Just a reminder.

[Qtec]

Matthew 5:1-12 1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into the mountain: and when he had sat down, his disciples came unto him: 2 and he opened his mouth and taught them, saying,
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you.




Maybe GW and the neo-cons who claim they represent God should actually READ their Bible now and again.
Would you call Dick Cheney, Rummy peacemakers?
Q

[Chopstick]

It also says "Judge not that ye be not judged" Mr. Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

How you doing today?

[Deeman3]

Q,

Maybe you are right. Perhaps we should just turn the other cheek. We still have lots of buildings left in downtown NYC.

[Gayle in MD]

Certainly not, and I wouldn't call them warriors, either, and particularly, I wouldn't call them leaders, either, and what I do call them most often, I can't write on this forum!
/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
[ QUOTE ]
The study also found that the more often soldiers are deployed, the longer they are deployed each time; and the less time they spend at home, the more likely they are to suffer mental health problems such as combat trauma, anxiety and depression. That result is particularly notable given that the Pentagon has sent soldiers and Marines to Iraq multiple times and recently extended the tours of thousands of soldiers to 15 months from 12 months.

"The Army is spread very thin, and we need it to be a larger force for the number of missions that we were being asked to address for our nation," Pollock said.

The authors of the Army document argued that the strains placed on troops in Iraq are in some ways more severe than those borne by the combat forces of World War II. "A considerable number of Soldiers and Marines are conducting combat operations everyday of the week, 10-12 hours per day seven days a week for months on end," wrote Col. Carl Castro and Maj. Dennis McGurk, both psychologists. "At no time in our military history have Soldiers or Marines been required to serve on the front line in any war for a period of 6-7 months."

And although U.S. casualties in Iraq are far lower than in the Vietnam War, for example, military experts say that Iraq can be a more stressful environment. In Vietnam, there were rear areas that were considered safe, but in Iraq there are no truly secure areas outside big bases. "The front in Iraq is any place not on a base camp" or a forward operating base, the report noted.

The authors recommended that soldiers be given breathers during combat tours and intervals of 18 to 36 months between such tours, substantially longer than they are allowed now.

Overall, 20 percent of the soldiers surveyed and 15 percent of the Marines appeared to suffer from depression, anxiety or stress, the Army reported. That was in keeping with findings of past surveys, as was the conclusion that more than 40 percent of soldiers reported low morale in their units.

From Thomas Ricks, Sunday Washington post.


This is a nice time for Rice to finally lower herself to using some diplomacy, and talk to syria and Iran, now we're into the fourth year of living hell for our troops. I hope she doesn't expect the Medla of Freedom.

If we've ever had a more ineffective Secretary of State, I don't know who the hell it was.

<hr /></blockquote>

[Gayle in MD]

That's nice, there are hardly any left in Baghdad. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[wolfdancer]

and what I do call them most often, I can't write on this forum!
Awww....go ahead and tell us; don't keep us in suspense...we're all adults here....most of us

[Deeman3]

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> That's nice, there are hardly any left in Baghdad. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">That is, indeed, nice. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>

[Gayle in MD]

If this isn't a statement, typically right wing, theory being, as long as the wars are raging, the right is happy, obviously, then I don't know what is. Iraq, never attacked us. While your president has us spinning our wheels in Iraq destroying their country, to save his egotistical issues, and pass on the end results of his idiotic failed policy, AlQaeda, and the Taliban, have enjoyed the opportunity to expand their numbers, and stepping up attacks all over the world. bin Laden, stated over and over again, his wish to keep the west fighting ground wars in the Arab Land, where we could not win, degrading our military, and wasting our treasure, as we served up our soldiers and conveniently located them in easy reach of terrorists.

Your statement of pleasure that Baghdad is in rubble, is a good example of the same faulty thinking that got our country into this mess. The fact that you still promote such an idea, given all that we now know, no connection between Saddam and 9/11, is a good example of the disconnect between Republicans, and reality.

Gayle in Md.

[eg8r]

Come on Chop, you know they only want to read the part that they like.

eg8r

[Deeman3]

My view is that it is happening over there, not over here. To me, it is better to happen over there, rather than here. Your struggle to bring it back over here may have success as we retreat back to here but one point you can't get around, despite all the false claims of overlooked shipping containers, lack security and those insane political claims that we are doing nothing; with us being the biggest target in the world and your claims we are leaking like Al Sharpton's hair, we have still not been hit again. You claim it is luck? With every radical muslim in the world trying to get us. All your left wing blogging comes down to opinions of anyone who can get your attention with a disenting voice that supports your claims, whether it holds water or not.

A fantasy is where you are living and you are actually going to play right into the hands of the Right, crooks as well, for the next election, just like you did for the last two. All this and you can't even see what is happening.....It is almost comical but you are wrong, I take this war very seriouly and, despite my hatred of war as a necessary evil, I'd still rather have it done there. So would our men and women who are actually doing the fighting, despite any surveys by Al Frankin....

[DickLeonard]

Chopstick GWB was the First to be Judged and by God he Pardon Himself.####

[Gayle in MD]

While I won't accuse you of being for the terrorists, as you do so often, there is no way that you can rewrite the fact that it was not Saddam, or Iraq, that attacked this country on 9/11. There is no way that you can deny that Bush put an occupation of another country, which had never attacked us on our shores, and which the majority of intelligence experts, said, that even if he HAD WMD's he would not be likely to do business with terrorists, nor to attack us here. Rather than making bin Laden our main target, and the top level alQaeda, and cutting off the head of the snake, as our intelligence and our terrorism experts, have said all along, is step one in defeating terrorism, Bush invaded Iraq, and gave AlQaeda precisely what they had requested....

While you are so happy about our Troops dying in the middle of a sectarian Civil War, that has nothing to do with destrayoing alQaeda, and find safety and comfort from their sacrifice, you cannot change the fact that bin Laden, and his three top planners, are still leading global terrorism, largely because Bush preferred a completely un-necessary quagmire in Iraq, to getting the bastards who killed three thousand Americans nearly two thousand days ago.

Spectacular attacks by alQaeda are years in the planning, the more spectacular, the longer they require. bin Laden has stated that the next one will be far more spectacular, than 9/11. AlQaeda is here, now, and no we're not fighting them here, because they are too smart to fight traditional combat. They leave that to dummies like Bush. They have stated their desire to keep us bogged down in quagmires in the Middle East, losing life and treasure, degrading our resources, and our Army, and displaying the very example, whihc proves their propaganda from which they enlist more to their ideology of the West as occupiers of sacred Arab Land, for the purpose of stealing their resources, and imposing our own form of Government on the Isamists, and making our people handy for the barbaric methods of their guerilla style killings.

Rice states that we have no intention to leave Iraq, and We're building a huge base there, and have failed to state that we have no intention of imposing special benefits to their oil, hence, again, playing into their propaganda for enlistment and the training of thousands more to their cause. Their biggest fear, is that we will leave Iraq, and concentrate on political solutions between Isreal, and Palestine, target their (And the Taliban's) true safe haven, the Badlands of Pakistan, and the Pakistan/ Afghanistan borders, and they have already issued statements which show their disillusionment with Hammas, being part of the political process in the Middle East. They have been left to expand, plan, enlist and franchise, and you feel safer? Congratulations! How I wish I could subscribe to such complete nonsense! They're here, they're planning, and Bush's sentiments....the man YOU voted for twice..."I don't know where he is, he's hiding, I don't think about him."

Incredible! The power of propaganda is alive and well in America. The day will come, according to our best and brightest, the men who have spent the last thirty years studying and fighting terrorism, men who are smart enough to utilize political pressure, diplomacy, clandestine operations, and special forces strikes against the enemy, instead of fighting civil wars in an effort to Nation Build, the day will come, when the obvious failure of this administration to have it's priorities correct, will show the devastating results which those of you who feel so safe at the present, will finally understand should have been substituted for this administration's poor decisions, and the complete denial, and prolonged incompetence which is surely predicted by experts, far more knowledgable, and seasoned on this subject, than you or I. Had we taken out bin Laden, first and foremost, and his entire top level, terrorism would not have so greatly expanded into global franchises, or gained the power which it now enjoys, thanks to your boy Bush, and those Americans who do not understand the difference between going off have cocked, against the wrong enemy, at the most critical time imaginable, and taking our eye off our most pressing threat. The results, of this illogical, wasteful, pointless Iraq campaign, will not make you feel safe, believe me. Bush has given our greatest threat six years to plan, and build, yet there are still some in this country who refuse to grasp the logical fact that wasting our resources in Iraq, Nation Building, makes us less safe, not more safe, and that Iraq, is not the ONLY place where alQaeda can and does, have safe haven from which to enlist, lead, and plan their Caliphate. They are planning it NOW, in Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and right here, and "Stay The Course," has given them the time to regroup, and enlist, and eventually bring devastation far greater than 9/11 to our country, and then those who think that fighting them "Overthere" was the solution, will have to accept their completely false premise, but it will be too late.

Sleep Well! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Gayle in MD]

I can understand your wish to frams me in a light which suggests that people like Franken, or Sharpton, are my resources...have at it. However, I have never indicated that we are doing nothing, only that we are doing the wrong things.

Accusing me of living a fantasy, requires a great deal of denial, which you seem quite expert at embracing, the probelm with that tactic, however, is that there is now a very large contingent of expert opinion, which supports my conclusions, where your continued insistance that we are safe by fighting them overthere, meaning in Iraqa, has been completely shot down as a reasonable theory. I have stated all along, that bin Laden,should have been our complete focus, along with alQaeda's leaders, in Afghanistan. Your refusal to acknowledge that, can only be attributed to a lack of sutdy, at this point.


I have provided a link to this article, (excerpts below)in a separate post. You may wish to read it, as it may up-date you on the results of George Bush's Foreign Policies, written by a 29 years experienced expert...since you seem to be unaware of Bush's occupation of Iraq's devastating impact on our safety here at home. Not that I think expert opinion means anything to a rightie, sicne they have proven over the years that regardless of the respect and experience of those who have exposed Bush's incompetence, and his failed policies, they continue to promote his lies, and deny the falacy of his policies, and the dangerous impact which they will bring to us in the long run.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Iraq is, of course, another critical battlefield in the fight against al Qaeda. But it is time to recognize that engagement there is more of a trap than an opportunity for the United States. Al Qaeda and Iran both want Washington to remain bogged down in the quagmire. Al Qaeda has openly welcomed the chance to fight the United States in Iraq. U.S. diplomacy has certainly been clumsy and counterproductive, but there is little point in reviewing the litany of U.S. mistakes that led to this disaster. The objective now should be to let Iraqis settle their conflicts themselves. Rather than reinforce its failures, the United States should disengage from the civil war in Iraq, with a complete, orderly, and phased troop withdrawal that allows the Iraqi government to take the credit for the pullout and so enhance its legitimacy.

No doubt al Qaeda will claim a victory when the United States leaves Iraq. (It already does so at the sheer mention of withdrawal.) But it is unlikely that the Islamic State of Iraq will fare well after the occupation ends. Anbar and adjacent Sunni provinces have little water, few other natural resources, and no access to the outside world except through hostile territory. The Shiites and the Kurdish militias will have no compunction about attacking the Islamic State of Iraq. (Al Qaeda's own propaganda indicates that it fears the Shiites' wrath after the United States' departure more than it fears what would happen if the Americans stayed.)

Another essential aspect of the United States' war against al Qaeda is the war of ideas. Washington must learn to develop more compelling narratives for its actions. Its calls for bringing democracy to Iraq have not resonated, partly because its actions have not matched its rhetoric. Human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay have even further sullied the United States' reputation and honor. Washington should emphasize the concrete steps the United States is taking to heal differences between Islam and the West and to bring peace to Palestine and Kashmir, among other areas. Creating a new narrative will probably also require bringing to Washington (and London) new leaders who are untarnished by the events of the last few years.

The repackaging effort will also have to involve concrete actions to address the issues that al Qaeda invokes to win recruits, particularly the Arab-Israeli conflict but also the conflict in Kashmir. The president of the United States must get personally involved in brokering peace in both instances. In the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, this will not be easy, especially with Hamas in power in Gaza. But neglecting the issue is no solution either. Washington should consider various ideas for getting the opposing sides back to the negotiating table, including the Baker-Hamilton proposal calling for a new international conference. President Bush should also use the United States' enhanced relationship with India -- thanks to the nuclear deal the two countries ratified last year -- to encourage the nascent dialogue between India and Pakistan and seek an end to those states' rivalry. Such an end would make it easier for the Pakistani government to crack down on terrorist networks in Kashmir, some of which are partners of al Qaeda.

It is now fashionable to call the struggle against al Qaeda the long war. It need not be so, even though helping to rebuild Afghanistan will require a long-term commitment. Decisive actions in key arenas could bring significant results in short order, and a focused strategy could eventually destroy the al Qaeda movement. On the other hand, a failure to adjust U.S. strategy would increase the risk that al Qaeda will launch another "raid" on the United States, this time perhaps with a weapon of mass destruction. For the last several years, al Qaeda's priority has been to bleed the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq. Striking on U.S. soil has been a lesser goal. If al Qaeda survives, however, sooner or later it will attack the U.S. homeland again.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Deeman3]

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>

While you are so happy about our Troops dying in the middle of a sectarian Civil War, that has nothing to do with destrayoing alQaeda, and find safety and comfort from their sacrifice, you cannot change the fact that bin Laden, and his three top planners, are still leading global terrorism, largely because Bush preferred a completely un-necessary quagmire in Iraq, to getting the bastards who killed three thousand Americans nearly two thousand days ago. <font color="blue"> It is really dispickable that you would accuse me of being so happy our soldiers are dying!

Your tactics and venom never change. You are a simple person of hate. Nothing else matters but making your political point.

I would not accuse you of being happy our soldiers are fighting and dying but you really don't understand the difference.</font color>



Sleep Well! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>

[Gayle in MD]

[ QUOTE ]
Your struggle to bring it back over here may have success as we retreat <hr /></blockquote>

Get off your hig horse, Deeman...this statement isn't insulting, and hateful, suggesting that my wish is to see another attack here? To see terrorists kill more innocent Americans. Just whom is being despicable and hateful?


While I should have said that I am glad that their sacrifice has brought you a feeling of safety, isn't that what you have contended all along, I don't think my comments were nearly as bad as yours. That Bush's present policy, leaving our troops to fight as targets of all, in the middle of a sectarian/civil war, is justified, IYO, has been your position all along, so don't try and wiggle out of your own statements.

That is surely what your posts have been about, fighting over there, so we don't have to fight them over here? do you think innocent Iraqi men women and children don't count? American lives are worth more? How do you justify such a statement? fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here...meaning, let Iraq pay the price for our grudges...I think I understand quite well, what that means.

I never meant to say that you were happy they were dying.

As for being despicable, many, including me, think it is despicable that any Americans would support a President who would run our soldiers into the ground, sending the same people back, over and over, without proper rest, equipment, and training. That is the policy you support. Do you deny it? Kind of hard to think that you are grieving over their plight, when you defend such a despicable policy, and such an incompentent president, left unhampered to his own devices by your Republican blank check Party, which you also defend.

I am not content with such a policy, because of what it is doing to our soldiers, nor can I understand any American, being satisfied with the conditions in which they are struggling, or proposing any defense for the man who sends them to it, over and over again, and with no questions from the Republican Majority for four years, save but one.

Gayle in Md.

[Gayle in MD]

LOL, I think you can imagine.

It's more interesting to notice what the right is now calling GWB. He's now been branded as a liberal. I wish they could get their definitions straight.

First of all, if he is a liberal, then the rest of his party is liberal, also, for when have we seen such extravagant spending and huge expansion of Government, and red tape bureaucracy, come out of Congress, approved by the White House, other than during the recent Republican majority and complete control of all government branches?

I guess they don't get it. Conservativism, means big spending, big government, huge bureaurocracy, redistribution of wealth upwards, the weakening of American Law, dilution of the Constitution, destruction of International agreements, Unending war, under civilian control.

How do they manage to continue to re-define the terms, in order to escape their own documented behavior.

Bush, can't be a liberal, liberals are for the common man, peace, diplomacy, privacy, humanitarianism, conservation, and personal freedom and privacy.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Now we've seen six years of conservatives, in control of all three branches of Government, I think we've had a ample opportunity to view the true meaning of conservativism, big government, big spending, huge bureaurocracy, hidden agendas, incompetence, a taste for unending war, civilian control of the military, and a continuing state of denial in order to avoid accountability.