage on that? They are all in iraq trying to make Bush look bad.

bin laden and one eye are either in pakistan or iran. Safe and cozy.

When someone calling himself a vet makes the comments you have I question the vet status, just as Gunny has. I'm a combat vet myself and I don't care who I'm talking too. Get off your high horse.


Get off your own high horses before you tell me to get off mine... :upyours:

you right winged war mongers aren't the only vets on this board... so did you actually GO to war or do you just talk about it like most of the repuglican congress critters do...

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 12:04 PM
and even if they WERE there, it was certainly without Saddam's knowledge or approval. Hell AQ was HERE IN THE US before 9/11...in Florida and Oklahoma...in Maine... in Boston..... what does THAT proove?

good point... :clap:

jillian
02-10-2007, 12:06 PM
Hey, Gunny... I think I just clicked edit instead of reply when I answered you.

I'm going back in now to delete my part of it so it doesn't show up in your post.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.... still learning the controls. :mad:

Gunny
02-10-2007, 12:06 PM
Get off your own high horses before you tell me to get off mine... :upyours:

you right winged war mongers aren't the only vets on this board... so did you actually GO to war or do you just talk about it like most of the repuglican congress critters do...

Try scolling up and READING instead of trying so hard to be an insufferable ass.

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 12:07 PM
They are still here, as are hizbollah and hamas.

Al queda had a full blown training camp in northern iraq. There were a couple of hundred men there. The kurds with the help of special forces destroyed the camp and the survivors fled into iran. There's no way that camp could have been there without saddams blessing.

Just because the shea and sunnis hate each other doesn't mean they won't join forces against a common enemy. There are a number of al queda hiding out in iran right now. Including bin ladens son.



Hamas is in Iraq? Hezbollah too? where DO you get your news?

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 12:08 PM
When 9/11 happened the President said we would treat those that harbor terrorist the same as terrorists. So it means we would round up terrorists and capture/kill them no matter where they are, in the U.S., in Afganistan, in Iraq...


But NOT in Pakistan.... why is that?

jillian
02-10-2007, 12:11 PM
You are absolutely incorrect. "Sarge" is a disrespectful term, period. Dirtbags get called "Sarge."

Still trying to sell that 2/3's of the country don't support the war crap? Two-thirds don't support the way it is being conducted, a difference you refuse to acknowledge.

Yeah... well, apparenly doesn't bother my friend, at least coming from me cause he knows it's not disrespectful Ah well..

And he refuses to change the way it's being conducted. This whole "surge" garbage, do you think, taking into account, troop rotations which will place approximately an extra 3,000 boots on the ground at the time is going to make a difference? You think our bravest should die in a civil war between Shi'a and Sunni? Sorry, I don't and Bush's judgment has been shown to be so flawed that I wouldn't believe a word he says if his tongue were notarized.

I'd have gone along with the Baker Commission's recommendations. Unfortunately, the "decider" didn't listen because it didn't comport with his whole "stay the course" insanity.

By the by, the 2/3 who you claim don't support the war the way it's being conducted (as opposed to not supporting the war), I'll concede that may be the case. But it is also true that the 2/3 doesn't trust your guy's judgment enough to give him any benefit of the doubt anymore... been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Gunny
02-10-2007, 12:11 PM
Hey, Gunny... I think I just clicked edit instead of reply when I answered you.

I'm going back in now to delete my part of it so it doesn't show up in your post.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.... still learning the controls. :mad:


Yeah... well, apparenly doesn't bother my friend, at least coming from me cause he knows it's not disrespectful Ah well..

And he refuses to change the way it's being conducted. This whole "surge" garbage, do you think, taking into account, troop rotations which will place approximately an extra 3,000 boots on the ground at the time is going to make a difference? You think our bravest should die in a civil war between Shi'a and Sunni? Sorry, I don't and Bush's judgment has been shown to be so flawed that I wouldn't believe a word he says if his tongue were notarized.

I'd have gone along with the Baker Commission's recommendations. Unfortunately, the "decider" didn't listen because it didn't comport with his whole "stay the course" insanity.

Obviously, he is changing the way it's being conducted. If you're looking for some major overhaul, it isn't going to happen. The reality of the situation does not support it.

As far as whether or not the additional troops will help, you tell me, since this time last year you lefties were dogging Bush out for not sending enough troops. Why would they have made a difference last year, but not this year?

jillian
02-10-2007, 12:15 PM
Obviously, he is changing the way it's being conducted. If you're looking for some major overhaul, it isn't going to happen. The reality of the situation does not support it.

As far as whether or not the additional troops will help, you tell me, since this time last year you lefties were dogging Bush out for not sending enough troops. Why would they have made a difference last year, but not this year?

You can call me "leftie" all you want. It's a facile means of disregarding what I am saying. I was all with you guys on Afghanistan. It was a focused effort, made sense in the context of what happened 9/11.

The reason the GENERALS screamed there were not enough troops at the beginning and now say more is useless is because it will not longer effect the outcome. There is a civil war, caused by the lack of knowledge or understanding or caring by the pres about what would happen after he put his size 12's into Iraq. There isn't ANYTHING our guys and gals can do in a civil war except die for no reason.

At the beginning, additional troops would have stabilized the country, secured the borders and things wouldn't have deteriorated into chaos.

I'm really not sure why you guys keep yelling about that. Different circumstances require different responses.... someone really should tell that to the decider who believes the same thing on Wednesday that he did on Monday.... regardless of what happened on Tuesday.

Gunny
02-10-2007, 12:15 PM
Yeah... well, apparenly doesn't bother my friend, at least coming from me cause he knows it's not disrespectful Ah well..

And he refuses to change the way it's being conducted. This whole "surge" garbage, do you think, taking into account, troop rotations which will place approximately an extra 3,000 boots on the ground at the time is going to make a difference? You think our bravest should die in a civil war between Shi'a and Sunni? Sorry, I don't and Bush's judgment has been shown to be so flawed that I wouldn't believe a word he says if his tongue were notarized.

I'd have gone along with the Baker Commission's recommendations. Unfortunately, the "decider" didn't listen because it didn't comport with his whole "stay the course" insanity.

By the by, the 2/3 who you claim don't support the war the way it's being conducted (as opposed to not supporting the war), I'll concede that may be the case. But it is also true that the 2/3 doesn't trust your guy's judgment enough to give him any benefit of the doubt anymore... been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Sorry Bush can't produce a miraculous, overnight change to appease the doomsayer opinion. That 2/3s don't trust his judgement is unsupported rhetoric.

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 12:17 PM
I answered the question. To be more specific, I have been in combat, while in the service, and wearing the same crappy, no-support combat boots every other grunt had on his dogs.

But I did not ask a question. I made an assumption that you were some left-wing, armchair quarterback since they are far more abundant than left-wing combat vets who can't see that there's a time to stop talking and start playing the game.

I am far from a war-mongerer. When dealing with an enemy whose idea of "compromise" is us dead, words are wasted air.


you made the WRONG assumption... cuz there are alot of lefty vets....

I enlisted in the Air Force in July of '66 and when the base I was stationed at was closed mid '67, I volunteered for Viet Nam...

I was there from October of '67 to October of '68 and although I was not in direct combat, I did endure many a mortar and rocket attack there in that OCCUPIED country... and I was wounded during one of them... and even to this day, my purple heart and $6 will get me two gallons of premium gas anywhere in the USA...

Gunny
02-10-2007, 12:20 PM
You can call me "leftie" all you want. It's a facile means of disregarding what I am saying. I was all with you guys on Afghanistan. It was a focused effort, made sense in the context of what happened 9/11.

LOL ... you take offense at my using the generalization "lefty;" yet, turn around and call me "you guys." Tsk tsk.:poke:

The reason the GENERALS screamed there were not enough troops at the beginning and now say more is useless is because it will not longer effect the outcome. There is a civil war, caused by the lack of knowledge or understanding or caring by the pres about what would happen after he put his size 12's into Iraq. There isn't ANYTHING our guys and gals can do in a civil war except die for no reason.

Assumption on your part. Iraq is easily-salvageable. It isn't as bad-off as you left-leaning, liberal, Democrat peoples would have us otherwise normal "you guys" believe.

At the beginning, additional troops would have stabilized the country, secured the borders and things wouldn't have deteriorated into chaos.

More troops then would have not meant any more or less than more troops now. It's the tactics that need to change, not the numbers. You can't thread the eye of a needle with a rope.

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 12:20 PM
You are absolutely incorrect. "Sarge" is a disrespectful term, period. Dirtbags get called "Sarge."

Still trying to sell that 2/3's of the country don't support the war crap? Two-thirds don't support the way it is being conducted, a difference you refuse to acknowledge.

Maybe they called you sarge for that reason.... and even after a short time "knowing you", I can see why, too.

but not every sergeant...

Gunny
02-10-2007, 12:22 PM
you made the WRONG assumption... cuz there are alot of lefty vets....

Not really, but I can see where you'd like to think so.

I enlisted in the Air Force in July of '66 and when the base I was stationed at was closed mid '67, I volunteered for Viet Nam...

Dad?

I was there from October of '67 to October of '68 and although I was not in direct combat, I did endure many a mortar and rocket attack there in that OCCUPIED country... and I was wounded during one of them... and even to this day, my purple heart and $6 will get me two gallons of premium gas anywhere in the USA...

You ARE my Dad ....geez.:bang3:

red states rule
02-10-2007, 12:22 PM
you made the WRONG assumption... cuz there are alot of lefty vets....

I enlisted in the Air Force in July of '66 and when the base I was stationed at was closed mid '67, I volunteered for Viet Nam...

I was there from October of '67 to October of '68 and although I was not in direct combat, I did endure many a mortar and rocket attack there in that OCCUPIED country... and I was wounded during one of them... and even to this day, my purple heart and $6 will get me two gallons of premium gas anywhere in the USA...

in 04, the military vote went to Pres Bush 75% - 25% for Kerry. Gore wanted to toss out the military vote in Florida in 2000

the military is overwhelming Republican these days

jillian
02-10-2007, 12:22 PM
Sorry Bush can't produce a miraculous, overnight change to appease the doomsayer opinion. That 2/3s don't trust his judgement is unsupported rhetoric.

He can't produce ANY change. His policies are failures. He needed to listen to his generals, not replace the ones who didn't buy Rummy's *vision* of doing the war "on the cheap".

Unsupported rhetoric? Like hell it is.

BTW, Hamas is in the Palestinian Territories. Hezbollah is in Lebanon.... neither is *in* Iraq any more than they are in this country.

Wanna know what the decider can do for our security and to fight terrorists? Fund alternative energy sources. Get us off of our oil dependence. Stop putting money into the hands of animals.

Hagbard Celine
02-10-2007, 12:23 PM
He can't produce ANY change. His policies are failures. He needed to listen to his generals, not replace the ones who didn't buy Rummy's *vision* of doing the war "on the cheap".

Unsupported rhetoric? Like hell it is.

BTW, Hamas is in the Palestinian Territories. Hezbollah is in Lebanon.... neither is *in* Iraq any more than they are in this country.

Wanna know what the decider can do for our security and to fight terrorists? Fund alternative energy sources. Get us off of our oil dependence. Stop putting money into the hands of animals.

You are a babe. I tried to rep you but I have to spread it around :(

Gunny
02-10-2007, 12:25 PM
Maybe they called you sarge for that reason.... and even after a short time "knowing you", I can see why, too.

but not every sergeant...

LOL .... I was NEVER called Sarge. Matter of fact, it was an Army Sergeant who pointed it out to me, because the very notion of addressing anyone other than by their correct rank or the accepted abbreviation never crossed my mind.

How come it is it's always the Air Force and Navy vets that turn out to be liberals?

red states rule
02-10-2007, 12:25 PM
You are a babe. I tried to rep you but I have to spread it around :(

Don't bother. Jilly is spreading "it" around for everyone

jillian
02-10-2007, 12:26 PM
You are a babe. I tried to rep you but I have to spread it around :(

Heh! Thanks for the thought.

Hagbard Celine
02-10-2007, 12:26 PM
in 04, the military vote went to Pres Bush 75% - 25% for Kerry. Gore wanted to toss out the military vote in Florida in 2000

the military is overwhelming Republican these days

Too bad. The civilian population (you know, the ones who pay the wages of the military? The ones the military works for?) are overwhelmingly against this war and against the president and his policies.

Gunny
02-10-2007, 12:27 PM
He can't produce ANY change. His policies are failures. He needed to listen to his generals, not replace the ones who didn't buy Rummy's *vision* of doing the war "on the cheap"

Unsupported rhetoric? Like hell it is.

This is all unsupported, broken-record, left-wing rhetoric. Nothing Bush does will ever be right, no matter how many times you have to switch positions on a topic.
BTW, Hamas is in the Palestinian Territories. Hezbollah is in Lebanon.... neither is *in* Iraq any more than they are in this country.

Okay. So?

Wanna know what the decider can do for our security and to fight terrorists? Fund alternative energy sources. Get us off of our oil dependence. Stop putting money into the hands of animals.

Well, yeah, THAT ought to make the Islamofascists go away.:uhoh:

red states rule
02-10-2007, 12:28 PM
Too bad. The civilian population (you know, the ones who pay the wages of the military? The ones the military works for?) are overwhelmingly against this war and against the president and his policies.

Thank God this President does not govern by polls (unlike Clinton)

The military knows how the libs feels about them

Hagbard Celine
02-10-2007, 12:31 PM
Thank God this President does not govern by polls (unlike Clinton)

The military knows how the libs feels about them

Yeah, it's rough when the party in power wants to give you more benefits and end the war that is putting your life in danger :rolleyes:

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 12:31 PM
Sorry Bush can't produce a miraculous, overnight change to appease the doomsayer opinion. That 2/3s don't trust his judgement is unsupported rhetoric.

I guess you were asleep during the election... cuz republicans don't control congress anymore... the ELECTORATE spoke out and they said WE want a CHANGE...

will bush listen?

no... and many many many more GIs will die because of it... so how many have to die before you are satisfied?

red states rule
02-10-2007, 12:33 PM
I guess you were asleep during the election... cuz republicans don't control congress anymore... the ELECTORATE spoke out and they said WE want a CHANGE...

will bush listen?

no... and many many many more GIs will die because of it... so how many have to die before you are satisfied?

and the terrorists are pulling for you cut and runners

prove OBL was correct when he said how America does not have the stomach for a fight

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 12:35 PM
More troops then would have not meant any more or less than more troops now. It's the tactics that need to change, not the numbers. You can't thread the eye of a needle with a rope.

More troops then might have stopped the looting... and that in and of itself could have changed the way things are going now... but there's no way to know cuz it didn't happen.... bush didn't listen to his general when he said they needed AT LEAST 250,000 troops, he fired him...

remember?

red states rule
02-10-2007, 12:37 PM
More troops then might have stopped the looting... and that in and of itself could have changed the way things are going now... but there's no way to know cuz it didn't happen.... bush didn't listen to his general when he said they needed AT LEAST 250,000 troops, he fired him...

remember?

you and Jilly would had had a feild day on D Day. My with all the bodies and the sea red with blood, you would have wanted the US to cut and run off the beaches

Oh, FDR was a Dem like you. You would have actually supported the military is winning the war

Gunny
02-10-2007, 12:42 PM
I guess you were asleep during the election... cuz republicans don't control congress anymore... the ELECTORATE spoke out and they said WE want a CHANGE...

will bush listen?

no... and many many many more GIs will die because of it... so how many have to die before you are satisfied?

The electorate has spoken? You libs wish. Republicans/conservatives abstaining from voting in protest and leaving the field to the dogs because they aren't smart enough to foresee the results of their actions is hardly "the electorate has spoken."

The there's the historical fact that two-term Presidents with a majority in Congress their first term always lose it the second term.

But keep up the delusion. It suits you.

And a couple of seats majority means the Dems can do exactly NOTHING without Republicans crossing the line.

Gunny
02-10-2007, 12:45 PM
More troops then might have stopped the looting... and that in and of itself could have changed the way things are going now... but there's no way to know cuz it didn't happen.... bush didn't listen to his general when he said they needed AT LEAST 250,000 troops, he fired him...

remember?

Might have? Saddam Hussein might have honored his end of the ceasefire agreement and the UN Resolution which would render the entire issue moot.

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 12:48 PM
you made the WRONG assumption... cuz there are alot of lefty vets....



gunny replied to this within my quote, making it impossible to reply to so I'll just requote me... he said I'd like to think so...

so here's the website for one of my viet nam veteran pals...

VPOCV (http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/)

and I'll ask him if he'll come and straighten you out... that is, help you pull your head out...

so gunny, how many of your republican congress critter heroes served in the military?

besides McCain... and Hagel...

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 12:51 PM
in 04, the military vote went to Pres Bush 75% - 25% for Kerry. Gore wanted to toss out the military vote in Florida in 2000

the military is overwhelming Republican these days

The military might be, maybe... but... what about those that send them to Iraq and Afghanistan... again and again and again and again... you know... the congress critters... are they veterans or did they have "other things to do" when it was their turn to serve?

Gunny
02-10-2007, 12:53 PM
gunny replied to this within my quote, making it impossible to reply to so I'll just requote me... he said I'd like to think so...

so here's the website for one of my viet nam veteran pals...

VPOCV (http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/)

and I'll ask him if he'll come and straighten you out... that is, help you pull your head out...

so gunny, how many of your republican congress critter heroes served in the military?

besides McCain... and Hagel...

Wow. There's TWO of you? I am s-o-o-o intimidated.:321:

Let me interject a little reality into your black-or-white-only thought process .... I didn't say liberal vets didn't exist. I said liberal armchair QBs are more prevalent.

But you trot out whoever you want .... I could give a rat's ass.

Hagbard Celine
02-10-2007, 12:53 PM
and the terrorists are pulling for you cut and runners

prove OBL was correct when he said how America does not have the stomach for a fight

Oh bullsh*t. Terrorists don't pull for anyone but themselves. This is especially applicable to US citizens, dem and rep alike. You're whole outlook on this war is wrong starting with how you see the Iraqi "people."

Mr. P
02-10-2007, 12:53 PM
and the terrorists are pulling for you cut and runners

prove OBL was correct when he said how America does not have the stomach for a fight

Bush has done that already. Having troops on the ground doesn't equal fighting.

I've said it before, if we are not going to kick ass we should leave. The effort is in neutral. That doesn't work for me. As far as more troops goes, it wouldn't matter how many we send if they are not allowed to do the job. Sadly, this has become a Vietnam 2.

red states rule
02-10-2007, 12:54 PM
The military might be, maybe... but... what about those that send them to Iraq and Afghanistan... again and again and again and again... you know... the congress critters... are they veterans or did they have "other things to do" when it was their turn to serve?

if you now want only those who served to decide when the US military fights - only 8% of the population would be empowered to order the military into war

Of course at the Pro Terrorists rally in DC two weeks ago, a peaceful anti war peace nik showed his love for a crippled Iraq war vet (he lost one leg below the knee) by spitting at him

Nothing like "supporting" the troops, eh?

Gunny
02-10-2007, 12:55 PM
The military might be, maybe... but... what about those that send them to Iraq and Afghanistan... again and again and again and again... you know... the congress critters... are they veterans or did they have "other things to do" when it was their turn to serve?

Who cares?

If you're trying to make a point, make it. Are you saying that military service is prerequisite to sending the US military to war?

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 12:55 PM
LOL .... I was NEVER called Sarge. Matter of fact, it was an Army Sergeant who pointed it out to me, because the very notion of addressing anyone other than by their correct rank or the accepted abbreviation never crossed my mind.

How come it is it's always the Air Force and Navy vets that turn out to be liberals?

My daddy was in the Army... he was a sergeant... his men called him sarge...

You know... Jesus was a liberal... why do you conservatives all hate liberals and yet claim, for the most part, to be Christian?

Going to church doesn't make you a CHRISTIAN anymore than standing in a garage, makes you a car.

Hagbard Celine
02-10-2007, 12:55 PM
Wow. There's TWO of you? I am s-o-o-o intimidated.:321:

Let me interject a little reality into your black-or-white-only thought process .... I didn't say liberal vets didn't exist. I said liberal armchair QBs are more prevalent.

But you trot out whoever you want .... I could give a rat's ass.

Whatever. I could've commanded this war better than Bush has because number one on my list of things to do would've been to LISTEN TO MY GENERALS. How's that for armchair QBacking? It ain't rocket science old man. It's simple numbers and common sense.

red states rule
02-10-2007, 12:56 PM
Oh bullsh*t. Terrorists don't pull for anyone but themselves. This is especially applicable to US citizens, dem and rep alike. You're whole outlook on this war is wrong starting with how you see the Iraqi "people."

You must have missed (or ignored) the glowing coverage Al Jazerra have ben giving the Dems in their anti war antics

Hagbard Celine
02-10-2007, 12:59 PM
Bush has done that already. Having troops on the ground doesn't equal fighting.

I've said it before, if we are not going to kick ass we should leave. The effort is in neutral. That doesn't work for me. As far as more troops goes, it wouldn't matter how many we send if they are not allowed to do the job. Sadly, this has become a Vietnam 2.

Look at my posts on the USMB website from two years ago. I told ya'll so two, maybe even three years ago.

I agree with your statement here. The effort's been in neutral since the invasion ended three years ago. The only thing sending more troops is going to do is create more US casualties. They don't have a mission, so what are they going to do? Stand around in Baghdad? How the f*ck is that "supporting the troops?"

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 01:00 PM
Jillian wrote this:

BTW, Hamas is in the Palestinian Territories. Hezbollah is in Lebanon.... neither is *in* Iraq any more than they are in this country.

and then gunny replied to it within her quote:

Okay. So?

So? I asked you where you got your news... cuz your words aren't supported by facts... hey... you in the white house too, gunny?

Gunny
02-10-2007, 01:02 PM
My daddy was in the Army... he was a sergeant... his men called him sarge...

You know... Jesus was a liberal... why do you conservatives all hate liberals and yet claim, for the most part, to be Christian?

Going to church doesn't make you a CHRISTIAN anymore than standing in a garage, makes you a car.

My grandfather was in the Army ... his men called him Sergeant Major. My father was in the Air Force back in your day and he was addressed as Sergeant. Since I wasn't around for the first, and a kid for the second, I'm not going to tell you what you dinosaurs called each other. From the time I enlisted in 1980 until I retired in 2000, it was an unacceptable term. Maybe its making a comeback.:uhoh:

I don't hate liberals. I don't agree with their political ideology.

Trying to identify yourself with Christ makes you no more of a Christian than just going to church does.

Gunny
02-10-2007, 01:03 PM
Jillian wrote this:

BTW, Hamas is in the Palestinian Territories. Hezbollah is in Lebanon.... neither is *in* Iraq any more than they are in this country.

and then gunny replied to it within her quote:

Okay. So?

So? I asked you where you got your news... cuz your words aren't supported by facts... hey... you in the white house too, gunny?

Since you're all over the place, please refresh my memory. Which words specifically are not supported by fact?

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 01:04 PM
Thank God this President does not govern by polls (unlike Clinton)

The military knows how the libs feels about them


Yeah... we'd like them home with their familes, protecting our own borders... not dying in another country for god only knows what reason du jour...

imagine that...

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 01:08 PM
and the terrorists are pulling for you cut and runners

prove OBL was correct when he said how America does not have the stomach for a fight

I volunteered for the war of my youth, did you? Or are you like the rest of the right winged chickenhawks, all talk and no walk?

bush cut and ran from afghanistan BEFORE the job was done and yet you still love him? why is that?

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 01:12 PM
you and Jilly would had had a feild day on D Day. My with all the bodies and the sea red with blood, you would have wanted the US to cut and run off the beaches

Oh, FDR was a Dem like you. You would have actually supported the military is winning the war

I have a real nice motorcycle for you to ride, red...

So take this for a nice spin... (http://www.anthonysapienza.com/motorcycle/larry.html)

WWII? what does THAT have to do with Afghanistan? is your attention span as long as your... dick?

red states rule
02-10-2007, 01:12 PM
Yeah... we'd like them home with their familes, protecting our own borders... not dying in another country for god only knows what reason du jour...

imagine that...

watching the reaction at the pro terrorist rally in DC two weeks ago, libs want the troops home - so they can be tried for war crimes

red states rule
02-10-2007, 01:13 PM
I volunteered for the war of my youth, did you? Or are you like the rest of the right winged chickenhawks, all talk and no walk?

bush cut and ran from afghanistan BEFORE the job was done and yet you still love him? why is that?

In which war and on which side did you serve?

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 01:14 PM
The electorate has spoken? You libs wish. Republicans/conservatives abstaining from voting in protest and leaving the field to the dogs because they aren't smart enough to foresee the results of their actions is hardly "the electorate has spoken."

The there's the historical fact that two-term Presidents with a majority in Congress their first term always lose it the second term.

But keep up the delusion. It suits you.

And a couple of seats majority means the Dems can do exactly NOTHING without Republicans crossing the line.


true in the senate... but the dems now have oversight... or haven't you noticed?

where DO you right wingers get your news? Fox Noise Channel? Washington Times? New York Post?

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 01:16 PM
Might have? Saddam Hussein might have honored his end of the ceasefire agreement and the UN Resolution which would render the entire issue moot.

hard to tell now isn't it?

He didn't have WMD... wasn't connected to 9/11... hated Al Qaeda... and yet we invaded anyway... now he's dead... and there's no end in sight for our involvement...

how many more GIs have to die before you war mongering right winged whackoes are satisfied?

red states rule
02-10-2007, 01:17 PM
true in the senate... but the dems now have oversight... or haven't you noticed?

where DO you right wingers get your news? Fox Noise Channel? Washington Times? New York Post?

so they have NON BINDING resolutions instead of showing some guts and trying to cuf off funding

this is why the terrorists are happy the Dems won - they are a tall tower of jello

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 01:18 PM
Wow. There's TWO of you? I am s-o-o-o intimidated.:321:

Let me interject a little reality into your black-or-white-only thought process .... I didn't say liberal vets didn't exist. I said liberal armchair QBs are more prevalent.

But you trot out whoever you want .... I could give a rat's ass.

It's obvious that you don't give a rat's ass about how many of our troops die for a lie...

red states rule
02-10-2007, 01:19 PM
hard to tell now isn't it?

He didn't have WMD... wasn't connected to 9/11... hated Al Qaeda... and yet we invaded anyway... now he's dead... and there's no end in sight for our involvement...

how many more GIs have to die before you war mongering right winged whackoes are satisfied?

there were direct links to Saddam and Al Qaeda. Of course facts never get in the way of libs talking points

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 01:21 PM
Bush has done that already. Having troops on the ground doesn't equal fighting.

I've said it before, if we are not going to kick ass we should leave. The effort is in neutral. That doesn't work for me. As far as more troops goes, it wouldn't matter how many we send if they are not allowed to do the job. Sadly, this has become a Vietnam 2.

If you recall rotor, I said way back when, on that board long long ago and far far away, that Iraq was going to be another Viet Nam and you didn't believe me...

welcome aboard...

beer, CWO?

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 01:26 PM
if you now want only those who served to decide when the US military fights - only 8% of the population would be empowered to order the military into war

Of course at the Pro Terrorists rally in DC two weeks ago, a peaceful anti war peace nik showed his love for a crippled Iraq war vet (he lost one leg below the knee) by spitting at him

Nothing like "supporting" the troops, eh?

Actually, I am in favor of Mandatory Military Service for ALL... except the severely infirm...

I'd like to see everyone serve... too bad those repugs in power now were only lip service patriots... they might have known what was going to happen when you OCCUPY a country...

spit on a vet? Sounds like bullsh*t to me... where do you get this crap? BillO? rush? savage? where?

red states rule
02-10-2007, 01:27 PM
If you recall rotor, I said way back when, on that board long long ago and far far away, that Iraq was going to be another Viet Nam and you didn't believe me...

welcome aboard...

beer, CWO?

Libs want to drink to a US loss in Iraq, and they probably smile when they see a news flash on another US Marine died in Iraq

Gunny
02-10-2007, 01:28 PM
true in the senate... but the dems now have oversight... or haven't you noticed?

where DO you right wingers get your news? Fox Noise Channel? Washington Times? New York Post?

Where do you get yours? NYT? Washington Post? CBS? ABC? Air Nazi-America? Oh, that's right .... the last no longer exists. Seems they couldn't attract an audience.

The Dems have oversight. Big deal. Back to business as usual in the ongoing witch hunts against Republicans. Been there, done that, watched 'em get tossed out on their ears before. It'll happen again.

red states rule
02-10-2007, 01:29 PM
Actually, I am in favor of Mandatory Military Service for ALL... except the severely infirm...

I'd like to see everyone serve... too bad those repugs in power now were only lip service patriots... they might have known what was going to happen when you OCCUPY a country...

spit on a vet? Sounds like bullsh*t to me... where do you get this crap? BillO? rush? savage? where?

NY Times was the source. It is not the first time the peace niks of the left have spit at military vets, and it will not be the last

Libs are for choice when it comes to abortion, but they will not give the folks a choice in to many other areas

red states rule
02-10-2007, 01:30 PM
Links to Saddam and al Queda



While it is still debatable to what degree Saddam Hussein supported the global terrorist network, it is becoming increasingly clear that Iraq provided terror groups with some forms of logistical, intelligence, transportation, training, weapons, and other support. The emerging evidence points to the conclusion that al Qaeda had a cooperative relationship — that is, a strategic alliance — with Iraq. The conventional wisdom has been that this could not have been the case because bin Laden, an Islamic fanatic reactionary, and Saddam, a secular Baathist modernizer, could never align or cooperate. On a personal level, they probably hated each other. If intelligence analysts approach their task with the premise that a relationship could not exist, they will lack the analytical framework necessary to piece together the clues that could demonstrate that it did. Maybe an Elvis Presley/Richard Nixon-type photo of the two would convince them, but not much else.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 101
But the premise is facile. The principle that drove Iraq and al Qaeda together is one of the oldest in international-relations theory — the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The motive for their alliance was a common hatred for the United States and Israel. Ideology seldom determines wartime-alliance structures, and for both Saddam and Osama the 1990s were wartime. The Iraq/al Qaeda combination is as reasonable as the temporary strategic alliance between the U.S. and the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany, or Syrian and American troops fighting side by side during Operation Desert Storm. (Note that it is hard to distinguish Syria from Iraq ideologically, and Baathist solidarity was certainly not a motivating factor in the relationship between the two countries.) Moreover, despite their personal dislike for each other, Saddam Hussein was the only state leader openly to praise bin Laden's attacks on the U.S. (if not bin Laden himself).

Saddam Hussein showed no reluctance to support terrorism per se during his career. The fact that he gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide terrorists and had a close working relationship with the PLO was well known, and something he admitted. The Iraqi regime maintained a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak near Baghdad where foreign terrorists were instructed in methods of taking over commercial aircraft using weapons no more sophisticated than knives (interesting thought that). Saddam also harbored Abu Nidal and other members of his international terror organization (ANO) in Baghdad. Abu Nidal died under suspicious circumstances in Baghdad in August 2002, an apparent multiple gunshot suicide. Abd-al-Rahman Isa, ANO's second in command based in Amman, Jordan, was kidnapped September 11, 2002, and has not been heard from since. Coalition forces did recently apprehend ANO member Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. He was hiding out in Baghdad. Another bomb maker, Abdul Rahman Yasin, was also a Baghdad resident. He was one of the conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing who had fled there after being detained briefly by the FBI. Recent document finds in Tikrit show that Iraq supplied Yasin with both money and sanctuary. The 1993 WTC attack was masterminded by Yasin's associate Ramzi Yousef, who received financial support from al Qaeda through Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key 9/11 planner.

There is also the case of Abu Zubayr, an officer in Saddam's secret police who was also the ringleader of an al Qaeda cell in Morocco. He attended the September 5, 2001 meeting in Spain with other al Qaeda operatives, including Ramzi Bin-al-Shibh, the 9/11 financial chief. Abu Zubayr was apprehended in May, 2002, while putting together a plot to mount suicide attacks on U.S. ships passing through the straits of Gibraltar. He has allegedly since stated that Iraq trained and supplied chemical weapons to al Qaeda. In the fall of 2001 al Qaeda refugees from Afghanistan took refuge in northern Iraq until they were driven out by Coalition forces, and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an al Qaeda terrorist active in Europe and North Africa, fled from Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He has reportedly been sent back to Iraq to coordinate al Qaeda activities there.

Iraq made direct payments to the Philippine-based al Qaeda-affiliated Abu Sayyaf group. Hamsiraji Sali, an Abu Sayyaf leader on the U.S. most-wanted terrorist list, stated that his gang received about one million pesos (around $20,000) each year from Iraq, for chemicals to make bombs. The link was substantiated immediately after a bombing in Zamboanga City in October 2002 (in which three people were killed including an American Green Beret), when Abu Sayyaf leaders called up the deputy secretary of the Iraqi embassy in Manila, Husham Hussain. Six days later, the cell phone used to call Hussain was employed as the timer on a bomb set to go off near the Philippine military's Southern Command headquarters. Fortunately, the bomb failed to detonate, and the phone yielded various contact numbers, including Hussain's and Sali's. This evidence, coupled with other intelligence the Philippine government would not release, led to Hussain's expulsion in February 2003. In March, ten Iraqi nationals, some with direct links to al Qaeda, were rounded up in the Philippines and deported as undesirable aliens. In addition, two more consulate officials were expelled for spying.

The most intriguing potential link is reflected in documents found by Toronto Star reporter Mitch Potter in Baghdad in April, 2003. The documents detail direct links between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime dating back at least to 1998, and mention Osama bin Laden by name. The find supports an October 2001 report by William Safire that noted, among other things, a 1998 meeting in Baghdad between al Qaeda #2 Ayman al Zawahiri and Saddam's vice president, Taha Yasin Ramadan. Other reports have alleged bin Laden himself traveled to Iraq around that time, or at least planned to. Former Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, Farouk Hijazi, now in custody, allegedly met with bin Laden before the 9/11 attacks.

THE ATTA CASE
The alleged meeting between 9/11 team leader Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague, Czech Republic (CR) is a unique case in that the Czechs have been more adamant about proving it than the United States. Interior Minister Stanislav Gross held a press conference on October 26, 2001, revealing the details of the Prague connection. According to Czech police, visa records indicate that Atta visited Prague twice in 2000. His first confirmed visit was while he was in transit from Hamburg to Newark, New Jersey, June 2-3, 2000. The German newspaper Das Bild reported on October 25, 2001 that according to unnamed FBI sources, Atta met with Iraqi diplomat Ahmad Samir al-Ani in a cafe in Prague on June 2. Another report has it that Atta did not leave the airport terminal since he lacked a visa. Later that summer Atta flew back to the CR. He stayed one night in the Prague Hilton, and may have spent a brief period of time in the town of Kutna Hora, 35 miles north of Prague, under the name Mohammed Sayed Ahmed. During his second visit, he allegedly met with Ahmed Hedshani, the former Iraqi ambassador to Turkey.

The more controversial part of the story is the alleged meeting between Atta and al-Ani in the Iraqi embassy in Prague in the spring of 2001. Atta was identified based on photographs published after the 9/11 attacks by an informer who was at the embassy at the time and had met Atta, though said he was "not 100 percent sure" it was him. The Czech counterintelligence service (BIS) gives it a 70 percent probability. Al-Ani was expelled from the Czech Republic in April 22, 2001, for "activities which conflicted with his status." He was allegedly plotting an attack on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), which was also supporting Radio Free Iraq.

But if they met, why? It is unlikely they were discussing the alleged RFE/RL operation, since Atta had more important things to do and the Iraqis did not need his help with that one anyway. They might have been discussing the 9/11 attacks, but there is no evidence to support that claim. The article in Das Bild raised another, more intriguing possibility: The Iraqis were supplying Atta with anthrax spores for use in attacks on the United States. The anthrax attacks had commenced shortly before the article was published, and the idea seemed plausible at the time. In fact, it still does — the anthrax used in the attacks was weapons grade, the attacks originated from areas near where the hijackers had been active, and two years of investigation have not turned up the presupposed domestic perpetrator. At some point, you would think Occam's Razor would come into play.

The US Justice Department disputes most of the above. Because the US has no independent evidence that the 2001 meeting occurred, and since an examination of INS records published in May 2002 showed no movements corresponding to the Czech timeline, Justice concluded that the meeting could not have taken place. (The report did however show Atta going to Madrid for a week in January 2001, and to Zurich for twelve days in July 2001.) Yet, the Prague meeting came and went in a day or so. If Atta had traveled under an assumed name, a possibility the Justice Department acknowledged, he could have been there and back before anyone noticed. (Iraqi deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz also denied the meetings took place.) The affair has been a matter of contention between the U.S. and CR. Interior Minister Gross, BIS chief Jiri Ruzek, and Jan Klas, chairman of the parliamentary commission overseeing the BIS, have stated that thus far they have seen no evidence to challenge their conclusions. Clearly, the essential person to talk to is al-Ani. He was reportedly apprehended by U.S. forces on July 2, 2003, though where he was caught, where he is now, and what he has had to say about the alleged meetings, are all unanswered questions.

Last June, former CIA Director James Woolsey said that "there were enough connections [between al Qaeda] and Iraq and Iraqi intelligence that we ought to be looking at this very hard, as we capture files and people and hard disk drives in Iraq and so on, and see what we can turn up." There are more open-sourced links than those noted here — I would refer readers to Appendix A of Richard Miniter's Losing Bin Laden for some more noteworthy incidents and possible evidence of collusion. As I have noted before, Saddam Hussein had means, motive, and opportunity to be involved with global terrorism, and al Qaeda in particular. Much remains to be revealed, and one hopes the administration is compiling a dossier to make the case in detail and beyond doubt. The president has stated that there is no question these ties existed, and it is frustrating that something unquestionable keeps being questioned so persistently.

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp

Gunny
02-10-2007, 01:31 PM
It's obvious that you don't give a rat's ass about how many of our troops die for a lie...

I see. So I don't give a rat's ass how many of our troops die because I don't agree with your political rhetoric, huh?

Unlike you grandpa, I happen to know some of the troops in the current war, and I served with some that have died. SInce I participated in the First Gulf War and the subsequent 13 year, ongoing effort of babysitting Saddam Hussein, I think I'll be the judge of who is lying and who ain't.

jillian
02-10-2007, 01:35 PM
I see. So I don't give a rat's ass how many of our troops die because I don't agree with your political rhetoric, huh?

Unlike you grandpa, I happen to know some of the troops in the current war, and I served with some that have died. SInce I participated in the First Gulf War and the subsequent 13 year, ongoing effort of babysitting Saddam Hussein, I think I'll be the judge of who is lying and who ain't.

I think we all have people who were in Iraq this go 'round and the last. While I respect and thank you for your service, it doesn't mean I agree with your assessment as to who is lying and who isn't.

Our troops are dying because of Bush's political rhetoric. The repubs had power for the last 6 years and mishandled it. Now you're saying, well more people have to die because of their screw ups.

Again, what's the difference in outcome that you see if we DO send more troops that doesn't involve Iraq being embroiled in civil war the minute we pick up and leave?

You've also ignored the PNAC agenda and how Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

Mr. P
02-10-2007, 01:36 PM
If you recall rotor, I said way back when, on that board long long ago and far far away, that Iraq was going to be another Viet Nam and you didn't believe me...

welcome aboard...

beer, CWO?
True, I didn’t believe it and at the start it wasn’t going that way. But after we got to Baghdad it did. I supported our involvement and still do as long as we ‘do’ what we went to do. If that was removing Saddam we have, so bring em home. If it’s stabilization get er done. Inaction is unacceptable.

A beer someday, Sarge. :D

red states rule
02-10-2007, 01:37 PM
I think we all have people who were in Iraq this go 'round and the last. While I respect and thank you for your service, it doesn't mean I agree with your assessment as to who is lying and who isn't.

Our troops are dying because of Bush's political rhetoric. The repubs had power for the last 6 years and mishandled it. Now you're saying, well more people have to die because of their screw ups.

Again, what's the difference in outcome that you see if we DO send more troops that doesn't involve Iraq being embroiled in civil war the minute we pick up and leave?

You've also ignored the PNAC agenda and how Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11



and how do libs show their "support"? By having pro terrorist rallies, holding anti US and anti military signs, how the troops are terrorists, how they murder civilians in cold blood, how they run torture chambers and saying how the US is losing the war and how the military is botching the mission

we can do with alot less of this support

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 01:39 PM
Who cares?

If you're trying to make a point, make it. Are you saying that military service is prerequisite to sending the US military to war?

Well considering how well the current group of draft dodgers, that you right winged war mongering whackoes all love, have done with this war, yeah... I'd say that in order to understand the complexities of how to wage a war, experience IS a prerequisite.

red states rule
02-10-2007, 01:41 PM
Well considering how well the current group of draft dodgers, that you right winged war mongering whackoes all love, have done with this war, yeah... I'd say that in order to understand the complexities of how to wage a war, experience IS a prerequisite.

when did we ever support Clinton?

the militray supports Pres Bush and they had little respect for Clinton and Kerry. Perhaps that explains the lefts hate for the military

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 01:41 PM
Whatever. I could've commanded this war better than Bush has because number one on my list of things to do would've been to LISTEN TO MY GENERALS. How's that for armchair QBacking? It ain't rocket science old man. It's simple numbers and common sense.

bush don't listen to the generals UNLESS they tell them exactly what he wants to hear...

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 01:43 PM
You must have missed (or ignored) the glowing coverage Al Jazerra have ben giving the Dems in their anti war antics

I don't read Al Jazeera... why do you?

But I have read in MSM, that OBL wants us to STAY in Iraq too... I guess bush and he have the same play book...

Gunny
02-10-2007, 01:44 PM
I think we all have people who were in Iraq this go 'round and the last. While I respect and thank you for your service, it doesn't mean I agree with your assessment as to who is lying and who isn't.

So don't. It never crossed my mind that you might. Fact is, nobody lied. Unsupported political crapola.

Our troops are dying because of Bush's political rhetoric. The repubs had power for the last 6 years and mishandled it. Now you're saying, well more people have to die because of their screw ups.

I'm not saying that at all. Don't even know where you pulled THAT one out of. Take the handcuffs off our troops and a whole lot less of them will be dying, and THAT isn't Bush's fault. THAT is a direct result of politicla correctness.

Again, what's the difference in outcome that you see if we DO send more troops that doesn't involve Iraq being embroiled in civil war the minute we pick up and leave?

You need to go back and read up. Whether we send more troops or not, if we don't change tactics, it isn't going to matter.

You've also ignored the PNAC agenda and how Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

Easy to ignore the nonexistent. The attempt was made to tie Saddam to terrorism; which, did exist, but no one except those grasping fro straws ever tried to tied Saddam to 9/11.

red states rule
02-10-2007, 01:44 PM
I don't read Al Jazeera... why do you?

But I have read in MSM, that OBL wants us to STAY in Iraq too... I guess bush and he have the same play book...

You should, It reads alot like the NY Times and Washington Post

The terrorists thank you and the rest of the yellow belly libs for your continued support

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 01:47 PM
My grandfather was in the Army ... his men called him Sergeant Major. My father was in the Air Force back in your day and he was addressed as Sergeant. Since I wasn't around for the first, and a kid for the second, I'm not going to tell you what you dinosaurs called each other. From the time I enlisted in 1980 until I retired in 2000, it was an unacceptable term. Maybe its making a comeback.:uhoh:

I don't hate liberals. I don't agree with their political ideology.

Trying to identify yourself with Christ makes you no more of a Christian than just going to church does.


I NEVER said I was a liberal... YOU did it for me... but I am left of you right winged whackoes and THAT is not the same as being liberal... except to you right winged whackoes that is...

and I never said I was a Christian either... that's just another ASSumption on your part...

Gunny
02-10-2007, 01:47 PM
Well considering how well the current group of draft dodgers, that you right winged war mongering whackoes all love, have done with this war, yeah... I'd say that in order to understand the complexities of how to wage a war, experience IS a prerequisite.

Need I remind you the military is currently all-voluntary; which, would make your comment a product of your imagination.

Experience is a "nice to have," but not a necessity. I know of several so-called experienced former-and-current military people who I wouldn't let lead me to the head.

That nimrod and disgrace John Murtha comes to mind, with Kerry a close second.

red states rule
02-10-2007, 01:48 PM
I NEVER said I was a liberal... YOU did it for me... but I am left of you right winged whackoes and THAT is not the same as being liberal... except to you right winged whackoes that is...

and I never said I was a Christian either... that's just another ASSumption on your part...


You really should admit you are a liberal. The first step on the road of recovery is to admit your problem

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 01:49 PM
Since you're all over the place, please refresh my memory. Which words specifically are not supported by fact?

reread your posts, gunny... you claimed that hamas and hizbolla were in Iraq...

so where do you get your news?

Gunny
02-10-2007, 01:49 PM
I NEVER said I was a liberal... YOU did it for me... but I am left of you right winged whackoes and THAT is not the same as being liberal... except to you right winged whackoes that is...

and I never said I was a Christian either... that's just another ASSumption on your part...

Just for your info, the fact I am right of you does not a right winged whacko make ... except to you leftwingnut whackos that is ....

I didn't say you were a Christian either. Who's ASSuming?

Gunny
02-10-2007, 01:50 PM
reread your posts, gunny... you claimed that hamas and hizbolla were in Iraq...

so where do you get your news?

Quote me. Point it out. I know they aren't in Iraq, and can't imagine saying such a thing for any reason.

Why do I think there's more ASSuming going on?

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 01:51 PM
watching the reaction at the pro terrorist rally in DC two weeks ago, libs want the troops home - so they can be tried for war crimes


those that are guilty of war crimes should be tried for them... no matter how high up the chain of command it goes...

Hagbard Celine
02-10-2007, 01:51 PM
there were direct links to Saddam and Al Qaeda. Of course facts never get in the way of libs talking points

No there weren't. You're a liar.

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 01:51 PM
In which war and on which side did you serve?

Viet Nam... you?

red states rule
02-10-2007, 01:51 PM
those that are guilty of war crimes should be tried for them... no matter how high up the chain of command it goes...

to the kook left, that would include any member of the military who supports the war and speaks out against the defeatest left

Gunny
02-10-2007, 01:53 PM
No there weren't. You're a liar.

Really? Do you think al Sadr got to recover in a Baghdad hospital without Saddam's blessing/knowledge?

I'd be careful slinging "that word" around, but that's just me.

red states rule
02-10-2007, 01:55 PM
Really? Do you think al Sadr got to recover in a Baghdad hospital without Saddam's blessing/knowledge?

I'd be careful slinging "that word" around, but that's just me.

No Question About It
Saddam and the terrorists.



hen President Bush stated that "we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th" attacks, his critics quickly spun this into "Saddam Hussein had no links to terrorism." This was despite the fact that in the same breath the president had said, "there's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." According to Editor & Publisher, the story got little play, though it is certain to come back to haunt the president during the election campaign when Democrats seek to wedge the Iraq and al Qaeda issues. Thus, it is useful to review the bidding on the known facts of the relationship between the two.

While it is still debatable to what degree Saddam Hussein supported the global terrorist network, it is becoming increasingly clear that Iraq provided terror groups with some forms of logistical, intelligence, transportation, training, weapons, and other support. The emerging evidence points to the conclusion that al Qaeda had a cooperative relationship — that is, a strategic alliance — with Iraq. The conventional wisdom has been that this could not have been the case because bin Laden, an Islamic fanatic reactionary, and Saddam, a secular Baathist modernizer, could never align or cooperate. On a personal level, they probably hated each other. If intelligence analysts approach their task with the premise that a relationship could not exist, they will lack the analytical framework necessary to piece together the clues that could demonstrate that it did. Maybe an Elvis Presley/Richard Nixon-type photo of the two would convince them, but not much else.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 101
But the premise is facile. The principle that drove Iraq and al Qaeda together is one of the oldest in international-relations theory — the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The motive for their alliance was a common hatred for the United States and Israel. Ideology seldom determines wartime-alliance structures, and for both Saddam and Osama the 1990s were wartime. The Iraq/al Qaeda combination is as reasonable as the temporary strategic alliance between the U.S. and the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany, or Syrian and American troops fighting side by side during Operation Desert Storm. (Note that it is hard to distinguish Syria from Iraq ideologically, and Baathist solidarity was certainly not a motivating factor in the relationship between the two countries.) Moreover, despite their personal dislike for each other, Saddam Hussein was the only state leader openly to praise bin Laden's attacks on the U.S. (if not bin Laden himself).

Saddam Hussein showed no reluctance to support terrorism per se during his career. The fact that he gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide terrorists and had a close working relationship with the PLO was well known, and something he admitted. The Iraqi regime maintained a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak near Baghdad where foreign terrorists were instructed in methods of taking over commercial aircraft using weapons no more sophisticated than knives (interesting thought that). Saddam also harbored Abu Nidal and other members of his international terror organization (ANO) in Baghdad. Abu Nidal died under suspicious circumstances in Baghdad in August 2002, an apparent multiple gunshot suicide. Abd-al-Rahman Isa, ANO's second in command based in Amman, Jordan, was kidnapped September 11, 2002, and has not been heard from since. Coalition forces did recently apprehend ANO member Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. He was hiding out in Baghdad. Another bomb maker, Abdul Rahman Yasin, was also a Baghdad resident. He was one of the conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing who had fled there after being detained briefly by the FBI. Recent document finds in Tikrit show that Iraq supplied Yasin with both money and sanctuary. The 1993 WTC attack was masterminded by Yasin's associate Ramzi Yousef, who received financial support from al Qaeda through Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key 9/11 planner.

There is also the case of Abu Zubayr, an officer in Saddam's secret police who was also the ringleader of an al Qaeda cell in Morocco. He attended the September 5, 2001 meeting in Spain with other al Qaeda operatives, including Ramzi Bin-al-Shibh, the 9/11 financial chief. Abu Zubayr was apprehended in May, 2002, while putting together a plot to mount suicide attacks on U.S. ships passing through the straits of Gibraltar. He has allegedly since stated that Iraq trained and supplied chemical weapons to al Qaeda. In the fall of 2001 al Qaeda refugees from Afghanistan took refuge in northern Iraq until they were driven out by Coalition forces, and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an al Qaeda terrorist active in Europe and North Africa, fled from Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He has reportedly been sent back to Iraq to coordinate al Qaeda activities there.

Iraq made direct payments to the Philippine-based al Qaeda-affiliated Abu Sayyaf group. Hamsiraji Sali, an Abu Sayyaf leader on the U.S. most-wanted terrorist list, stated that his gang received about one million pesos (around $20,000) each year from Iraq, for chemicals to make bombs. The link was substantiated immediately after a bombing in Zamboanga City in October 2002 (in which three people were killed including an American Green Beret), when Abu Sayyaf leaders called up the deputy secretary of the Iraqi embassy in Manila, Husham Hussain. Six days later, the cell phone used to call Hussain was employed as the timer on a bomb set to go off near the Philippine military's Southern Command headquarters. Fortunately, the bomb failed to detonate, and the phone yielded various contact numbers, including Hussain's and Sali's. This evidence, coupled with other intelligence the Philippine government would not release, led to Hussain's expulsion in February 2003. In March, ten Iraqi nationals, some with direct links to al Qaeda, were rounded up in the Philippines and deported as undesirable aliens. In addition, two more consulate officials were expelled for spying.

The most intriguing potential link is reflected in documents found by Toronto Star reporter Mitch Potter in Baghdad in April, 2003. The documents detail direct links between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime dating back at least to 1998, and mention Osama bin Laden by name. The find supports an October 2001 report by William Safire that noted, among other things, a 1998 meeting in Baghdad between al Qaeda #2 Ayman al Zawahiri and Saddam's vice president, Taha Yasin Ramadan. Other reports have alleged bin Laden himself traveled to Iraq around that time, or at least planned to. Former Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, Farouk Hijazi, now in custody, allegedly met with bin Laden before the 9/11 attacks.

THE ATTA CASE
The alleged meeting between 9/11 team leader Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague, Czech Republic (CR) is a unique case in that the Czechs have been more adamant about proving it than the United States. Interior Minister Stanislav Gross held a press conference on October 26, 2001, revealing the details of the Prague connection. According to Czech police, visa records indicate that Atta visited Prague twice in 2000. His first confirmed visit was while he was in transit from Hamburg to Newark, New Jersey, June 2-3, 2000. The German newspaper Das Bild reported on October 25, 2001 that according to unnamed FBI sources, Atta met with Iraqi diplomat Ahmad Samir al-Ani in a cafe in Prague on June 2. Another report has it that Atta did not leave the airport terminal since he lacked a visa. Later that summer Atta flew back to the CR. He stayed one night in the Prague Hilton, and may have spent a brief period of time in the town of Kutna Hora, 35 miles north of Prague, under the name Mohammed Sayed Ahmed. During his second visit, he allegedly met with Ahmed Hedshani, the former Iraqi ambassador to Turkey.

The more controversial part of the story is the alleged meeting between Atta and al-Ani in the Iraqi embassy in Prague in the spring of 2001. Atta was identified based on photographs published after the 9/11 attacks by an informer who was at the embassy at the time and had met Atta, though said he was "not 100 percent sure" it was him. The Czech counterintelligence service (BIS) gives it a 70 percent probability. Al-Ani was expelled from the Czech Republic in April 22, 2001, for "activities which conflicted with his status." He was allegedly plotting an attack on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), which was also supporting Radio Free Iraq.

But if they met, why? It is unlikely they were discussing the alleged RFE/RL operation, since Atta had more important things to do and the Iraqis did not need his help with that one anyway. They might have been discussing the 9/11 attacks, but there is no evidence to support that claim. The article in Das Bild raised another, more intriguing possibility: The Iraqis were supplying Atta with anthrax spores for use in attacks on the United States. The anthrax attacks had commenced shortly before the article was published, and the idea seemed plausible at the time. In fact, it still does — the anthrax used in the attacks was weapons grade, the attacks originated from areas near where the hijackers had been active, and two years of investigation have not turned up the presupposed domestic perpetrator. At some point, you would think Occam's Razor would come into play.

The US Justice Department disputes most of the above. Because the US has no independent evidence that the 2001 meeting occurred, and since an examination of INS records published in May 2002 showed no movements corresponding to the Czech timeline, Justice concluded that the meeting could not have taken place. (The report did however show Atta going to Madrid for a week in January 2001, and to Zurich for twelve days in July 2001.) Yet, the Prague meeting came and went in a day or so. If Atta had traveled under an assumed name, a possibility the Justice Department acknowledged, he could have been there and back before anyone noticed. (Iraqi deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz also denied the meetings took place.) The affair has been a matter of contention between the U.S. and CR. Interior Minister Gross, BIS chief Jiri Ruzek, and Jan Klas, chairman of the parliamentary commission overseeing the BIS, have stated that thus far they have seen no evidence to challenge their conclusions. Clearly, the essential person to talk to is al-Ani. He was reportedly apprehended by U.S. forces on July 2, 2003, though where he was caught, where he is now, and what he has had to say about the alleged meetings, are all unanswered questions.

Last June, former CIA Director James Woolsey said that "there were enough connections [between al Qaeda] and Iraq and Iraqi intelligence that we ought to be looking at this very hard, as we capture files and people and hard disk drives in Iraq and so on, and see what we can turn up." There are more open-sourced links than those noted here — I would refer readers to Appendix A of Richard Miniter's Losing Bin Laden for some more noteworthy incidents and possible evidence of collusion. As I have noted before, Saddam Hussein had means, motive, and opportunity to be involved with global terrorism, and al Qaeda in particular. Much remains to be revealed, and one hopes the administration is compiling a dossier to make the case in detail and beyond doubt. The president has stated that there is no question these ties existed, and it is frustrating that something unquestionable keeps being questioned so persistently.
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 01:56 PM
so they have NON BINDING resolutions instead of showing some guts and trying to cuf off funding

this is why the terrorists are happy the Dems won - they are a tall tower of jello


and look what the repugs did... too chicken to debate... no wonder they didn't serve... they're tooo chicken...

hey... is there some part of my being a recovering republican leads you to believe I'm a democrat? I'm not... I'm an unafilliated independent.

I don't like the dems either...

even though I voted for one in '04 and for several in '06, and unless there is a viable third party candidate in '08, I will hold my nose as I vote AGAINST the repugs again in '08 by voting for a dem...

retch...

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 01:57 PM
there were direct links to Saddam and Al Qaeda. Of course facts never get in the way of libs talking points

No there wasn't... you have to get out more red...

red states rule
02-10-2007, 01:57 PM
and look what the repugs did... too chicken to debate... no wonder they didn't serve... they're tooo chicken...

hey... is there some part of my being a recovering republican leads you to believe I'm a democrat? I'm not... I'm an unafilliated independent.

I don't like the dems either...

even though I voted for one in '04 and for several in '06, and unless there is a viable third party candidate in '08, I will hold my nose as I vote AGAINST the repugs again in '08 by voting for a dem...

retch...

they did not block the debate, they wanted to have SEVERAL debates and the Dems did not

I know it out of character for you, but try to get the facts right

Hagbard Celine
02-10-2007, 01:57 PM
Really? Do you think al Sadr got to recover in a Baghdad hospital without Saddam's blessing/knowledge?

I'd be careful slinging "that word" around, but that's just me.

Dude, seriously you've got to embrace reality. You're still clinging to the same arguments you were making two years ago when all this started. You were wrong then and you're wrong now. If there were ever any ties between Saddam and Al-qaeda, they were coincidental. He just didn't do business with them. EOS. The invasion of Iraq was unwarranted and illegal. Again, EOS. It's the truth.

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 01:58 PM
Libs want to drink to a US loss in Iraq, and they probably smile when they see a news flash on another US Marine died in Iraq


Moron...

red states rule
02-10-2007, 01:59 PM
Moron...

Truth does hurt, eh?

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 01:59 PM
Where do you get yours? NYT? Washington Post? CBS? ABC? Air Nazi-America? Oh, that's right .... the last no longer exists. Seems they couldn't attract an audience.

The Dems have oversight. Big deal. Back to business as usual in the ongoing witch hunts against Republicans. Been there, done that, watched 'em get tossed out on their ears before. It'll happen again.

Google News... ever read it? They're ALL there... it's easy...

so where do you get yours? too chicken to say?

Gunny
02-10-2007, 01:59 PM
No there wasn't... you have to get out more red...

There were tenuous links between Saddam and AQ. I doubt they were swapping spit.

Saddam did provide financial support for Hamas, a known terrorist organization.

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 02:00 PM
NY Times was the source. It is not the first time the peace niks of the left have spit at military vets, and it will not be the last

Libs are for choice when it comes to abortion, but they will not give the folks a choice in to many other areas

got a link?

Gunny
02-10-2007, 02:01 PM
Google News... ever read it? They're ALL there... it's easy...

so where do you get yours? too chicken to say?

You like that word "chicken," don't you? Must be a mirror close to your PC.

I get my news from a variety of sources, and trust none as a single source. Help you out any?

Hagbard Celine
02-10-2007, 02:02 PM
Libs want to drink to a US loss in Iraq, and they probably smile when they see a news flash on another US Marine died in Iraq

You're a loon. Step away from the computer every now and then Red. It might help you bring reality back into focus.

Gunny
02-10-2007, 02:02 PM
got a link?

Are you, a Vietnam vet, going to say peaceniks have NOT spit on vets?

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 02:04 PM
Links to Saddam and al Queda



While it is still debatable to what degree Saddam Hussein supported the global terrorist network, ...snip

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp

Ahhhh.... September '03... all since debunked and by bush himself, too... you need to read more than just those that support your view, red...

but again... you stray from afghanistan and into Iraq... so let's get back to Afghanistan, shall we?

How come we allow Afghanistan to grow and distribute 80% of the world's supply of heroin?

Wasn't there supposed to be a War on Drugs? Isn't heroin a bad bad drug? Why don't we napalm the fields?

red states rule
02-10-2007, 02:05 PM
Anti-War March In DC: Protestor Spits At Vet
CINCINNATI (TDB) -- Will this single overheated moment seriously harm the anti-war movement? An Iraq War veteran who lost his right leg below the knee at Ramadi was heckling the large throngs of anti-war protesters marching Saturday in Washington. Apparently, things got boisterous and somebody spit towards the soldier, Joshua Sparling, who spit right back.

Today, reports of the incident are spreading rapidly among veterans groups because it conjures up ugly memories of the Vietnam era, when servicemen often were targets for verbal abuse and worse. [Ed Note: I was spit at in New Orleans in 1970 while in Army uniform on leave from Fort Polk, La. It landed near my shoulder, and was horrifying to a kid who had answered his draft notice. I was in the military because I had drawn No. 56 in the December 1969 draft lottery, the only lottery I ever won.]

Lest anybody think the spitting incident Saturday is Internet fiction, there is this account from Sunday's New York Times (page 20 National Edition), whose reporter Ian Urbina seems to have been a witness:

"There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling, who was not scheduled to speak, addressed the counterprotesters to voice his support for the administration's policies in Iraq.

Later, an antiwar protester passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.

"Capital police made the antiwar protestors walk farther away from the counterprotesters.

"'These are not Americans as far as I'm concerned,' Mr. Sparling
said."

I think the anti-war spitter was an incredible fool. Sparling had a right to express his opinion. I am no fan of President George W. Bush and his war policies. I will apologize to Corporal Sparling for what happened. And I salute his service and his sacrifice.




If you want to read the Times article, hit the link at the bottom of the page (there is a charge)

http://thebellwetherdaily.blogspot.com/2007/01/anti-war-march-in-dc-protestor-spits-at.html



Also, you can see the video of the interview of the vet who was spit at


Iraq War Vet Gets Spat On by Anti-War Protester
Tuesday, January 30, 2007

E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
This is a partial transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," January 29, 2007, that has been edited for clarity.

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Washington, D.C., was the mecca for antiwar protesters this weekend, drawing thousands to the capital. We sent out Griff Jenkins with FOX News talk radio to get a different perspective on the demonstrations:

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GRIFF JENKINS, FOX NEWS TALK RADIO: Do you want to see America prevail in Iraq?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would like to see the United States and its elected representatives start taking some responsibility in the actions that led to this war.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Over the next 10 years let the same amount of Iraqi civilians die and add to them American casualties or we can pull those Americans out and start focusing on the issues of the Iraqi people and start offering reformations and closing bases.

JENKINS: Do you want America to win in Iraq?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There is no winning . What are you going to win?! Win that you are a terrorist nation? We've lost.

JANE FONDA, ACTRESS: What America has always represented to the world and what it needs to represent is building for peace.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This isn't a circus, it's a movement.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You guys are with?

JENKINS: FOX News.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: FOX News? Yes, I don't want to talk to you guys.

REV. JESSE JACKSON, RAINBOW/PUSH COALITION: We cannot assume that we can, through invasion, occupation, and expansion, resolve the conflict.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And I hope to God you have the nerve to report the truth.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: FOX News lies. FOX News supports the administration in this murderous war. (expletive deleted) off.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH, (D-OHIO): Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, with Al Qaeda's role in 9/11. That Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction , that we're in Iraq illegally.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you like those guys.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: FOX News is full of liars.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What's your name?

What's your name?

What's your name?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's like a big party.

JENKINS: Tim, what about some voices like our own Sean Hannity. What do you think about him?

TIM ROBBINS, ACTOR: I don't watch.

JENKINS: Do you have a favorite show on FOX?

SUSAN SARANDON, ACTRESS: I don't watch FOX.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I agree with FOX News.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I watch FOX News just to get my blood boiling because sometimes when I'm feeling complacent I turn on FOX News and I'm jumping up and down.

KUCINICH: If Hannity and Colmes can talk with each other then the United States can engage in discussion with other countries who we may not agree with.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COLMES: You see if we can — oh, we're not talking.

Joining us now, FOX News radio's Griff Jenkins and Iraqi war veteran Joshua Sparling. He took part in a counter protest to the capital weekend. And let me begin with you both.

Sparling, let me begin with you. There was a controversy, as you know, about whether you were spit upon. Can you tell us what happened?

JOSHUA SPARLING, IRAQ WAR VETERAN: Yes. Nice to talk to you, by the way. What we are doing, actually, is doing the anti-protest protest. And we were there with our flags. And all that happened I was — a fellow saw me wear my 82nd Airborne sweater, and I noticed he also had an 82nd patch on his own sleeve.

And he said I was a disgrace, basically, and that I was — that I had blood on my hands and that I had no right wearing the uniform. And he spit at me.

COLMES: And you spit back?

SPARLING: Of course I did not.

COLMES: That's what was reported. So that did not happen?

SPARLING: No, sir, it did not.

COLMES: But this was directed specifically at you, as far as — Griff were you there? Did you witness this?

JENKINS: I did not witness that, Alan. Good to talk to you. Excuse me. But I would offer that, for a peace march, you know, spitting on war veterans and also vandalizing satellite trucks is not exactly extolling the virtues of MLK Jr. or Mohatma Gandhi .

COLMES: First of all, I would denounce that anybody could spit on anybody. It's horrible. But is this — are you suggesting this is representative of the antiwar movement, or is this one person acting like a jerk?

JENKINS: Gosh, that's hard to say. I mean, I saw a lot more militants. You know, one of the biggest observations I would make is that there were a lot of older folks there. I mean, it reminded me of the protest scene in "Forrest Gump ", and I would probably offer that a lot of the people that were there in the '60s, in the glory days, were there on Saturday.

COLMES: Joshua, I understand that last spring you were demeaned at an airport and you were told you couldn't board a plane. You got a hate letter at Walter Reed Army Hospital in 2005. Why do you think this always happens to you?

SPARLING: To tell you the truth, Alan, I really couldn't know. The people that have done these things, I don't even know personally. So it couldn't be of a personal nature in the first place. And maybe it's because the peace rally is an obvious one. I went there, and that was the most angry peace march that I've ever witnessed. That's for sure.

And he wasn't the only person to spit at me, either. There was others. But this fellow here actually was on the sidewalk with me, whereas all the other ones were about 10 yards away on the other side of the road. And they weren't just spitting. They were throwing cigarette butts, flipping us off.

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: Hey, Josh, it's Sean. Welcome to the program. Good to see you.

SPARLING: Hello, Sean.

HANNITY: We first met how many years ago? I was with Colonel North. I met you at Walter Reed Army Hospital. How many years ago was that?

SPARLING: That was in 2005 in December.

HANNITY: OK. And you at the time, for those who don't know, you were injured in Ramadi and you were struggling to save your leg and you since have had it am amputated from the knee down, correct?

SPARLING: That's right.

HANNITY: And I remember, because I spent a lot of time talking to you and talking about you and put you on my radio show. And you were dying to get back. You just put yourself in a position where, hey, you wanted to give a different point of view and then we could see the hostility. And I went in the middle of an antiwar protest in New York, and I was called every name in the book.

You know, so you gave your leg for this battle, and you still believe in it. And this is how you were treated?

SPARLING: Yes. Well, it's unfortunate that that happens. But, well, the Americans that do appreciate us and do support us and not just say they support us, are the ones that I actually fight for. These people right here.

That was a sad day. It was one of the saddest days I've witnessed. And I was actually glad that my unit was deployed recently, so they wouldn't have to see the spectacle they were making of themselves.

HANNITY: You know, Griff, one of the things I observed when I went in the middle of this antiwar protest in New York is the just anger for anybody that has a different point of view. I mean, it's visceral; it's emotional. And it's sort of bordering on violence. You seem to be experiencing very much the same thing there.

JENKINS: Well, look, you know, I went in there as an honest broker that understands that nobody has got a lock on political wisdom, but I wore my FOX News hat and that certainly got the ire of some folks. I guess the antiwar crowd is not necessarily a pro-FOX crowd.

But I would observe that, you know, the Democrats having control, the tough talk coming out of the Democrats and Sen. Chuck Hagel has certainly emboldened this movement. I've been to, like, 20 of these things. And that's definitely the highest level of energy.

Although I will say there was one person there, who was a sergeant in the Marines that was dressed in his "blues," his full blues, and I was shocked to see that. He's retired. But he was there as peace. He didn't support getting out but he just wanted to be a credible protester among many.

HANNITY: One of the things that's fascinating is how many of these hard left wingers, led by "Hanoi Jane" and Sarandon and whatever that other guy, Robbins and Penn. But they're challenging her specifically, you know, to defund the war. People like Kucinich who wants to defund the war here, and so it's going to be interesting to see how the Democrats react to this radical element in their party.

Joshua, look, I know we don't have a lot of time. You lost your leg, your battle for your leg. How are you doing? How are you getting along? I know they're working on new prosthetics for you? How's that moving forward?

SPARLING: It's going great, Sean. I am getting along. And I'm getting better each day, getting stronger with each day. And — and I'm going to be back on my feet before long. And, you know, spitting here and there, insults, letters, it doesn't matter...

COLMES: Hey, Josh, I'm glad you're getting better.

SPARLING: Thank you.

COLMES: I have just one question. It was said in the press you said, "these are not Americans as far as I'm concerned."

Did you say that, and were you referring to people spitting or anybody who was demonstrating against the war?

SPARLING: Oh, no. Actually, that was just for the vulgar people. Let me clarify something here.

COLMES: OK.

SPARLING: I actually spoke in front of Code Pink, which is antiwar group.

COLMES: Nice they let you speak. OK.

SPARLING: I told them of the respect that I have of them of their right to protest, and as far as I'm concerned that's one of the greatest amendments we have.

COLMES: All right sir, Thank you. Thank you, Griff, as well.

SPARLING: That's basically who I was considering.

COLMES: Thank you, Josh.

Watch "Hannity & Colmes" weeknights at 9 p.m. ET!

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2007 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2007 Voxant, Inc. (www.voxant.com), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, LLC'S and Voxant, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 02:09 PM
I see. So I don't give a rat's ass how many of our troops die because I don't agree with your political rhetoric, huh?

Unlike you grandpa, I happen to know some of the troops in the current war, and I served with some that have died. SInce I participated in the First Gulf War and the subsequent 13 year, ongoing effort of babysitting Saddam Hussein, I think I'll be the judge of who is lying and who ain't.

No... you don't... otherwise you'd want them home with their families, as I do.

ahhhh, the good Gulf war... the one that was done right... in out and with the help of others...

bush lied, and yet you still love him... why is that?

where ARE those pesky WMD anyway?

Where's Osama? and what happened to bush's pledge of bringing HIM to justice?

Gunny
02-10-2007, 02:11 PM
Dude, seriously you've got to embrace reality. You're still clinging to the same arguments you were making two years ago when all this started. You were wrong then and you're wrong now. If there were ever any ties between Saddam and Al-qaeda, they were coincidental. He just didn't do business with them. EOS. The invasion of Iraq was unwarranted and illegal. Again, EOS. It's the truth.

Maybe it is YOU that needs to embrace reality, since I have never argued that Saddam and AQ were bed-buddies. At the same time, ignoring that there WERE links, whether tenuous or not, was wrong then, as it is wrong now.

If you want to argue that Saddam and AQ had opposing agendas and he was hardly likely to allow them a real foothold in Iraq, you'll get no argument from me. And I was saying THAT two years ago. You must have me confused with someone else.

The fact remains, al Sadr operated in Iraq, and no one operated in Iraq without Saddam's knowledge.

The invasion of Iraq was not illegal, and there was plenty of justification for it.

red states rule
02-10-2007, 02:12 PM
No... you don't... otherwise you'd want them home with their families, as I do.

ahhhh, the good Gulf war... the one that was done right... in out and with the help of others...

bush lied, and yet you still love him... why is that?

where ARE those pesky WMD anyway?

Where's Osama? and what happened to bush's pledge of bringing HIM to justice?


so Bush lied?

Now that the bipartisan Iraq Study Group has issued it’s report, there seems to a pandemic of “selective amnesia” among Democrats concerning the genesis of the Iraq war.

As recounted in a previous column, when the question of using military force against Iraq was put before the U.S. Congress, 110 Democrats supported the 2002 Joint Resolution, which authorized President Bush to act as he ultimately did.

Perri Nelson, writing about that earlier column, hit the nail on the head with the following comment:

“So they're going to examine the faulty pre-war intelligence. I think that's a wonderful idea, provided they go back far enough.

Maybe then we'll find out why it was that all through the Clinton administration's time in power they were asserting that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that he had used them, that he would likely use them again, and that they perceived him to be an imminent threat to world peace.

Some very outspoken Democrats during that time said these sort of things including President Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, and Senator John F. Kerry.

That's just a short list of people who lied us into the Iraq war!

Of course, they think that we've forgotten their words, and they'll be careful not to focus on anything that was said about Iraq prior to 2001.”

Perri’s comment can be viewed in it's entirety at basilsblog.net at this link.

Of course, Perri Nelson is exactly right. And to help assure that pre-war utterances by Democrats are not forgotten, herewith a substantial collection of quotes from responsible professionals about Saddam Hussein and WMD in Iraq:

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”—From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”—From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities”—From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.”—Madeline Albright, 1998

“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983”—National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.”—Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.”—Robert Byrd, October 2002

“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.”—Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.”—Bill Clinton in 1998

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”—Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.”—Tom Daschle in 1998

“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.”—John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”—John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.”—Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”—Al Gore, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”—Bob Graham, December 2002

“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”—Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”—Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.”—Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”—John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.”—John Kerry, October 9, 2002

“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.”—John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”—Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.”—Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, United Nations inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons. Inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.”—Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”—Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.”—Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources—something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”—John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

“Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.”—John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.”—Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002.

And from our favorite Frenchman, this:

“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.”—Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

As the record clearly shows, if George W. Bush lied about WMD, he was joined by a lot of lying Democrats!

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/20920.html

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 02:12 PM
True, I didn’t believe it and at the start it wasn’t going that way. But after we got to Baghdad it did. I supported our involvement and still do as long as we ‘do’ what we went to do. If that was removing Saddam we have, so bring em home. If it’s stabilization get er done. Inaction is unacceptable.

A beer someday, Sarge. :D

As I recall, the looting started almost as soon as we got to Baghdad... then Bremer disbanded the army, which if you recall at the time, I said was a bad idea... nothing like a bunch of pissed off unemployed veterans combined with unguarded ammo dumps...

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 02:15 PM
and how do libs show their "support"? By having pro terrorist rallies, holding anti US and anti military signs, how the troops are terrorists, how they murder civilians in cold blood, how they run torture chambers and saying how the US is losing the war and how the military is botching the mission

we can do with alot less of this support

do you deny that civilians are killed unnecessarily? do you deny that torture has been commited on Iraqis and Afghans by our troops?

we can do with alot less support by you war mongers...

Bring Them Home... NOW!

Gunny
02-10-2007, 02:17 PM
No... you don't... otherwise you'd want them home with their families, as I do.

You don't know WTF you're talking about.

ahhhh, the good Gulf war... the one that was done right... in out and with the help of others...

bush lied, and yet you still love him... why is that?

I don't love Bush. I'm just not willing to blame everything from global warming to Katrina on him. He didn't lie. The lie is in claiming he did.

where ARE those pesky WMD anyway?

You seem to think you know everything ... you tell me. I suppose you're going to say Saddam did not possess and use WMDs?

Where's Osama? and what happened to bush's pledge of bringing HIM to justice?

Now you're just getting dumb. The obvious answer is he's hinding where we cannot go without invading some other country; which, of course would get you lefties pissing in your panties.

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 02:18 PM
when did we ever support Clinton?

the militray supports Pres Bush and they had little respect for Clinton and Kerry. Perhaps that explains the lefts hate for the military

If Clinton was a draft dodger because he went to college, what do you call Dick "I got SEVEN deferments" Cheney? A patriot?

How about your primary source of information, Rush "anal cyst" Limbaugh?

Maybe the men in the military should read more history...

Gunny
02-10-2007, 02:19 PM
As I recall, the looting started almost as soon as we got to Baghdad... then Bremer disbanded the army, which if you recall at the time, I said was a bad idea... nothing like a bunch of pissed off unemployed veterans combined with unguarded ammo dumps...

Disbanding the army and letting them loose was DUMB. Catering to World opinion as opposed to sound tactics. Real smart.

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 02:20 PM
You should, It reads alot like the NY Times and Washington Post

The terrorists thank you and the rest of the yellow belly libs for your continued support

I served asshole... did you?

Gunny
02-10-2007, 02:22 PM
do you deny that civilians are killed unnecessarily? do you deny that torture has been commited on Iraqis and Afghans by our troops?

we can do with alot less support by you war mongers...

Bring Them Home... NOW!

Civilians ar always killed in war since they moved into populated areas instead of remaining on the battlefield. it is, and has been an accepted misfortune of war. You would rather do nothing and let an enemy run rampant than risk noncombatant casualties? Not very sound.

Individuals, acting outside the law have tortured people in Iraq and Afghanistan. In each case where they were caught, they were punished. Every war has its share of criminals. Doesn't mean everyone's a criminal.

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 02:24 PM
Need I remind you the military is currently all-voluntary; which, would make your comment a product of your imagination.

Experience is a "nice to have," but not a necessity. I know of several so-called experienced former-and-current military people who I wouldn't let lead me to the head.

That nimrod and disgrace John Murtha comes to mind, with Kerry a close second.

The military is voluntary... yeah... but they keep dropping the requirements for enlistment in order to get more troops... do you know they now allow non-high school graduates and felons to enlist?

of course not...

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 02:25 PM
You really should admit you are a liberal. The first step on the road of recovery is to admit your problem


I'm a recovering republican... personally, I'd like a viable THIRD party... but that ain't likely to happen anytime soon...

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 02:26 PM
Just for your info, the fact I am right of you does not a right winged whacko make ... except to you leftwingnut whackos that is ....

I didn't say you were a Christian either. Who's ASSuming?


Maybe you should reread your posts, gunny...

Gunny
02-10-2007, 02:27 PM
The military is voluntary... yeah... but they keep dropping the requirements for enlistment in order to get more troops... do you know they now allow non-high school graduates and felons to enlist?

of course not...

Do you know they have always allowed non-high school grads to enlist? The also have always allowed applicants with felony convictions to enlist, depending on the felony.

The bar hasn't been lowered. The standards for enlistment were much lower 20-30 years ago than they are now.

Gunny
02-10-2007, 02:28 PM
Maybe you should reread your posts, gunny...

Maybe you should.

Gunny
02-10-2007, 02:29 PM
I'm a recovering republican... personally, I'd like a viable THIRD party... but that ain't likely to happen anytime soon...

And I'm a completely-recovered Democrat who'd love to see a viable third party.

red states rule
02-10-2007, 02:30 PM
I served asshole... did you?

again, on which side?

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 02:31 PM
Quote me. Point it out. I know they aren't in Iraq, and can't imagine saying such a thing for any reason.

Why do I think there's more ASSuming going on?

my mistake... The other right winged whackoe with a G name said it... Gaffer made the claim...

Originally Posted by Gaffer
They are still here, as are hizbollah and hamas.

Sin Loi, Minoi...

Gunny
02-10-2007, 02:32 PM
again, on which side?

RSR ...

I can deal with most things, but THAT ain't one of them. He's a decorated war vet, so unless you have hard evidence otherwise, please lay off that tact.

I'd appreciate it.

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 02:34 PM
to the kook left, that would include any member of the military who supports the war and speaks out against the defeatest left

Is that anything like you right winged war mongering whackoes calling those that are AGAINST the war in Iraq, terrorists?

Gunny
02-10-2007, 02:34 PM
my mistake... The other right winged whackoe with a G name said it... Gaffer made the claim...

Originally Posted by Gaffer
They are still here, as are hizbollah and hamas.

Sin Loi, Minoi...

I know ... us right wing whackos all look the same to you left wing whackos ...

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 02:37 PM
Really? Do you think al Sadr got to recover in a Baghdad hospital without Saddam's blessing/knowledge?

I'd be careful slinging "that word" around, but that's just me.

al Sadr is an Iraqi... a Shi'a Iraqi...

and not Al Qaeda at all... cuz they're Sunni...

red states rule
02-10-2007, 02:38 PM
RSR ...

I can deal with most things, but THAT ain't one of them. He's a decorated war vet, so unless you have hard evidence otherwise, please lay off that tact.

I'd appreciate it.



I am glad he is not on active duty now. He would not do a hell of alot for the spirits of the troops with his DNC talking pioints

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 02:39 PM
they did not block the debate, they wanted to have SEVERAL debates and the Dems did not

I know it out of character for you, but try to get the facts right

surrrrre they did...

did you serve in the military, red?
yes or no?

your continued dodging of this question makes me believe you didn't...

typical lip service patriot...

Gunny
02-10-2007, 02:40 PM
I am glad he is not on active duty now. He would not do a hell of alot for the spirits of the troops with his DNC talking pioints

I'm sure he would do his job, just like I did when Carter and Clinton were Presidents. I didn't agree with them on several things, but I carried out my orders.

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 02:41 PM
Truth does hurt, eh?


No, moron, truth is what holds our civilization together... too bad the last republican president that embodied it wasn't even ELECTED president...

Gunny
02-10-2007, 02:43 PM
al Sadr is an Iraqi... a Shi'a Iraqi...

and not Al Qaeda at all... cuz they're Sunni...

My bad. Zarqawi. They all sound the same to me.

Gunny
02-10-2007, 02:44 PM
No, moron, truth is what holds our civilization together... too bad the last republican president that embodied it wasn't even ELECTED president...

:rolleyes:

red states rule
02-10-2007, 02:45 PM
I'm sure he would do his job, just like I did when Carter and Clinton were Presidents. I didn't agree with them on several things, but I carried out my orders.

He reminds me of Kerry. He loves to slime anyone who disagrees with him, and goes out of his way to bash the mission and the military

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 02:46 PM
There were tenuous links between Saddam and AQ. I doubt they were swapping spit.

Saddam did provide financial support for Hamas, a known terrorist organization.


Actually, I believe he was providing financial support to the FAMILIES of those that killed themselves fighting against the Israelites... not the same thing as supporting a known terrorist organization... but on a similar front and actually BACK in the theatre this thread is supposed to be about...

we just gave 8 Apache helicopters to Pakistan... and they have given the taliban safe haven...

what's up with that?

Gunny
02-10-2007, 02:48 PM
Actually, I believe he was providing financial support to the FAMILIES of those that killed themselves fighting against the Israelites... not the same thing as supporting a known terrorist organization... but on a similar front and actually BACK in the thetre this thread is supposed to be about...

we just gave 8 Apache helicopters to Pakistan... and they have given the taliban safe haven...

what's up with that?

Political ass-kissing. Won't get us anywhere, but we won't quit doing it either.

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 02:48 PM
You like that word "chicken," don't you? Must be a mirror close to your PC.

I get my news from a variety of sources, and trust none as a single source. Help you out any?

I use it where I see it needed... which in your case, is everytime... EXCEPT when you served...

so which ones? too chicken to say?

Rush? Michael? Billo? Sean? who?

red states rule
02-10-2007, 02:52 PM
I use it where I see it needed... which in your case, is everytime... EXCEPT when you served...

so which ones? too chicken to say?

Rush? Michael? Billo? Sean? who?

Calm down. The war you were in is over, you can get the parts for your head now

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 02:56 PM
Are you, a Vietnam vet, going to say peaceniks have NOT spit on vets?

I never saw any... did you?

Do you believe everything the right winged whackoe press tells you?

why I bet you believed Pelosi wanted a bigger jet than Hastert had... afterall, it was all over your right winger news sites and put out by the GOP as a talking point... guess that proves to a repug... size matters....

all Pelosi wanted was one that could "go the distance"...

red states rule
02-10-2007, 02:58 PM
I never saw any... did you?

Do you believe everything the right winged whackoe press tells you?

why I bet you believed Pelosi wanted a bigger jet than Hastert had... afterall, it was all over your right winger news sites and put out by the GOP as a talking point... guess that proves to a repug... size matters....

all Pelosi wanted was one that could "go the distance"...

Cut back on the pot smoking moron - your tiny brain is fried enough

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 02:59 PM
Big snip....

This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.

of course... sean hannity... why am I not surprized...

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 03:01 PM
Maybe it is YOU that needs to embrace reality, since I have never argued that Saddam and AQ were bed-buddies. At the same time, ignoring that there WERE links, whether tenuous or not, was wrong then, as it is wrong now.

If you want to argue that Saddam and AQ had opposing agendas and he was hardly likely to allow them a real foothold in Iraq, you'll get no argument from me. And I was saying THAT two years ago. You must have me confused with someone else.

The fact remains, al Sadr operated in Iraq, and no one operated in Iraq without Saddam's knowledge.

The invasion of Iraq was not illegal, and there was plenty of justification for it.

Of course al sadr operated in Iraq... He IS an Iraqi... where do you think he should be? Pakistan?

red states rule
02-10-2007, 03:02 PM
of course... sean hannity... why am I not surprized...

and the NY Times or are you to busy burning a US flag to see that part?

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 03:10 PM
Originally Posted by TheStripey1
No... you don't... otherwise you'd want them home with their families, as I do.

Originally quoted within my quote BY gunny
You don't know WTF you're talking about.

ahhhh, the good Gulf war... the one that was done right... in out and with the help of others...

bush lied, and yet you still love him... why is that?

I don't love Bush. I'm just not willing to blame everything from global warming to Katrina on him. He didn't lie. The lie is in claiming he did.

where ARE those pesky WMD anyway?

You seem to think you know everything ... you tell me. I suppose you're going to say Saddam did not possess and use WMDs?
Where's Osama? and what happened to bush's pledge of bringing HIM to justice?

Now you're just getting dumb. The obvious answer is he's hinding where we cannot go without invading some other country; which, of course would get you lefties pissing in your panties.

I want the troops home with their families, guarding our own borders and you want them in Iraq...

bush isn't the cause of Global Warming but he does nothing about it... bush wasn't the cause of Katrina... where do you get this nonsense? it's absolutely moronic... ohhhh I know... your right winged whackoe sources say it therefore you think it has to be true...

of course Saddam had WMD... we gave them to him...

so gunny, where do you think Osama is "hinding"? Iran?

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 03:18 PM
Do you know they have always allowed non-high school grads to enlist? The also have always allowed applicants with felony convictions to enlist, depending on the felony.

The bar hasn't been lowered. The standards for enlistment were much lower 20-30 years ago than they are now.

yeah they had a draft then... they took anyone...

they allowed non high school grads before now? really? I didn't know that...

do you think that felons should be able to serve in the military? cuz I don't...

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 03:21 PM
again, on which side?

The United States of America... ever hear of it?

how about you? I bet not, since you decline to answer... so since you don't have any medals of your own, I have one for you...

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

chickenhawk...

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 03:22 PM
RSR ...

I can deal with most things, but THAT ain't one of them. He's a decorated war vet, so unless you have hard evidence otherwise, please lay off that tact.

I'd appreciate it.

Thanks gunny...

beer?

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 03:23 PM
I know ... us right wing whackos all look the same to you left wing whackos ...

true... very very true... laffin'...

but I'd rather be on the fuselage than the wingtips of either side...

red states rule
02-10-2007, 03:24 PM
The United States of America... ever hear of it?

how about you? I bet not, since you decline to answer... so since you don't have any medals of your own, I have one for you...

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

chickenhawk...

your medals include those stolen or borrowed (or those found in the bottom of a box of Cracker Jacks)

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 03:26 PM
I am glad he is not on active duty now. He would not do a hell of alot for the spirits of the troops with his DNC talking pioints

I'm thankful that a coward like you isn't in Iraq... cuz I sure as hell wouldn't want you covering my back.... you'd shit on yourself and give away our position...

chickenhawk...

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 03:28 PM
I'm sure he would do his job, just like I did when Carter and Clinton were Presidents. I didn't agree with them on several things, but I carried out my orders.


I served under Johnson... and Nixon... did what I was told... went where I was sent... just like all good patriots do...

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 03:32 PM
My bad. Zarqawi. They all sound the same to me.

I knew who you meant... but I couldn't resist rubbing your nose in it...

my bad too... laffin'

you're ok, gunny... just like my pals, Mr.P and Gadget... they maybe RWWs too, but we got along after the initial encounters...

:beer:

red states rule
02-10-2007, 03:32 PM
I'm thankful that a coward like you isn't in Iraq... cuz I sure as hell wouldn't want you covering my back.... you'd shit on yourself and give away our position...

chickenhawk...


You would be covering my back - like Kerry and the other libs do every memebr of the military

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 03:34 PM
He reminds me of Kerry. He loves to slime anyone who disagrees with him, and goes out of his way to bash the mission and the military

Slime those that disagree with them? why that sounds EXACTLY like you republican assholes to me...

Did you serve red? Or should I say, did you serve, yellow?

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 03:37 PM
Political ass-kissing. Won't get us anywhere, but we won't quit doing it either.


Pakistan is giving the Taliban safe haven and we just gave Pakistan Apache helicopters... does that mean we are also guilty of supporting the those that harbor terrorists?

I thought bush had an edict against those that aid the terrorists...

red states rule
02-10-2007, 03:37 PM
Slime those that disagree with them? why that sounds EXACTLY like you republican assholes to me...

Did you serve red? Or should I say, did you serve, yellow?

Were you the peace nik who spit at the vet who lost his one leg? That is the bravery the anti war left shows

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 03:38 PM
Calm down. The war you were in is over, you can get the parts for your head now

Shove it, cretin...

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 03:40 PM
Cut back on the pot smoking moron - your tiny brain is fried enough


I don't DO illegal drugs... neither should you... it'll rot your brain and you'll NEVER get out of high school...

red states rule
02-10-2007, 03:40 PM
Shove it, cretin...

Oh, you from San Fran? No wonder you are no longer in the militray Gomer

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 03:44 PM
and the NY Times or are you to busy burning a US flag to see that part?


I served, you didn't... so who is shitting on the flag? you, that's who... cretin chickenhawkscum...

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 03:47 PM
You would be covering my back - like Kerry and the other libs do every memebr of the military

when are you joinin' up, chickenhawk drule? when pigs fly?

red states rule
02-10-2007, 03:47 PM
I served, you didn't... so who is shitting on the flag? you, that's who... cretin chickenhawkscum...

What makes you think I did not serve? Just because I do not run around bellowing about like you and Kerry does not mean I did not

Of course who wants to be like you two twits?

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 03:51 PM
Were you the peace nik who spit at the vet who lost his one leg? That is the bravery the anti war left shows

come on over dweeb... and I'll show you... personally... and with vigor...

TheStripey1
02-10-2007, 03:52 PM
What makes you think I did not serve? Just because I do not run around bellowing about like you and Kerry does not mean I did not

Of course who wants to be like you two twits?

sure you did... sure you did...

video games don't count...

red states rule
02-10-2007, 03:55 PM
sure you did... sure you did...

video games don't count...

Well Gomer, even if you did serve, you did not screw it up to badly. At least you are here and not over there. (even though the terrorists would welcome you)

OCA
02-10-2007, 04:48 PM
Shove it, cretin...

You got something against Cretans? My parents are from Rethimno, Crete, I was born on Crete, I find that personally offensive.

jillian
02-10-2007, 04:58 PM
cre·tin (krtn)
n.
1. A person afflicted with cretinism.
2. Slang An idiot.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cretin


Cre·tan
a. (krē"tan)
Pertaining to Crete, or Candia. -- n. A native or inhabitant of Crete or Candia.

http://www.answers.com/topic/cretan-2


:rolleyes:

red states rule
02-10-2007, 05:32 PM
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cretin



http://www.answers.com/topic/cretan-2


:rolleyes:

He must have me confused with a liberal. Oh well, Gomer goes through everyday of his life confused

Mr. P
02-10-2007, 06:43 PM
Just as side note for all my conservative friends: I’ve known TheStripey1 on the net for several years. Don’t read between the lines of his posts and don’t think him less than patriotic. Backup your position or he’ll eat your lunch, I promise.

He may be anti war in Iraq; he is entitled to that position and can defend it.

I’ve seen him as a mod on a site tell posters that when speaking of Bush they would address him as “President Bush” not W or Chimp, same for Rumsfeld, not rummy but “Defense Secretary” Rumsfeld , same for all the other members of the administration.

In short, Stripey is not the extreme left wing wacko you may think he is.

red states rule
02-10-2007, 06:50 PM
Just as side note for all my conservative friends: I’ve known TheStripey1 on the net for several years. Don’t read between the lines of his posts and don’t think him less than patriotic. Backup your position or he’ll eat your lunch, I promise.

He may be anti war in Iraq; he is entitled to that position and can defend it.

I’ve seen him as a mod on a site tell posters that when speaking of Bush they would address him as “President Bush” not W or Chimp, same for Rumsfeld, not rummy but “Defense Secretary” Rumsfeld , same for all the other members of the administration.

In short, Stripey is not the extreme left wing wacko you may think he is.

He has all the warmth and charm of a scorpion

when he said he did not see any peace niks spit on returning Viet Nam vets, so it did not happen (his post clearly implied that) he lost all respect and consideration

I

Mr. P
02-10-2007, 07:01 PM
He has all the warmth and charm of a scorpion

when he said he did not see any peace niks spit on returning Viet Nam vets, so it did not happen (his post clearly implied that) he lost all respect and consideration

I

Which post #, I missed it?

red states rule
02-10-2007, 07:03 PM
Which post #, I missed it?

try number 166

Mr. P
02-10-2007, 07:09 PM
try number 166

This is where he'll eat your lunch, RSR. He didn't say it didn't happen. He asked, 'did you see it'.

Keep yer ducks in a row or you'll get shot down..I promise.

red states rule
02-10-2007, 07:16 PM
This is where he'll eat your lunch, RSR. He didn't say it didn't happen. He asked, 'did you see it'.

Keep yer ducks in a row or you'll get shot down..I promise.

Then when I post links from the NY Times that prove it did happen, and the interview with the Iarq war vet who was spit at, he still denies it

So far he is nothing more then a left wing nutcase who needs to be in a rubber room and a straight jacket

Mr. P
02-10-2007, 07:26 PM
Then when I post links from the NY Times that prove it did happen, and the interview with the Iarq war vet who was spit at, he still denies it

So far he is nothing more then a left wing nutcase who needs to be in a rubber room and a straight jacket

Think what you will, RSR. I saw the bashing beginning and just wanted everyone to know he's not what you may think..but whatever.

Gaffer
02-11-2007, 12:24 AM
Want some reading? Try these.http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/

http://www.antimullah.com/

http://www.inthebullpen.com/archives/category/iran-watch/

http://www.blackfive.net/main/

http://thunderrun.blogspot.com/

http://www.floppingaces.net/

That will give you a bit of truth about the war and provide you with lots of links to other sites.

I was the one that said hamas and hizbollah are HERE. They have cells here in the states. Sadam supported them as well with money and training. iran supports them now.

zarqowi was a al queda. He was from jordan. His job was to create a civil war in iraq. He succeeded in stirring up a lot of shit but not a true civil war.

There has been just as much fighting going on in afganhistan as there is in iraq, why is that not covered the same way? Because its not part of the MSM's agenda which is to make Bush look bad at all costs. Much as I disagree with Bush on a lot of things, I dispise the media and the libs for playing politics with the war. They DO want to turn it into a Vietnam type of war. The dems are even threatening to pull funding. Just as they did back then, which cause the SV to be over run. The dems didn't bat an eye at that.

The surge, as they like to call it, is just a re-enforcement of troops. It allows our troops to move in and clear an area and hold it while moving on to the next area, instead of chasing the thugs around in circles. It's a take and hold operation now instead of take and withdraw only to take again. It's been ongoing for about three weeks now and is already starting to prove successful. The libs are going to hate that.

Anyone on here that doesn't want to be called a lib, I suggest you stop talking like one. I'm not a republican, but I am a conservative. I am also well read on history and like to double check facts. I REALLY suggest some of you liberal talkers out there read up on islam and what its all about. It will open your eyes.

Stripey you seem to like to bring up your vet status a lot. I mentioned it before. I too am a Vietnam vet. But I wasn't back in the rear with the gear. We called you all REMF's. I did my time starting in the Iron Triangle and ending in the Central Highlands 30 miles south of the DMZ. I can count the days I slept on a cot on my fingers. I made more air assults on hot LZ's than you had time in service. I crawled in tunnels, dodged booby traps, assaulted enemy held positions, got mortared and rocketed, carried out wounded friends and even made a beach assault from a landing craft.(That was a unique experience).

So don't talk to me about armchair quarterbacking and being a war hawk. I whole heartedly support the troops, and I can empathize with them. I have been there. My nephew was in the 3rd ID when they went into iraq in 03. He has done 3 tours now. My son-in-laws best friend just got back two months ago. He has done two tours. Both re-enlisted while over there, because they believed in what they were doing.

I listed above some non-MSM sites to get good info from. I suggest you check them out. Even FOX which you libs love to hate doesn't report all the stuff these sites do. I have more.


That's Sin Loy Toy Duc Stripey

SassyLady
02-11-2007, 05:17 AM
Wanna know what the decider can do for our security and to fight terrorists? Fund alternative energy sources. Get us off of our oil dependence. Stop putting money into the hands of animals.

J - do you honestly think that if America suddenly quit buying oil from ME countries that terrorism against the US would cease?

SassyLady
02-11-2007, 06:20 AM
In short, Stripey is not the extreme left wing wacko you may think he is.

Maybe not. But I certainly couldn't make that judgement from reading this thread and his posts.

SassyLady
02-11-2007, 06:32 AM
As for the list of things this soldier is tired of --- I think it's a good start. I've talked with many Iraq and Afghanistan vets in the last few years and from what they have said - this is the short list.

jillian
02-11-2007, 07:12 AM
J - do you honestly think that if America suddenly quit buying oil from ME countries that terrorism against the US would cease?

The way I see it, if we don't need foreign oil, they don't get our money to funnel to terrorist organizations and we can tell them to pound salt

Independence from foreign oil removes oil as a factor in determining our foreign policy. For example, the 9/11 Hijackers came from Sauidi Arabia and were trained in Afghanistan. We do nothing to Saudi Arabia and go into Iraq. Yet Saudi Arabia is the place with the madrassas.

You asked me a question... and I hope I answered it, but there isn't any ONE thing that is appropriate. These are complex issues and there are many steps to be taken. Iraq just wasn't ever one of them.

jillian
02-11-2007, 07:14 AM
As for the list of things this soldier is tired of --- I think it's a good start. I've talked with many Iraq and Afghanistan vets in the last few years and from what they have said - this is the short list.

And the ones who I've spoken with agree with me and Stripey. :cheers2:

red states rule
02-11-2007, 07:26 AM
And the ones who I've spoken with agree with me and Stripey. :cheers2:

Stop going to the Pro Terrorist rallies and get back into the real world.

red states rule
02-11-2007, 07:31 AM
Here are photos of the peace niks and they are good for laughs. Also notcie the crowd is nowhere near the numbers the libs and liberal media were telling us

With these pics, you can tell what a bunch of nuts these peace niks are


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/protestphotos.html

Sitarro
02-11-2007, 07:42 AM
The way I see it, if we don't need foreign oil, they don't get our money to funnel to terrorist organizations and we can tell them to pound salt

Independence from foreign oil removes oil as a factor in determining our foreign policy. For example, the 9/11 Hijackers came from Sauidi Arabia and were trained in Afghanistan. We do nothing to Saudi Arabia and go into Iraq. Yet Saudi Arabia is the place with the madrassas.

You asked me a question... and I hope I answered it, but there isn't any ONE thing that is appropriate. These are complex issues and there are many steps to be taken. Iraq just wasn't ever one of them.

You must be very proud of yourself Jilli. You and all of the other naive anti-Iraq-war ditzes share your opinions with Iran's Mullahs, Ahmadinejad, Putin, Chavez, Castro, Jimma Carter, John Kerry-Heinz, Queen ditz Pelosi, Osama, Obama, et al......you know, all the brainy people of world. You should check with Al Jazeera, I'm sure they could use a lawyer without an original thought that will happily defend the lowest forms of life on the planet(you already defend Democrats for the indefensible)......no offense of course.....then again how could you be offended?

red states rule
02-11-2007, 07:50 AM
You must be very proud of yourself Jilli. You and all of the other naive anti-Iraq-war ditzes share your opinions with Iran's Mullahs, Ahmadinejad, Putin, Chavez, Castro, Jimma Carter, John Kerry-Heinz, Queen ditz Pelosi, Osama, Obama, et al......you know, all the brainy people of world. You should check with Al Jazeera, I'm sure they could use a lawyer without an original thought that will happily defend the lowest forms of life on the planet(you already defend Democrats for the indefensible)......no offense of course.....then again how could you be offended?

How can Jilly be offended? Everytime Pres Bush (and anyone who agrees with him) draws a breath

Gaffer
02-11-2007, 02:25 PM
The way I see it, if we don't need foreign oil, they don't get our money to funnel to terrorist organizations and we can tell them to pound salt

Independence from foreign oil removes oil as a factor in determining our foreign policy. For example, the 9/11 Hijackers came from Sauidi Arabia and were trained in Afghanistan. We do nothing to Saudi Arabia and go into Iraq. Yet Saudi Arabia is the place with the madrassas.

You asked me a question... and I hope I answered it, but there isn't any ONE thing that is appropriate. These are complex issues and there are many steps to be taken. Iraq just wasn't ever one of them.

Since it will be about 20 years be fore we have any alternative to oil, what do you recommend we do in the mean time. ever hear of the 20 year plan al queda is using for world conquest. Personally I would like to see us take down the entire region. But an attack on SA would just be another dem war cry of Bush took us into war. Whatever he does your going to be against it.

What's more important? Fighting the islamists or attacking Bush? To the liberal mind attacking Bush is much more important. So don't look for us to do anything to SA while the dems have anything to say in the matter.

red states rule
02-11-2007, 02:28 PM
Since it will be about 20 years be fore we have any alternative to oil, what do you recommend we do in the mean time. ever hear of the 20 year plan al queda is using for world conquest. Personally I would like to see us take down the entire region. But an attack on SA would just be another dem war cry of Bush took us into war. Whatever he does your going to be against it.

What's more important? Fighting the islamists or attacking Bush? To the liberal mind attacking Bush is much more important. So don't look for us to do anything to SA while the dems have anything to say in the matter.

Jilly and her liberal buds will never join the war on terror. They are to obsessed with fighting their war on Bush. If you look at the pics from the pro terrorist rally there were alot of anti Bush, anti war, anti military signs; but not one anti terrorist sign

To the looney left, the only threat to the US is Pres Bush and anyone who supports him

Gaffer
02-11-2007, 03:42 PM
Jilly and her liberal buds will never join the war on terror. They are to obsessed with fighting their war on Bush. If you look at the pics from the pro terrorist rally there were alot of anti Bush, anti war, anti military signs; but not one anti terrorist sign

To the looney left, the only threat to the US is Pres Bush and anyone who supports him

That's so very true. Never do you see any of them out there with anti-terrorist slogans. Not even a "Let's kill osama" sign. Left is at war with Bush and nothing else matters. Then they wonder why the rest of us call them traitors and appeasers and enablers.

I have said for years that the libs have tunnel vision. They see Bush and only Bush as the enemy. They are incapable of looking beyond that.

red states rule
02-11-2007, 03:50 PM
That's so very true. Never do you see any of them out there with anti-terrorist slogans. Not even a "Let's kill osama" sign. Left is at war with Bush and nothing else matters. Then they wonder why the rest of us call them traitors and appeasers and enablers.

I have said for years that the libs have tunnel vision. They see Bush and only Bush as the enemy. They are incapable of looking beyond that.

Here is a fine example of the left and their hate. It also shows how they "support" the troops

Warren Community College English professor, John Daly, said that “Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors.” Rebecca Beach, a freshman at Warren Community College in Washington, New Jersey, received this unexpected reply to a recent email she sent the faculty at her school announcing the appearance of decorated Iraq war hero, Lt. Col. Scott Rutter, on Thursday, November 17 to discuss America’s accomplishments in Iraq.


November 13, 2005

Dear Rebecca:

I am asking my students to boycott your event. I am also going to ask others to boycott it. Your literature and signs in the entrance lobby look like fascist propaganda and is extremely offensive. Your main poster “Communism killed 100,000,000″ is not only untrue, but ignores the fact that CAPITALISM has killed many more and the evidence for that can be seen in the daily news papers.

The U.S. government can fly to dominate the people of Iraq in 12 hours, yet it took them five days to assist the people devastated by huricane Katrina. Racism and profits were key to their priorities. Exxon, by the way, made $9 Billion in profits this last quarter–their highest proft margin ever. Thanks to the students of WCCC and other poor and working class people who are recruited to fight and die for EXXON and other corporations who earning megaprofits from their imperialist plunders.

If you want to count the number of deaths based on political systems, you can begin with the more than a million children who have died in Iraq from U.S.-imposed sanctions and war. Or the million African American people who died from lack of access to healthcare in the US over the last 10 years.

I will continue to expose your right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like your won’t dare show their face on a college campus. Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors and fight for just causes and for people’s needs–such freedom fighters can be counted throughout American history and they certainly will be counted again.

Prof. John Daly

Gaffer
02-11-2007, 04:22 PM
Thanks Red. A prime example of our education system at work. I think our colleges need a good house cleaning.

we need an amendment to the constitution that outlaws muslims and communists. Both are political organizations out to take over the country and the world.

That prof daly needs a lesson in geography and logistics. Would love to run into him in a secluded alley sometime.

red states rule
02-11-2007, 04:30 PM
Thanks Red. A prime example of our education system at work. I think our colleges need a good house cleaning.

we need an amendment to the constitution that outlaws muslims and communists. Both are political organizations out to take over the country and the world.

That prof daly needs a lesson in geography and logistics. Would love to run into him in a secluded alley sometime.

I wonder if Daly was one of Jilly's teachers. It would explain a few things

Our kids are being taught how to be a bunch of Rosie's and Michael Kinsley's. Nothing more then a bunch of liberal wimps

Gaffer
02-11-2007, 04:44 PM
I wonder if Daly was one of Jilly's teachers. It would explain a few things

Our kids are being taught how to be a bunch of Rosie's and Michael Kinsley's. Nothing more then a bunch of liberal wimps

That could explain a lot. she has obviously had a lot of brainwashing.

Sitarro
02-11-2007, 04:56 PM
You must be very proud of yourself Jilli. You and all of the other naive anti-Iraq-war ditzes share your opinions with Iran's Mullahs, Ahmadinejad, Putin, Chavez, Castro, Jimma Carter, John Kerry-Heinz, Queen ditz Pelosi, Osama, Obama, et al......you know, all the brainy people of world. You should check with Al Jazeera, I'm sure they could use a lawyer without an original thought that will happily defend the lowest forms of life on the planet(you already defend Democrats for the indefensible)......no offense of course.....then again how could you be offended?

Gee Jilli or is it grumpy today or someone even more full of shit(I'm not sure that's possible). In the years I have been posting on messageboards I have recieved only one other negative rep......that was from another asswipe that I had pegged perfectly who was also void of any creative thought and had no other arguement than to ding me.....the truth hurts doesn't it Jilli/grump? Oh and Jilli, a negative rep from you is a badge of honor to me, anytime someone that agrees with America's biggest enemies disagrees with me it's a good thing, keep it up. I could really give a shit about the silly little points....NOT. In the immortal words of Jack Nicholson as Colonel Jessup...."YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH"! Speaking of Colonel Jessup, have you volunteered to go to Guantanemo and defend the Al Queda boys there, that would sure punch up the old resume.

One other thing......the gloves are off counseler......no more cutting a pathetic parrot like you any more slack.....enjoy.:upyours: :finger3: :lmao:

Sitarro
02-11-2007, 06:11 PM
Here is a fine example of the left and their hate. It also shows how they "support" the troops

Warren Community College English professor, John Daly, said that “Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors.” Rebecca Beach, a freshman at Warren Community College in Washington, New Jersey, received this unexpected reply to a recent email she sent the faculty at her school announcing the appearance of decorated Iraq war hero, Lt. Col. Scott Rutter, on Thursday, November 17 to discuss America’s accomplishments in Iraq.


November 13, 2005

Dear Rebecca:

I am asking my students to boycott your event. I am also going to ask others to boycott it. Your literature and signs in the entrance lobby look like fascist propaganda and is extremely offensive. Your main poster “Communism killed 100,000,000? is not only untrue, but ignores the fact that CAPITALISM has killed many more and the evidence for that can be seen in the daily news papers.

The U.S. government can fly to dominate the people of Iraq in 12 hours, yet it took them five days to assist the people devastated by huricane Katrina. Racism and profits were key to their priorities. Exxon, by the way, made $9 Billion in profits this last quarter–their highest proft margin ever. Thanks to the students of WCCC and other poor and working class people who are recruited to fight and die for EXXON and other corporations who earning megaprofits from their imperialist plunders.

If you want to count the number of deaths based on political systems, you can begin with the more than a million children who have died in Iraq from U.S.-imposed sanctions and war. Or the million African American people who died from lack of access to healthcare in the US over the last 10 years.

I will continue to expose your right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like your won’t dare show their face on a college campus. Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors and fight for just causes and for people’s needs–such freedom fighters can be counted throughout American history and they certainly will be counted again.

Prof. John Daly

The fabulous Michelle Malkin reported this on November 26, 2005........

A PRO-FRAGGING PROFESSOR RESIGNS
By Michelle Malkin · November 26, 2005 12:41 PM
Warren County Community College adjunct English professor John Daly, who advocated fragging American soldiers in an e-mail bullying conservative student Rebecca Beach over a speaking event she had organized, has resigned.

Here's the official college statement. An excerpt:

The College became aware of the impact of the instructor’s comments when it was inundated with local and national opinions from the public. Responding to that, the Board of Trustees and administration moved as quickly as possible to review and address the issue. A board meeting was scheduled for last night to present the issue to the Board; however, while the administration was preparing for that meeting, the adjunct instructor Mr. John Daly submitted his resignation. The Board of Trustees voted to accept his resignation at last night’s meeting.
President Dr. William Austin made clear that the community college is now reviewing and drafting tolerance policies for all employees and we will include this training in our next staff development day.

President Austin also appeared this morning on Radio WRNJ 1510 AM to assure the community that the College will move forward with a sense of enlightenment and resolve with its education mission and also apologized to all whom might have been offended by the incident. He added that, “We are fortunate to have so many brave men and women fighting for our freedom. This Thanksgiving is an opportune time to thank them for their courage and pray for their safe return.”

The Young America's Foundation, which exposed Daly's moonbattery, has full background and links here.

red states rule
02-11-2007, 07:02 PM
Gee Jilli or is it grumpy today or someone even more full of shit(I'm not sure that's possible). In the years I have been posting on messageboards I have recieved only one other negative rep......that was from another asswipe that I had pegged perfectly who was also void of any creative thought and had no other arguement than to ding me.....the truth hurts doesn't it Jilli/grump? Oh and Jilli, a negative rep from you is a badge of honor to me, anytime someone that agrees with America's biggest enemies disagrees with me it's a good thing, keep it up. I could really give a shit about the silly little points....NOT. In the immortal words of Jack Nicholson as Colonel Jessup...."YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH"! Speaking of Colonel Jessup, have you volunteered to go to Guantanemo and defend the Al Queda boys there, that would sure punch up the old resume.

One other thing......the gloves are off counseler......no more cutting a pathetic parrot like you any more slack.....enjoy.:upyours: :finger3: :lmao:



To Jilly, being a patrior during the Clinton years was to silence anyone who was against Bill and Hill. I remember how libs said conservatives were trying the tear down the Presidency

Now today, Jilly and company says being a patriot is to oppose Pres Bush in any way they can. Anything Pres Bush is for, the kook left is against. This includes the US military

I am still trying to understand how Jilly became a mod. She is most biased person on the board

Making her a mod is like making Michael Jackson an aide at a day care center

Grumplestillskin
02-11-2007, 07:09 PM
Gee Jilli or is it grumpy today or someone even more full of shit(I'm not sure that's possible). In the years I have been posting on messageboards I have recieved only one other negative rep......that was from another asswipe that I had pegged perfectly who was also void of any creative thought and had no other arguement than to ding me.....the truth hurts doesn't it Jilli/grump? Oh and Jilli, a negative rep from you is a badge of honor to me, anytime someone that agrees with America's biggest enemies disagrees with me it's a good thing, keep it up. I could really give a shit about the silly little points....NOT. In the immortal words of Jack Nicholson as Colonel Jessup...."YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH"! Speaking of Colonel Jessup, have you volunteered to go to Guantanemo and defend the Al Queda boys there, that would sure punch up the old resume.

One other thing......the gloves are off counseler......no more cutting a pathetic parrot like you any more slack.....enjoy.:upyours: :finger3: :lmao:


Huh? I've never neg repped you...as for the gloves coming off, you mean any other time you've dissed libs/centrists/normal folk, that was you being nice? Can't wait to see what you are like with the gloves off. Now I'll definitely have to get my rabies shot.

As an aside, for somebody who doesn't give a shit about being neg repped you sure had a good whine about it.

Haven't you got some bags to stack?

Grumplestillskin
02-11-2007, 07:12 PM
Making her a mod is like making Michael Jackson an aide at a day care center

And bringing you over here was like inviting a Spam Machine....:splat:

red states rule
02-11-2007, 07:13 PM
Huh? I've never neg repped you...as for the gloves coming off, you mean any other time you've dissed libs/centrists/normal folk, that was you being nice? Can't wait to see what you are like with the gloves off. Now I'll definitely have to get my rabies shot.

As an aside, for somebody who doesn't give a shit about being neg repped you sure had a good whine about it.

Haven't you got some bags to stack?

Jilly has a nasty habit of giving neg rep because she simply disagree with you. I know that first hand, She dinged me twice on my first day here

Jilly a mod? Go figure

Grumplestillskin
02-11-2007, 07:14 PM
She dinged me twice on my first day her

Each to their own..


Jilly a mod? Go figure

You better watch the mod bashing. OCA and Darin will be on you like shit on a blanket...:blues:

red states rule
02-11-2007, 07:20 PM
Each to their own..



You better watch the mod bashing. OCA and Darin will be on you like shit on a blanket...:blues:



Mod bashing? Try telling the truth. Making Jilly a mod is like making Bill Clinton the head of the Ethics Department

Grumplestillskin
02-11-2007, 07:22 PM
Mod bashing? Try telling the truth. Making Jilly a mod is like making Bill Clinton the head of the Ethics Department

Hey, I told the truth about a couple of mods and got told to pull my head in...:afro:

red states rule
02-11-2007, 07:23 PM
Hey, I told the truth about a couple of mods and got told to pull my head in...:afro:

Maybe I was wrong there. Making Jilly a mod is like making Ted Kennedy head if the DC chapter of AA

Grumplestillskin
02-11-2007, 07:24 PM
Maybe I was wrong there. Making Jilly a mod is like making Ted Kennedy head if the DC chapter of AA

At worst you'll get a 24-hour ban! Good for the rest of us (no Spam for a day wouldn't do any harm), but your loss! Carry on! :cheers2:

Sitarro
02-11-2007, 07:26 PM
Huh? I've never neg repped you...as for the gloves coming off, you mean any other time you've dissed libs/centrists/normal folk, that was you being nice? Can't wait to see what you are like with the gloves off. Now I'll definitely have to get my rabies shot.

As an aside, for somebody who doesn't give a shit about being neg repped you sure had a good whine about it.

Haven't you got some bags to stack?

Really Jilli/Grump,
Still waiting for you to come out to the airport and stack an eight of a cargo bin you cigarette, oh wait, you call them faggots over there in the soggy Muslim enclave you pretend to be from...right Jilli.

red states rule
02-11-2007, 07:26 PM
At worst you'll get a 24-hour ban! Good for the rest of us (no Spam for a day wouldn't do any harm), but your loss! Carry on! :cheers2:

Your version of the Fairness Doctrine Grump?

jillian
02-11-2007, 07:35 PM
Your version of the Fairness Doctrine Grump?

Why? Have you been banned? Threatened with a banning? I think even trolls should have freedom of speech.

However, if you have problems with a moderator, feel free to pm Jim. Right now you're both derailing this thread.

red states rule
02-11-2007, 07:37 PM
Why? Have you been banned? Threatened with a banning? I think even trolls should have freedom of speech.

However, if you have problems with a moderator, feel free to pm Jim. Right now you're derailing this thread.

Liberal bimbos have the right to be mods. No problem here

jillian
02-11-2007, 07:42 PM
Liberal bimbos have the right to be mods. No problem here

Like I said, if you have any complaints, pm Jim. Flaming mods is a no-no, lib or not.

red states rule
02-11-2007, 07:48 PM
Like I said, if you have any complaints, pm Jim. Flaming mods is a no-no, lib or not.

How about mods flaming others?

Mr. P
02-11-2007, 08:38 PM
IMO you give conservatives a bad name, RSR. Same as a thumper hurts the Christian religion. You need to stfu and sit down for awhile, you're looking more and more like a moron. I'm being honest.

TheStripey1
02-11-2007, 08:46 PM
You got something against Cretans? My parents are from Rethimno, Crete, I was born on Crete, I find that personally offensive.

No, I like people from Crete... but uhhh, OCA are they really called cretins? I think not... but if they are perhaps you should tell them what that word means in English...

From Google:

Definitions of cretin on the Web:

one whose physical and mental development has been retarded or arrested due to thyroid deficiency (www.southalabama.edu/alliedhealth/cls/Ravine/glossary_of_pathology_and_%20medical_terms.htm
)

Cretinism is a congenital form of deficiency of thyroid hormones, retarding mental and physical growth. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretin)

idiot: a person of subnormal intelligence (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

It's up to you to decide which of these COMMON definitions of the word cretin I intended for red... but I think you can figure it out.

:dev2:

manu1959
02-11-2007, 08:48 PM
I wonder if Daly was one of Jilly's teachers. It would explain a few things

Our kids are being taught how to be a bunch of Rosie's and Michael Kinsley's. Nothing more then a bunch of liberal wimps

better they be taught to be like you.....

TheStripey1
02-11-2007, 08:51 PM
Just as side note for all my conservative friends: I’ve known TheStripey1 on the net for several years. Don’t read between the lines of his posts and don’t think him less than patriotic. Backup your position or he’ll eat your lunch, I promise.

He may be anti war in Iraq; he is entitled to that position and can defend it.

I’ve seen him as a mod on a site tell posters that when speaking of Bush they would address him as “President Bush” not W or Chimp, same for Rumsfeld, not rummy but “Defense Secretary” Rumsfeld , same for all the other members of the administration.

In short, Stripey is not the extreme left wing wacko you may think he is.

Thanks, CWO...

Nope... I'm a recovering republican yearning for a third party... one that embodies the best things from both the democrats and republicans... one that could quite possibly be called.... "old school republicanism"... cuz modern-day republicans just ain't what they used to be...

flexes claws...

So bring your best game, boys... bring your best game...

:laugh2:

CockySOB
02-11-2007, 09:03 PM
Thanks, CWO...

Nope... I'm a recovering republican yearning for a third party... one that embodies the best things from both the democrats and republicans... one that could quite possibly be called.... "old school republicanism"... cuz modern-day republicans just ain't what they used to be...

flexes claws...

So bring your best game, boys... bring your best game...

:laugh2:

A Jacksonian republican?

OCA
02-11-2007, 09:05 PM
No, I like people from Crete... but uhhh, OCA are they really called cretins? I think not... but if they are perhaps you should tell them what that word means in English...

From Google:

Definitions of cretin on the Web:

one whose physical and mental development has been retarded or arrested due to thyroid deficiency (www.southalabama.edu/alliedhealth/cls/Ravine/glossary_of_pathology_and_%20medical_terms.htm
)

Cretinism is a congenital form of deficiency of thyroid hormones, retarding mental and physical growth. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretin)

idiot: a person of subnormal intelligence (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

It's up to you to decide which of these COMMON definitions of the word cretin I intended for red... but I think you can figure it out.

:dev2:

In Greek i'm Kritikos, more than one Kritikoi or Kritikous, in English we are referred to as Cretans, Not exactly where that got to be a derogatory thing in English as all the Cretans I know including myself are highly educated and standup people, the salt of the earth.

How about just calling him a fucking moron?

OCA
02-11-2007, 09:10 PM
Hey, I told the truth about a couple of mods and got told to pull my head in...:afro:

LMFAO! The truth!:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

TheStripey1
02-11-2007, 09:26 PM
Want some reading? Try these.http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/

http://www.antimullah.com/

http://www.inthebullpen.com/archives/category/iran-watch/

http://www.blackfive.net/main/

http://thunderrun.blogspot.com/

http://www.floppingaces.net/

That will give you a bit of truth about the war and provide you with lots of links to other sites.

A) I was the one that said hamas and hizbollah are HERE. They have cells here in the states. Sadam supported them as well with money and training. iran supports them now.

B) zarqowi was a al queda. He was from jordan. His job was to create a civil war in iraq. He succeeded in stirring up a lot of shit but not a true civil war.

C) There has been just as much fighting going on in afganhistan as there is in iraq, why is that not covered the same way? Because its not part of the MSM's agenda which is to make Bush look bad at all costs. Much as I disagree with Bush on a lot of things, I dispise the media and the libs for playing politics with the war. They DO want to turn it into a Vietnam type of war. The dems are even threatening to pull funding. Just as they did back then, which cause the SV to be over run. The dems didn't bat an eye at that.

D) The surge, as they like to call it, is just a re-enforcement of troops. It allows our troops to move in and clear an area and hold it while moving on to the next area, instead of chasing the thugs around in circles. It's a take and hold operation now instead of take and withdraw only to take again. It's been ongoing for about three weeks now and is already starting to prove successful. The libs are going to hate that.

E) Anyone on here that doesn't want to be called a lib, I suggest you stop talking like one. I'm not a republican, but I am a conservative. I am also well read on history and like to double check facts. I REALLY suggest some of you liberal talkers out there read up on islam and what its all about. It will open your eyes.

F) Stripey you seem to like to bring up your vet status a lot. I mentioned it before. I too am a Vietnam vet. But I wasn't back in the rear with the gear. We called you all REMF's. I did my time starting in the Iron Triangle and ending in the Central Highlands 30 miles south of the DMZ. I can count the days I slept on a cot on my fingers. I made more air assults on hot LZ's than you had time in service. I crawled in tunnels, dodged booby traps, assaulted enemy held positions, got mortared and rocketed, carried out wounded friends and even made a beach assault from a landing craft.(That was a unique experience).

G) So don't talk to me about armchair quarterbacking and being a war hawk. I whole heartedly support the troops, and I can empathize with them. I have been there. My nephew was in the 3rd ID when they went into iraq in 03. He has done 3 tours now. My son-in-laws best friend just got back two months ago. He has done two tours. Both re-enlisted while over there, because they believed in what they were doing.

IH) listed above some non-MSM sites to get good info from. I suggest you check them out. Even FOX which you libs love to hate doesn't report all the stuff these sites do. I have more.


That's Sin Loy Toy Duc Stripey

Thanks for the sites... I'll check them out when I can...

A) The way you worded it sounded like you meant Hamas and Hezbollah were in Iraq... but you actually meant here as in here in the USA... well then if that is so, why haven't they been arrested?

B) No arguement there.

C) As I recall, Nixon ran for president in 1968, on the platform that he was going to end the war in Viet Nam... How much longer did it go on? Six, seven years? The dems got tired of seeing our men being killed I guess... and they cut off the funding...

NATO runs the Afghan War now, don't they? How come they don't eradicate the poppies?

D) Take, Give Back and Take again was a Viet nam tactic that did nothing but kill GIs and make the weapons manufacturers filthy rich... and it's happening again...

Maybe this rehash of last summer's Together Forward will work... who knows... but sure as shooting, we will all know soon... it depends on the Iraqis pulling their share of the load... will they?

E) Why bother? You already have... I have other interests...

F) That's right, Gaffer... I bring it up because you right wingers seem to think that you are the only ones who serve their country. I get tired of the same old crap, board in board out, that if I am against the war in Iraq that I am unpatriotic when most of those that insult me thusly haven't even served themselves.

F2) REMF? That's a WWII term... they HAD front lines then, not in Viet Nam... there are NO front lines in an occupied country... there were none in Viet Nam and there are none in Iraq... some places may be safer than others but there were NO absolutely safe places... I got wounded during a mortar attack, in Dec '67, while on a mobility deployment resupplying a Special Forces Camp with ammunition and the adjacent 105mm Battalion with 105mm shells... we were 5 kilometers from the Cambodian border...

I spent my tour primarily split between Tan Son Nhut and Lai Khe... cuz somebody had to put all you troopers on the aircraft that took you upcountry to fight, that was MY job... except for the Mobilities, where we went to one outpost for a day or two to resupply them... I went on about a half dozen of those... the hottest of course was the one I was wounded at...

G) You confuse me with someone else, cuz Gaffer, I have never called you an armchair quarterback... you're a hawk in my book... not a chickenhawk... I like hawks... I like debating with hawks (ask Mr. P or Gadget)... but I despise chickenhawks... there are a lot of them in the Republican Party... had I known how many, I would have left the republican party long before January 2003...

H) I will and again, thanks for them... I'll check them out when I have the time...

TheStripey1
02-11-2007, 09:35 PM
J - do you honestly think that if America suddenly quit buying oil from ME countries that terrorism against the US would cease?


Can I answer?

No...

TheStripey1
02-11-2007, 09:40 PM
Since it will be about 20 years be fore we have any alternative to oil, what do you recommend we do in the mean time. ever hear of the 20 year plan al queda is using for world conquest. Personally I would like to see us take down the entire region. But an attack on SA would just be another dem war cry of Bush took us into war. Whatever he does your going to be against it.

What's more important? Fighting the islamists or attacking Bush? To the liberal mind attacking Bush is much more important. So don't look for us to do anything to SA while the dems have anything to say in the matter.

Had bush continued to fight the war on terror instead of launching his personal quest of Iraq, we probably wouldn't be having this debate...

:dunno:

bush brought our wrath of him upon himself... he invaded Iraq... and now we're stuck there... and Osama is still on the loose... five years after bush vowed to bring him to justice...

Yurt
02-11-2007, 09:43 PM
Had bush continued to fight the war on terror instead of launching his personal quest of Iraq, we probably wouldn't be having this debate...

:dunno:

bush brought our wrath of him upon himself... he invaded Iraq... and now we're stuck there... and Osama is still on the loose... five years after bush vowed to bring him to justice...


Historically, what military leader has been more lenient that Bush? Any middle eastern folks?

manu1959
02-11-2007, 09:44 PM
Had bush continued to fight the war on terror instead of launching his personal quest of Iraq, we probably wouldn't be having this debate...

:dunno:

bush brought our wrath of him upon himself... he invaded Iraq... and now we're stuck there... and Osama is still on the loose... five years after bush vowed to bring him to justice...

those we sought in afganistan fled to several countries....all but iraq helped us capture them....we would have eventually had to fight iraq......

TheStripey1
02-11-2007, 10:00 PM
A Jacksonian republican?

not sure what that is, CSOB... pardon my naivete'... but to me, I'm somewhat like a Lou Dobbs democrat...

TheStripey1
02-11-2007, 10:02 PM
In Greek i'm Kritikos, more than one Kritikoi or Kritikous, in English we are referred to as Cretans, Not exactly where that got to be a derogatory thing in English as all the Cretans I know including myself are highly educated and standup people, the salt of the earth.

How about just calling him a fucking moron?

That'd work too... but I try not to use profanity...

extends paw... I meant no offense to you or yours... truce?

:beer: