PDA

View Full Version : Our Troops...great attitudes!



pooltchr
06-14-2008, 04:42 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/page/parade-warriors

I guess not all of our military troops think the war is wrong!
Steve

Gayle in MD
06-19-2008, 10:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In a sweeping, 200-plus page review of the administration's pre-war case for invasion, the Senate Intelligence Committee found that the American public was being fed information at odds with prevailing views, and officials were ignoring contemporary disagreements in the Intelligence Community.

“In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed,” Intelligence Committee Chairman John Rockefeller (D-WV) said in a press release announcing the new report.


The full report is available as two large .pdf files here and here. Rockefeller summarized its findings as follows:

The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

• Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

• Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

• Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

• Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

• The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

• The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.
</div></div>

There is no question that it is, and was, wrong. Try and keep up with proven facts. This war was not justifiable. Our soldiers had no choice about going. Now that the American people know that Bush sent them to die, and be maimed, on lies, Bush has the lowest approval ratings ever, and Republicans aren't going to be able to use the fear card to get back into their seats.

You say lies are all the same, but approve of lies that send young soldiers to die?

Don't call others partisan, or unaware of the facts. You have no credibility.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

Sid_Vicious
06-19-2008, 12:48 PM
Lies aren't the same, people die due to some, and THAT is a major, MAJOR difference. How the compassionate feature of human beings avoid that fact causes me to wonder about civility and intelligence. It just does...sid

Gayle in MD
06-19-2008, 01:08 PM
Martin,
Anyone who would try to justify this fiasco in Iraq, has no civility, or intellect. We already know that it has only aided our enemies, and was totally un-necessary all along.

Saddam was no threat. bin Laden, is. Iran is a potential threat, but not an immedaite threat.

Our biggest threats are China, and bin Laden.

Love,
Gayle

mike60
06-19-2008, 02:51 PM
Steve, Major Waggoner's statement shows his devotion to duty and his true concern for the troops. It in no way supports the war. It shows that in combat all reasons are a moot point. To use this man as a prop for your twisted view that this war is not
a complete waste of humanity is just wrong. You want it-you go fight. The horror
of war is sometimes necessary, it is never desired. Wake up.

mike60 tired of the bullshit

pooltchr
06-19-2008, 07:25 PM
Mike,
I respect the fact that you served in the military, as did I. And I'm not holding him up to support my twisted view of the war. I'm pointing out that our service men and women have a much different view of things than those on the outside. I didn't particularly like the way things were handled with 'Nam, but it didn't keep me from enlisting.

Here's something to think about.

About 65 years ago, there was a dictator in a foreign country who was killing his own people, and threatning to take over the world. His country didn't attack the US, but we sure as hell went in there all out to take him out. Not a whole lot different from what we are dealing with today. And, for the record, we lost more of our military on one invasion during that war than we have in all of Iraq.

Losing just one, is one too many, since I consider them my brothers and sisters. But we all knew what we were getting into when we signed up. I don't know about everyone, but when I took that oath, I meant it!

I've had too many of my friends end up in a box with a flag on it to take this subject lightly. The article I posted made one simple point. Our troops are PROUD to be doing the job they are doing, because the understand it is necessary. Not pretty, not the best option, but necessary. And they aren't all a bunch of whiners and quitters. They face the enemy, do their job, and are ready to continue to do it until they achieve victory.

When our country gave up in Viet Nam, I know how I felt. I hope our troops today don't have to deal with those same feelings. I hope when they return, it is with nothing but pride in knowing they did their job, and achieved their ultimate goal.

Steve

Deeman3
06-20-2008, 07:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mike,
About 65 years ago, there was a dictator in a foreign country who was killing his own people, and threatning to take over the world. His country didn't attack the US, but we sure as hell went in there all out to take him out. Not a whole lot different from what we are dealing with today. And, for the record, we lost more of our military on one invasion during that war than we have in all of Iraq.

Steve </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Steve,

Some, with better memories, may recall that FDR lied us into that war by covert agreements with Churchill and using a weak excuse of an attack on an American ship to bring us into the conflict, which ultimately did not work. Most of the coutry was against America fighting in Europe until after Pearl Harbor, although the Japaneese attacked us, not Germany.

As bad as war is, there are not many good ones and this certainly may turn out to be a poor war. I still think the alternative is much worse so we shall see what happens when we surrender next year.</span>

Chopstick
06-20-2008, 11:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mike,
About 65 years ago, there was a dictator in a foreign country who was killing his own people, and threatning to take over the world. His country didn't attack the US, but we sure as hell went in there all out to take him out. Not a whole lot different from what we are dealing with today. And, for the record, we lost more of our military on one invasion during that war than we have in all of Iraq.

Steve </div></div>





<span style="color: #FF0000"> Steve,

Some, with better memories, may recall that FDR lied us into that war by covert agreements with Churchill and using a weak excuse of an attack on an American ship to bring us into the conflict, which ultimately did not work. Most of the coutry was against America fighting in Europe until after Pearl Harbor, although the Japaneese attacked us, not Germany.

As bad as war is, there are not many good ones and this certainly may turn out to be a poor war. I still think the alternative is much worse so we shall see what happens when we surrender next year.</span> </div></div>

I saw a special on that not too long ago. People protesting carrying signs "FDR lied", "Impeach FDR", Germany is not a threat to us.

We actually sank a German sub before we were even at war with them. FDR had a good response for that one though.

"If one is standing next to a rattlesnake, one does not have to wait to be bitten to shoot it."

Deeman3
06-20-2008, 12:11 PM
This is pretty much the same as with the detainees at Gitmo. The guards say, "These are some really dangerous folks! You turn your back a second and you are dead! They came here that way, on day one. (prepared like Hillary)"

Of course, before that, they were harmless cab drivers who just happened to be shooting at Americans in battle or cutting off heads in Iraq and Afganistan. It was their incarceration that made them "bad boys". Still waiting for the folks crying to get them out to offer to host them for a month in their homes.

Chopstick
06-20-2008, 03:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Still waiting for the folks crying to get them out to offer to host them for a month in their homes. </div></div>

I remember that post. It was a good one. Still, the question remains. We went out and caught the bad guys. Now, what do we do with them. It is clear that they are stone cold killers. We can't let em go and we can't keep em locked up forever down there. If they had gotten the trials started sooner it probably would not have been a problem. I think they just waited too long.

Gayle in MD
06-20-2008, 08:56 PM
Could you lead me to the information which makes it clear that they are all killers?

War is stupid. Unfortunately, the young never know what they're getting into, until it's too late. They carry on for one another.

Comparing this fiasco in Iraq, to any previous war, doesn't work, at all.


Saddam was not an immediate threat. Had no WMD's, was not involved with terrorists. Had nothing to do with 9/11.

If this war was justified, why were lies necessary to sell it?

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

To have imagined a country like Iraq becoming a pillar of Democracy, was ignorant, foolish, and naive'. going in was a mistake, which has worked against our own best interests.

We are growing militias, with cash, in a country with no operational government, and no cohesion between incredibily multifaceted factions, in a country which complains that we are complicating their problems.

Vietnam was another unwinnable war, as has been admitted by all those decision makers involved at the time. It was another mistake.

There is no military solution in Iraq.

War should never be glorified. It is no longer effective as a tool for problem solving. There will be no surrender, and where there is no possibility of surrender, how does it end?

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
06-21-2008, 06:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Vietnam was another unwinnable war, as has been admitted by all those decision makers involved at the time.

Gayle in Md.



</div></div>
Viet Nam was NOT an unwinnable war. It was unwinnable only when those decision makers made foolish decisions that restricted the ability of our military forces to fight the war with the full force available to them.
We started out right in Iraq with the "shock and awe" phase, then limited the number of ground forces needed for proper follow up.
You can have the most awsome break in a pool game, but you also have to be willing and able to finish the game!
Steve

Gayle in MD
06-22-2008, 08:21 AM
The Vietnamese leader stated that they would have fought until the last man dropped, because it was a CIVIL WAR.

At no time in histroy has an invader won a war on foreign ground, which was a civil war.

There is no stronger emotion than Nationalism. Vietnam was unwinnable. So say both the Vietnamese, American Military experts, and McNamara, but I'm sure you know more than any of them, and that history is incorrect.

Invading Iraq was a stupid decision. It has failed miserably. the very idea of spreading democracy in the Middle East, was naive, and stupid, and has emboldened our enemies, ... al Qaeda,
the Taliban, and Iran.

Failed foreign policy which has only served to fill the pockets of the Military Industrial Complex, and this case, Bush and Cheney's former corporate cronies.
Gayle in Md.
The definition of Republican Policies: fascism n. a merging of the interests of big corporations and government, adjoined with a systematic curtailment of civil liberties