Contact these turncoats...

[jillian]

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

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

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

[jimnyc]

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

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

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

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

[OCA]

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

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

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

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

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

[glockmail]

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

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

I can see that. Two pees in a pod! lol.

[jimnyc]

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

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

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

[pegwinn]

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

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

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

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

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

<SNIP>

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

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

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

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

[jillian]

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

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

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

And fair enough about using original sources.

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

[jillian]

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

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

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

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

[OCA]

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

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

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

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

[jillian]

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

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

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

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

[Dilloduck]

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

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

And fair enough about using original sources.

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

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

[manu1959]

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

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

And fair enough about using original sources.

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

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

[jillian]

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

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

[glockmail]

And I think invading Iraq when we were attacked by Saudi nationals trained in Afghanistan was wholly and totally uncalled for. ....

Sorry sweetcheeks, but facts is facts:

This is to serve as a semi-chronological guide to Iraq’s sponsorship of terrorism throughout the years beginning with 1990. I personally have not taken a firm position as to if Saddam personally supported any anti-American terrorist attack, but the information is presented here for you to make up your mind. Some may say that Wahhabists like Bin Laden, Shiites like the Iranians, and Sunnis like the Iraqis won’t work together do to theological differences. This argument has obviously been disproved, as today we see Saddam’s loyalists, Wahhabists and all sorts of terrorists today cooperating in the war against Coalition forces.

http://www.milnet.com/geo-pol/iraq-terror.html

Saddam and bin Laden were practically butt fucking each other.

[Gaffer]

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

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

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

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