posted on April 30, 2007 06:09:34 PM new
Ya know, I think I get your drift...is it something like :
"let's keep having wars , maiming for life young Americans, sending them off to die, ripping apart families, ..let's just kill, kill..invade countries and rape, torture and kill their citizens and keep it going forever so no generation will miss out on a good war because...
murder happens every day."
posted on April 30, 2007 06:41:13 PM new
That illogical comparison which is used to minimize the number of deaths in Iraq, is insulting to the memory of those who died in the service of this country. I suppose it means to you that Iraq is just another..."Hot Time In The City?" Some here have tried to compare the number of soldiers killed to the number of civilians killed in traffic accidents or to the number killed on the streets of Washington D.C. You may as well compare the number of Iraq deaths to the number of people who died of aids or cancer or heart attacks. Does such comparison serve to alleviate guilt for those who want the unnecessary carnage to continue?
Even if I was in favor of this war and only one soldier was killed in Iraq, it would not make any sense to point out that during that periond 5 homicides occurred at the same time in the District of Columbia. You may remember when Rumsfeld made this clumsy gaffe in an effort to minimize the death toll in Iraq. His remark was critized all across the country. D.C. Mayor, Anthony A. Williams called his comments, "unfortunate, unappreciated and ill-advised."
Hiding caskets and efforts to minimize the number of dead soldiers by such illogical comparisons will not hide the awful truth that is now recognized by the majority of all Americans.
posted on April 30, 2007 06:50:11 PM new
Hell no to people like kozersky 3351 dead American troops and 25,000 wounded troops are not important. Just compare them to the violence in the U.S. kozersky says.
kozersky is an example of stupid. But if we compare kozersky stupidity to the rest of the bush supporters in the U.S. kozersky's stupidity is not out of line or important.
It seems stupid new-con republican Bush supporters have been put in a minority and will be kept there.
I don't feel bad for the new-cons its their own fault they voted wrong not me.
posted on April 30, 2007 07:09:45 PM new
kozersky - They don't want to have those numbers mentioned because they refuse to acknowledge that those deaths weren't of people who KNEW they died for a purpose...WHO CHOSE to serve and fight for the freedom and liberty of others.
Like the OLD JFK dems used to believe in protecting/spreading.
Not any more. Now the liberal in the dem party have turned into COWARDS, where nothing is worth a life.
As Bear's sig line mentions.....good thing we HAVE those brave soldiers who are willing to put their lives on the line....because HEAVEN knows the cowards NEVER would....for ANYTHING.
===============
And while the anti-war pacifists continue on with their demoralization of our troops.....MOST of them see things much differently than the anti-war crowd does.
Time after time our soldiers speak out about how they BELIEVE in what they're doing. Say that they want to complete their mission.
But does the liberal MSM EVER report on their successes??? NOPE....only on the negative.
The liberals forced the American RETREAT in VN and they're doing the same thing all over again.
Always so very willing to bring DEFEAT upon the country they live in.
=========
There are hundreds and hundreds - thousands - of posts/statements from our soldiers in Iraq - who IF the liberals press would EVER be supportive of - their VOICES would be heard.
But you'll never find the Treason Times nor the WA Post EVER putting their successes on the front page of THEIR liberal garbage.
Instead all most of America gets to read and hear about are the voices of the cowards, the defeatists and the anti-Americans who have NEVER been on America's side in ANY war.
===============
American Troops Are Winning Over Journalists, One Heart, One Mind, and One Life at a Time
By Jeff Emanuel | April 30, 2007 AIM
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) saw the advent of a practice which revolutionized modern war reporting: the embedding of journalists with combat units.
In the words of the troops: Giving the Iraqi people a chance at a brighter future
(April 28th)
The ideas of "the troops," how to "support" them, and what "they want" have been kicked around like a political football for the last few years of the Iraq war, with seemingly every individual, political apparatus, and interest group claiming that they and they alone understand what the troops think, feel, want, and need, and that they and they alone can instruct their fellows about how best to act on that knowledge.
One group which is rarely afforded the opportunity to weigh in, though, is the troops themselves – inarguably the most relevant group of all involved in the debate, as it is their own success and well being which is the subject of dispute.
A large part of the reason for my trip here to Iraq was to take advantage of the opportunity to interact directly with the troops, and to find out just what it is that they have to say on these topics.
In the four days that I have been in theater to this point, I have had several conversations with American soldiers, on a range of topics, from morale to their opinion of the war, and from their thoughts on the Iraqi people, to their view of the probability of victory.
What I was told has been both interesting and instructive.
One notable person I spoke with was in transit back to Iraq after spending time in Germany recovering from wounds. This young officer, a captain, had been in Iraq for three weeks when he was called to respond to an EFP attack on a humvee that had killed two soldiers and grievously wounded a third (breaking both of his femurs).
Upon arriving at the scene to do his job, he was struck in the upper arm by a sniper's bullet. The .308 round passed completely through his arm between the biceps and the shoulder, and struck a companion in the stomach. The tow truck which went to recover the injured personnel and the destroyed humvee was also hit by an EFP en route to the scene, and both occupants were also killed.
"I didn't know where the shots were coming from," he said, "and it's not like we could fire back. All we could do was take cover behind the wreckage and hope to be rescued."
The young officer and his companions were eventually recovered, and were evacuated to a combat hospital before being transported to Germany for longer-term medical attention.
Who was this young officer, you ask, and why couldn't he "fire back"? He was a chaplain – an official noncombatant. He had hustled to the scene to administer last rites to the soldiers killed in the attack.
"I absolutely volunteered for this," he said to me after telling this story. "It doesn't matter what you or what I think about the way the war started or if it was right in the first place. We have people here now and I'm here to support them in the best way I can."
After spending a month in Germany recovering from his would, he returned to continue doing his best to support both the troops and the mission.
Another remarkable conversation was shared with a bespectacled captain of infantry, who was on his second tour in Iraq and had been here since just before Gen. Petraeus's confirmation as the new head of MNF-I.
We spoke at length about the war, and about the differences between his first tour and now. I asked what he thought about the mission in Iraq, and what he thought the prospects for success were. Gazing pensively at the ground, he took a moment to collect his thoughts, and said, "Well, politically, staying here probably isn't the best decision." He added that, given the situation at home, "winning here seems less possible all the time, even though we're now doing what it is we probably should have been doing all along."
Moving on from that moment of near despair, he paused and glanced up, looking earnestly at me through his thick, military-issue glasses, and said, "There's not a single one of my soldiers who doesn't look at the neighborhood we're in, look at the children there, and not want to do whatever they can to give these kids as bright a future as possible.
We want to finish this job, and we know we can do it."
American Troops Are Winning Over Journalists, One Heart, One Mind, and One Life at a Time
(April 27th)
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) saw the advent of a practice which revolutionized modern war reporting: the embedding of journalists with combat units. This practice gave the media, the American public, and the world, unprecedented access to the soldiers on the front lines, as well as to the war itself, through the filing of stories, photographs, and video from the battlefront in real time, by reporters who were right there with the soldiers doing the fighting. "We were offered an irresistible opportunity: free transportation to the front line of the war, dramatic pictures, dramatic sounds, great quotes," said Tom Gjelten of NPR. "Who can pass that up?" The military also benefited from having an eager outlet for its stories and successes.
The embedding process led to a shift in the relationship between the military and the media, which laid the groundwork for a fundamental change in the dynamics of war reporting.
As Major General Buford Blount of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division explained this relationship, "A level of trust developed between the soldier and the media that offered nearly unlimited access."
Despite the obvious benefits of embedded reportage, though, the practice has met with its share of criticism from members of the Fourth Estate. Even before OIF began, and shortly after its inception, some media spokespersons and others – such as University of Texas professor Robert Jensen – expressed concern that "embedded reporters would inevitably become too sympathetic to the troops with whom they were traveling."
Theories were put forth that this was a "primary motivation on the part of military planners in designing the embedded system in the first place," and that the US government was simply taking the approach of, "feed the media beast enough stories that cast U.S. troops in the best possible light and the job of managing the media message is all but taken care of."
The latter is, of course, an absurdly simplistic notion. Rather than simply sitting back and receiving dispatches and releases carefully crafted to "cast U.S. troops in the best possible light," embedded reporters, by the very nature of their task, see the troops with whom they are living and working at all times – the good, the bad, the heroic, the angry, the emotional, and the rest of the entire human spectrum.
The former, though, does ring true to a degree; the debate on that count, then, is whether or not that is actually a bad thing.
While at the Combined Press Information Center (CPIC) here in Baghdad today, a pair of Spanish journalists – a newspaper reporter and a photojournalist – walked in, fresh from their embed with the 1-4 Cavalry of the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq. They had spent two weeks amongst the troops there, living and going on missions with them, including house-to-house searches and seizures, and their impressions of these soldiers were extremely clear.
"Absolutely amazing," said David Beriain, the reporter (and the one who spoke English), of the young Cavalry troops. "In Spain, it's embarrassing – our soldiers are ashamed to be in the army. These young men – and they seem so young! – are so proud of what they do, and do it so well, even though it is dangerous and they could very easily be killed."
Beriain explained that the company he had been embedded with had lost three men in the span of six days while he was there – one to a sniper and two to an Improvised Explosive Device (IED), which had blown an armored Humvee into the air and flipped it onto its roof.
Despite this, he said, and despite some of the things which they might have said in the heat of the moment after seeing another comrade die, the soldiers' resolve and morale was unshaken in the long term, and they remained committed to carrying out their mission to the best of their ability for the duration of their tour here.
It was in the process of performing that mission, of coping with the loss of loved ones, and of just being themselves as American soldiers, that these young men were able to win over the admiration and affection of more than one journalist who had arrived in their midst harboring a less-than-positive opinion of the Iraq war, and of those who were tasked with prosecuting it.
How nice it would be to EVER have ANY liberal press make the public aware of what our soldiers on the ground think - what they are and have accomplished in Iraq.
Nope...that wouldn't work with their anti-war SURRENDER agenda.
[ edited by linda_K on Apr 30, 2007 07:24 PM ]
posted on April 30, 2007 07:44:12 PM new
To casually shrug off the deaths of the troops and compare them to murders or traffic accidents in the US is not showing them honor, respect or support, it's demeaning to them and their loved ones after all they have done.
They were sent to do a dirty job and not all of them are in agreement why they should be there or why they should be required to stay longer. Each soldier is an individual with his own thoughts about this war. They don't speak as one and each one deserves respect whether he is still fighting, whether he is injured or whether he comes home in a coffin.
Those who eagerly lust for more death and more war just to make themselves feel powerful usually feel insecure and powerless over the way they manage their own little lives.
posted on April 30, 2007 08:24:51 PM new
If you think my mind is twisted for thinking of them as individual men and women and for supporting them by showing them honor and respect whether they are fighting, injured or dead, so be it.
I value life and obviously don't think as you do so get used to it, Linda_K.
posted on April 30, 2007 10:43:15 PM new
mingotree, HelenJW, bigpeepa, kiara - the four of you appear to have a reading comprehension problem. If you reread the OP, you should note that nothing is written which diminishes the stature of the soldiers who have died.
Unfortunately, it is individuals such as bigpeepa, who resort to name calling, which limits an intelligent discussion.
Perhaps, the reason that you missed the point of my post, is because those who are killed in America, are usually, black, poor, and live in the inner cities. Apparently, those poor, unfortunate souls, have less value in our society.
posted on May 1, 2007 12:00:38 AM new
Kozersky, I have no reading comprension problem but you may have a logic problem.
In this chat room the neocons have insisted that the deaths of our soldiers aren't important because people die every day while out of the other side of their mouths comes, "we should support and honor our troops" .
Your OP seems to further that sentiment.
It is wrong. No one has said violent death in America isn't as important and plenty of shouting about it HAS been done.
Will people always commit violent acts against others ? Of course they will. But wars, especially this one, are a staged event with the focus ON slaughter. People are forced to murder. We honor the sacrifices of our troops and hiding your head in the sand about the numbers who are maimed for life or killed is dishonoring them.
"""are usually, black, poor, and live in the inner cities. Apparently, those poor, unfortunate souls, have less value in our society. """
Sorry, to me NO but to Republicans/neocons the answer is a definite yes.
posted on May 1, 2007 12:25:33 AM new
'In this chat room the neocons have insisted that the deaths of our soldiers aren't important because people die every day while out of the other side of their mouths comes, "we should support and honor our troops" .'
posted on May 1, 2007 12:44:18 AM new
No, you didn't , but there's a history here that your OP stirred up. And your OP sure sounded like those sentiments.
I apologize if your meaning was taken wrong but that has nothing to do with my reading comprehension.
posted on May 1, 2007 05:46:56 AM new
Whatever your intent, your comparison is illogical. Why compare deaths in Iraq with deaths from violence in this country. If the number of deaths from violence in the inner city is really your concern, the deaths in Iraq are not relevant.
So, now you appear to backtrack from your original post and state that your concern is the number of poor black inner city youth who die a violent death in the inner city and that you just happened to mention the number killed in Iraq.
Based on the political stance that you have established here, I find your explanation of your original post hard to believe.
In fact, I feel the aura of a mealymouthed weasel in our midst.
posted on May 1, 2007 06:55:39 AM newThey were sent to do a dirty job and not all of them are in agreement why they should be there or why they should be required to stay longer.
There are many soldiers who signed up to fight based on what they were told after 9/11. They believed they were going to support our freedoms only to find out what they were told is not all true.
Each soldier is an individual with his own thoughts about this war. They don't speak as one and each one deserves respect whether he is still fighting, whether he is injured or whether he comes home in a coffin.
Exactly Kiara.
Until these warhawks actually go over there and fight next to the soldiers, in my opinion, they can not verify what is actually occurring. I wonder how many of then would actually volunteer if they could. I doubt many of them would.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 1, 2007 07:05:20 AM new
WASHINGTON - The bitter fight over the latest Iraq spending bill has all but obscured a sobering fact: The war will soon cost more than $500 billion.
That's about ten times more than the Bush administration anticipated before the war started four years ago, and no one can predict how high the tab will go. The $124 billion spending bill that President Bush plans to veto this week includes about $78 billion for Iraq, with the rest earmarked for the war in Afghanistan, veterans' health care and other government programs.
Congressional Democrats and Bush agree that they cannot let their dispute over a withdrawal timetable block the latest cash installment for Iraq. Once that political fight is resolved, Congress can focus on the president's request for $116 billion more for the war in the fiscal year that starts on Sept. 1.
The combined spending requests would push the total for Iraq to $564 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.
What could that kind of money buy?
A college education - tuition, fees, room and board at a public university - for about half of the nation's 17 million high-school-age teenagers.
Pre-school for every 3- and 4-year-old in the country for the next eight years.
A year's stay in an assisted-living facility for about half of the 35 million Americans age 65 or older.
Not surprisingly, opinions about the cost of the war track opinions about the war itself.
"If it's really vital, then whatever it costs, we should pay it. If it isn't, whatever we pay is too much," said Robert Hormats, author of "The Price of Liberty," a newly published book that examines the financing of America's wars.
Before the war, administration officials confidently predicted that the conflict would cost about $50 billion. White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey lost his job after he offered a $200 billion estimate - a prediction that drew scorn from his administration colleagues.
"They had no concept of what they were getting into in terms of lives or cost," said Winslow Wheeler, who monitors defense spending for the Center for Defense Information, a nonpartisan research institute.
Bush and his economic advisers defend the growing cost as the price of national security.
"It's worth it," Bush said last May, when the tab was in the $320 billion range. "I wouldn't have spent it if it wasn't worth it."
For war opponents, the escalating cost is a growing source of irritation. A Web site showing a running tally of the war's cost, http://costofwar.com/index.html, attracts about 250,000 visitors a month, according to the National Priorities Project, the site's sponsor.
"It comes down to the question, how do you want to spend a half trillion dollars? Do you want to spend a half trillion dollars on this or would you rather spend it on something else?" said economist Anita Dancs, the organization's research director. "It's all a matter of costs and benefits."
As wars go, Iraq is cheap. World War II cost more than $5 trillion in today's dollars. Korea and Vietnam each cost about $650 billion in today's dollars, but spending on those wars took a much bigger share of the economy when they were fought.
"For the average American, there's really been no economic consequence of the country being involved in a war," said Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs (International). "It doesn't have as much impact on the economy as those previous wars did."
But the painless approach to financing the Iraq war could cause problems in the future. Hormats worries that the decision to cut taxes and increase domestic spending while fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will complicate efforts to deal with the financial strains that threaten to bankrupt Social Security and Medicare.
Calling for sacrifice now, in a time of war, would give Americans more of a psychological stake in the long war on terrorism and prepare them for the sacrifices that will be needed to shore up Social Security and Medicare, he said.
"When you go into a war, you have to figure out how you're going to pay for it and be candid with Americans about it," Hormats said. "You can't have business as usual."
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 1, 2007 07:07:30 AM new
Happy Anniverary of the "Mission Accomplished" Banner !!!!!
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 1, 2007 07:38:27 AM new
Another way to look at it is to show the absurdity of peepa's moron math.
It's like saying:
Day X: 1,000 dead on Iwo Jima
Day X + 1: 1,020 dead on Iwo Jima
Just because you have a theory that the lives lost are "wasted" doesn't mean it's true.
Right now fuel is hovering at $3.00 despite ample supplies merely because of Iranian sabre rattling. Without troops in the field, besides the hundreds of thousands of Arabs that will get bumped off, the military threat to the gulf will cause all of the western economies to plummet. Double digit inflation causes death many times higher than the military casualties.
posted on May 1, 2007 08:58:43 AM new
So, kozersky, you have stated your opinion that mingo, bigpeepa, kiara and I have a reading comprehension problem based on our perception of your original post.
How do you characterize Linda's response to your original post.
Do you believe that she was able to comprehend your meaning correctly?
posted on May 1, 2007 10:19:04 AM new
LOL....there's hellen again...."I feel the aura of a mealymouthed weasel in our midst".
And hellen's the one who continued to say for a very long time....how it was the righties who could never have a civil converstion without insults to the lefties. LOL LOL LOL
What a FARCE that has LONG turned out to be. As can again be noted by her OWN insults when someone, even a dem, doesn't agree with her views.
==
sybil: "the neocons have insisted that the deaths of our soldiers aren't important because people die every day while out of the other side of their mouths comes, "we should support and honor our troops."
sybil just can't keep herself from LYING about what other posters have said.
Not ONE person here has EVER said ANY such thing. It's ALL in her SICK mind.
Try a comprehension class sybil.
tsk tsk tsk but that's sybil...always lying - always distorting
=================
ld: "There are many soldiers who signed up to fight based on what they were told after 9/11. They believed they were going to support our freedoms only to find out what they were told is not all true."
No, they're quite aware that they are fighting the SAME terrorists in Iraq that they were in Afghanistan.
It's YOUR confusion that is in play here, ld.
ONLY yours.
And they DO think very much alike, kiara and ld. They're trained to work as a TEAM....they have the SAME goals....they share the same VALUES and they didn't join up to learn BASKET WEAVING. They KNEW they were being trained to FIGHT....FIGHT our enemies.
Sometimes I think they should be fighting the wacko radical liberals that take our enemies side and want to give THEM the victory.
posted on May 1, 2007 10:37:59 AM new
"""And hellen's the one who continued to say for a very long time....how it was the righties who could never have a civil converstion without insults to the lefties. LOL LOL LOL
What a FARCE that has LONG turned out to be. As can again be noted by her OWN insults when someone, even a dem, doesn't agree with her views."""
Nice to see your "civil" , non-name calling post !!!
Ya Ya Ya, you only give out what you get ....blah blah blah
But that's not true ..you give out more crap than anyone.
You have such a DOUBLE STANDARD!
==
posted on May 1, 2007 10:43:30 AM newPerhaps, the reason that you missed the point of my post, is because those who are killed in America, are usually, black, poor, and live in the inner cities. Apparently, those poor, unfortunate souls, have less value in our society.
If you would have said that in your first post it would have been more clear to me, Bill.
So far the ones here that have compared the deaths of the troops in Iraq to deaths in America are the same ones that have shown the least compassion for the 'poor, unfortunate souls' in society.
The ones that work hard at menial jobs to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads and would love to further their education are constantly labeled here with racist and bigoted comments and are classified right along with the ones that feed off the system. Katrina discussions are one example of some of the cruel comments that were made.
But aren't many of these young men and women from underprivileged homes the same ones that are now fighting in Iraq? On one hand they are labeled a national disgrace but when they don a uniform and go to a war based on revenge, power, oil, corruption and greed they are suddenly labeled a 'national treasure'?
Then if they return mentally or physically injured and don't have the strength or resources to fight bureaucracy to get the help they need and end up on the street they are frowned upon and considered a national disgrace again. It makes no sense to me.
posted on May 1, 2007 11:02:10 AM new
there goes kiara again.....
no matter HOW many times she has had it PROVEN to her....she refuses to accept the FACTS.
This time is no different.
"But aren't many of these young men and women from underprivileged homes the same ones that are now fighting in Iraq?"
NO.
This is the MOST educated armed forces the US has EVER had. And from the SAME economical status as the same groups of non-military.
Stop posting your DISTORTIONS over and over again.
And imo, kiara, the bleedheart liberal, can't/won't ACCEPT the FACT that while she whines about these soldiers she's supposedly so concerned about.....she REFUSES to acknowledge that THEY MADE THE CHOICE TO ENTER THE ARMED FORCES.
She reminds me of cindy sheehan....who just could NEVER come to grips with the FACT her son WANTED to join....wanted to RE-ENLIST.
But that won't stop those bleeding hearts from insulting THOSE life decisions THESE brave men made.
Gawd....because it's not HER choice doesn't mean it isn't/wasn't something THEY felt differently about that AND that they didn't/don't SHARE HER views on fighting, war and every other VALUE that was/is important to THEM.
posted on May 1, 2007 11:11:10 AM new
Strange, I am a Democrat, who does not support the official party line of cut and retreat. Apparently any opinion which is different than the party line draws insults and name calling.
Yes, we should have never been there. Yes, the war effort was mismanaged., Yes, there are casualties.
However, we just can't walk away from that rat nest. We upset the balance of power in the region. The whole region is unstable. Drawing upon history, it would appear that the turmoil in 1930's Europe comes the closest to the present.
If we were to pullout, as the Democrats, and those weak souls who support them want, without stabilizing the situation in Iraq, there would be terrible economic and social effects for the entire world.
The instability of civil war in Iraq, the growth of influence of Iran and Syria, and the other fanatic Muslim groups would send the price of oil soaring, upset the world markets, and further increase the cost of goods.
We study history, quote its events, and never learn from them.
posted on May 1, 2007 11:28:14 AM new
Economic and social and social effects don't kill people, only weapons kill people.
As to the "underprivledged" being troops, that of course as Linda has stated is untrue and was even untrue when the theory was first used during Vietnam.
You don't even have to be a whacko, numbers are numbers.
posted on May 1, 2007 11:30:25 AM new
Well stated, Kozersky.
And I agree....some of these surrender now dems/liberals just don't have a clue as to the long range NEGATIVE effects pulling out NOW will have on not only America....but the world...and her economic well being.
BUT it's my opinion that they don't CARE either. To them this is a POLITICAL move...not a logical decision for our future.
They believe they have the full support of American voters to get out....but I don't think they're seeing the whole story, once again.
Most American's do NOT support leaving if it means SURRENDERING to the terrorists we're fighting now.
I'm glad to see another dem who at least CAN think logically.
posted on May 1, 2007 11:33:55 AM new
kozersky - IF you'd be willing, I'd love to hear what you think the US should do in this situation at this point in time.
Like....do you think we should wait a while and see if the surge does change the situation in Iraq WHEN the full number of troops are in the region? We've only sent half the number we are going to.
posted on May 1, 2007 12:09:23 PM new
And while the anti-war liberals/dems continue to use our soldiers deaths AGAINST U.S. policy.....
THIS is why so many young American men and women are willing to fight against these MASS MURDERERS....the terrorists who have NO problem murdering innocent Iraqi's, men women AND children. Beheading anyone who doesn't see things their way.
THIS is what they DIE for kiara....and her ilk.
To rid the world of the likes of these terrorists.
===
BREAKING NEWS) Date: Tue, May 1, 2007, 5:20am (CDT+1) To: [email protected] (BREAKINGNEWS Subscribers) Subject:
FNC Alert
IRAQI OFFICIALS, TV REPORT: AL QAEDA IN IRAQ CHIEF AL MASRI KILLED IN FIGHTING
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 1, 2007 12:21:44 PM new
In case some have taken Linda_K's words and assumptions as facts when she constantly howls and labels me as a coward or anti-war liberal/dem and puts me among the ones who want to 'cut and run' in Iraq, I can speak for myself.
So far I have supported the war in Afghanistan and the work that is being done there though I am unsure if things will improve or get worse. I am not a Democrat or a Republican as I have lost faith in both parties.
Terrorism has increased worldwide since the invasion of Iraq. It's a worldwide problem now that affects all countries so perhaps it is now the responsibility of the international community to join together and find a solution to clean up the disaster in Iraq.
By that I mean some intelligent informed people who can work together to offer suggestions to stabilize the situation there without thinking that the only solution is to send in more troops to continue the slaughter on all sides because 'staying the course' is obviously not working. The reconstruction effort is not working either.
The Iraqi people should have a say in what they want for their country and should be listened to also.
Of course this would mean that President Bush would be open to such discussion and drop his stubborn beliefs that he knows best.
More time should be spent on concentrating on the terror threats and other problems right within our own borders.
Hopefully lessons will be learned about the consequences of rushing into war when the ones that do such things have no knowledge of the situation they are entering into and no plans on what to do afterwards.
