President Bust stated in the SOTU: "... A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. And it would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time."
Any thoughts on this proposal? RW?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
. . . allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad."
What does that mean?
Dry Drunk Commander in Chief is really a vigilante man?
Round up the pose!
Vigilante Man
by Woody Guthrie
Rainy night down in the engine house
Sleepin' just as still as a mouse
A man came along and chase us out in the rain
Well was that a vigilante man?
Stormy days, we pass the time away
Sleeping in some good warm place
A cop come along we give him a little race
Say was that a vigilante man?
Well tell me why does a vigilante man
Tell me why does a vigilante man
Carry that sawed off shotgun in his hands
To shoot his brothers and sisters down that no good vigilante man
Well I ramble around from town to town
Yeah I ramble around from town to town
Yeah and they run us around like a wild herd of cattle lord
is that your vigilante man?
Well tell me why does a vigilante man
Tell me why does a vigilante man
Carry that club in his hands
Would he beat an innocent man down that no good vigilante man
I take it AOX you will continue to do nothing to serve your country and are content in just relishing the rights you have merely because you were conceived within the borders of this country. WOW! You must be proud to be an American.
Is this a rerun of the home guard? Seems the prez could explain what and how come the home national guard wound up in the mid-east getting shot at because they are protecting or failing to protect the citizens of those countries. Is it the same old race horse with a new name? It could be a good thing if he and all the other rich were required to be leaders out in front of the troops and waving for the citizen troops to "come on follow me". Seems the kings of old did it that way.
Civil Reserve Corps? No thanks! Instead of making Haliburton richer, I think volunteer time, energy, and civic duty would be better spent with the MMP (//%22http://www.minutemanproject.com/%22). This is where Americans really do have a chance as patriotic non uniformed citizens to serve and protect the security, sovereignty, and the Constitution of the United States against the REAL threat in the REAL defining struggle of our time, as opposed to protecting the earnings of war profiteers in Bush's Civil Reserve Corps.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
I take it AOX you will continue to do nothing to serve your country and are content in just relishing the rights you have merely because you were conceived within the borders of this country. WOW! You must be proud to be an American.
That's a leap on a guess you gwee doe doe.
A Proud American, but an axman when it comes to my patriotism being questioned....
Not a leap. It's the fact that you are just another Monday morning quarterback--letting others risk their lives in defending your freedom. I am sorry if that offends your definition of patriotism.
Volunteering to protect the earnings of war profiteers definitely offends my sense of patriotism, as it should any real American.
Aox is just a "Censored" that cries and screams about everything but gives no ideas or suggestions on how to make anything better.
Seems there was once an international agreement that when a military person was caught in plain clothes he was considered a spy and could be executed without further cause. Well soon as the prez disposes of the countries of the world I am sure that will be changed.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Aox is just a liberalbitch that cries and screams about everything but gives no ideas or suggestions on how to make anything better.
That is weak bs..... I should not have to make suggestions how to make things better. That is why we elect these clowns.
But here goes. Impeachment. How's that for a terrific suggestion?
And here's a suggestion from another thread by yours truly.....
"Don't you see the common denominator in this leadership? No credibility, No road map. We do not like being in the position to condemn the President and his right wing extremists. They need to move to the center and they don't get it."
BS2010, are you an extremist? What defines a liberal? Why are liberals so awful? Look what the alternative think tank has delivered to us?
Did you hear Karl Rove is being subpoenaed to testify in the Libby matter? These people have engaged in treasonous behavior.
America held hostage since January 2001! Busheviks still threatening and scaring sane Americans after all these years. When will the lunatics be removed from office?
Quit the scare yactics Gwee doe! No one buys into it anymore. Be brave. No fear.
"I wonder who they are
The men who really run this land
And I wonder why they run it
With such a thoughtless hand
What are their names
And on what streets do they live
I'd like to ride right over
This afternoon and give
Them a piece of my mind
About peace for mankind
Peace is not an awful lot to ask "
Crosby
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Aox is just a liberalbitch that cries and screams about everything but gives no ideas or suggestions on how to make anything better.
That is weak bs..... I should not have to make suggestions how to make things better. That is why we elect these clowns.
But here goes. Impeachment. How's that for a terrific suggestion?
And here's a suggestion from another thread by yours truly.....
"Don't you see the common denominator in this leadership? No credibility, No road map. We do not like being in the position to condemn the President and his right wing extremists. They need to move to the center and they don't get it."
BS2010, are you an extremist? What defines a liberal? Why are liberals so awful? Look what the alternative think tank has delivered to us?
Did you hear Karl Rove is being subpoenaed to testify in the Libby matter? These people have engaged in treasonous behavior.
America held hostage since January 2001! Busheviks still threatening and scaring sane Americans after all these years. When will the lunatics be removed from office?
Quit the scare yactics Gwee doe! No one buys into it anymore. Be brave. No fear.
"I wonder who they are
The men who really run this land
And I wonder why they run it
With such a thoughtless hand
What are their names
And on what streets do they live
I'd like to ride right over
This afternoon and give
Them a piece of my mind
About peace for mankind
Peace is not an awful lot to ask "
Crosby
Complaining without offering solutions is called whining.....
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Aox is just a liberalbitch that cries and screams about everything but gives no ideas or suggestions on how to make anything better.
That is weak bs..... I should not have to make suggestions how to make things better. That is why we elect these clowns.
But here goes. Impeachment. How's that for a terrific suggestion?
And here's a suggestion from another thread by yours truly.....
"Don't you see the common denominator in this leadership? No credibility, No road map. We do not like being in the position to condemn the President and his right wing extremists. They need to move to the center and they don't get it."
BS2010, are you an extremist? What defines a liberal? Why are liberals so awful? Look what the alternative think tank has delivered to us?
Did you hear Karl Rove is being subpoenaed to testify in the Libby matter? These people have engaged in treasonous behavior.
America held hostage since January 2001! Busheviks still threatening and scaring sane Americans after all these years. When will the lunatics be removed from office?
Quit the scare yactics Gwee doe! No one buys into it anymore. Be brave. No fear.
"I wonder who they are
The men who really run this land
And I wonder why they run it
With such a thoughtless hand
What are their names
And on what streets do they live
I'd like to ride right over
This afternoon and give
Them a piece of my mind
About peace for mankind
Peace is not an awful lot to ask "
Crosby
I don't like liberals because they consist of Edward Kennedy, Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, Ted Rall, Randi Rhodes, Maureen Dowd, Dick Durbin, Joel Stein, Ward Churchill, Cindy Sheehan, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, ect. ( I think you get the picture.)
As far as scare tactics, I don't need them. I still remember Sept. 11th and the Nick Berg video. Terrorist will kill us whenever they get the chance.
You do realize that since President Bush started his war on terror. There has not been one terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
Snakey, I have offered up several solutions:
1) Quit Iraq
2) Impeach the President
3) Force the Veep Creep out of office
4) Stop bankrolling the extremist ideology
5) Fire Rummy
6) Fire Brownie
7) Stop Bolton
8) Let Pelosi run with it
9) Change Campaign Rules
Some of my political solutions seen in these threads can be found on the poltical forum. If I don't offer them, a link makes the point.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Aox is just a liberalbitch that cries and screams about everything but gives no ideas or suggestions on how to make anything better.
That is weak bs..... I should not have to make suggestions how to make things better. That is why we elect these clowns.
But here goes. Impeachment. How's that for a terrific suggestion?
And here's a suggestion from another thread by yours truly.....
"Don't you see the common denominator in this leadership? No credibility, No road map. We do not like being in the position to condemn the President and his right wing extremists. They need to move to the center and they don't get it."
BS2010, are you an extremist? What defines a liberal? Why are liberals so awful? Look what the alternative think tank has delivered to us?
Did you hear Karl Rove is being subpoenaed to testify in the Libby matter? These people have engaged in treasonous behavior.
America held hostage since January 2001! Busheviks still threatening and scaring sane Americans after all these years. When will the lunatics be removed from office?
Quit the scare yactics Gwee doe! No one buys into it anymore. Be brave. No fear.
"I wonder who they are
The men who really run this land
And I wonder why they run it
With such a thoughtless hand
What are their names
And on what streets do they live
I'd like to ride right over
This afternoon and give
Them a piece of my mind
About peace for mankind
Peace is not an awful lot to ask "
Crosby
I don't like liberals because they consist of Edward Kennedy, Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, Ted Rall, Randi Rhodes, Maureen Dowd, Dick Durbin, Joel Stein, Ward Churchill, Cindy Sheehan, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, ect. ( I think you get the picture.)
As far as scare tactics, I don't need them. I still remember Sept. 11th and the Nick Berg video. Terrorist will kill us whenever they get the chance.
You do realize that since President Bush started his war on terror. There has not been one terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
The war on terror started way back around the time of Munich if not several hijackings before.
This is George Bush War and has nothing to do with terrorism except making it worse.
As far as terrorist attacks in this country there were 4 in one day last week here in Tulsa.
Nobody said you "need" scare tactics. But you and your crowd play it up, obviously.
It's sad how you group all dissenters into one category. You really don't need to like the Senators from New York. Their constituents sure do. It's that part of America and similar areas you have the tolerance issue with.
Just one question...Will the brown shirts be free?
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Aox is just a liberal***** that cries and screams about everything but gives no ideas or suggestions on how to make anything better.
That is weak bs..... I should not have to make suggestions how to make things better. That is why we elect these clowns.
But here goes. Impeachment. How's that for a terrific suggestion?
And here's a suggestion from another thread by yours truly.....
"Don't you see the common denominator in this leadership? No credibility, No road map. We do not like being in the position to condemn the President and his right wing extremists. They need to move to the center and they don't get it."
BS2010, are you an extremist? What defines a liberal? Why are liberals so awful? Look what the alternative think tank has delivered to us?
Did you hear Karl Rove is being subpoenaed to testify in the Libby matter? These people have engaged in treasonous behavior.
America held hostage since January 2001! Busheviks still threatening and scaring sane Americans after all these years. When will the lunatics be removed from office?
Quit the scare yactics Gwee doe! No one buys into it anymore. Be brave. No fear.
"I wonder who they are
The men who really run this land
And I wonder why they run it
With such a thoughtless hand
What are their names
And on what streets do they live
I'd like to ride right over
This afternoon and give
Them a piece of my mind
About peace for mankind
Peace is not an awful lot to ask "
Crosby
I don't like liberals because they consist of Edward Kennedy, Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, Ted Rall, Randi Rhodes, Maureen Dowd, Dick Durbin, Joel Stein, Ward Churchill, Cindy Sheehan, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, ect. ( I think you get the picture.)
As far as scare tactics, I don't need them. I still remember Sept. 11th and the Nick Berg video. Terrorist will kill us whenever they get the chance.
You do realize that since President Bush started his war on terror. There has not been one terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
The war on terror started way back around the time of Munich if not several hijackings before.
This is George Bush War and has nothing to do with terrorism except making it worse.
As far as terrorist attacks in this country there were 4 in one day last week here in Tulsa.
Nobody said you "need" scare tactics. But you and your crowd play it up, obviously.
It's sad how you group all dissenters into one category. You really don't need to like the Senators from New York. Their constituents sure do. It's that part of America and similar areas you have the tolerance issue with.
Easy Aox. You may need to up your meds to effectively combat your Bush Derangement Syndrome. You could also up your weekly counseling sessions but then it would take away from your posting time.
As far as your comments....
Remembering Sept. 11th and the Nick Burg video is "playing it up"? I use them more as a lesson learned that should never be forgotten.
The war on terror has everything to do with terrorism.
How did President Bush make it worse if there has been no more terrorist attacks on American soil?
In regards to your remark about the recent murders in Tulsa. Are you seriously trying to relate the murders in Tulsa to terrorist attacks? Please explain how these murders were "the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
quote:President Bust stated in the SOTU: "...
Was the use of "Bust" instead of Bush a slip? Or were you being funny?
Terrorism has increased since Bush started the war. Not here at home but assuredly in the Middle East. Our turn is coming. His group has given them motivation, means and a fertile garden to grow in. Give up on defending this losing administration. They don't deserve the fanatical defense you provide.
Lack of respect for our fellow human beings thoughts and lives is terrorism when coupled with violence.
MH2010, you made no apology yesterday. That bs was a smokescreen that even Bicyclemichael did not pick up on when he wrote "Come on aoxmama, 2010 was being polite to you for once. Accept the nice words from the guy." I did and that was a mistake. These boys all hang out with each other doing who knows what.
And those duechbag moderators who will not see your personal attack towards me in your last post on this thread nor threaten to delete it are hollow.
I am with you axman, but you make it awfully hard to stay with you.
You attack those who disagree with you, those who agree with you and even call the moderators names.
look in the mirror when you say "lack of respect for our fellow human beings".
AOX "Quit the scare yactics Gwee doe! No one buys into it anymore. Be brave. No fear."
This thread was about the President suggesting a way in which everyday citizens might be able to serve their country. In reading your continued rants and efforts at changing the subject, we can go ahead and put you down as a firm "No." BTW, what scare tactic was I employing, other than perhaps pointing out that those who do nothing to contribute to the security of this country except complain are merely whiners or cowards.
Double A: "Volunteering to protect the earnings of war profiteers definitely offends my sense of patriotism, as it should any real American."
Who are the war profiteers you referring to? Halliburton? Big Oil? The Military Industrial Complex? Is that the best you can do?
MH: You will never get anyone to accept the fact that there has been no terrorist attack in this country since 9/11. Indeed, people have already forgotten that just a few months ago a massive terrorist attack was averted (planes from U.K. bound to the U.S.).
Instead, you will have people change the subject, redefine "terrorism," or talk about how the U.S. lost whatever good will it had from other country's b/o Iraq. It does not matter to me since I know we lost 3000 people on 9/11 and I NEVER want to see that happen again.
RM, don't take such things personally. Different threads may contain different reactions and opinions. You seem to be over generalizing.
I have plenty of respect for myself and my fellow human beings. But no respect for those who choose war over peace, selfishness masked in the appearance of generosity, and oppression over freedom.
"I have [] no respect for those who choose war over peace, selfishness masked in the appearance of generosity, and oppression over freedom."
Blah blah blah. What a bunch or self-serving nonsense coming from the mother of all whiners.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
"I have [] no respect for those who choose war over peace, selfishness masked in the appearance of generosity, and oppression over freedom."
Blah blah blah. What a bunch or self-serving nonsense coming from the mother of all whiners.
Gwee doe doe...No surprise how insensitive you are in the role of war monger, distortionist, and extremist.
MH:
Here ya go. Anti-war protesters spitting at our wounded/recovering vets:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/washington/28protest.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1.
Perhaps this is the sort of patriotism AOX is talking about to which we should be "tolerant." Hippy douchebags.
Those people disgust me.
"Hippies.They're everywhere. They wanna save the earth, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad." - Eric Cartman.
Just in case you don't read the link, Hippies did not spit at soldiers as Guido says. They were protestors who spat on the ground in anger after exchanging words with each other. In response, the assembled protesting soldiers, spat back at them.
Sounds like free speech to me. But not the same picture you guys paint. Shame on you.
i'M REALLY LAUGHING HARD!
Thanks!
Other reports talk about the soldier getting spit on. Regardless of where the spit landed, I think it is completely beneth contempt to do it.
Would you spit at a soldier?
^You are a hack.....
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Other reports talk about the soldier getting spit on. Regardless of where the spit landed, I think it is completely beneth contempt to do it.
Would you spit at a soldier?
What other reports. That's gossip not news. Would you spit at a citizen protesting the war?
"They were protestors who spat on the ground in anger after exchanging words with each other."
Do you even know who Joshua Sparling is Waterboy? Before you began your moronic defense of a coward protester's free speech rights to spit at, or, near, or in the vicinity of of U.S. soldiers, try doing some research.
http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/006484.htm
Your point that protesters spitting at our soldiers a la returning Viet Nam vets is "speech" is perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever read on this forum--and yes I am including AOX's postings. And Waterboy, you know where you can stick your condescending "shame on you" don't you?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
"They were protestors who spat on the ground in anger after exchanging words with each other."
Do you even know who Joshua Sparling is Waterboy? Before you began your moronic defense of a coward protester's free speech rights to spit at, or, near, or in the vicinity of of U.S. soldiers, try doing some research.
http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/006484.htm
Your point that protesters spitting at our soldiers a la returning Viet Nam vets is "speech" is perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever read on this forum--and yes I am including AOX's postings. And Waterboy, you know where you can stick your condescending "shame on you" don't you?
you guys posted the story, then painted a picture that was innacurate. You're continuuing that spin by including references to Viet Nam protestors some 35 years ago when you were a gleam in someones eyes. I responded to that and it was hardly moronic. I don't care who did the spitting as long as it wasn't on someone (assault). The supreme court upholds that free speech activity. You just called them stupid. Grow up and stop calling people names.
As far as where to put that shame, if you can locate the area, name it correctly and post it here, do so. If you're brave enough to try it, go ahead. Those whose arguments are weak often resort to pottie mouth and bully behavior. If it works for you fine but I won't participate.
Before anyone gets carried away, the stories about Vietnam War soldiers getting spat on after returning home is an urban legend, a myth.
A researcher looked and looked and looked for verifiable instances, and found none. His B.S. antenna went up when he found out that stories like that didn't surface until the 1980s -- years after the war ended, not during.
http://www.amazon.com/Spitting-Image-Memory-Legacy-Vietnam/dp/0814751474
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spitting_Image
So what happened between pro-war and war protesters (the NY Times reported them spitting on *the ground*, not on each other) is hardly what I would call a repeat of history. There were angry words, but nothing that would be assault.
Although the stupidity of this Iraq War is resembling Vietnam in many ways.
RW: That's right. Returning vets and on-campus ROTC students were not spit upon because your revisionist sociologist was not spit at or because he says so. Our soldiers were not called "baby killers." They were not afraid to wear their uniform publicly. Oh, and the Holocaust did not happen either. I choose to believe from first hand accounts of my parents and their friends regarding the treatment our returning vets received from douchebag anti-war protesters and not Lembcke. Apparently, the right wing Huffington Post agrees with me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-hanft/trial-can-the-armys-br_b_27089.html
Oh, and Sparling, he did not just get spit at this past weekend.
One more thing RW, I take it you are a firm NO to even serving your country as a civilian, which was the purpose of my original posting. You, like AOX, are content with sitting back, relaxing in front of your computer, while other's with real courage protect our freedoms.
Waterboy. I am not as young as you apparently think (child of the 60s). As for your "35 years ago comment", all that was missing from the past weekend war protest to remind us of Vietnam was Hanoi Jane. Oh wait, she was there wasn't she.
^IT'S MUCH WORSE TODAY. We retained our rights in those days. There were no shenanigans by those in power who swore to uphold our constitution.
"Report: FBI conducting sweeping Internet wiretaps that mirror warantless NSA surveillance "
"The FBI appears to have adopted an invasive Internet surveillance technique that collects far more data on innocent Americans than previously has been disclosed,"
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Report_FBI_conducting_sweeping_Internet_wiretaps_0130.html
Guess I'm screwed....no fear!
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
RW: That's right. Returning vets and on-campus ROTC students were not spit upon because your revisionist sociologist was not spit at or because he says so. Our soldiers were not called "baby killers." They were not afraid to wear their uniform publicly. Oh, and the Holocaust did not happen either. I choose to believe from first hand accounts of my parents and their friends regarding the treatment our returning vets received from douchebag anti-war protesters and not Lembcke. Apparently, the right wing Huffington Post agrees with me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-hanft/trial-can-the-armys-br_b_27089.html
Oh, and Sparling, he did not just get spit at this past weekend.
One more thing RW, I take it you are a firm NO to even serving your country as a civilian, which was the purpose of my original posting. You, like AOX, are content with sitting back, relaxing in front of your computer, while other's with real courage protect our freedoms.
Waterboy. I am not as young as you apparently think (child of the 60s). As for your "35 years ago comment", all that was missing from the past weekend war protest to remind us of Vietnam was Hanoi Jane. Oh wait, she was there wasn't she.
It's obvious you feel very strongly about protesting. I was an adult in the late 60's and saw it differently than you and yours. The protesting that is widely referred to was often way overblown. When a few real hippies demonstrated at OU in '71 my parents called up and wanted me to come home immediately. The World/Tribune had a huge front page headline about major protests on campus. Apparently the Governor believed it all too. He sent in a dozen or so riot gear prepared vehicles complete with shotguns, shields and headgear. I know, I was in traffic on Lindsey when they screamed into town. I had long hair and tye dye but was no where near hippie status. They scared the bejeezus out of everyone.
When they realized it was a dozen hippies with signs picketing Dale Hall and the ROTC building they relaxed and spent the week at the Holiday Inn occasionally visiting on campus. Hilarious, but these stories were occurring all over the country. I'mm sure it was more exciting at Berkeley or near a military base but basically most of it was bunk.
This is not Viet Nam. This is not Viet Nam protesting. This is wide spread disagreement by a country, including much of its military, that this war is a mistake. When you personalize that disagreement by calling them hippies, non patriots, cowards etc. and use anecdotal stories of loonies like Sparling you are ignoring the people.
BTW, I happen to believe that we should send more than 20k additional soldiers over there. We should send twice that and use them to cover our exit safely. Bush trimmed the number to be political I guess.
How many did we send over for Desert Shield? Like 350,000 troops?
"including much of its military"
I keep hearing this, maybe you can point me to where you found the numbers on this. Webb said it, and it seems to have spread like wildfire, but I can't find anything to substantiate it.
It's from the Military Times, iplaw.
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
"including much of its military"
I keep hearing this, maybe you can point me to where you found the numbers on this. Webb said it, and it seems to have spread like wildfire, but I can't find anything to substantiate it.
There may be exact numbers IP, but I didn't use them. Watching, listening, reading, observing moved me to use the description.
That article does not state that the military thinks the war was a mistake, which is what the assertion was.
A fair majority thinks the war is not being waged properly, a position which cannot be argued with. Monumental difference... I would venture a guess that the military would probably be for taking off the gloves and getting with it...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
That article does not state that the military thinks the war was a mistake, which is what the assertion was.
A fair majority thinks the war is not being waged properly, a position which cannot be argued with. Monumental difference... I would venture a guess that the military would probably be for taking off the gloves and getting with it...
Once again, I said "thinks the war is a mistake" not was a mistake. The former implying the conduct of the war, the latter implying its reasons for inception. I agree that had the war been handled more successfully, even if the reasons for waging it were wrong, everyone's opinion would have been changed in some way. Probably favorably. Reality is, the entire war is suspect now.
That's monday morning quarterbacking if I've ever seen it. I guess it makes it easier for more Democrats to say they voted for it...before they voted against it.
There is no corroborating evidence to justify that the military thinks the reasons for the war were a mistake...waged poorly, sure, but extrapolating that to say that they think the war was a mistake is unfounded.
Those people disgust me.
"Mercenaries. They're everywhere.. They wanna save the earth, but all they do is shoot people and smell bad." - Juan Valdez
I'm with you Senor....
This whole thing is starting to smell like napalm on a burnt piece of toast...
<guido wrote:
One more thing RW, I take it you are a firm NO to even serving your country as a civilian, which was the purpose of my original posting. You, like AOX, are content with sitting back, relaxing in front of your computer, while other's with real courage protect our freedoms.
<end clip>
So what U.S. freedoms were threatened by Iraq? What freedoms are threatened now? Are you telling me these a pissant country like that actually posed a threat to the United States' existence?
That's delusional.
So forgive me if I don't feel like joining a ill-advised, poorly planned, damaging war that's made things in that region worse, not better. Nor it is protecting any freedoms.
And those who say the Democrats didn't have another plan are lying. Democrats AND a good many Republicans begged President Bush for three years to add many more troops to Iraq to stabilize the country, or else it was going to descend into anarchy. Kerry (who I didn't like all that much) made adding 50,000 troops as party of the platform.
Now that Bush finally is doing something that somewhat approaches that strategy, Iraq is almost certainly nonsalvagable. Bush snoozes, he loses.
The president has done more to squander good will than any president I've ever seen, even worse than his dad. If he stayed in Afghanistan and continued to hunt bin Laden, instead of embarking on this horrible folly that is Iraq, he'd still have an 80 percent approval rating. Plenty of people, including Reagan aide Brent Scowcroft, warned the administration about the considerable dangers of invading Iraq. But Bush, as usual, didn't listen. Now he -- and a helluva lot of soldiers caught in the middle -- are paying for it.
One more thing, Guido: I find it ironic that someone who supposedly joined the military to "protect our freedoms" is so disdainful when citizens exercise those freedoms. The Constitution is for *everyone* in the United States, not just for people who don't offend you.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
That's monday morning quarterbacking if I've ever seen it. I guess it makes it easier for more Democrats to say they voted for it...before they voted against it.
There is no corroborating evidence to justify that the military thinks the reasons for the war were a mistake...waged poorly, sure, but extrapolating that to say that they think the war was a mistake is unfounded.
And that is an Oregon referee call. That's odd that a person like yourself who knows the value of words would turn them against me. I said what I said. Was and is have two different connotations. There is also no evidence to justify that "much" of the military does not think the reasons (never used that word, why do you keep using it?)for the war were a mistake.
Let's revisit your words...never used that word...
"This is wide spread disagreement by a country, including much of its military, that this war is a mistake.
Maybe you misspoke, but the implications of that statement are that the war "is" a mistake. Nowhere can I find any evidence that the military thinks it was a mistake...don't care for the way it has been fought, but that does not equate to thinking it was a mistake.
No RW. I do not have disdain for persons exercising their freedoms. I do have disdain for those protesting our government and soldiers like the 60s rejects from this past weekend:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9iodh1HNIQ
I also have disdain for bed-wetting,Monday morning quarterbacks who DO NOTHING and have never DONE ANYTHING to serve this country. Apparently, given the opportunity to serve this country (and perhaps earn some of your freedoms rather than having it given to you) even as a civilian is just too distasteful to you.
One other thing, in your latest Bush bashing rant, I see you have conveniently overlooked the fact that Iraq regime change was the U.S. policy established by Clinton.
Waterboy. As for the "bully behavior" comment...You may be right that I get fired up on the war on terror. Not only do I have small children that I want to have a chance to live long lives, I have a very deep appreciation for our soldiers. I am fed up with the neverending attack on our government and the lack of appreciation for the hard work by our soldiers by persons on this board who have never done anything. I am also fed up with those who have forgotten 9/11 and who have forgotten that Saddam Hussein was evil personified.
IP: Nice to hear from you again...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Let's revisit your words...never used that word...
"This is wide spread disagreement by a country, including much of its military, that this war is a mistake.
Maybe you misspoke, but the implications of that statement are that the war "is" a mistake. Nowhere can I find any evidence that the military thinks it was a mistake...don't care for the way it has been fought, but that does not equate to thinking it was a mistake.
This is a bit too tedious. Let me just say it as clearly as I can. Regardless of why the war was started it is unpopular now. It is widely perceived, judging by polls and the press on both ends of the political spectrum, that the war was prosecuted badly and is currently a mess. Soldiers, ex-soldiers and military generals have expressed dismay and disagreement with the reasons for and prosecution of this war. Polls exist across all categories of Americans showing these feelings. These are observations of mine made from exposing myself to as much input from media and government that I can stand (I watch Fox, CNN, Networks, blogs, newspapers, magazines) and corroborated by leadership of both houses of Congress being changed. Is everyone wrong? Its not finger pointing time. Reality is the American people disagree with the war. Some from the start, others as it progressed.
Guido we have discussed this before. Everyone serves in different ways. Everyone pays a price in different ways. This isn't Sparta. We aren't all warrior citizens. Appreciation for our soldiers is not conditional with approval of the mission. For instance, I don't like the fact that a local cop can make a judgement that I'm guilty of public intoxication without giving me a breathelyzer test. He can just smell my breath and watch my behaviour. But I don't hate the cop for doing it. He was given that abusive power by the government. He still has my respect for his authority while the legislator gets my wrath.
quote:
This is a bit too tedious. Let me just say it as clearly as I can. Regardless of why the war was started it is unpopular now. It is widely perceived, judging by polls and the press on both ends of the political spectrum, that the war was prosecuted badly and is currently a mess.
Agreed.
<guido wrote:
One other thing, in your latest Bush bashing rant, I see you have conveniently overlooked the fact that Iraq regime change was the U.S. policy established by Clinton.
<end clip>
Sure, Clinton wanted a regime change in Iraq. He wasn't stupid enough to try the extremely risky move of invading the country and then hoping the Iraqis would create a stable democracy. Clinton wanted the Iraqis to do a regime change ON THEIR OWN, which is an important difference and certainly carries less risk to America.
I'm sure a few people in the Bush administration thought we could impose our will on Iraq like we did with Japan after World War II. But the important difference is that Japan is a highly homogenous society that works together. Iraq has been a thicket of religious sects that's been at each other's throats for centuries. That's a huge difference.
Whether I *earned* my freedoms is highly debatable, guido. In case you missed that bit in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I'm born with 'em, and so are you. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Thomas Jefferson.
Another interesting thing: No one in my Midwestern family after the Civil War served in the military. You know why? It's not because they didn't offer. It's because my ancestors (including me to age 20 or so) were farmers. The government said we were more valuable to war efforts as farmers than as soldiers. You gotta feed 'em, you know.
Gwee doe the comandoe!
go get em tiger......
btw, what is going to happen with Iran?
quote:
He wasn't stupid enough to try the extremely risky move of invading the country and then hoping the Iraqis would create a stable democracy. Clinton wanted the Iraqis to do a regime change ON THEIR OWN, which is an important difference and certainly carries less risk to America.
Really? I don't remember him actually giving a reason behind his policy stance on Iraq and not moving in immediately after 17 violations of the Gulf War cease fire agreement. Sounds like you're making things up with convenient help of hindsight.
How would you have proposed that Iraqis effect regime change on their own? I think half a million in the grave who died trying were deterrant enough to any who wished to try. Internal regime change doesn't work with dictators who use scorched earth policies for political enemies.
Iran:
35% chance of invasion within the next year. Rising to a 55% chance of invasion in 2008. Snow showers likely in higher elevations, Ahmadinejad ousted in 2009, assuming he's not toppled directly by US intervention. And the Caspian Sea reaching record lows in 2007, followed by new record lows in 2008.
Iran is being squeezed on two fronts. First by Saudi Arabia is driving down the price of gas to kill off Iran's only means of cash flow. Second, the companies that supply their equipment (Canada, US, Japan) to repair their oil platforms have conveniently stopped providing supplies, so their main source of income is shrinking. Low output + low prices = economic disaster for Iran.
Guess who put this all together? You guessed it, our boy Cheney when he met the Crown Prince earlier this year...
<iplaw wrote:
How would you have proposed that Iraqis effect regime change on their own? I think half a million in the grave who died trying were deterrant enough to any who wished to try. Internal regime change doesn't work with dictators who use scorched earth policies for political enemies.
<end clip>
Assassination, I guess. What would you have done?
It's apparent the current way of doing things isn't working well. There were plenty of people, including Brent Scowcroft with Bush I, who knew that the risks of an outright invasion were outweighed by the expense and trouble brought on by the religious sects.
Here's a distasteful way of looking at things. Do you want a ruthless strongman in power who kills enemies but keeps the country stable? Or do you want a nation that's descending into anarchy, sectarian cleansing and threatening to destabilize the entire region?
What's the lesser of two evils here? Is a third option even possible? I'm not sure I have an answer.
Yep RW, you are born with your rights, but leave the dyin' for you to keep them rights to someone else. Whatever gets you to sleep at night.
Whether you or Waterboy or AOX choose to believe it, our soldiers are RIGHT NOW fighting and dying in a war and they need our support. I happen to believe they are fighting to preserve freedom and protect this nation (which apparently is working since no attacks have occurred since 9/11).
IP: I heard what you are saying about Iran/Saudi/Cheney on Boortz this a.m. My sense is that there is more to it than Cheney. I just bet Halliburton is behind the economic pressure on Iran.
There you go again Gwee doe.... we support our brave men and women who are being forced into a very dangerous situation by some fools in DC. OK! Get it?
And they are fighting to protect the Military Industrial Complex....not me directly as a patriot.
As far as Iran, I have been posting links on another political thread here first titled "It's Come Down To This" because, as we can all agree, the war in Iraq is just a predecessor to more maneuvering for oil. Certainly you can't believe this is being done to thwart terrorism.
Meanwhile, the Israeli's have a finger on the trigger and after Lebanon explodes in a few months they could very possibly pounce in Persia.
<guido wrote:
Whether you or Waterboy or AOX choose to believe it, our soldiers are RIGHT NOW fighting and dying in a war and they need our support. I happen to believe they are fighting to preserve freedom and protect this nation (which apparently is working since no attacks have occurred since 9/11).
<end clip>
You can believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, too. That's your right. But let's look at reality.
Apparently you don't count the anthrax mailings -- it was weaponized anthrax that killed people and screwed up the postal system for weeks on the East Coast -- as a terrorism attack.
I know the soldiers are dying. That's the reason I want the war to end and for them to come home. Making them stay in a poorly planned war and die is not what I would construe as support.
Again, what freedoms are they preserving by being there? You spout all these sayings that have no meaning in the current context.
And what does being in Iraq have anything to do with preventing terrorism attacks? Tighter security at airports, seaports and vulnerable infrastructure seems to be a much better way to prevent terrorism attacks than destabilizing the Middle East, don't you think?
I might add, Bush and Cheney betray our troops who are risking their lives with insufficient equipment and resources.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-01-31T002559Z_01_N30376801_RTRUKOT_0_TEXT0.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsArt-L1-RelatedNews-1
quote:
Assassination, I guess. What would you have done?
Assassination wouldn't have solved anything as someone from the Baath party would have stepped in and continued business as usual. Probably one of the moxie twins Uday or Qusay
quote:
It's apparent the current way of doing things isn't working well.
Not so much. It's like south central after the OJ verdict.
quote:
There were plenty of people, including Brent Scowcroft with Bush I, who knew that the risks of an outright invasion were outweighed by the expense and trouble brought on by the religious sects.
Not to get into semantics, but Scowcroft never banged the drum beat of potential sectarian violence before we went in. He most definitely was in disagreement with Gulf War part deux, but to say he forsaw what we are engaged in is a stretch.
quote:
Here's a distasteful way of looking at things. Do you want a ruthless strongman in power who kills enemies but keeps the country stable? Or do you want a nation that's descending into anarchy, sectarian cleansing and threatening to destabilize the entire region?
Distasteful and sad. Maybe we should let the two sects battle it out for good. Sunni/Sheite battleroyale in the sandbox. Unfortunately we have a obligation to protect Israel, and you can rest assured that whatever sect won, Israel would soon be in their crosshairs.
Hmmm....what about the Persians? Should they fight it out in the sandbox?
Diplomacy may end up being the best approach in the end.....
"Unfortunately"? the Israeli's may end up doing our dirty work for us......
Hold on a second Ax Man.... I don't think the Israeli's are going to be needed if this "Civilian Reserve Corp" winds up being all that I have understood it to be..
Here is a clip from an article in The L.A.Times regarding this "Civilian Reserve Corp"...
"Such a corps would function much like our military Reserve. It would ease the burden on the armed forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them," Bush declared. This is precisely what the administration has already done, largely behind the backs of the American people and with little congressional input, with its revolution in military affairs. Bush and his political allies are using taxpayer dollars to run an outsourcing laboratory. Iraq is its Frankenstein monster.
Already, private contractors constitute the second-largest "force" in Iraq. At last count, there were about 100,000 contractors in Iraq, of which 48,000 work as private soldiers, according to a Government Accountability Office report. These soldiers have operated with almost no oversight or effective legal constraints and are an undeclared expansion of the scope of the occupation. Many of these contractors make up to $1,000 a day, far more than active-duty soldiers. What's more, these forces are politically expedient, as contractor deaths go uncounted in the official toll.
The president's proposed Civilian Reserve Corps was not his idea alone. A privatized version of it was floated two years ago by Erik Prince, the secretive, mega-millionaire, conservative owner of Blackwater USA and a man who for years has served as the Pied Piper of a campaign to repackage mercenaries as legitimate forces. In early 2005, Prince â€" a major bankroller of the president and his allies â€" pitched the idea at a military conference of a "contractor brigade" to supplement the official military. "There's consternation in the [Pentagon] about increasing the permanent size of the Army," Prince declared. Officials "want to add 30,000 people, and they talked about costs of anywhere from $3.6 billion to $4 billion to do that. Well, by my math, that comes out to about $135,000 per soldier." He added: "We could do it certainly cheaper."
This is kinda like we just got the "Good News" with the SOTU speech... A true surprise....!
We already have a "Civilian Reserve Corp"...
And guess what .. We have Chilean, Bosnian, and Americans working side by side to make it work... And hell the money ain't bad...
here is a short Editorial summation by the author of this piece...
Such power in the hands of one company, run by a neo-crusader bankroller of the president, embodies the "military-industrial complex" President Eisenhower warned against in 1961.
Further privatizing the country's war machine â€" or inventing new back doors for military expansion with fancy names like the Civilian Reserve Corps â€" will represent a devastating blow to the future of American democracy.
But what the Hell does he know...
If any are interested in finding out a little more in regards to this "Civilian Reserve Corp".. Here is a
link (//%22http://www.blackwaterusa.com%22)