It's A 'Time of War'

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
and time for the government to say so:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/01/general_conway_.html#more

General Conway Remarks on War Support
Posted By Blackfive

Via Corporal Seamus, the US Marince Corps Commandant, General James Conway, made some interesting remarks last week - very appropriate and very interesting:

MARINE CORPS COMMANDANT URGES PRESIDENT TO 'RALLY' U.S. TO WAR

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway is urging the White House to "rally the country to war," arguing it could help address the challenge of recruiting 92,000 additional troops to boost the size of the Marines and the Army.

He made the remarks Jan. 22 to a room full of Marine Corps veterans at a luncheon sponsored by the Marine Corps Association in Alexandria, VA.

"We have, frankly, talked with the president some about maybe changing his message," Conway said. "You know, after 9/11 he said the best thing you can do, America, is live your lives normal. . . . And we think today that it may be time to rally the country to war."

Rallying the country might help the Army and the Marine Corps meet the challenge of recruiting 92,000 troops over the next four or five years, he argued. Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Pentagon wants to add 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines over several years...

...Conway said "the casualty issue" is "driving the thinking of our country." But he argued the United States has "lost perspective" when considering the number of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I have gone to way too many memorial services and written too many letters to families to dismiss this lightly," he said. But he said U.S. forces are losing "on average about two soldiers, or Marines, maybe sailors, a day," compared to 302 casualties a day during World War II. "We've lost just over 3,000 now, in the entirety of the war," he said. "Since we invaded Iraq we've lost 43,000 young men of military age on the highway of this country. . . . That does not transmit to our country. I've got to tell you, it just doesn't stick."

Conway added, "My view is, if it's important to the country, we should be able to sustain whatever it takes."

He gave his take on the insurgency.

"I'll tell you, these people have a plan," Conway said. "And the plan is to boot us out of the Middle East, destroy Israel, take charge of the oil supply and then strangle us to the point where we'll have no choice but to go back in."...
 

Roopull

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
99
Reaction score
18
Points
6
Location
Near Atlanta
This is the result of attempting to wage a politically correct war... it ain't gonna happen. Exactly how to you kill someone in a politically correct way?

Had we been waging a total war the way we did prior to the Korean War, there would probably be no need for a boost in enlistments because the REAL war we'd be waging would be enough of a rallying cry in and of itself.

Plus, the war would be over, now.


Instead, we are very much stuck in yet another police action... it's hard to get excited about that.
 

eots

no fly list
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Messages
28,995
Reaction score
2,097
Points
205
Location
IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
get out of their country and they will sell oil ,they cant eat oil ,they cant sustain a military ,purchase technology , medicines...we can get oil without killing and stealing it..its not about oil
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
This is the result of attempting to wage a politically correct war... it ain't gonna happen. Exactly how to you kill someone in a politically correct way?

Had we been waging a total war the way we did prior to the Korean War, there would probably be no need for a boost in enlistments because the REAL war we'd be waging would be enough of a rallying cry in and of itself.

Plus, the war would be over, now.


Instead, we are very much stuck in yet another police action... it's hard to get excited about that.
Actually this is part of the true errors GW personally did regarding the war. He wanted most people to think the US could wage war, without any involvement than their taxes. He would keep putting the troops in, as very few as necessary and only volunteers at that. He didn't seem to see the need for connections between sacrifices on both ends.
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
This is the result of attempting to wage a politically correct war... it ain't gonna happen. Exactly how to you kill someone in a politically correct way?

Had we been waging a total war the way we did prior to the Korean War, there would probably be no need for a boost in enlistments because the REAL war we'd be waging would be enough of a rallying cry in and of itself.

Plus, the war would be over, now.

Instead, we are very much stuck in yet another police action... it's hard to get excited about that.
It's not a matter of whether or not the ongoing occupation of Iraq is "politically correct". It was an unjust war launched on the basis sexed up, if not outright false, intel. It was a war of choice. The invasion of Iraq violated US treaty obligations and international law. That is why support for the war has dwindled to the point where its supporters are becoming an endangered species.

Had we not lost our focus in Afghanistan and actually pursued Osama bin Laden to his capture or killing, I would still be a supporter of the war. But instead, for reasons known only to himself and his the chicken-hawks in his cabinet, Kommander Koo-Koo Krazypants decided to invade Iraq. And now, nearly four years after he so brazenly declared "Mission Accomplished!", we are still mired in Iraq, our troops caught up in the middle of a civil war, and this President ignores the voices of reason that assail him from all sides to stop pouring our blood and treasure into this fruitless endeavor and embark on a new course of regional diplomacy and strive for a political solution to a problem which has no military solution.
 

Roopull

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
99
Reaction score
18
Points
6
Location
Near Atlanta
It's not a matter of whether or not the ongoing occupation of Iraq is "politically correct".
I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean a politically correct war... I meant waging war in a politically correct manner. Carpet bombing, firebombing & killing civillians isn't politically correct. So, we cripple ourselves by trying to appease the PC crowd. Meanwhile, our enemies over there have no such self crippling tendencies & wage war however they want... afterall, CNN certainly isn't going to hold "insurgents" responsible for anything.

I wasn't just referring to the ongoing occupation, either. Both of our little wars with Iraq were waged in a politically correct fashion. Why did we stop attacking the retreating Republican Guard in the first war? Because we didn't want to seem mean & cruel:rolleyes: . How stupid is that?

This time around, we waged war with the self imposed rule of not killing anyone who could be mistaken for a civillian. Uh... what do you call a Baathist Soldier when he takes off his uniform? A CIVILLIAN! What do you call him when he blows up a Hummer? An Insurgent. One in the same, no? It's an unwinnable situation & one "we" have put on ourselves.

Here's a little cartoon that I think pretty well describes the situation, but from a different conflict with the same stupid rules of engagement:
 

José

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
3,876
Reaction score
416
Points
180
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
It's not a matter of whether or not the ongoing occupation of Iraq is "politically correct". It was an unjust war launched on the basis sexed up, if not outright false, intel. It was a war of choice. The invasion of Iraq violated US treaty obligations and international law.
Bully

I think we must be honest here and recognise the fact that the US invasion freed the shia population from the autocratic, sectarian rule of Saddam (now the US is trying to impose a sectarian government on sunnis, but this is a different subject that is irrelevant to this discussion).

But as far as international law is concerned, a country cannot wage war on another based on good intentions.

It must present a valid, credible casus belli.

International law is crystal clear regarding armed agressions on soveireign states:

In the absence of any agression against the invading country, the Security Council has to give an explicit authorization prior to the invasion.

Period.

End of discussion.

You cannot call Iraq a rogue state when it invades Kwait without an authorization from the S.C. and then come up with a million excuses when the US does the same thing regarding Iraq.

This is how clowns think about international politics, not serious people.

Any unbiased observer of the international scene will inevitably tell you that the casus belli against Afghanistan was so clear that was not even open for discussion.

The same observer will tell that the casus belli against Iraq was nonexistent:

A secular country, opposed to islamic fundamentalism (Bin Laden said many times that “socialists (referring to Saddam) are aposthates”. No connections with the group that hit the US.

The only place where the casus belli against Iraq is anything more than a joke is inside the stinky swamp super patriotic american clowns carry on top of their necks.

But it’s useless to point out all these facts to them, Bully.

It’s useless because of the following statement, that is so true it should be elevated to the status of a fundamental law of science : )

Super patriotic american clowns never met a single casus belli put forth by the US government they didn’t like.

When they hear the US is about to present a casus belli against any country they agree with it first and listen to the presentation later.

The name of the country and the reasons for war are just small details that simply do not justify the delay in their support : )
 

José

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
3,876
Reaction score
416
Points
180
And another thing Bully, every now and then, someone creates a thread on the following subject:

“What would you do if the US was invaded by a foreign country?”

As you can imagine, all the messages posted on these kind of threads are little varitions of these two:

Super patriotic american clown number 1:

“Count me in.”

Super patriotic american clown number 2:

“Well, I’m a 70 year old lady, but if the US was invaded I would pick up my old rifle and join the granny’s platoon.”

Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...

I never saw a single individual say things like this:

“Well, I wouldn’t oppose the military occupation of the US if it was for the betterment of the country.”

“I would accept the presence of foreign troops on US soil if the invading country presented a strong casus belli.”

All these excuses to justify foreign military occupations are good only for Vietnam and the Anbar province in Iraq, they are never good enough to justify the invasion and occupation of America.

So I would add a second fundamental law of nature to the first one presented above : )

Super patriotic american clowns seem to have a kind of nazi mindset that sees the american people as having more rights to fight foreign aggressions than the other peoples of the Earth.

It’s a clear case of nazi mentality because this view portrays the american people as a superior people surrounded by subhumans that are not justified in fighting back against unjust military aggressions like the one in Vietnam.
 

José

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
3,876
Reaction score
416
Points
180
You know, Bully, people here like to label people like you who oppose the war in Iraq as leftists but let’s stop for a moment and think about it.

Judging from your previous statements you are clearly able to recognise the instances where the US has a valid, unquestionable casus belli against other nation (Afghanistan).

So its not you who is unable to recognise a valid casus belli presented by the US, it is most of the members of this message board who are unable to recognise an invalid one (Iraq).

It’s not you who deny the right of the american people to fight any military invasion of their country, it’s them who deny this same right to any other people in the world who happen to oppose America’s geopolitical goals.

So the issue here is not left vs. right, Bully.

The issue here is that we are surrounded by a bunch of super patriotic american clowns, completely incoherent, contradictory, supporting blatant double standards favorable to the US, implicitly stating that the US has the right to wage war and devastate any country based on any casus belli presented by the US government, no matter how weak and pathetic it is, implicitly stating that the american people is the only people in the world who has a God given right to fight any military invasion and occupation of their country, etc, etc...

I don’t even know why we waste our time "debating" with these clowns.
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
José;525892 said:
You know, Bully, people here like to label people like you who oppose the war in Iraq as leftists but let’s stop for a moment and think about it.
Good idea Jose', it would be refreshing if you would think for a minute. As to Bully, well, there are times, that he makes sense, but in this thread, I've yet to see it.

Judging from your previous statements you are clearly able to recognise the instances where the US has a valid, unquestionable casus belli against other nation (Afghanistan).
Please, explain yourself Jose', cause you sound like who you say you despise.

So its not you who is unable to recognise a valid casus belli presented by the US, it is most of the members of this message board who are unable to recognise an invalid one (Iraq).
You have some nerve, you wouldn't know a valid reason for one to hold a particular point of view if it came up and slapped you across the face. And certainly most on this board have a firmer grip on reality than YOU do amigo.

It’s not you who deny the right of the american people to fight any military invasion of their country, it’s them who deny this same right to any other people in the world who happen to oppose America’s geopolitical goals.
So YOU say, I, and most grounded people around the world would disagree.

So the issue here is not left vs. right, Bully.
We agree, its wrong vs. right, get it?

The issue here is that we are surrounded by a bunch of super patriotic american clowns, completely incoherent, contradictory, supporting blatant double standards favorable to the US, implicitly stating that the US has the right to wage war and devastate any country based on any casus belli presented by the US government, no matter how weak and pathetic it is, implicitly stating that the american people is the only people in the world who has a God given right to fight any military invasion and occupation of their country, etc, etc...
And this separates us from those we oppose how? Talk about a clown, you, and yours better wake up young man, for your close to throwing yourself to the radicals of this world, and it ISN'T about god given rights.

I don’t even know why we waste our time "debating" with these clowns.
Neither do I...:cuckoo:
 

José

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
3,876
Reaction score
416
Points
180
Trobinett,

I'm gonna create a thread to explain my proposal to drastically reduce anti-americanism in the Middle East and therefore accomplishing the main, some would say the only goal of the whole WOT.
 

Adam's Apple

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
4,092
Reaction score
448
Points
48
José;525807 said:
Ironically, the main reason not only Egypt but the entire ME will go nuclear in a couple of decades is not their “sworn enemy”, Israel, but genocidal maniacs like Roopull.
Roopull rather than Ahmadinejad????????
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
It's not a matter of whether or not the ongoing occupation of Iraq is "politically correct". It was an unjust war launched on the basis sexed up, if not outright false, intel. It was a war of choice. The invasion of Iraq violated US treaty obligations and international law. That is why support for the war has dwindled to the point where its supporters are becoming an endangered species.

Had we not lost our focus in Afghanistan and actually pursued Osama bin Laden to his capture or killing, I would still be a supporter of the war. But instead, for reasons known only to himself and his the chicken-hawks in his cabinet, Kommander Koo-Koo Krazypants decided to invade Iraq. And now, nearly four years after he so brazenly declared "Mission Accomplished!", we are still mired in Iraq, our troops caught up in the middle of a civil war, and this President ignores the voices of reason that assail him from all sides to stop pouring our blood and treasure into this fruitless endeavor and embark on a new course of regional diplomacy and strive for a political solution to a problem which has no military solution.


Fox News has released a poll that proves once again that Democrats either don’t want us to win in Iraq, or at the very least “don’t know” if they do, which is just as bad (emphasis added):

Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?

Overall: 63% Yes 22% No 15% Don’t Know

Democrats: 51% Yes 34% No 15% Don’t Know

Republicans: 79% Yes 11% No 10% Don’t Know

Independents: 63% Yes 19% No 17% Don’t Know
I noted another poll which documented the Dem’s desire for the President to fail in Iraq in this post last September, but some people complained that the question, which read “would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?” was ‘too vague’ because it didn’t specifically mention Iraq, even though we all know that Iraq is the issue and has been since even before the war started. In any event, there’s no mistaking it now: 34% of Dems want us to fail in Iraq, and 15% “don’t know” which to me is the same thing, because if you have to even consider whether or not you want the President to fail in Iraq, then you haven’t taken hoping for failure off the table.

What other tidbits did we find out from the latest Fox poll?

16. If you were a member of Congress, how would you vote specifically on increasing U.S. troop levels in Iraq — would you vote for or against funding the increase in troops?

Overall: 38% For 57% Against 5% Don’t know
Democrats: 17% For 79% Against 4% Don’t know
Republicans: 64% For 32% Against 4% Don’t know
Independents: 39% For 52% Against 9% Don’t know
That’s not really that surprising though, but this one should be (emphasis added):

17. Regardless of how you would vote on sending more troops to Iraq — If you were a member of Congress, would you vote to continue funding the current level of U.S. troops in Iraq or would you vote against funding the war altogether to try to force a troop withdrawal?

Overall: 52% Yes 41% No 6% Don’t know
Democrats: 33% Yes 59% No 8% Don’t know
Republicans: 77% Yes 19% No 4% Don’t know
Independents: 53% Yes 43% No 4% Don’t know
Got that? 59% of Democrats say they would vote against funding the current level of US troops in Iraq in order to try and force a troop withdrawal and 8% “don’t know” (uh huh).

Bbbbut they support the troops.

Right?

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...oxnewspoll.pdf
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
Originally Posted by José
Ironically, the main reason not only Egypt but the entire ME will go nuclear in a couple of decades is not their “sworn enemy”, Israel, but genocidal maniacs like Roopull.
Damn Jose', just a little harsh.

You don't know Roopull, he's a l-o-n-g way from what YOU describe.

I look forward to your thread.
 

Roopull

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
99
Reaction score
18
Points
6
Location
Near Atlanta
José;525807 said:
Egypt Will Go Nuclear: Mubarak

http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?menu=A11100&no=321645&rel_no=1&back_url=

Ironically, the main reason not only Egypt but the entire ME will go nuclear in a couple of decades is not their “sworn enemy”, Israel, but genocidal maniacs like Roopull.
Wow. I'm a genocidal maniac, now? Great. I didn't realize that.


Trob the Great said:
You don't know Roopull, he's a l-o-n-g way from what YOU describe.

I look forward to your thread.
Thanks for the props, Trob.


Actually, Jose, genocide is exactly what waging war for real would avoid. While no war would usually be preferred, these little police actions with no spine are generally more destructive than winning a war decisively. What we've got going on in Iraq is a prequel to genocide... if we "pull out" it is certain.

Examples of spineless PC police actions might include the Congo, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Somalia etc. You missed the point of my post & decided to discredit yourself with flaming & ranting. I'd invite you to re-read my posts & then start that thread you mentioned. Like Trob, I'd be interested to read it.
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Originally Posted by José


Damn Jose', just a little harsh.

You don't know Roopull, he's a l-o-n-g way from what YOU describe.

I look forward to your thread.
I have to agree, from every post of his I've seen!
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top