My view on Iraq War. Surge - Well, it is about time!

[mattskramer]

Well, it does not take an expert on foreign relations to know that Bush’s handling of this unnecessary Iraq war has been a mess. First Bush and his “yes men” (lackeys) said that Saddam had WMD. He did not – unless you count a few old empty canisters as WMD – Oh my. We should have gotten our fallout shelters ready. Then there was the argument that Saddam was linked with terrorists. That turned out to be false – well, months after our invasion we managed to find someone from Al Qaeda who happened to be on Iraqi soil. Then Bush’s buddies told us that Iraqi was a threat to the USA and that Iraq was the most dangerous threat of our time. Nope. When those excuses turned out to be false or highly exaggreated, the excuse chaned to something along the lines of “Well. We need to get rid of an evil dictator”. Shouldn’t we have gone after the more despotic and powerful one first like North Korea and China?

Okay. So we go to war. We kill a bunck of Iraqis and they kill us. How protected were out men in combat? Awww. The cry-babies want armor. Too bad. You go to war with the army you have—not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time. The result was unnecessary excessive injury and death to our men.

Of course, the survivors got to go to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. After months and months pass, Bush decieds to get tough and send in a surge. Months later, the surge seems to be working and everyone wants to cheer.

I had mice in my house. I would chase them away but they kept coming back. I managed to kill one, but othrs came in. I tore holes in the walls so that I could try to see where they were coming from. I used traps and foggers but they kept coming. I broke the floor panels to see if they were coming up through the floor. I fumigated and fumigated. I destroyed the attic to see if they had a nest up there. Finally, after months and months of trying to kill all those mice, I think that I finally succeeded. I have not seen a mouse for quite some time, but my home has a natural dirt floor and a skylight and 360 degree views. – But, hey, I finally got those pesky rodents.

In conclusion, the war was not necessary. There were no significant WMD, there was not clear-cut-link to terrorists. There was no significant threat. The war was handled terribly. Since we were going in anyway, we should have first made hospitals ready and up-to-date for the sick and dying that would be arriving. We should have had an over abundance of highly armored vehicles and tools at the ready. Then, if Bush were serious he should have sent warning to the poeople of Iraq and surrounded the nation. Then, we should have gone in with at least twice as many aircraft, ships, tanks and other vehicles to be followed, ultimately by soldiers than we did.

No. I was never in the military. No, I’m not an expert in military. Yet, it seems to me that the above is obvious. You don’t go to war if you can avoid it. If you do declare war, you go in to win. Finally, after so many executive goof-ups we seem to be making progress. Well, damn. It is high time. Yippeee. Wooptie do!

 

[Annie]

Well, it does not take an expert on foreign relations to know that Bush’s handling of this unnecessary Iraq war has been a mess. ...

If you do declare war, you go in to win. Finally, after so many executive goof-ups we seem to be making progress. Well, damn. It is high time. Yippeee. Wooptie do!

This has what to do with the surge? As for the rest

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wOih0MHNmZU&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wOih0MHNmZU&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

[mattskramer]

This has what to do with the surge? As for the rest

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wOih0MHNmZU&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wOih0MHNmZU&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

That was a great sentimental piece. I would question a line (maybe two) that is in the song – a minor point. Beyond that, I have nothing against it. Did it require so many people to die in Iraq to keep us free? I doubt it.

I have no bitterness for the soldiers. We don’t do enough for them. (1.) Was the Iraq war necessary for our freedom? I doubt it. (2.) It would have been nice for Rumsfeld to has shown more compassion and made sure that the soldiers had more than enough armor and equipment. (3.) It would have been nice for the commander in chief to make sure that the hospitals were up-to-date and ready for the injured soldiers.

 

[trobinett]

That was a great sentimental piece. I would question a line (maybe two) that is in the song – a minor point. Beyond that, I have nothing against it. Did it require so many people to die in Iraq to keep us free? I doubt it.

No surprise there.

I have no bitterness for the soldiers.

Well, that's LARGE of you matt.

We don’t do enough for them.

On THAT we agree.

(1.) Was the Iraq war necessary for our freedom? I doubt it.

No surprise again, our enemy's are just suppose to lay over for us, cause we're the good guys, right?

(2.) It would have been nice for Rumsfeld to has shown more compassion and made sure that the soldiers had more than enough armor and equipment.

You got, what you got, you can think the PRIOR administration for the supplies available to our troops.

(3.) It would have been nice for the commander in chief to make sure that the hospitals were up-to-date and ready for the injured soldiers.

Its ALWAYS someone eles's fault, does the story NEVER change?

Do you really think, that our PRESIDENT intentionally let our Federal hospitals fall into the sad state of disrepair, that you complain about?

NOTHING is a "cake walk", our troops get the best medical treatment of any in the world. There is ALWAYS room for improvement, care to give a donation?

 

[jillian]

No surprise again, our enemy's are just suppose to lay over for us, cause we're the good guys, right?

I am not one whit freer because of the occupation of Iraq. Neither are you.



You got, what you got, you can think the PRIOR administration for the supplies available to our troops.

Do you really think, that our PRESIDENT intentionally let our Federal hospitals fall into the sad state of disrepair, that you complain about?

Ooh, I know, I know.

They didn't care or they wouldn't have privatized maintenance of the hospital using the same incompetent corporation that couldn't manage to get ice to New Orleans. But no patronage there, right?

 

[Larkinn]

This has what to do with the surge? As for the rest

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wOih0MHNmZU&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wOih0MHNmZU&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Awesome...lets glorify death. As for Bush, if he cried everytime a US soldier came back dead, he'd have died of dehydration by now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, it does not take an expert on foreign relations to know that Bush’s handling of this unnecessary Iraq war has been a mess.

Do you always parrot the usual talking points?

First Bush and his “yes men” (lackeys) said that Saddam had WMD. He did not

Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Johen Edwrds, Al Gore and Ted kennedy are Bush's lackeys?

Then Bush’s buddies told us that Iraqi was a threat to the USA and that Iraq was the most dangerous threat of our time. Nope.

You're right. No one ever said that Iraq was the most dangerous threat of our time

When those excuses turned out to be false or highly exaggreated, the excuse chaned to something along the lines of “Well. We need to get rid of an evil dictator”. Shouldn’t we have gone after the more despotic and powerful one first like North Korea and China?

Ah, the usual 'if we did it here, we have to do it everywhere' argument.

Okay. So we go to war. We kill a bunck of Iraqis and they kill us. How protected were out men in combat? Awww. The cry-babies want armor.

They had armor. All of them.
They didnt all have the armor that you think they should all have had - but then, you arent a competent judge.

Too bad. You go to war with the army you have—not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.

Just like every other army in every other war.
That you take offense to the statement indicates a severl lack of understanding.

The result was unnecessary excessive injury and death to our men.

This is a view held by someone that has no historical context in which to put all of these things in.

After months and months pass, Bush decieds to get tough and send in a surge. Months later, the surge seems to be working and everyone wants to cheer.

Except for the liberals, who want us to, and are doing all that they can to guarantee that we lose the war so that they can gain domestic political power.

No. I was never in the military. No, I’m not an expert in military.

You're right. You're a parrot - a "useful idiot".
Your masters are proud of you.

 

[mattskramer]

No surprise again, our enemy's are just suppose to lay over for us, cause we're the good guys, right?

Our enemies (Al Qaeda and the Taliban) came at us from Afghanistan – not Iraq. Iraqis were not our enemies. They were not attacking us.

You got, what you got, you can think the PRIOR administration for the supplies available to our troops.

The Clinton term ended in 2000. From his first day in office, Bush could have called for the redistribution of resources and the strengthening our military. 9-11 happened in late 2001. After that tragic event, Bush had time to further strengthen our military and make sure that it had sufficient armor and supplies. Operation “Iraqi Freedom” began in 2003. The operation could have easily started later, while we prepare our armor and hospitals, as there was no immanent threat from Iraq.

It is pretty clear that Bush flew off the handle with his itchy trigger finger and practically declared (unnecessary) war against Iraq too soon without having made sure that the armor, vehicles, and hospitals were ready.

Its ALWAYS someone eles's fault, does the story NEVER change?

Where did that superlative absolutist comment/question come from? No. Things that happen are not always someone else’s fault.

Do you really think, that our PRESIDENT intentionally let our Federal hospitals fall into the sad state of disrepair, that you complain about?

No. I doubt that the president intentionally let or hospitals fall into a sad state of disrepair. I doubt that he was even aware of the state of the federal hospitals. What I do contend is that the president should have checked on the state of the hospitals long before thinking of having our soldiers go to war.

NOTHING is a "cake walk", our troops get the best medical treatment of any in the world. There is ALWAYS room for improvement, care to give a donation?

I agree that nothing is a cakewalk. I don’t know the statistics concerning the care that our soldiers get with respect to the care that other soldiers get. I agree that there is always room for improvement. In this particular case I think that there was a lot of room for improvement.

I don’t like to publicly comment (brag) about my private volunteer and charity activity but sine you asked if I care to give a donation, I’ll reply. I give blood every few months. I’m O-, making me a potentially universal blood donor. I continue to write letters of support and even send care packages.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Our enemies (Al Qaeda and the Taliban) came at us from Afghanistan – not Iraq. Iraqis were not our enemies. They were not attacking us.

Then why did Bill and Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, Gore, et al, all decribe Iraq as an imminent threat?

The Clinton term ended in 2000.

2001. FY2001 ended in September 2001.

From his first day in office, Bush could have called for the redistribution of resources and the strengthening our military. 9-11 happened in late 2001.

Did you see the FY2002 DOD budget and the increrases found therein?

After that tragic event, Bush had time to further strengthen our military and make sure that it had sufficient armor and supplies.

It did.
Only people that dont have a clue about matters military dont think so.

 

[Larkinn]

How sensitive, compassionate and courageous of you.

Next time it comes up, tell somone this:
"Really, ma'am, I'm sorry your boy died in Iraq - but do you know how many people would suffer if we didn't invade? Surely, you can see that your baby isnt THAT important".

It is, after all, your position.

Lifes a bitch, hey M14? So...got that mental and emotional maturity yet?

 

[mattskramer]

Do you always parrot the usual talking points?

I don&#8217;t even know what talking points are. I think for myself and make my own comments. If other people happen to think the same way and come to the same conclusion, so be it.

Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Johen Edwrds, Al Gore and Ted kennedy are Bush's lackeys?

No. So what is your point? They may have thought that Saddam had WMD. They were wrong too. Ultimately, Bush &#8220;pushed the red button&#8221;. Did they specifically think that we should invade Iraq? I don&#8217;t know, but I doubt it.

You're right. No one ever said that Iraq was the most dangerous threat of our time.

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time." - White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24970.html
http://civic.moveon.org/censure//imminent.html
http://blogs.salon.com/0002606/2004/02/05.html

Ah, the usual 'if we did it here, we have to do it everywhere' argument.

Nice try at putting words in my mouth. Okay. You may have misinterpreted my meaning. I think that if you are going to change regimes militarily, you should go after the most dangerous and most evil ones.

They had armor. All of them.
They didnt all have the armor that you think they should all have had - but then, you arent a competent judge.

So were the soldiers complaining for no reason at all. Were they delusional or just crybabies?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041209/news_1n9rumsfeld.html

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld came here yesterday to lead a morale-lifting discussion with Iraq-bound troops. Instead, he found himself on the defensive, fielding pointed questions from soldiers complaining about aging vehicles that lacked armor to protect against roadside bombs.

Okay. These soldiers on the field working with vehicles were only imagining that the vehicles were old and lacking armor. Okay.

Rumsfeld, seemingly caught off guard by the sharp questioning, responded that the military was producing extra armor for Humvees and trucks as fast as possible, but that the soldiers would have to cope with equipment shortages.

Okay, so even Rumsfeld was mistaken. They had armor. There was no shortage. THe article is long and I don&#8217;t have time to excerpt the many examples to support my point. The soldiers were not sufficiently supplied. Read the article.

This is a view held by someone that has no historical context in which to put all of these things in.

Oh. I thought that I was not supposed to parrot other people. Which is it? Anyway, focus on the failures of preparedness with this war. It should be clear that Bush did not check on hospitals or make sure that there was sufficient armor and vehicles.

Except for the liberals, who want us to, and are doing all that they can to guarantee that we lose the war so that they can gain domestic political power.

Uh. Again, I&#8217;m not parroting for liberals and liberals are not speaking for me. Stop changing the subject.

You're right. You're a parrot - a "useful idiot". Your masters are proud of you.

No. I am not a parrot. You so readily stoop to ad homonym attacks. Keep it in the Taunting area. Personal attacks and name-calling is beneath me. I won&#8217;t follow suit.

 

[mattskramer]

Then why did Bill and Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, Gore, et al, all decribe Iraq as an imminent threat?

Did the Democrats think that we should have declared war – yes or no?
Do you have links to specific quotes? Even if they said such things, they did not push the red button. Ultimately, Bush made the decision – as bad and unprepared a decision as is was.

Did you see the FY2002 DOD budget and the increrases found therein?

No. Yet, I did not say that there was not an increase. I contend that there was not nearly a sufficient increase or that the increase as not sufficiently directed to the preparedness for the Iraq War and its aftermath.

Only people that dont have a clue about matters military dont think so.

The evidence practically speaks for itself. Bush and his team did not do enough to prepare. Things were not ready. One could even legitimately infer from Rumsfeld’s comments that there wasn’t sufficient armor readily available. The Federal hospitals were not adequately ready for the injured soldiers. It is all right there.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don&#8217;t even know what talking points are. I think for myself and make my own comments. If other people happen to think the same way and come to the same conclusion, so be it.

Nice dodge - "I'm not parroting them, they just happen to agree with me".
Never mind that all of your comments here are -exactly- the same as theirs.

No. So what is your point? They may have thought that Saddam had WMD. They were wrong too.

I see... so it wasnt -just- "Bush lackeys" that agreed on the threat and that something had to be done, sooner rather than later.
Why then do you try to frame the argument as such?

Nice try at putting words in my mouth. Okay. You may have misinterpreted my meaning. I think that if you are going to change regimes militarily, you should go after the most dangerous and most evil ones.

I didn't mis-interpret it -- that's exactly what you're saying.
Dont you suppose that there might be other factors that mitigate, if not invalidate your "one sixe fits all" solution here?

So were the soldiers were complaining for no reason at all. Were they delusional or just crybabies?

Nothing here invalidates what I said.
Were all troop sissued with body armor? Yes.
Were all of the troopps equipped with the heavy-duty armor intended for comat troops? No.
Why would ALL the troops have the armor designed for combat troops?

Do you know what &#37; of men in a combat division are combat troops?

Okay. These soldiers on the field working with vehicles were only imagining that the vehicles were old and lacking armor. Okay.

More talking points, more ignorance.
Why would vehicles designed for support and transportation be armored for combat?

YOU seem to think that EVERY soldier and EVERY vehicle should have armor at the same level as that provided for combat troops.
Why?

Oh. I thought that I was not supposed to parrot other people. Which is it?

Knowing what you're talking about and parroting other people are different things. You DONT know, and so you parrot.

Uh. Again, I&#8217;m not parroting for liberals and liberals are not speaking for me.

You are.

No. I am not a parrot. You so readily stoop to ad homonym attacks.

Stating that you are parroting isnt a personal attack.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you have links to specific quotes?

There are far too many quotes from Dems/liberals describing the threat and the need to do something to post them all. You'll have to settle for these:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,)
and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

No. Yet, I did not say that there was not an increase. I contend that there was not nearly a sufficient increase or that the increase as not sufficiently directed to the preparedness for the Iraq War and its aftermath.

This is predicated on your idea that we were not "sufficiently directed to the preparedness for the Iraq War and its aftermath".
You'll have to show that to be true,
You'll especially have to explain how we should have been prepared for unforseen developments.

The evidence practically speaks for itself.

Only to people that understand what the evidence means. That's not you.

YOU seem to think that EVERY soldier and EVERY vehicle should have armor at the same level as that provided for combat troops.
Why?

 

[mattskramer]

Nice dodge - "I'm not parroting them, they just happen to agree with me". Never mind that all of your comments here are -exactly- the same as theirs.

Wow. Someone else has posted what I have said word-for-word. Perhaps I should have copyrighted my statements.

I didn't mis-interpret it -- that's exactly what you're saying.
Don&#8217;t you suppose that there might be other factors that mitigate, if not invalidate your "one sixe fits all" solution here?

You are patently wrong. I never said or implied that we &#8220;do it everywhere&#8221;. If we are to change regimes we work on the most serious and cruel ones. We do not have the resources to go everywhere or even bother with the most insignificant places. I have yet to see what makes Iraq more important than North Korea or China. The Iraq war was unnecessary and unwarranted. We should have saved our soldiers and supplies. In my opinion, Iraq is a sandcastle compared to other nations.

Nothing here invalidates what I said.
Were all troop sissued with body armor? Yes.
Were all of the troopps equipped with the heavy-duty armor intended for comat troops? No. Why would ALL the troops have the armor designed for combat troops?

Look. The bottom line is that they were not issued with enough armor. The soldiers were there. They were in the field. They are in the know. They say that the needed more armor. Even Rumsfield seems to contend that they did not have enough.

Look back at the article. A senior officer said later that 95 percent of the unit's more than 300 trucks had insufficient armor. An Army Reserve unit disobeyed orders to deliver fuel to a base in Iraq, complaining that its vehicles had not been properly outfitted. A specialist said that he and other members of his Tennessee National Guard unit felt short-handed going into their mission in Iraq. "I'm a soldier, and I'll do this on a bicycle if I have to, but we need help," said Wilson, 31, who served on active duty in the Air Force for six years.

Oh, yeah. Just brush it off. These soldiers don&#8217;t know what they are talking about.

YOU seem to think that EVERY soldier and EVERY vehicle should have armor at the same level as that provided for combat troops. Why?

Look. If a nation is going to launch a preemptive war, it is important for such a nation to have more than enough armor and supplies to finish the job. Evidently, the supplies were grossly insufficient &#8211; not just according to me but also according to several soldiers who know more about war than I do.

Knowing what you're talking about and parroting other people are different things. You DONT know, and so you parrot.

According to www.dictionary.com, to parrot is to repeat or imitate, especially without understanding. I understand about what I am saying because I have read about it and educated myself about it. I am not parroting but I am providing links that support my contention that the soldiers were inadequately supplied.

Stating that you are parroting isnt a personal attack.

Okay. Then stick to criticizing the lines that I&#8217;m supposedly parroting. Calling someone a parrot &#8211; criticizing the person, as opposed to sticking to criticizing the person&#8217;s comments &#8211; is, by definition, a personal attack. Have I called you names or have I merely responded to your comments?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How sensitive, compassionate and courageous of you.

Next time it comes up, tell somone this:
"Really, ma'am, I'm sorry your boy died in Iraq - but do you know how many people would suffer if we didn't invade? Surely, you can see that your baby isnt THAT important".

It is, after all, your position.

Lifes a bitch, hey M14? So...got that mental and emotional maturity yet?

Ahh yes, I will consider this approach as soon as you Larkinn start telling families of dead car accident victims that their deaths were necassary to ensure our economic growth and economic life line. DEAL?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Matt? What happened to that " Bush and his Lacky's" part?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wow. Someone else has posted what I have said word-for-word. Perhaps I should have copyrighted my statements.

Or, you could just be hoinest and admit that you;re following the party line.

If we are to change regimes we work on the most serious and cruel ones. We do not have the resources to go everywhere or even bother with the most insignificant places. I have yet to see what makes Iraq more important than North Korea or China.

You are answering your own question here.
NK and China are a FAR different animal than Iraq. Since we DO have limited resources, we need to go after the tyrants that we can take out.
So, unless you want to argue that we have the resources to take down the Chinese government...

Look. The bottom line is that they were not issued with enough armor.

They were, except in the opinions of people that, for whatever reason, think that combat support and combat service troops, before the war, should have the same armor (and amrored vehicles) as combat troops.

Why do you think that?
Why do you think that, before the war, EVERY soldier and EVERY vehicle should have had armor at the same level as that provided for combat troops?
What % of a division is made of combat troops?

The soldiers were there. They were in the field. They are in the know. They say that the needed more armor.

Yes. AFTER the situation evoled into one were support troops were exposed to direct combat.
Tell me: What happened after this need developed?

According to www.dictionary.com, to parrot is to repeat or imitate, especially without understanding. I understand about what I am saying because I have read about it and educated myself about it. I am not parroting...

Keep thinking that.
Meanwhile, your stock talking-point answers to these issues will show otherwise.

 

[mattskramer]

There are far too many quotes from Dems/liberals describing the threat and the need to do something to post them all. You'll have to settle for these:

Very few, if any of them specifically say that we should declare war on Iraq. That is what I was looking for. Anyway, these Democrats were wrong too.

This is predicated on your idea that we were not "sufficiently directed to the preparedness for the Iraq War and its aftermath". You'll have to show that to be true. You'll especially have to explain how we should have been prepared for unforseen developments.

Okay. I’m sorry but you lost me there. Many soldiers complain about having insufficient armor and supplies. Rumsfeld even implies that supplies are insufficient or not readily available. Doesn’t that show that they were not prepared? What was an unforeseen development? I know that we can’t see into the future but I would think that anyone going to war should have more than enough armor. He should realize that the enemy might have many IED’s or other weapons. It does not take a military scientist to consider and prepare for such things.

YOU seem to think that EVERY soldier and EVERY vehicle should have armor at the same level as that provided for combat troops.
Why?

The soldiers seemed to think so. Before any vehicle goes into territory where there might be hostilities, it should be fully armored. It is as simple as that.

 

[Larkinn]

Ahh yes, I will consider this approach as soon as you Larkinn start telling families of dead car accident victims that their deaths were necassary to ensure our economic growth and economic life line. DEAL?

It was a parody of something M14 said. Don't involve yourself when you don't understand whats going on. I was pointing out how utterly idiotic and hypocritical that pov was.