Iraq

Well, shit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/in...02DIPL.html?hp

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/in...st/02ABUS.html

The one argument against the Iraq war that always made a bit of sense to me was the one that went something like: "dude, Bush is an idiot. Even if it is a good idea, he's not the one who is going to be able to pull it off, because he's too much of a coward to do something that would take him out of office." The thought cut, but I ignored it because I figured Bush's religious conviction was going to provide us the impetus we needed to do our job.

Well, I'll consider myself chastened.

We've taken a brilliant, brutal, heart-stopping, standard-mutating military victory in Iraq, a truly promising beginning, and have turned it into the same sort of Middle East fuckup that Carter (Iran), Reagan (Lebanon), Clinton (Mogadishu) pulled off - except on a larger, better lit stage. 1 year and countless billions later, we're back to being the American tough guys that cut and run as soon as our guys start getting killed - this is our version of Spain's cowardice, except it's our government, not the voters, that is doing the national-ass-fucking in this case.

Just when we needed to actually take a couple of risks in Falluja, say "damn the UN", and get the job done, Bush has collectively castrated our army and our country because the poll numbers are turning.

A handful of nonrepresentative vicious American bastards (the torturers, people who deserve to be strung up by their toenails in Camp Pendleton) have now dragged us down to the level of a bunch of Middle Eastern savages.

(Not like this needs to be said, but when was the last time you saw Al Jazeera dogpiling on one of their countries' own the way our news channels have been on our version of their evil? How about the last time you saw a country's president castigate one of his own soldiers in a similar way? We're outraged because this isn't normal for us. Thank God we live in this country and not one of the other ones.)

This Falluja retreat bullshit makes me fucking sick. Is there anyone who isn't a goddamned idiot or who has to get reelected in November that thinks this is a good idea?

Right war (for a million reasons), but, I think, the wrong president. What the hell is the point now? We're in the process of giving the country back to the secular Baathists (again). The best we can do now is to promise the Iraqis that we'll come back and kill any Baathist leader when he starts getting uppity.

So does this mean the gas prices aren't going to go down?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

Right war (for a million reasons)

---

I've yet to hear a single reason why it is right.

But I do agree our pussified retreat from Fallujah is setting a really fucking bad example.

In some ways I agree and in some ways I don't. My fear is that Kerry is gonna fuck it up 10 times worse with all of his budget cuts and his refusal to get troops body armor and more armored plates on the HMMVWs (just to name a few of his plans). There's a good chance I'll be there in January and I'm set for whatever, but I'll be damned if I die for some stupid fucking reason. The retreat from Fallujah was some stupid shit but if the Marines had assaulted that town like they were planning in the coming days I seriously doubt there would've been much living in that town, civilian and terrorist. This is what happens when politics from either side get involved in a war. Things get fucked up, I just hope the situation gets better by the time I get there, if I'm gonna assault a town filled with terrorists and the like then I'm cool with that, but I don't want my buddies to die in preperation of the assault then just fucking leave.

Funny thing, that politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

Well, shit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/in...02DIPL.html?hp

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/in...st/02ABUS.html

The one argument against the Iraq war that always made a bit of sense to me was the one that went something like: "dude, Bush is an idiot. Even if it is a good idea, he's not the one who is going to be able to pull it off, because he's too much of a coward to do something that would take him out of office." The thought cut, but I ignored it because I figured Bush's religious conviction was going to provide us the impetus we needed to do our job.

Well, I'll consider myself chastened.

We've taken a brilliant, brutal, heart-stopping, standard-mutating military victory in Iraq, a truly promising beginning, and have turned it into the same sort of Middle East fuckup that Carter (Iran), Reagan (Lebanon), Clinton (Mogadishu) pulled off - except on a larger, better lit stage. 1 year and countless billions later, we're back to being the American tough guys that cut and run as soon as our guys start getting killed - this is our version of Spain's cowardice, except it's our government, not the voters, that is doing the national-ass-fucking in this case.

Just when we needed to actually take a couple of risks in Falluja, say "damn the UN", and get the job done, Bush has collectively castrated our army and our country because the poll numbers are turning.

A handful of nonrepresentative vicious American bastards (the torturers, people who deserve to be strung up by their toenails in Camp Pendleton) have now dragged us down to the level of a bunch of Middle Eastern savages.

(Not like this needs to be said, but when was the last time you saw Al Jazeera dogpiling on one of their countries' own the way our news channels have been on our version of their evil? How about the last time you saw a country's president castigate one of his own soldiers in a similar way? We're outraged because this isn't normal for us. Thank God we live in this country and not one of the other ones.)

This Falluja retreat bullshit makes me fucking sick. Is there anyone who isn't a goddamned idiot or who has to get reelected in November that thinks this is a good idea?

Right war (for a million reasons), but, I think, the wrong president. What the hell is the point now? We're in the process of giving the country back to the secular Baathists (again). The best we can do now is to promise the Iraqis that we'll come back and kill any Baathist leader when he starts getting uppity.

---

Wrong war for the wrong reasons.
Most middle eastern governments dont like All Jazeera no more then the US does since they are known for their independance regarding the vast majority of isseus.
remember Al jazeera started out as a BBC project and is build and operated acording to BBC principles.

Faluya is a case of mistake after mistake after mistake wich now has become a lose lose situation for the US so tacticaly maybe this retreat is the only thing left that could lead to results that are the least damaging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cka

Funny thing, that politics.

---

yeah, funny gay, not funny ha ha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

yeah, funny gay, not funny ha ha

---

Funny queer, not funny ha-ha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

Right war (for a million reasons), but, I think, the wrong president. What the hell is the point now? We're in the process of giving the country back to the secular Baathists (again). The best we can do now is to promise the Iraqis that we'll come back and kill any Baathist leader when he starts getting uppity.

---

This is what I've been saying from the begining. Another two factors that made this wrong: timing and policy.

You can't impose democracy on an unwilling populace in ONE year!

Hey stone, do you mind pasting the artical? I don't wanna click anymore links asking me to register.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brisco Bold

This is what I've been saying from the begining. Another two factors that made this wrong: timing and policy.

You can't impose democracy on an unwilling populace in ONE year!

---

That pretty much sums up the situation and the backlash. The Iraqi's were happy that we got rid of Saddam, but when you tried to change their way of life, they turned against you.

Now that Americans are starting to die, absolutely no one is happy with the outcome of the war.

People die in war? You don't say.

Plus Bush still hasn't proven a Iraq has WMDs, I'm still puzzled why that dumbass hasn't been kicked out of office yet.

And Saddam is only partial in justifying his cause, it's done but that wasn't the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

People die in war? You don't say.

---

IIRC only 3 American died in the initial assault until Saadam was dethroned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

People die in war? You don't say.

---

Yeah, but seeing casualties of this magnitude after supposedly "liberating" a nation is both embarrassing and ironic. It makes capturing Saddam seem worthless.

Two words: Mission acomplished.

This, along with Bush's "I'll talk only if there's no record of what happens and only if Cheney can tell me what to say" testimony this past week is making him appear weak. That's bad for him (yay), but also bad for the country (boo). I want Bush out of office, but not if he's going to take what little dignity we have left in Iraq with him.

Dont forget the pictures that emerged this week out of Iraq and wich confirmed what Amnesty International and others had been saying for a while yet was vehemently denied for so long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almaci

Dont forget the pictures that emerged this week out of Iraq and wich confirmed what Amnesty International and others had been saying for a while yet was vehemently denied for so long.

---

And the soldiers who did it have been arrested, charged, and will be court-martialed. Which is what should happen. There is no cover-up. There is no stonewalling.

It's funny that this shit is such an outrage to you while Oil-For-Food (UNSCAM) or Al-jazeera's videos showing thugs dragging American bodies through Fallujah is not.

Fuck that noise.

Its a well known fact (to anyone who cares at least), that the USMC was HANDILY defeating the militants in Fallujah. At the time of the first BS "cease fire" the kill ratio was like 450 to TWELVE. FOUR-HUNDRED-AND-FIFTY-TO-TWELVE. Iwo Jima this was not. The MC had a plan and it was being executed with little problem. And then this happened.

Iraq is no Vietnam but this Fallujah is little more than the Tet Offensive 2, in that the US military forces had a grasp on the situation and were doing their job when an anti-American, pro-enemy media stepped in and decided to tell the country a different story than was actually happening. And then politicians stepped in and ruined it.

This disgusts me.

chalk this up to a victory for the insurgency... =\ Its only going to get worse from here on out. Bad move on our part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

In some ways I agree and in some ways I don't. My fear is that Kerry is gonna fuck it up 10 times worse with all of his budget cuts and his refusal to get troops body armor and more armored plates on the HMMVWs (just to name a few of his plans).

---

Don't forget how Bush slashed VA benefits to help fund his war in Iraq. I hate to say it, but we're going to be fucked no matter. We are cannon fodder in a game that only rich and powerful men can play. I say this being in the military and facing a tour in Iraq myself.

It's funny how brave some of these computer chair chickenhawks can be from the safetly of their bedrooms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mfkzt

It's funny how brave some of these computer chair chickenhawks can be from the safetly of their bedrooms.

---

Fuck this word, and fuck you for using it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mfkzt

Don't forget how Bush slashed VA benefits to help fund his war in Iraq. I hate to say it, but we're going to be fucked no matter. We are cannon fodder in a game that only rich and powerful men can play. I say this being in the military and facing a tour in Iraq myself.

It's funny how brave some of these computer chair chickenhawks can be from the safetly of their bedrooms.

---

But...you are in your computer chair right now? So you are different from use because of something YOU HAVE NOT EVEN DONE yet?

Also, Gohron is also going into the military if I recall correctly...

This sucks. Bush is a nimrod and I've said so from day one, but the way this is going down it's nothing to gloat about. That's a messed up situation and whether I was totally against it in the first place, you guys need to win this one. Might as well send more troops and get it done with. Because I think everybody realizes the consequences could be pretty serious if this doesn't work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

Well, shit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/in...02DIPL.html?hp

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/in...st/02ABUS.html

The one argument against the Iraq war that always made a bit of sense to me was the one that went something like: "dude, Bush is an idiot. Even if it is a good idea, he's not the one who is going to be able to pull it off, because he's too much of a coward to do something that would take him out of office." The thought cut, but I ignored it because I figured Bush's religious conviction was going to provide us the impetus we needed to do our job.

Well, I'll consider myself chastened.

We've taken a brilliant, brutal, heart-stopping, standard-mutating military victory in Iraq, a truly promising beginning, and have turned it into the same sort of Middle East fuckup that Carter (Iran), Reagan (Lebanon), Clinton (Mogadishu) pulled off - except on a larger, better lit stage. 1 year and countless billions later, we're back to being the American tough guys that cut and run as soon as our guys start getting killed - this is our version of Spain's cowardice, except it's our government, not the voters, that is doing the national-ass-fucking in this case.

Just when we needed to actually take a couple of risks in Falluja, say "damn the UN", and get the job done, Bush has collectively castrated our army and our country because the poll numbers are turning.

A handful of nonrepresentative vicious American bastards (the torturers, people who deserve to be strung up by their toenails in Camp Pendleton) have now dragged us down to the level of a bunch of Middle Eastern savages.

(Not like this needs to be said, but when was the last time you saw Al Jazeera dogpiling on one of their countries' own the way our news channels have been on our version of their evil? How about the last time you saw a country's president castigate one of his own soldiers in a similar way? We're outraged because this isn't normal for us. Thank God we live in this country and not one of the other ones.)

This Falluja retreat bullshit makes me fucking sick. Is there anyone who isn't a goddamned idiot or who has to get reelected in November that thinks this is a good idea?

Right war (for a million reasons), but, I think, the wrong president. What the hell is the point now? We're in the process of giving the country back to the secular Baathists (again). The best we can do now is to promise the Iraqis that we'll come back and kill any Baathist leader when he starts getting uppity.

---

I've said the same thing a million times about this war, so I'm gonna say something a bit different. But first I have to agree with you on your right idea wrong president statement.

There must be a hundred different ways this war could have been a good thing, hell a thousand, and the fact is Bush did everything in his power to fuck it up.

You wanna know why I hate republicans. Because they never admit they did something wrong. Bush and his administration do not have the capacity to think like normal people. They do not have the capacity to see the big picture when it comes to, "The Big Plan" they always seem to have. They just don't.

Democrats are no day in the park either, don't get me wrong, but Jesus Christ this is fucking ridiculous.

All moral reasonss aside, you wanna know ultimately why it was a bad idea to go into Iraq? Because we are a democracy. Because this was going to take more than the two years left in Bush's term to fix. Because we have now tied the hands of the American people, the soldiers, and god let it happen please, the new president, with this bullshit. Because guys, by removing Saddam's regime from power in the middle of a war on terror, we have given the chance for the terrorists to take hold of the country entirely by spewing their lies and propaganda at a people who will not believe proof, only in those who share, and claim to share their belilefs.

For those who want to pull out of this, I have to say, we can't.

Its impossible now. They'd take that country from its people in a year and then shit would really hit the fan.


Thats why this war was a bad idea. You wanna take all moral issues and intention issues aside and look at practicallity, then simply due to TIMING this fucking war was a bad idea.



thats all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

And the soldiers who did it have been arrested, charged, and will be court-martialed. Which is what should happen. There is no cover-up. There is no stonewalling.

It's funny that this shit is such an outrage to you while Oil-For-Food (UNSCAM) or Al-jazeera's videos showing thugs dragging American bodies through Fallujah is not.

Fuck that noise.

Its a well known fact (to anyone who cares at least), that the USMC was HANDILY defeating the militants in Fallujah. At the time of the first BS "cease fire" the kill ratio was like 450 to TWELVE. FOUR-HUNDRED-AND-FIFTY-TO-TWELVE. Iwo Jima this was not. The MC had a plan and it was being executed with little problem. And then this happened.

Iraq is no Vietnam but this Fallujah is little more than the Tet Offensive 2, in that the US military forces had a grasp on the situation and were doing their job when an anti-American, pro-enemy media stepped in and decided to tell the country a different story than was actually happening. And then politicians stepped in and ruined it.

This disgusts me.

---

Why is this an isseu and the dragging of bodies in Faluyah is less of an iseu?

Simple really, from criminals you can expect criminal behaviour, the US came barging in and one of the reasons stated was to bring freedom back to the Iraqi people to stop torture and improve their lives yet waht do Iraqi´s see now, a thousand people dead by US fire in Faluyah, majority of wich were innocent civilians, they see their places of worship bombed and they see pictures of their fellow countrymen being tortured and humiliated.
From a a criminal you can expect criminal behaviour, the US was there to put an end to such behaviour and is now cought doing things wich they came there to end.
THAT is why its an isseu.

Oh btw nice job dragging in the UN into this again to fire of a few podshots at an easy target, regardles of the fact that the UN thing more and more starts to seem like a storm in a glass of water.


And where did I say I was outraged at the pictures?
I knew things like that were happening, its ineviteable.
When you have 150k people living in a stressfull situation against their will in a country they know jackshit about you will always have some dipshits who commit atrocities.
I mean how old are most of these people?
Like 20 to 24 years old?
Immature kids who cant handle the situation they have been forced into and deal with the bordeom and stress by acting like total asses.

Again I am not outraged, its just confirmation of what I expected, of what I knew what would happen, its simple human nature and statistics at work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

I've said the same thing a million times about this war, so I'm gonna say something a bit different. But first I have to agree with you on your right idea wrong president statement.

There must be a hundred different ways this war could have been a good thing, hell a thousand, and the fact is Bush did everything in his power to fuck it up.

You wanna know why I hate republicans. Because they never admit they did something wrong. Bush and his administration do not have the capacity to think like normal people. They do not have the capacity to see the big picture when it comes to, "The Big Plan" they always seem to have. They just don't.

Democrats are no day in the park either, don't get me wrong, but Jesus Christ this is fucking ridiculous.

All moral reasonss aside, you wanna know ultimately why it was a bad idea to go into Iraq? Because we are a democracy. Because this was going to take more than the two years left in Bush's term to fix. Because we have now tied the hands of the American people, the soldiers, and god let it happen please, the new president, with this bullshit. Because guys, by removing Saddam's regime from power in the middle of a war on terror, we have given the chance for the terrorists to take hold of the country entirely by spewing their lies and propaganda at a people who will not believe proof, only in those who share, and claim to share their belilefs.

For those who want to pull out of this, I have to say, we can't.

Its impossible now. They'd take that country from its people in a year and then shit would really hit the fan.


Thats why this war was a bad idea. You wanna take all moral issues and intention issues aside and look at practicallity, then simply due to TIMING this fucking war was a bad idea.



thats all.

---

YAWA continues to amaze me. That is an incredibly succint and well written post. And I agree nearly 100%. I was against this war in Iraq from day one... but I know and agree that pulling out is really the last thing we should do at this point. If we allow the extremists to gain control of Iraq it'll be worse then when Saddam was there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mman

But...you are in your computer chair right now? So you are different from use because of something YOU HAVE NOT EVEN DONE yet?

---

In case you haven't noticed, I'm stridently anti-war. I leave the macho posturing to the cowardly chickenhawks who have given nothing to their country and are risking nothing by taking a pro-war stance. I figure the draft will shut them up after they vote Bush in for another 4 years this November.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mfkzt

In case you haven't noticed, I'm stridently anti-war. I leave the macho posturing to the cowardly chickenhawks who have given nothing to their country and are risking nothing by taking a pro-war stance. I figure the draft will shut them up after they vote Bush in for another 4 years this November.

---

I still don't understand how I get labeled a "cowardly-chickenhawk".

That comment directed at other people in this thread, not you. You're actually going to serve your country.

Were crippled people who supported the war against the nazis in the 1940s chickenhawks? There was no chance of them ever getting killed in battle, right?

How long do you have to serve your country if you'd like to give yourself the ability to justify holding a pro-war stance at some point in the future?

Quote:

---

Simple really, from criminals you can expect criminal behaviour, the US came barging in and one of the reasons stated was to bring freedom back to the Iraqi people to stop torture and improve their lives yet waht do Iraqi´s see now, a thousand people dead by US fire in Faluyah, majority of wich were innocent civilians, they see their places of worship bombed and they see pictures of their fellow countrymen being tortured and humiliated.

---

They got their mosques blown up because they were storing weapons and firing at soldiers from them. It's as simple as that. I never heard of any Italians in WW2 firing at Allies from cathedrals but if they did Im sure those got blown up too.

And I didnt read ANYWHERE, and I mean ANYWHERE that the majority of killings in Fallujah were innocent civilians. Come on now!

As for seeing their fellow countrymen tortured and humiliated, were these by chance the same people dancing and cheering in the street while *my* fellow countrymen were being tortured and humiliated?

Now, as for the US "doing the shit that it was supposed to stop", I dont agree with this, BECAUSE these tortures and humiliations were not sanctioned by the US and were not ordered by the US. It was a bunch of fucking asshole moron soldiers who were arrested and charged promptly. There IS a difference. If the Army tried to cover it up or something I'd say you have a point... but they're not, so you don't.

I'm simply saying that it's easy to be a hawk when you have nothing to lose. That's why I think the draft is a good idea. At best, it'll cause more people to wake up to the seriousness of military action and prevent the American public from supporting another disaster like Iraq. At worst, it'll force armchair warhawks to put their money where their mouth is by spending some time in harm's way with a rifle at their side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mfkzt

In case you haven't noticed, I'm stridently anti-war. I leave the macho posturing to the cowardly chickenhawks who have given nothing to their country and are risking nothing by taking a pro-war stance. I figure the draft will shut them up after they vote Bush in for another 4 years this November.

---

I question your anti-war dedication. Did you go to Iraq as a human shield? Seriously, one does not have to be a soldier to serve his country. Benjamin Franklin was as instrumental as any soldier during the American Revolution, and yet he did not carry a rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josh

So does this mean the gas prices aren't going to go down?

---

Hm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josh

Hm?

---

Not a chance in hell.

Bummer.

Who can we bomb for cheap gas? Because I support that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tigana

I question your anti-war dedication. Did you go to Iraq as a human shield?

---

I've served in the Peace Corps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Now, as for the US "doing the shit that it was supposed to stop", I dont agree with this, BECAUSE these tortures and humiliations were not sanctioned by the US and were not ordered by the US. It was a bunch of fucking asshole moron soldiers who were arrested and charged promptly. There IS a difference. If the Army tried to cover it up or something I'd say you have a point... but they're not, so you don't.

---

Just thought I'd pop in to say that I just saw a writer for the New Yorker on the news who was convinced that this behavior (humiliating the captured, to be specific) was actually an order, as a form of interrogation. Also that the people were "random people". I don't have time to look for a link, but I will later if I remember (or someone else can).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mfkzt

I've served in the Peace Corps.

---

Fair enough, and I apologize to you for assuming otherwise. However, do you hold other people who are also fervent anti-war agitators and haven't done anything about it to the same disregard you have for the chickenhawks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tigana

I question your anti-war dedication. Did you go to Iraq as a human shield? Seriously, one does not have to be a soldier to serve his country. Benjamin Franklin was as instrumental as any soldier during the American Revolution, and yet he did not carry a rifle.

---

No, he just went to france and screwed enough rich peoples wives and sweet talked enough rich old men to get millitary aid.

I love Benjamin Franklin. He was such a colorful man, who did some real good in his life.

But do we know if these pictures were just soldiers . . . er, asshole soldiers . . . screwing around, or were they snippets from a military-sanctioned effort to break the prisoners' will? Don't always assume the worst, but know if you always assume the best you will get the wool pulled over your eyes time and time again. Remember how many people assumed the best when Colin Powell and the President told us we needed to go to Iraq? They would never undertake such a decision lightly, right? Our military intelligence clearly shows A, B, C, right? Assume the best, right?

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that orders came from higher up in the military chain of command, but don't just blindly think this is an isolated incident or an instance of "boys will be boys." Keep your mind open to either possibility. Just like you should keep your mind open to the possibility that we are pretty much writing the terrorists' recruitment brochures for them, while shoveling more innocent lives into the furnace.

Geez, I don't want Kerry handling this, and I don't Bush dealing with it anymore.

November's gonna be a fun election... =|

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick

But do we know if these pictures were just soldiers . . . er, asshole soldiers . . . screwing around, or were they snippets from a military-sanctioned effort to break the prisoners' will? Don't always assume the worst, but know if you always assume the best you will get the wool pulled over your eyes time and time again. Remember how many people assumed the best when Colin Powell and the President told us we needed to go to Iraq? They would never undertake such a decision lightly, right? Our military intelligence clearly shows A, B, C, right? Assume the best, right?

---

Too stupid to dignify with a response. (Other than that one.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mfkzt

I'm simply saying that it's easy to be a hawk when you have nothing to lose. That's why I think the draft is a good idea. At best, it'll cause more people to wake up to the seriousness of military action and prevent the American public from supporting another disaster like Iraq. At worst, it'll force armchair warhawks to put their money where their mouth is by spending some time in harm's way with a rifle at their side.

---

With a draft, that means you get forced to go, too.

And you would, right? Since you think the draft is a good idea and all.

Kerry's got no reason to watch Iraq get further fucked up on his watch - I think he's capable of doing the job.

The move for Kerry, right now, would be to criticize Bush for being a coward who is destroying the credibility of American troops by pulling back when we finally need to demonstrate courage. It'd be another 'flip-flop', but I think he could gain some traction with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salsashark

Just thought I'd pop in to say that I just saw a writer for the New Yorker on the news who was convinced that this behavior (humiliating the captured, to be specific) was actually an order, as a form of interrogation. Also that the people were "random people". I don't have time to look for a link, but I will later if I remember (or someone else can).

---

It doesnt matter if its an order. Remember Nuremberg? Well of course you dont, but Im sure you learned about it in school or something.

Oh and what people are you referring to? The soldiers or the prisoners?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mfkzt

I'm simply saying that it's easy to be a hawk when you have nothing to lose. That's why I think the draft is a good idea. At best, it'll cause more people to wake up to the seriousness of military action and prevent the American public from supporting another disaster like Iraq. At worst, it'll force armchair warhawks to put their money where their mouth is by spending some time in harm's way with a rifle at their side.

---

Ahh, insightful. (It's easy to do anything when you have nothing to lose.)

And, yeah, the draft'll really shut up armchair warhawks like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, right? Ah, no, most of the people who would/could get drafted are dumb kids who either don't care about the war or who think BUSH IS A NAZI!?@$@.

What you ought to be asking for is a Patriot Tax or something along those lines.

The idea would be that the cost of a war would have to be paid for by a commensurate increase on gas taxes (or milk or something similar). If the war costs $87 billion, then $87 billion needs to be quickly raised by doubling or tripling the cost of gas. People would know that a war meant that they would be paying $6/gal for gas for the next year.

It'd be a financial draft, in a sense - people would be thinking about at least one of the costs of war every time they went to the pump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

And, yeah, the draft'll really shut up armchair warhawks like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, right? Ah, no, most of the people who would/could get drafted are dumb kids who either don't care about the war

---

*waves*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

Ahh, insightful. (It's easy to do anything when you have nothing to lose.)

And, yeah, the draft'll really shut up armchair warhawks like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, right? Ah, no, most of the people who would/could get drafted are dumb kids who either don't care about the war or who think BUSH IS A NAZI!?@$@.

What you ought to be asking for is a Patriot Tax or something along those lines.

The idea would be that the cost of a war would have to be paid for by a commensurate increase on gas taxes (or milk or something similar). If the war costs $87 billion, then $87 billion needs to be quickly raised by doubling or tripling the cost of gas. People would know that a war meant that they would be paying $6/gal for gas for the next year.

It'd be a financial draft, in a sense - people would be thinking about at least one of the costs of war every time they went to the pump.

---

You let me know when they start that. I'll invest in ever US motorcyle brand out there. I should have done that the first time gas prices went up. The pains of having insight but no money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

It doesnt matter if its an order. Remember Nuremberg? Well of course you dont, but Im sure you learned about it in school or something.

Oh and what people are you referring to? The soldiers or the prisoners?

---

The prisoners, but to be honest I still need to look into that. Believe it or not I wasn't trying to argue with you or anything, I just thought that was worth putting out there until I read more about it. My post was rendered useless after Nick's, which was expressed a lot better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

And, yeah, the draft'll really shut up armchair warhawks like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, right?

---

You will always have your Bill O'Reillys and your Sean Hannitys, but the average man would be less likely to listen to them if their ass, or the ass of a family member, was on the line. The draft would be a serious wake-up call to America, and I truly believe that it would take something that drastic to bring people back to reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hero

With a draft, that means you get forced to go, too. And you would, right? Since you think the draft is a good idea and all.

---

Check out my first post to this thread. Depending on how things go in the next several months, there's a very real chance I'll be in Iraq before next year.

I like that idea...taxing gas (or something like that) to be sure everyone is fitting the bill for this war. I wouldn't mind paying extra for frivolous goods, if it meant keeping the country from running a harder debt when this is over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mfkzt

Don't forget how Bush slashed VA benefits to help fund his war in Iraq. I hate to say it, but we're going to be fucked no matter. We are cannon fodder in a game that only rich and powerful men can play. I say this being in the military and facing a tour in Iraq myself.

It's funny how brave some of these computer chair chickenhawks can be from the safetly of their bedrooms.

---

Oh hell, my bad. I had no idea you were already serving. It means a lot to me, knowing that you'll serve even if you don't agree with what's going on. Nothing but respect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

Kerry's got no reason to watch Iraq get further fucked up on his watch - I think he's capable of doing the job.

The move for Kerry, right now, would be to criticize Bush for being a coward who is destroying the credibility of American troops by pulling back when we finally need to demonstrate courage. It'd be another 'flip-flop', but I think he could gain some traction with it.

---

I seriously doubt Kerry is going to do a better job then Bush, he's already made it clear that he wants our troops out of Iraq when he voted against additional funding. He has also made it clear that he wants to spend less on military funding. I'm pissed at Bush but I believe that Kerry will do no better, possibly even worse. It seems there's a good chance I'm gonna get fucked in November no matter what, although my vote is still leaning towards Bush, if he continues to do shit like this then I will simply not vote for the President in November, only my congressmen and senators.

Hopefully we can get a strong President in 2008 like McCain but we'll just have to see what happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

Too stupid to dignify with a response. (Other than that one.)

---

Riiiight. And My Lai was a miscommunication.

Why are you so insistent on believing the U.S. military is run by Boy Scouts? From where I'm sitting, I can't be sure the leadership in Iraq has been enforcing a zero-tolerance policy on these kinds of offenses (humiliating Iraqis). I hope the authorities investigating matters like this don't favor easy, smug, dismissive answers that take almost no thought to type out.

Please, lower yourself to our level a minute and tell us why you are so sure this is an isolated thing. If that is what you meant with your flippant remark.

In any given army you have these kinds of guys. The thing is that they should be found and be proactive with the media instead of the media finding this stuff out themselves and putting the government in an unflattering perspective.

Exactly right.

"The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."

We messed up in Iraq and we will continue to mess up as long as we lead with our balls instead of our brains. I'm looking to see if the "good men" we need to fight evil are truly in place. This administration is getting by on overwhelming force and the reluctance of the average American to do anything that could be called unpatriotic - a far cry from the higher principles on which this country was founded.

We're being handed a shovel and told to get to work, but we may be digging our own grave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

The move for Kerry, right now, would be to criticize Bush for being a coward who is destroying the credibility of American troops by pulling back when we finally need to demonstrate courage. It'd be another 'flip-flop', but I think he could gain some traction with it.

---

Nah. That would look tacky. He's taking the high road, sitting back and letting Bush hang himself. He needs to "stay on message" and "build an identity with voters". He can just get some other democrats to say all that stuff for him. There's really no need to change tactics until the Republicans get their act together and stop shooting themselves in a different foot each week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

I seriously doubt Kerry is going to do a better job then Bush, he's already made it clear that he wants our troops out of Iraq when he voted against additional funding.

---

His position is that they should stay, but with help from the UN. Besides, wasn't Dubya saying they'd all be home by August until just a little while ago?

Quote:

---

He has also made it clear that he wants to spend less on military funding.

---

Is it somehow possible to spend more? I think the current administration is spending more on the military than your governbment did during World War II...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

And I didnt read ANYWHERE, and I mean ANYWHERE that the majority of killings in Fallujah were innocent civilians. Come on now!

---

The Associated Press reported it. It was based on statements from the director of a Fallujah hospital (he said specifically about 600 of the first 1000 dead were women & children), but was controverted by the US military (I'd like to know how they would know either way) and therefore had to be reported as being "unconfirmed reports".

I don't think the US military is a shadowy conspiracy-filled evil armada or anything, but I don't believe them here. You can't fire tank shells and hellfire missiles from outside of town into a city inhabited by 300 000 people and magically only hit guys with guns in their hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

I seriously doubt Kerry is going to do a better job then Bush, he's already made it clear that he wants our troops out of Iraq when he voted against additional funding. He has also made it clear that he wants to spend less on military funding. I'm pissed at Bush but I believe that Kerry will do no better, possibly even worse. It seems there's a good chance I'm gonna get fucked in November no matter what, although my vote is still leaning towards Bush, if he continues to do shit like this then I will simply not vote for the President in November, only my congressmen and senators.

Hopefully we can get a strong President in 2008 like McCain but we'll just have to see what happens.

---

Heh, McCain would just as likely cut funding to the military as he is a true Republican, and fiscally responsible. The military industrial complex has been a constant source of wasted tax payer money due to wasteful projects and poor spending. See the $7 billion down the drain on the recently canceled Comanche helicopter project. I'd rather see us spending our money on taking care of our vets, investing in the troops first, equipment second. I think the military, like many branches of the goverment, could do more to spend money more wisely. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see our troops do without anything they need to protect our country. I just want to see our military budget focus on those troops in the here and now, not 20 years from now.

I'm not going to say Kerry is a great guy and a great leader, but I don't think he'll do any worse than our "compassionate conservative" president. Best way to handle things: Get Kerry in this year. Vote in a Democratic majority in the house and senate for 2 years, and have the Republicans take control of the house and senate in 2006. Then maybe we'll get a real choice for president in 2008 (as you said McCain or, perhaps Edwards).

I'm not denying that Bush didn't fuck it up now, I just don't think either him or Kerry is going to make the situation better, and I expect Kerry to do less. Though at this point getting the UN involved doesn't seem like such a bad idea, though they have a reputation of fucking it up like Bush is now (Somolia, Bosnia, etc.). I don't see anyone with a good solution to this problem who is currently in power to fix it. I think I'm gonna get fucked either way, and with me being in Iraq as soon as this Winter I'm pretty steaming about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolffen

Heh, McCain would just as likely cut funding to the military as he is a true Republican, and fiscally responsible. The military industrial complex has been a constant source of wasted tax payer money due to wasteful projects and poor spending. See the $7 billion down the drain on the recently canceled Comanche helicopter project. I'd rather see us spending our money on taking care of our vets, investing in the troops first, equipment second. I think the military, like many branches of the goverment, could do more to spend money more wisely. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see our troops do without anything they need to protect our country. I just want to see our military budget focus on those troops in the here and now, not 20 years from now.

I'm not going to say Kerry is a great guy and a great leader, but I don't think he'll do any worse than our "compassionate conservative" president. Best way to handle things: Get Kerry in this year. Vote in a Democratic majority in the house and senate for 2 years, and have the Republicans take control of the house and senate in 2006. Then maybe we'll get a real choice for president in 2008 (as you said McCain or, perhaps Edwards).

---

It seems that Kerry's budget cuts focus more on not getting the troops what they need now, budget cuts for future projects arn't as bad but they still hold some importance (we can't compete with a country like China still using APC's from Vietnam). Clinton screwed our troops a lot with budget cuts (I heard on a news program once that only 50% of the planes in the Air Force worked and the broken ones were used for parts to keep the other ones going) and Kerry seems to follow the same lines as Clinton on military funding. I'm not pointing fingers at the pass administration but as somebody going into the military in less then 2 months military policy is very important to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

I'm not denying that Bush didn't fuck it up now, I just don't think either him or Kerry is going to make the situation better, and I expect Kerry to do less. Though at this point getting the UN involved doesn't seem like such a bad idea, though they have a reputation of fucking it up like Bush is now (Somolia, Bosnia, etc.). I don't see anyone with a good solution to this problem who is currently in power to fix it. I think I'm gonna get fucked either way, and with me being in Iraq as soon as this Winter I'm pretty steaming about it.

---

I don't think Kerry will necessarily make it better (I can hope though), but I don't think he would do less to improve the situation. It wouldn't be good for his numbers. :) I'll say a prayer for you, and hope that the situation gets better before you go (or that you don't have to go at all). My wife's family has some close friends serving in Tikrit and Bassra right now, and they dread the news every day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolffen

I don't think Kerry will necessarily make it better (I can hope though), but I don't think he would do less to improve the situation. It wouldn't be good for his numbers. :) I'll say a prayer for you, and hope that the situation gets better before you go (or that you don't have to go at all). My wife's family has some close friends serving in Tikrit and Bassra right now, and they dread the news every day.

---

Thanks for the support, I know I've been praying a lot and you can never have too much :P

Regardless though, I still think these are some pretty dark times our country is going through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

I'm not denying that Bush didn't fuck it up now, I just don't think either him or Kerry is going to make the situation better, and I expect Kerry to do less. Though at this point getting the UN involved doesn't seem like such a bad idea, though they have a reputation of fucking it up like Bush is now (Somolia, Bosnia, etc.). I don't see anyone with a good solution to this problem who is currently in power to fix it. I think I'm gonna get fucked either way, and with me being in Iraq as soon as this Winter I'm pretty steaming about it.

---

Really, that's the whole problem. There isn't an easy solution. Kerry has to say something, but there's no master plan that can just sweep arab resentment under the rug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hero

With a draft, that means you get forced to go, too.

And you would, right? Since you think the draft is a good idea and all.

---

He's already going. Draft or no. Read, son.

I'm voting for Optimus Prime. Largely because my vote in TX doesn't count. I will be a distant flame before the sun there. Either vote for Bush or vote for anyone else. Doesn't matter who because they won't win Texas anyway. Kerry's not even trying (not that I even consider Kerry a better alternitive per se).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

They got their mosques blown up because they were storing weapons and firing at soldiers from them. It's as simple as that. I never heard of any Italians in WW2 firing at Allies from cathedrals but if they did Im sure those got blown up too.

And I didnt read ANYWHERE, and I mean ANYWHERE that the majority of killings in Fallujah were innocent civilians. Come on now!

As for seeing their fellow countrymen tortured and humiliated, were these by chance the same people dancing and cheering in the street while *my* fellow countrymen were being tortured and humiliated?

Now, as for the US "doing the shit that it was supposed to stop", I dont agree with this, BECAUSE these tortures and humiliations were not sanctioned by the US and were not ordered by the US. It was a bunch of fucking asshole moron soldiers who were arrested and charged promptly. There IS a difference. If the Army tried to cover it up or something I'd say you have a point... but they're not, so you don't.

---

That doesnt matter now does it?

Its what Iraqi´s see happening, the how and why they dont care about, they were told that the imperialistic aggresor would do this and now they see it happening.

Thats the reality at the field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

Too stupid to dignify with a response. (Other than that one.)

---

Here we have vintage Stone, nullifying someone else´s post witouth adding to the discussion whatsoever.

Nick has a point, we were asked to have blind faith in the claims of the Bush cabinet, vast majority of what they claimed was disproven after during or even before they made the claims so why should we have blind faith now?

You cant barge in here say your teh stupid and your post is teh stupid and then leave witouth saying jackshit yourself, especially when the point Nick brought on is a verry valid one.

Quote:

---

Here we have vintage Stone, nullifying someone else´s post witouth adding to the discussion whatsoever...

---

...

The war in Iraq has been a fuck-up from the get go, that's a fact. But, what people are failing to realize is how Bush's stupidity in Iraq CREATING the war on terror, not ending it. Alright, let me elaborate.

The attacks on 9/11 were by the Islamic fundamental group al-Queda against the United States because of its continued support of Israel against the Palestinians. That's a fact. In retaliation the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and liberated the country from the oppressive, terrorist sponsoring Taliban government. A perfectly reasonable response. So, with a new puppet government installed there we were free to begin working to stop terrorism at it's TRUE roots, the Israeli / Palestinian crisis, right?

Wrong, instead Bush wanted to use the 'war on terror' as a vernier to accomplish something his Daddy never could, beat Saddam Hussein. So we invade Iraq, under the laughable pretense of massive hidden stockpiles of WMDs that Saddam clearly didn't have, and then as soon as that became apparent Bush back-peddled and hammered home the fact that Saddam was a brutal despot, a clear hypocrisy considering some of our valuable allies and even some of the vaunted 'coalition' are brutal despots; China, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, etc.

Nevertheless, we destroy Saddam's regime and Bush thinks he's got the biggest cock on the block. After all, he showed the international community that he can do what he wants, when he wants, and no one's going to stop him. He even goes to far as to proclaim 'Mission Accomplished' sending a proverbial shout-out to all the conservative religious wackjobs that voted for him (but coincidentally didn't get him elected).

Unfortunately, in typical Bush fashion ole G.W. only thought the plan out so far, relying on the people to just ignore the military occupation and start a democracy, something Iraqi had never seen until then. Just as all the analysts predicted, a weak Iraq was not the end of terrorism, but rather a rallying cry for an increase. Have we all forgotten that Iraq's neighbor, Iran, publicly supports terrorism and has REAL ties to al-Queda (something Iraq didn't, considering Saddam and al-Queda were enemies)? Well, with no strong government, Iraq was a prime target for Iran to send down as many extremist Shi'ite mullahs into Iraq to set the ground work for their own Islamic Revolution.

This means that aside from the Sunnis, who already hated us because we toppled the government that supported them, now the Shi'ites hate us because of the propaganda machine from Tehran. That doesn't leave many friendly faces in Iraq, does it? Well, it gets worse.

You don't go into a country on moral grounds and then prove to be just as big a sadist dickhead as the last guy was. Whether or not what those guards did is representative of the entire occupation is irrelevant. Because it does something worse than any bullet could, it humiliates the Iraqis. It reinforces their warped preconceptions of Americans, and more importantly it gives cause for greater terrorist violence.

This war is a sinking ship, and when we 'hand over' power its either going to be in a hollow ceremony that changes nothing, or Bush is going to use it as an opportunity to do just like Daddy did, turn-tail and leave the job half-done. All this mess, and he still hasn't even addressed the REAL CAUSE OF TERRORISM IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

You can't just fight around the Israeli / Palestinian issue and expect to make any sort of dent against fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. If we can't solve that, or atleast find a way to better contain it, then we've become nothing but Br'er Rabbit hitting the tar baby. My biggest gripe with Bush has always been his criminal environmental policies, but a close second on that list is his total buffoonery in foreign relations, particularly with concern to the Middle East.

Would I be considered a conservative religious wackjob, even if I voted for Gore (which I did :p ).

That was a good post, and I enjoyed reading it.

Just when I think I've got a handle on you Veggie, you always seem to surprise me. And even though I've grown to like you, I still think you'd rather see me dead (or deported to France). ;)

The following logic makes no sense to me:

Man with bad track record so far versus man with no track record = Man with bad track record so far wins.

If you think Bush is doing a bad job, you vote him out of office. It doesn't matter how you think his opponent might do, you give the opponent a chance because you don't know. There's no way to know. We've seen the poor job Bush is doing, we gave him his chance, he has repeatedly shown us he is not the right man for the job. You can sit there and say that John Kerry will do this or that or whatever else, but that's just idiocy. You might as well not vote because you're not looking at the situation intelligently.

The draft won't shut anyone up because the current version of the bill will draft men and women 18-26. If you think a draft is a great idea - to randomly be pulled from whatever plans you have for your future for a minimum two years of service - then you should just stop what you're doing RIGHT NOW and go sign up for service yourself. I love my country, but now that my life is starting to get on track and my plans for my future are shaping up, I do NOT want to be torn from this to possibly die in a place so far away from here. I'm 24. If I were 18, I don't think I would mind so much since I didn't have even the slightest grip on life six years ago.

Also, g0zen, expect surprises from CV. That's what he does. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

The following logic makes no sense to me:

Man with bad track record so far versus man with no track record = Man with bad track record so far wins.

If you think Bush is doing a bad job, you vote him out of office. It doesn't matter how you think his opponent might do, you give the opponent a chance because you don't know. There's no way to know. We've seen the poor job Bush is doing, we gave him his chance, he has repeatedly shown us he is not the right man for the job. You can sit there and say that John Kerry will do this or that or whatever else, but that's just idiocy. You might as well not vote because you're not looking at the situation intelligently.

The draft won't shut anyone up because the current version of the bill will draft men and women 18-26. If you think a draft is a great idea - to randomly be pulled from whatever plans you have for your future for a minimum two years of service - then you should just stop what you're doing RIGHT NOW and go sign up for service yourself. I love my country, but now that my life is starting to get on track and my plans for my future are shaping up, I do NOT want to be torn from this to possibly die in a place so far away from here. I'm 24. If I were 18, I don't think I would mind so much since I didn't have even the slightest grip on life six years ago.

Also, g0zen, expect surprises from CV. That's what he does. :)

---

While I generally respect your opinions your "If this guy sucks vote him out no matter what his opponent believes" sounds stupid to me. Maybe if John Kerry hadn't voted for the Iraqi war then voted against the funding for it (which shows a COMPLETE lack of respect for American lives and those men in Iraq) I would consider voting for him. I'm pissed at Bush but I think John Kerry is fucking slime and a fucking traitor. Worst comes to worst I just won't vote, but there's almost nothing that will make me vote for Kerry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

I'm not denying that Bush didn't fuck it up now, I just don't think either him or Kerry is going to make the situation better, and I expect Kerry to do less.

---

As of now, the threat of perpetual war in the middle east is much greater under Bush than under a potential Kerry administration if only because Bush seems more than willing to start military actions based entirely on lies and spin (we used to call that treason). Like me, all of my military buddies want Bush out ASAP because they don't like the idea of putting their lives on the line to further this administration's agenda. Their disregard for our lives is reason enough for us military men to give the draft-dodging neocons their walking papers this November.

Quote:

---

Maybe if John Kerry hadn't voted for the Iraqi war then voted against the funding for it (which shows a COMPLETE lack of respect for American lives and those men in Iraq) I would consider voting for him.

---

You should really take a look at who put us in harm's way to begin with: this administration. Do you trust them enough to vote them in again?

I don't look at it the same way as you do. I would've been glad to go to Iraq last March and get rid of Saddam, even if that meant I was going to die because that's what I signed up for, to help people. I'm not pissed at the current administration because they went to war, I'm pissed because they're fucking the war up. As it stands now my vote is probably still going to Bush or not to anyone at all. I would still rather have him controlling the military then Kerry which now seems like a lose-lose situation, it's just a matter of who you believe is going to lose more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

While I generally respect your opinions your "If this guy sucks vote him out no matter what his opponent believes" sounds stupid to me. Maybe if John Kerry hadn't voted for the Iraqi war then voted against the funding for it (which shows a COMPLETE lack of respect for American lives and those men in Iraq) I would consider voting for him. I'm pissed at Bush but I think John Kerry is fucking slime and a fucking traitor. Worst comes to worst I just won't vote, but there's almost nothing that will make me vote for Kerry.

---

I actually wasn't referring to you, in particular. However, I don't understand the leap from voting for the Iraqi war and then later changing your mind and voting against funding for it makes you a slime or a traitor. I don't know much about Kerry as a person, but I know that people are allowed to change their minds, even politicians. I was for the Iraq war, then I was on the fence as things started going downhill, and now that we've totally flubbed it up and a draft is being mentioned, I'm seriously feeling we messed up, just like Stone.

I have a feeling you're just listening to the hype and all of that surrounding Kerry. As a rule, I don't listen to anything some pundit or ad campaign says about a person because it's probably either untrue or taken out of context. I don't believe a thing that Democrats say about Bush - I look at how I'm doing and how the country is doing, what Bush has contributed, and make my choice from there. To me, what he's doing now is totally in the wrong direction from what I want, and since a 3rd party vote is wasted and John Edwards isn't the candidate, I've been forced to be an ABB person. (Which sucks, really, but I have to try to give someone else a chance.) At least in the 1996 campaign, it wasn't an Anybody-but-Clinton issue, or an Anybody-but-Gore issue in 2000.

It may be different for you, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

it's just a matter of who you believe is going to lose more.

---

Which is a thoroughly crappy situation for us Americans.

But remember who put us here.

I understand the whole changing your mind thing but lets say those troops didn't get their funding. After awhile the casuluties would've gotten so high and maintanence shortfalls were up we would've had to pull out of Iraq. When it comes to war the stakes are a little bit different. When you vote to send our young men to die and then vote against the funding neccassary to support their efforts it's a different deal. My attitude is that you need to support the troops you sent to that country until they can pull of their objective, not turn your back on them and say "Fuck you, I want us out of Iraq so you can suck my dick if you somehow make it out of the country alive."

Last night it dawned on me, and I mean it really dawned on me, that I might not make it to my 19th birthday because of this. While I'm prepped to give my life for my fellow Marines and the freedom of an oppressed people, this really got to me, it doesn't make me scared but it makes me sad in a way, knowing that I may never get married, never have my own car, never be able to get that new computer, never see my parents again, etc. This is some crazy shit and I'm doing what I believe is in my best interest because it deals with my life.

Quote:

---

However, I don't understand the leap from voting for the Iraqi war and then later changing your mind and voting against funding for it makes you a slime or a traitor.

---

Because sending troops into war without proper funding is essentially giving cannon fodder to the enemy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

My attitude is that you need to support the troops you sent to that country until they can pull of their objective, not turn your back on them and say "Fuck you, I want us out of Iraq so you can suck my dick if you somehow make it out of the country alive."

---

That's cool. I just think it was more of a statement than actual lack of concern.

Quote:

---

Last night it dawned on me, and I mean it really dawned on me, that I might not make it to my 19th birthday because of this. While I'm prepped to give my life for my fellow Marines and the freedom of an oppressed people, this really got to me, it doesn't make me scared but it makes me sad in a way, knowing that I may never get married, never have my own car, never be able to get that new computer, never see my parents again, etc. This is some crazy shit and I'm doing what I believe is in my best interest because it deals with my life.

---

That's all nice, except for the marriage part. Might as well die on the battlefield. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mfkzt

That comment directed at other people in this thread, not you. You're actually going to serve your country.

---

Hey, I serve my country everyday. And I don't have to kill another man, woman or child to do so.


And I still really don't understand exactly *why* we got involved in Iraq in the first place. It obviously wasn't for some phantom WMD so it must have been a political reason. Right? But Bush is going down in the polls the longer we stay there and as more lives are lost. Are we freeing some oppressed people? Probably. But why Iraq? Why now? Why call it WMD for months then change the tune? Why not the other oppressed nations and peoples that we've sat around and ignored for so long? The only way to find out why we went there is to ask, "Who has the most to gain from a campaign in Iraq?" I don't pretend to know the answer but I bet it's something not very nice. OMG conspiracy!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

I'm voting for Optimus Prime. Largely because my vote in TX doesn't count. I will be a distant flame before the sun there. Either vote for Bush or vote for anyone else. Doesn't matter who because they won't win Texas anyway. Kerry's not even trying (not that I even consider Kerry a better alternitive per se).

---

Yeah. GWB has a strong hold in Texas though I'm not sure why. The bastard was born up north, went to school up north, but just so happens to have lived here a few years, "served" in the military here, and owns some sandbox "ranch" in Crawford. Apart from screwing up our educational funding and putting students more in debt (my tuition is increasing $650 next semester - same hours, similar course fees) I can't think of a damn thing he did as governor of Texas that made our state any better. And his crony Perry is just a moron, don't even try to make sense of his actions. What ever happened to Ann Richards? *There* was a true born, raised and educated Texan - none of this play-pretend-yee-haw-I'm-a-hick-check-out-my-fake-accent crap.

But people still vote for him because he's "religious". :yuck:


I was talking to a family member of the bride at a wedding I attended a week ago. He was in the Army and somehow we got started on the war. Boy this guy had been brainwashed to the core - every word out of his mouth stank of some shifty political agenda. I can understand wanting to increase funding for the military as a form of job security, but championing the death of thousands of people for some unknown reason just doesn't sit right. His inside sources tell him that the weapons, and all traces of their production and storage were shipped on trucks out of the country just before we got to em! Those sneaky "turrests". :p

But on topic, we can't leave, we can't stay, and we can't go around like a vigilante nation ridding to world of The Great Evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

I seriously doubt Kerry is going to do a better job then Bush, he's already made it clear that he wants our troops out of Iraq when he voted against additional funding. He has also made it clear that he wants to spend less on military funding. I'm pissed at Bush but I believe that Kerry will do no better, possibly even worse. It seems there's a good chance I'm gonna get fucked in November no matter what, although my vote is still leaning towards Bush, if he continues to do shit like this then I will simply not vote for the President in November, only my congressmen and senators.

Hopefully we can get a strong President in 2008 like McCain but we'll just have to see what happens.

---

No incumbent president is going to pull troops from Iraq without first cleaning up the mess. Not even Howard Dean would have done that.

P.S. If Bush wins my predictiton for the wacky campaign of 2008 is...

R- Arnold
D- Hilary
I- The Body
G- Nader or his clone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

And the soldiers who did it have been arrested, charged, and will be court-martialed. Which is what should happen. There is no cover-up. There is no stonewalling.

It's funny that this shit is such an outrage to you while Oil-For-Food (UNSCAM) or Al-jazeera's videos showing thugs dragging American bodies through Fallujah is not.

---

Its an outrage because the war fighting is a propaganda war with these people. As much as it sucks that we get shit on by the people we are trying to protect, we just can't let shit like this happen in a way where it gets out to the general public man.

Because one view of that video could set people into an outrage and take what little control over that country we have away from it.

And I think everyone was outraged at Falluah, don't say stupid things like that...

Quote:

---

Fuck that noise.

---

Stick to saying stupid things like this.

Quote:

---

Its a well known fact (to anyone who cares at least), that the USMC was HANDILY defeating the militants in Fallujah. At the time of the first BS "cease fire" the kill ratio was like 450 to TWELVE. FOUR-HUNDRED-AND-FIFTY-TO-TWELVE. Iwo Jima this was not. The MC had a plan and it was being executed with little problem. And then this happened.

---

Fair enough.

Quote:

---

Iraq is no Vietnam but this Fallujah is little more than the Tet Offensive 2, in that the US military forces had a grasp on the situation and were doing their job when an anti-American, pro-enemy media stepped in and decided to tell the country a different story than was actually happening. And then politicians stepped in and ruined it.

This disgusts me.

---

No I think the goal here is to say, hey, we don't want it to become a Vietanam. We don't want our soldiers there, clueless to the type of war they fighting, clueless to the reasons why the Iraq's hate them, and being dumb enough in the middle of propaganda war, to actually film themselves abusing prisoners. Thats what its about.

And the media is not anti-american. The media is anti-war. Get it right.

Arnold can't run, he's not a natural born citizen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

Arnold can't run, he's not a natural born citizen.

---

He's trying to get the law changed, look it up.

I'll look into that, definately be interesting to have the Terminator as the President :P

Arnold Schwartzenegger Presidential Library from Demolition Man, HERE WE COME!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

The draft won't shut anyone up because the current version of the bill will draft men and women 18-26. If you think a draft is a great idea - to randomly be pulled from whatever plans you have for your future for a minimum two years of service - then you should just stop what you're doing RIGHT NOW and go sign up for service yourself. I love my country, but now that my life is starting to get on track and my plans for my future are shaping up, I do NOT want to be torn from this to possibly die in a place so far away from here. I'm 24. If I were 18, I don't think I would mind so much since I didn't have even the slightest grip on life six years ago.

---

I would have no problem putting my life aside and serving my country (native or adopted) if it was for a cause I felt was right. That's what being a citizen is all about, really. But I'm damned if I'm going to get myself killed or "injured" because of an inept lie like this one. We aren't "defending freedom" or whatever in any way, shape, or form, as has been proven in the past few months.

Fortunately for me, my immigration status will render me ineligible for the draft until after I'm 26, so I don't need to worry about it. But the thought that the lives of other people my age will be wrecked against their will is very sad.

If Bush wins again and imposes a draft, that is what will turn this war into a new Vietnam, at least on the domestic front.

Bush can't "impose" anything. If the law goes through Congress than it has the support of the majority of lawmakers and those people are as much to blame as Bush. Shit maybe Kerry could vote for it and then say he doesn't support it a few months down the line.

I realize a lot of people (not saying you Matt, just saying) like to blame Bush for EVERYTHING but as much as the crazies on the far left want us to think otherwise, we do not live in a dictatorship and Bush's word is not law any more than Clinton's was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Bush can't "impose" anything.

---

Yes. Rather, I should have said "if Bush wins and his government imposes a draft". Perhaps I am naive, but the chance of democrats calling for a draft seems less likely.

Quote:

---

I realize a lot of people (not saying you Matt, just saying) like to blame Bush for EVERYTHING but as much as the crazies on the far left want us to think otherwise, we do not live in a dictatorship and Bush's word is not law any more than Clinton's was.

---

Haha - I don't blame Bush for everything. I blame the crazies on the far right ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

-we do not live in a dictatorship and Bush's word is not law any more than Clinton's was.

---

We have a Republican President and a Republican Congress. That's why Bush can get laws railroaded through to his desk where he signs them with all the tenacity of a twelve-year-old. That's why he was able to send troops to Iraq, under his broad "War on Terrorism" powers.

Did we ever vote on an official declaration of war on Iraq? No.

And to all of you ragging on Kerry because he voted against the 87 billion, did you ever once think that maybe he did it not because he doesn't support our troops, but perhaps because he didn't agree with all the provisions of the bill? That's how democracy works you see, if you don't like a bill you vote against it and if it gets voted down its rearranged, reworded, and brought right back to the floor. CNN was repeating this nonstop when the vote was happening, but I guess some of you don't watch CNN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Just when I think I've got a handle on you Veggie, you always seem to surprise me. And even though I've grown to like you, I still think you'd rather see me dead (or deported to France). ;)

---

Oh, Pishaw! I love you, g0zen. That's a masculine love, by the way. Like an "I really like you as a friend" kind of love.

:p

"But do we know if these pictures were just soldiers . . . er, asshole soldiers . . . screwing around, or were they snippets from a military-sanctioned effort to break the prisoners' will? Don't always assume the worst, but know if you always assume the best you will get the wool pulled over your eyes time and time again. Remember how many people assumed the best when Colin Powell and the President told us we needed to go to Iraq? They would never undertake such a decision lightly, right? Our military intelligence clearly shows A, B, C, right? Assume the best, right?

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that orders came from higher up in the military chain of command, but don't just blindly think this is an isolated incident or an instance of "boys will be boys." Keep your mind open to either possibility. Just like you should keep your mind open to the possibility that we are pretty much writing the terrorists' recruitment brochures for them, while shoveling more innocent lives into the furnace."

That was real nice Nick. However, I see the worst and blame it all on Bush and his people. But of course his people have been hanging around since the Reagan era and before so there you have it. It's the same fuckups that are content to continue fucking it all up (hurting people) just like they have for decades now. Just as long as it makes them rich and they can cover up well enough that their boy gets votes.

I can't believe this is even being debated at this point. It was pretty clear that there was no sane or "humanitarian" (LOL!) reason for us to be there in the first place. "Writing the terrorists' recruiting pamphlets for them" sums it up very nicely I think.

Pa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

We have a Republican President and a Republican Congress. That's why Bush can get laws railroaded through to his desk where he signs them with all the tenacity of a twelve-year-old. That's why he was able to send troops to Iraq, under his broad "War on Terrorism" powers.

Did we ever vote on an official declaration of war on Iraq? No.

And to all of you ragging on Kerry because he voted against the 87 billion, did you ever once think that maybe he did it not because he doesn't support our troops, but perhaps because he didn't agree with all the provisions of the bill? That's how democracy works you see, if you don't like a bill you vote against it and if it gets voted down its rearranged, reworded, and brought right back to the floor. CNN was repeating this nonstop when the vote was happening, but I guess some of you don't watch CNN.

---

That's not what he said, when asked why he voted against the bill he said "It doesn't matter because I knew that it wasn't going to be passed anyway." I'll give you that he might've had better reasons to vote against it, I'm not saying he definately didn't it but I still don't like him, and I'm not exactly big on Bush now either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

That's not what he said, when asked why he voted against the bill he said "It doesn't matter because I knew that it wasn't going to be passed anyway."

---

Where did he say that?

That's a pretty stupid thing for a presidential candidate to say... so I'd like to read the actual quote.

Quote:

---

Yes. Rather, I should have said "if Bush wins and his government imposes a draft". Perhaps I am naive, but the chance of democrats calling for a draft seems less likely.

---

It was a Democrat, Charles Rangel of New York, who originally proposed the legislation! Please, some sense next time.

Quote:

---

And to all of you ragging on Kerry because he voted against the 87 billion, did you ever once think that maybe he did it not because he doesn't support our troops, but perhaps because he didn't agree with all the provisions of the bill? That's how democracy works you see, if you don't like a bill you vote against it and if it gets voted down its rearranged, reworded, and brought right back to the floor. CNN was repeating this nonstop when the vote was happening, but I guess some of you don't watch CNN.

---

I was referring to the Patriot Act if anything.

The draft will not be in reinstated. It will be political suicide to do so. The only ones who are saying it are liberals, who are trying to rally people against the war. No reasonable Republican or Democrat in Congress will support that, as it will doom their career.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

It was a Democrat, Charles Rangel of New York, who originally proposed the legislation! Please, some sense next time.

---

Rangel didn't really want to reinstate the draft, he wanted to jolt Americans into realizing what cost we'll have to pay if we continue to try and fight a unilateral war. The idea was that if this draft bill (which would make it harder for the rich to avoid, and those who were deferred would have to enter into public service) passed that Congress would be reluctant about authorizing military action.

Clearly it's a political move and not a realistic one. The war we fight in this day and age would not be benefited in any way by an undertrained, unmotivated conscript military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

It was a Democrat, Charles Rangel of New York, who originally proposed the legislation! Please, some sense next time.

---

Yes, I know. I also know that, as Gozen and Tigana have mentioned, he's doing this to make a political statement.

It does not seem likely that a democratic government (with all their talk of opposing the war) would call for a draft. However, a republican government, if re-elected, could definitely use it to help "mop up" the situation better than they're doing now with limited troops. Obviously it would not be popular, but since most republican voters already support the war they wouldn't have as much to lose. That is what my "sense" tells me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

Where did he say that?

That's a pretty stupid thing for a presidential candidate to say... so I'd like to read the actual quote.

---

It was on Meet The Press the previous Sunday (not this Sunday). I'm sure you could find the transcripts somewhere on the web if you wanted to look into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

It was on Meet The Press the previous Sunday (not this Sunday). I'm sure you could find the transcripts somewhere on the web if you wanted to look into it.

---

You need to read the transcript... because what your teacher told you is not what he said.

The draft is being brought up by democrats to raise the fear of engageing in wars and to make people regret their support of Bush and his war. I'm not sure how likely it will be to pass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josh

So does this mean the gas prices aren't going to go down?

---

It's not looking good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

You need to read the transcript... because what your teacher told you is not what he said.

---

Proved me wrong, transcript actually wasn't that bad.