posted on July 15, 2005 10:26:39 PM new
maggie - Whether you agree or not....it's plain to see from this thread that several disagree. We DO see it as blaming only OUR side...and not the enemy. Anyone can say 'I support our troops'....but when their posts saying something totally different....the proof is in WHO gets blamed/accused and who doesn't.
-----------------
Yes, mingotree. I do believe you are a reincarnation of crowfarm. Your posting styles and how you continue to post lies...especially of how I think....proves it to me.
Don't be expecting me to answer any of you questions......you're not a well person....and you have proven time and time again you aren't capable of having a civil conversation with anyone who disagrees with your position on anything.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 15, 2005 10:52:25 PM new
A couple of other things maybe some here aren't aware of.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A suicide bomber blew up a vehicle Wednesday near a U.S. military convoy and a large group of Iraqi children in Baghdad, killing 27 people, Iraqi police and hospital officials said.
Iraqi police said most of the dead were children. The attack also left 20 people wounded.
The U.S. military said at least seven children and a U.S. soldier died in the attack. Three U.S. soldiers were wounded. The soldiers were handing out treats to the children when the bomb went off, police said[/i].
The attack -- which happened around 10:50 a.m. (2:50 a.m. ET) in the eastern Baghdad neighborhood of al-Jaddeda -- also set a nearby house on fire, police said.
"The car bomber made a deliberate decision to attack one of our vehicles as the soldiers were engaged in a peaceful operation with Iraqi citizens," Maj. Russ Goemaere said in a statement. "The terrorist undoubtedly saw the children around the Humvee as he attacked. The complete disregard for civilian life in this attack is absolutely abhorrent."
----
And yes, children were also killed by a terrorist in Sept of last year....WHEN "a government-sponsored celebration to inaugurate a sewage plant in West Baghdad" was held.
So it's NOT like our soldiers are going around seeking out Iraq children.....it's just that they're there with their parents....who are also being killed and injured.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 16, 2005 12:15:15 AM new
Thank you Linda, it is obvious that we are the few that read the entire article.
Maggimuggins, it is not irresponsible to try to show some goodwill to the people of Iraq, if our troops ignored them there would be an outcry also.
It is tragic these children died, but I hope our troops continue trying to show goodwill wherever and whenever they can. If the insurgents attack, it should show the Iraqi's who the real bad guys are.
posted on July 16, 2005 12:43:43 AM new
Innocent children have been dying and getting severely injured since the start of this fiasco and there are conflicting reports as to the number. The loss of a single child is a huge loss and it doesn't minimize the true meaning of the loss by minimizing the number of dead.
It's time to get out of there. Those who thrive on 'bully power' and aren't overly concerned about the individual soldiers being killed or injured, (those who coldly laugh and compare their deaths to traffic stats) may be a bit embarrassed to pull out but they have to realize that Bush can't take out those 'few thugs' that he claimed were there...... those he taunted with "Bring 'em on". His 'liberation' of the Iraqis was a total farce and almost everyone knows that now.
posted on July 16, 2005 05:14:11 AM new
Hahahaha! LindaK true to form, as predictable as an old cow going to the same stanchion!
Linda_K
posted on July 15, 2005 10:26:39 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
maggie - Whether you agree or not....it's plain to see from this thread that several disagree. We DO see it as blaming only OUR side...and not the enemy. Anyone can say 'I support our troops'....but when their posts saying something totally different....the proof is in WHO gets blamed/accused and who doesn't.
-----------------
( LindaK aren't you the one who doesn't like others speaking for you, so who's the WE in that paragraph ?And so YOU think I don't support the troops BIG DEAL! You're a mindless sheep who drank the Kool-aid and haven't the guts or brains to challenge anything )
--Yes, mingotree. I do believe you are a reincarnation of crowfarm. Your posting styles and how you continue to post lies...especially of how I think....proves it to me.
(So what ? You still can't prove that or anything else and have never been able to. And if I am/was Crowfarm YOU'RE STILL WRONG)
Don't be expecting me to answer any of you questions......you're not a well person....and you have proven time and time again you aren't capable of having a civil conversation with anyone who disagrees with your position on anything. ----
(Typical "LindaK" excuse for being proven wrong, unable to prove her accusations Should I make this Excuse Number One or is it Number Eight in the long list of LindaK's excuses not to answer posts
Then LindaK says the most ridiculous thing(next to Ron's post)
"" took Ron's "WE" as us....U.S. citizens....us....our soldiers that are killed right along side of those these terrorists are murdering. ""
Neither YOU nor RON are in Iraq, how DARE
you minimize the deaths and sacrifices of
the people who are REALLY THERE dying and
suffering ! YOU AREN'T !
And you call ME sick???
You identify with our troops IN COMBAT and are too chickenshit to answer posts!
How DARE you insult the truly brave men and women fighting for us !
[ edited by mingotree on Jul 16, 2005 05:15
AM ]
[ edited by mingotree on Jul 16, 2005 05:15 AM ]
posted on July 16, 2005 06:07:00 AM new
These kind of attacks clearly indicate that the U.S. military control of Baghdad is still uncertain...two years after this mission was "accomplished". Now, a civil war seems imminent between the Sunni and Shia communities. What a disaster!
THE boiling hatred between Iraq's Sunni and Shia communities, inflamed by a series of brutal sectarian killings in the past few weeks, is threatening to erupt into a civil war.
On Thursday, the corpses of 10 men who had been handcuffed, tortured and shot in the head were found in the eastern outskirts of Baghdad. It was not immediately known whether they were Sunni or Shia.
A day earlier, another 12 bodies were found in similar circumstances. All but one of the 12 were Sunnis, including a cleric.
These incidents are merely the most recent. The almost daily appearance of bodies is fuelling Iraq's already inflamed sectarian tensions and Shia leaders, whose people have been slaughtered in car bombs by Sunni insurgents and their al-Qa'ida allies, are struggling to prevent powerful Shia militias such as the Mahdi Army from seeking revenge, effectively triggering a civil war.
"Every day we find innocent people killed and their bodies dumped on the streets. We don't know who's responsible," said Major-General Hussein al-Kamal, head of the Iraqi Interior Ministry's intelligence department. "The minister has ordered that a special committee look into this explosive issue."
posted on July 16, 2005 06:18:23 AM new
I have and still support a timeline for withdrawl. I believe this is the best way to handle this and let the Iraqi people we are not here forever.
posted on July 16, 2005 07:49:07 AM new
Linda writes,"I took Ron's "WE" as us....U.S. citizens....us....our soldiers that are killed right along side of those these terrorists are murdering."
Then etexbill cautions, "Now, try to reply without name calling"
Pitiful."
This makes no sense at all. What has one got to do with the other, it IS pitiful on your part helen. I was addressing mingotree. Not replying to Linda and Linda didn't call anyone names in her post.
[ edited by etexbill on Jul 16, 2005 07:57 AM ]
posted on July 16, 2005 07:53:28 AM new
mingotree, I knew you couldn't do it without name calling.
A simple "I condemn the terrorists" would have done it. I still haven't seen that from you (and I won't hold my breath until I do.)
[ edited by etexbill on Jul 16, 2005 07:58 AM ]
posted on July 16, 2005 08:09:07 AM new
What's wrong with each person posting the way they darn well feel like posting, given the mood they're in each day? The diversity of the different personalities is what makes a forum interesting and lately all this constant nattering about the way others are posting and the way some think they should be posting is ridiculous.
posted on July 16, 2005 08:38:28 AM new
WashingtoneBayer..I am not going to play a yes it is..no it isn't.. game with you. When I said it was irresponsible of our troops to put at risk those they are trying to protect by an act of goodwill doesn't translate to "we shouldn't show goodwill toward the Iraqi people". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that any Public Act will draw a crowd in turn making it a soft spot for security..
Listen, we are not over in Iraq as goodwill ambassadors spreading love and Peace..we have an obligation to the Iraqi people to get them up on their feet and running or at least walking, before we hit the road...we are not there to make friends..and the sooner we can help rebuild and repair and provide the necessities for them to gain their independence and for us to get the hell out of there.. the better..
Linda..it is beyond my comprehension to even imagine that any American would blame our troops...for doing their duty to our country in Iraq.
Nothing in Iraq will improve while this occupation continues. We will only continue to make enemies and continue the destruction and killing. George Bush has destroyed a country. His BS about WMD and Democracy are just that. -- BS. The people of Iraq want us out, immediately. And most people in the U.S. agree.
posted on July 16, 2005 09:52:50 AM new
If anyone can be accussed of not supporting, the troops it is the RIGHT and the BUSH ADMINISTRATION. They failed the troops by waging an unplanned war in which they didn't even consider basic protection gear as this brave soldier pointed out.
US Army SPC Thomas Wilson - Tennessee National Guard.
Who, you might ask is Specialist Wilson? He is the fellow who stood up in front of 2300 other Reserves, journalists, and television cameras, in a deployment camp in Kuwait and asked the Secretary of Defense why they're being sent out to fight the favorite weapon of Iraqi insurgents (the IED, aka roadside bomb) in unarmored vehicles:
Spc. Thomas Wilson had asked the defense secretary, "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?" Shouts of approval and applause arose from the estimated 2,300 soldiers who had assembled to see Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.
"We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north," Wilson, 31, of Nashville, Tenn., concluded after asking again.
To which Rumsfeld dismissively replied:
"You go to war with the Army you have... not the Army you might want or wish to have."
In other words, "Tough Sh!t, soldier."
posted on July 16, 2005 09:53:54 AM new
maggiemuggins get off the fence, it is "yes" or "no" it is that simple. Why is it so hard for people to take a stand?
I for one hope we continue as they were doing and not allow some whack job stop it.
posted on July 16, 2005 10:19:43 AM new
The Iraqi people helen speaks for...in that they want us out...are the terrorists who are doing all this murdering. Yep, THEY want us out alright.
But the Iraqi government doesn't....and most of the Iraqi people don't.
And since our President said we won't be withdrawing until the Iraqi's can defend themselves....and since even hillary clinton agrees ....those who support and defend the terrorists are just going to have to accept that we're not 'admitting defeat' and running out on the Iraqi people.
posted on July 16, 2005 10:27:52 AM new maggiemuggins get off the fence, it is "yes" or "no" it is that simple. Why is it so hard for people to take a stand?
Excuse me? What exactly do you mean? It is simply Yes or no? Black or white? What are you referring to?
If I have not made my position clear to you, perhaps you have a comprehension problem?
I have clearly stated, that we have one purpose and one purpose only in Iraq right now.. that is to repair and rebuild and put back together that which we have torn apart...
Now.. about that fence..are you trying to simplify everything into who's right and who's wrong? LOL.. for that we'd need to go back to the very beginning of time ...but first of all we would have to appoint a supreme judge and allow her to make moral judgments and to proclaim which ideologies are the "right" ones..LOL
If I have missed your point..please clarify your above statement to me and I will be happy to reply...
posted on July 16, 2005 10:43:00 AM newI have clearly stated, that we have one purpose and one purpose only in Iraq right now.. that is to repair and rebuild and put back together that which we have torn apart...
I disagree. Our purpose is to insure that the Iraqi people can set up a government of their own. That is what these terrorists are fighting against. THEY are the one's who threatened death upon any citizen who went to vote. And our purpose is to keep these terrorists at bay while the government IS being established.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
Where has all the money gone?
Follow the Money into Iraq
The GAO report of July 2004 found that in the first nine months of the occupation, KBR was allowed a free hand in Iraq: a free hand, for example, to bill the Pentagon without worrying about spending limits or management oversight or paperwork. Millions of dollars’ worth of new equipment disappeared. KBR charged $73 million for motor caravans to house the 101st Airborne Division, twice as much as the army said it would cost to build barracks itself; KBR charged $88 million for three million meals for US troops that were never served. The GAO calculated that the army could have saved $31 million a year simply by doing business directly with the catering firms that KBR hired. In June 2004, the GAO continued, ‘by eliminating the use of LOGCAP and making the LOGCAP subcontractor the prime contractor, the command reduced meal costs by 43 per cent without a loss of service or quality.’
The GAO report makes clear that the Americans had given little thought as to how they might prevent looting and rebuild Iraqi society. They hadn’t even planned how they were going to provision the US forces staying on in Iraq: ‘the Army Central Command did not develop plans to use the [KBR] contract to support its military forces in Iraq until May 2003’ – a month after Saddam fell. Even then, this contract – with an estimated value of $3.894 billion – did not adequately provide for dining facilities, pest control, laundry services, morale, welfare and recreation, troop transportation or combat support services at the American bases hastily being built across Iraq. Stung by Waxman’s revelations about Halliburton’s petrol profiteering, and realising that KBR’s costs were spiralling out of control (LOGCAP costs in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan rose from a projected yearly total of $5.8 billion in September 2003 to $8.6 billion in January 2004), the army vice chief of staff ‘asked units to control costs and look for alternatives to the LOGCAP contract’. This was the first admission that the Pentagon could not afford the occupation on top of the war.
posted on July 16, 2005 10:53:27 AM new
oh brother.....I can only imagine how many vets are laughing at all they 'didn't have'..like dining facilities.
For crying out loud, helen, this is WAR.
And each and every time the necessary funding has been requested to continue the war....our Congress has approved it. Thereby giving THEIR approval to continue doing what we're doing....
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 16, 2005 10:56:19 AM new
The blind neocon Linda_K always ends her posts with this quote from another blind neocon Ann Coulter. "Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter"
What Blind Linda_K doesn't realize is, more and more Americans believe that Bush/Cheney/Rove along with the wacko religious right are also attacking this country from within. More and more Americans republican or democrat have stopped siding with these enemies from within.
posted on July 16, 2005 10:58:59 AM new
Actually Linda, that was part of my first statement.. the sooner we can help rebuild and repair and provide the necessities for them to gain their independence and for us to get the hell out of there.. the better..
The Bush administration finds itself in a difficult position since both courses of action -- enduring the insurgency or withdrawing from it -- have clear negative consequences. Yet, if operations in Iraq continue along their current progression, Washington will be forced to pull its troops out. The United States does not have the troop strength or the political will to conduct its current scope of operations for years to come. Only two years into the intervention, calls from the American people and from lawmakers to withdraw U.S. troops are growing in force. More importantly, unlike Vietnam, the United States has not resorted to conscription, a decision that has resulted in the overextension of the military. It took the United States four years of fighting until it began to extricate its forces from the conflict in Vietnam; in Iraq, expect that time frame to be shorter.
Linda, it appears that you have a problem with reading comprehension -- if your answer is sincere. On the other hand, if you are making an effort to spin and debunk, you are fooling no one.
posted on July 16, 2005 01:45:44 PM new
---And each and every time the necessary funding has been requested to continue the war....our Congress has approved it. Thereby giving THEIR approval to continue doing what we're doing....---
No, it is NOT approval of the war, it is support of the troops, something the Bush administration forgot to do BEFORE the war.
And so YOU think I don't support the troops BIG DEAL! You're a mindless sheep who drank the Kool-aid and haven't the guts or brains to challenge anything )
....those who support and defend the terrorists are just going to have to accept that we're not 'admitting defeat' and running out on the Iraqi people.