Contact these turncoats...

[Abbey Marie]

Since you want to compare penis sizes, let's see ... I used to be one of them, then I lead them. Gave every minute of twenty to years to them. I have offered to go back on active duty at any point in time the Corps thinks they need me. When they get down to retirees with screwed up knees, I'm sure I'll be a shoe-in ... the aforementioned knees just being one of those little sacrifices made.

Not to get too far into playing your little game, I think it is commendable that you make quilts for troops. However, being able to put myself in their shoes, I'd much rather know that you were supporting my mission.

Tried to rep you, Gunny.

[pegwinn]

I didn't make the allegation. I merely said that those who insist that we must march in lockstep behind the president, offering him unconditional support, are, in effect, saying that a totalitarian regime is precisely what they want for this country. The posts here are evidence of that sentiment. Nope. There is a lot of emotional baggage being dumped and the word traitor being used indiscriminately. An actual Traitor damn near made it into the White House. You can disagree to your hearts content. Those same servicemen who are building hospitals and schools, policing the towns for roving bands of thugs supplied by castoff Armys stuff and Iranian Moolah as opposed to mullah, are making sure you have the right to dissent.

In the meantime, I'm doing my best to demoralize our troops by sewing qults for wounded soldiers. What are you doing for them? Mostly praying. As to your question about personal contributions. I put a few years in the Marines. I went some places. No hero at all. Not like the heroic folks who voted to make a nonbinding resolution instead of working on meaningful legislation that might tackle a few other problems here at home

Still having a blast I guess.

[GW in Ohio]

Gunny (and others):

I have been in the military (1st Signal Battalion, Phu Lam, '68--'69) and I do understand that when you're a soldier and you're undertaking a military operation, you can't have any doubts or hesitations. You have to go full-bore and get the job done. If you hesitate or are indecisive, you're asking for trouble, or defeat.

But somebody also has to look at military ops from a detached, civilian perspective, and ask, "Is this the right mission to be undertaking?" That's all we're doing. And most Americans, and many people in Congress, have come to the conclusion that this was a badly-conceived, badly-planned operation from the start that never should have happened because it was undertaken under false assumptions.

Iraq was the wrong mission at the wrong time. And I don't buy into the notion that if we stay there longer, and put more people into the mission, that we'll ultimately succeed.

We'll never succeed there. The mission was FUBAR from the get-go and the Iraqis (and the rest of the people in the Middle East) are basically crazy and don't really want peace.

It's a hard thing to accept, after we've lost over 3,000 good people and thousands more have been injured. But we need to suck it up and face the fact that a bad leader led us into a bad war. And we need to disengage before we lose any more good people.

[Gunny]

OK, I'll have a go... the initial post does, in fact, call Republicans who acted in a bi-partisan manner to express their disapproval "traitors".

How could one not extrapolate from that that the view of the poster, at least, is that anyone who doesn't support Bush's agenda is a traitor?

Or does it only apply to Republicans who are supposed to march in lockstep?

Maybe you can clarify?

Clarify? Yeah. Words mean things. If one extrapolates more than what is written, one is on a fishing expedition since the intent of the accusation is obvious.

It is one Republican calling other Republicans traitors for not supporting the party line.

Speaking of "marching in lockstep," look what happened to Lieberman because he wouldn't. The fact is, partisan politics brought this nonbinding resolution into existence, and I don't see not supporting the Democrat's agenda as "marching in lockstep." In this case, I see it as a vote against pointless stupidity.

[Gunny]

Gunny (and others):

I have been in the military (1st Signal Battalion, Phu Lam, '68--'69) and I do understand that when you're a soldier and you're undertaking a military operation, you can't have any doubts or hesitations. You have to go full-bore and get the job done. If you hesitate or are indecisive, you're asking for trouble, or defeat.

But somebody also has to look at military ops from a detached, civilian perspective, and ask, "Is this the right mission to be undertaking?" That's all we're doing. And most Americans, and many people in Congress, have come to the conclusion that this was a badly-conceived, badly-planned operation from the start that never should have happened because it was undertaken under false assumptions.

I agree it was a badly-planned operation. I do not agree that it never should have happened, and I definitely idsagree that it was undertaken under false assumptions.

I don't know about you, but I spent several Christmas's away from home babysitting the Iraq-Kuwait border because Saddam continued to violate the terms of ceasefire, and remained a threat to any and all neighboring countries. I consider the fact he invaded two of them proof of intent.

At some point in time, he was going to have to be dealt with. When exactly do you think that should have been?

As far as false assumptions go, I only know of one that has so far proven untrue, and if you were betting in Vegas, I'd bet you would not bet against the assumption Saddam had WMDs. He not only possessed them, but used them. He got busted as late as 93 with a bio lab.

Then there's the fact that just about every intelligence agency in the world believed the verysame "assumption." If you think for some reason the US military did not believe it, then you must've missed out on all the extra shots and sitting around in the desert in NBC protective gear.

I consider those whose arguments stand on the fact that some huge stockpile of WMDs didn't pop up and say "Here I am" as proof that Saddam did not possess, pursue, nor intend to use WMDs disingenuous and intellectually dishonest for the sole purpose of playing partisan politics.

Iraq was the wrong mission at the wrong time. And I don't buy into the notion that if we stay there longer, and put more people into the mission, that we'll ultimately succeed.

Putting more people into the mission will not, in and of itself, be the factor that determines whether or not we succeed. Strategy and tactics will be teh dtermining factor.

We'll never succeed there. The mission was FUBAR from the get-go and the Iraqis (and the rest of the people in the Middle East) are basically crazy and don't really want peace.

It's a hard thing to accept, after we've lost over 3,000 good people and thousands more have been injured. But we need to suck it up and face the fact that a bad leader led us into a bad war. And we need to disengage before we lose any more good people.

President Bush is hardly a bad leader, and deposing Saddam a noteworthy effort. My criticism has been from day one and still remains the manner in which it was conducted. Sound strategy and tactics were placed second to appeasing world opinion and political correctness. As long as that remains our MO, we aren't going to win ANY wars, and we may as well never leave "the house."

We can just be another "used to be" world power and sit around and wait for the inevitable destruction of our society since we are unwilling to do anything to defend it.

[pegwinn]

Gunny (and others):

I have been in the military (1st Signal Battalion, Phu Lam, '68--'69) and I do understand that when you're a soldier and you're undertaking a military operation, you can't have any doubts or hesitations. You have to go full-bore and get the job done. If you hesitate or are indecisive, you're asking for trouble, or defeat. Fucking A. And BTW Thank You.

But somebody also has to look at military ops from a detached, civilian perspective, and ask, "Is this the right mission to be undertaking?" That's all we're doing. And most Americans, and many people in Congress, have come to the conclusion that this was a badly-conceived, badly-planned operation from the start that never should have happened because it was undertaken under false assumptions. Not quite true. There have been bits and pieces of WMD found. Not near as much as we thought, true. I do agree that it was badly lead from the political leadership. A case of the right idea, the right project if you will, using the wrong blueprints.

Iraq was the wrong mission at the wrong time. And I don't buy into the notion that if we stay there longer, and put more people into the mission, that we'll ultimately succeed. Seems funny that folks have been saying we were doing on the cheap, and now that we are moving into reinforcing the troops suddenly it is escalation.

We'll never succeed there. The mission was FUBAR from the get-go and the Iraqis (and the rest of the people in the Middle East) are basically crazy and don't really want peace. We can succeed there. The way to do it is to literally destroy anything that gets in the way of us standing up the legitimate Iraqi .gov. Your last sentence is only discussing the fringe elements of extremism. I observed that most of the locals worry about the same thing as anyone else. Eating, paying the bills, and raising families. It can be done. Not cheap and damn sure not free.

It's a hard thing to accept, after we've lost over 3,000 good people Great people. and thousands more have been injured. But we need to suck it up and face the fact that a bad leader led us into a bad war. And we need to disengage before we lose any more good people. That isn't the same guy that wrote paragraph one above was it? GW isn't a bad leader. Granted, he isn't a former General turned President either. His Strategic Goal is to do what it takes (in spite of criticism) to ensure the American People as a whole are safe. His ad visors are trying to watch his ass politically. So they have his best interests at heart if not the troops or the nation as a whole. All that adds up to an execution phase that wasn't based on locating, closing with, and destroying the enemy (I love that phrase. My Marines got soooooo tired of hearing it ) but on deposing and rapidly rebuilding Saddam's Iraq.

Double check my posts GW. I haven't called anyone a traitor except JFKerry (and you were one of the ones he betrayed) and offered to debate that one in a separate string. Like you, and the Gunny, and The SgtMaj, I speak from personal experience. I can tell you that media coverage when it gets back to the troops doesn't shift thier focus or demoralize them on the spot. They are too busy looking out for each other and getting the mission accomplished. But, at the end of the days fight, when they are sleeping, a bit of a doubt is formed......

[Grumplestillskin]

Double check my posts GW. I haven't called anyone a traitor except JFKerry (and you were one of the ones he betrayed)

He betrayed no one. He was doing what he thought was right, and hindsight shows he was.

[darin]

He betrayed no one. He was doing what he thought was right, and hindsight shows he was.

what the hell? He was RIGHT? dude - you're making me physically ILL.

Not just you - but the more I'm exposed to how hateful, how destructive, and how anti-Truth liberals are, the more I'm thinking the Human race really won't survive. I'd call into question somebody's sanity who believes American GI's were simply raping and killing, indiscriminately, in the fashion of 'jen-giss' Kahn.

John Kerry is among the worst America has produced. Unethical, Morally bankrupt.

[Grumplestillskin]

what the hell? He was RIGHT? dude - you're making me physically ILL.

Not just you - but the more I'm exposed to how hateful, how destructive, and how anti-Truth liberals are, the more I'm thinking the Human race really won't survive. I'd call into question somebody's sanity who believes American GI's were simply raping and killing, indiscriminately, in the fashion of 'jen-giss' Kahn.

John Kerry is among the worst America has produced. Unethical, Morally bankrupt.

Go throw up then. I know personally at least one US soldier who openly admitted to me he executed a member of the VC. In fact his exact words were "I emptied my M-16 into him after he surrended". To be fair, he told me what the guy had done, which was disgusting, but in saying that, it kinda proves that that kinda thing did happen. Where did Kerry mention Genghis Khan? Funny what you say about Kerry, I feel the same way about Bush...shrug...

[Gunny]

He betrayed no one. He was doing what he thought was right, and hindsight shows he was.

What he thought was right?

As a Naval Officer, he didn't have to think. What was right was written on paper for him.

If one is given an unlawful order, it is one's duty to refuse to obey it, and immediately report it up the chain of command. Not once, in all the arguments in regard to Kerry, have I seen where he carried out his duties as a Naval officer in this regard. Had he made allegations, the paper trail would most certainly exist somewhere.

No, he come out a couple of years later and makes unsubstantiated allegations that basically sound like a bad Oliver Stone flick, betraying those he served with by branding them war criminals, all so he could jump start a fledgling political career.

In every instance where he is concerned one point stands starkly clear above all others .... everything he says and does is all about John Kerry.

[OCA]

Go throw up then. I know personally at least one US soldier who openly admitted to me he executed a member of the VC.

Sure you do

[manu1959]

Go throw up then. I know personally at least one US soldier who openly admitted to me he executed a member of the VC. In fact his exact words were "I emptied my M-16 into him after he surrended". To be fair, he told me what the guy had done, which was disgusting, but in saying that, it kinda proves that that kinda thing did happen. Where did Kerry mention Genghis Khan? Funny what you say about Kerry, I feel the same way about Bush...shrug...

i know people that took VC up in choppers and tossed them out one at a time till they started talking....big deal....it is war....fight it....the object of war is to win and kill more of them than they kill of you.....

as for kerry....he was a traitor to his own uniform and there was no fucking way i would vote to make him the comander in chief of the military he betrayed.

[Grumplestillskin]

What he thought was right?

As a Naval Officer, he didn't have to think. What was right was written on paper for him.

If one is given an unlawful order, it is one's duty to refuse to obey it, and immediately report it up the chain of command. Not once, in all the arguments in regard to Kerry, have I seen where he carried out his duties as a Naval officer in this regard. Had he made allegations, the paper trail would most certainly exist somewhere.

No, he come out a couple of years later and makes unsubstantiated allegations that basically sound like a bad Oliver Stone flick, betraying those he served with by branding them war criminals, all so he could jump start a fledgling political career.

In every instance where he is concerned one point stands starkly clear above all others .... everything he says and does is all about John Kerry.

I give you he wasn't the best presidential candidate, but he was better than the guy in the WH at the moment IMO. So much vitriole and crap has been spewed about Kerry, it is hard to separate fact from fiction. Of course those who hate him only believe the bad stuff, which makes him sound worse than he does. I watched the whole speech he gave to the committee back in 1972 or 73 or whenever it was. All the memebers of the committee - Dem and Repub - clapped him at the end of it. I thought it was a good speech..(shrug)

[Grumplestillskin]

i know people that took VC up in choppers and tossed them out one at a time till they started talking.....

So he was right.

[manu1959]

So he was right.

kerry?