The funny thing is that the press has been supporting Bush and the war. They have been very slow to report. This thing will turn when we have to start the draft again. But I am sure that won't happen until after the mid-term elections. If the neocons yell loud enough people will start believing them. As mentioned earlier by Kosar I think Pat Buccanon is coming off looking like the voice of reason next to these guys. And no one is hoping for failure in Iraq. The fact is that the mission, whatever it was, has failed. How do you guys feel about Al Sadr being one of the fathers of the Iraq Constitution? Why haven't we killed this murderer. Instead he is being asked for his input. That should tell you all you need to know about how this war is going. That should be plastered on the front page of every newspaper in the country.
Cleveland parents of dead soldier blast Bush
- Thread starter Master Capper
- Start date
Why is Mr. Bush insisting on a democracy in IRAQ ????
That will never ever happen. Who on earth is feeding Mr. Bush these pipe dreams ??
Would it be that crook Cheney ???
Mr. Bush is going to be very sorry at the end of his term that he ever set eyes on Dick Cheney and that when he leaves office that IRAQ will still be a mess.
Whatta shame, this will all be for nothing because you can't give these savages what they don't want. What makes Mr. Bush think that these scumbags want a democracy ???
Why is he forcing it on them ??? They don't want it !
Whatta hoax.
That will never ever happen. Who on earth is feeding Mr. Bush these pipe dreams ??
Would it be that crook Cheney ???
Mr. Bush is going to be very sorry at the end of his term that he ever set eyes on Dick Cheney and that when he leaves office that IRAQ will still be a mess.
Whatta shame, this will all be for nothing because you can't give these savages what they don't want. What makes Mr. Bush think that these scumbags want a democracy ???
Why is he forcing it on them ??? They don't want it !
Whatta hoax.
ocelot said:
ocelot said:
Your two posts reek of ignorance and racism. It's too bad we have a country full of dolts like yourself who are drunk off of their own egocentrism.
Last edited:
Since all you two guys do is bitch about the press, maybe you or gardenweasel could explain to the class exactly what we'd be doing differently if there was no such thing as the media?
how about a fair and balanced media Matt.
to put things into prespective--
Whether it be Viet Nam or Iraq it is utterly impossible to lose either of these wars on the battlefield--only way to lose either is thru politically motivated avenues.
how about a fair and balanced media Matt.
to put things into prespective--
Whether it be Viet Nam or Iraq it is utterly impossible to lose either of these wars on the battlefield--only way to lose either is thru politically motivated avenues.
Whether it be Viet Nam or Iraq it is utterly impossible to lose either of these wars on the battlefield--only way to lose either is thru politically motivated avenues.
Well that may be true for Vietnam, but to blame the media for the problems in Iraq is wrong as the blame should be placed on the doorstep of the administration for their failure to have a plan in place for the occupation of Iraq. If anything I feel that media was quite tame until recently and the lack of planning by the administration has a direct relation to the negative reporting now by the media.
Well that may be true for Vietnam, but to blame the media for the problems in Iraq is wrong as the blame should be placed on the doorstep of the administration for their failure to have a plan in place for the occupation of Iraq. If anything I feel that media was quite tame until recently and the lack of planning by the administration has a direct relation to the negative reporting now by the media.
DOGS THAT BARK said:
There IS no 'battlefield,' man! Come on. I've said it plenty of times before. Take a close look at the Russia-Afghan 'war,' and compare it to what we're going through. How was it possible for Russia not to seize/control that country in all those years? It sure as f*ck had nothing to do with 'politically motivated avenues.'
Just as they did, we grossly underestimated the power of religion and that's simply inexcusable.
This is what you choose not to understand. It doesn't matter that we have tanks and they have RPG's. It didn't matter that we had superior firepower in Vietnam. Those are types of wars that are not winnable. And the media has NOTHING to do with it.
Master Capper said:
That's true. The pandering to the admin that the media did at the beginning of this thing was striking. Nobody questioned ANYTHING.
LUX said:
He usually ignores questions the first couple of times. Even when he finally answers he doesn't really answer.
The russians got thier asses handed to them in Afghanistan, and for those of you who foolishly think the media had anything to do with it, I'm quite sure the Russians had the media well under control being a communist country.....
Superior force doesn't mean squat against a religious based resistance that blends in with the common population....
Send all the tanks you want into a "battlefield" that moves everyday, they send in a few suicide bombers and plant a few more roadside bombs. There is no end to this, this type of warfare can go on for decades regardless how superior your fighting force appears.
All the insurgents have to do is tie the forces down with a handful of attacks, the superior force gets repelled due to the enormous cost and the fact that no progress is made from the normal everyday routine of picking up after suicide bombers and cleaning up after roadside bombs.
All at $177 million a day.
Superior force doesn't mean squat against a religious based resistance that blends in with the common population....
Send all the tanks you want into a "battlefield" that moves everyday, they send in a few suicide bombers and plant a few more roadside bombs. There is no end to this, this type of warfare can go on for decades regardless how superior your fighting force appears.
All the insurgents have to do is tie the forces down with a handful of attacks, the superior force gets repelled due to the enormous cost and the fact that no progress is made from the normal everyday routine of picking up after suicide bombers and cleaning up after roadside bombs.
All at $177 million a day.
Sorry Lux 1st I'd say the New York Times/liberal media--my reasoning is Algazeera sure does and they as many reprint articles of our liberal media as they do themselves.2nd if we win in Iraq Bush wins and how many would hate to see that happen--if you think all this is unlikely let me remind you for the umpteenth time--they were protesting in Viet Nam for the welfare of troops and halting all the deaths of troops and civilians--but we know how troops were treated on their return and where was the wailing for the 1.5 million civilian casualties are withdrawal caused?????
Some of us still believe in the saying "Actions speak louder than words"
--"The russians got thier asses handed to them in Afghanistan,"
yep was there 10 years + also---How many DAYS did it take this administration to get job done??
Yes DJV O'reilly has been for Rumsfield resignation fo rover a year--can't say I agree with him but am luke warm on Rumsfield.
Some of us still believe in the saying "Actions speak louder than words"
--"The russians got thier asses handed to them in Afghanistan,"
yep was there 10 years + also---How many DAYS did it take this administration to get job done??
Yes DJV O'reilly has been for Rumsfield resignation fo rover a year--can't say I agree with him but am luke warm on Rumsfield.
Last edited:
Thanks Dogs that bark. I will agree with you regarding Algazeera. I think everyone would agree about the NYT leaning left, but I don't read that paper and don't remember hearing about them printing anything that would be considered "hoping" for failure. Now, I know they focus of the negative aspects of this war and never paint a pretty picture, but even with the good that is going on there, I have no hope for long-term success based on what I have studied and know about these people in general. Is there a link to a NYT story that would illustrate what you're saying? I was born in 71, so I don't remember anything about Vietnam and when those soldiers arrived home, but have always heard the stories of them being spit on, called murderers, etc. The reason I even asked you to clarify was because I've never heard any ill will towards the soldiers themselves from protesters, it's always been with the administration.
Personally, I don't think they approached this situation correctly and I think the best to do at this point is re-assess the war plan and plan our exit from Iraq. Do you think we have a big chance for success the ways things are going now? I don't understand how we even had a chance to win this war fighting it with this asinine "sensitivity to Islam". Why should we be sensitive to Islam? Is Islam sensitive to us or other people of the world? No! They are abhorrent mongrels who hate every non-Muslim in the world. In more than 95% of all violent conflicts in the world, Muslims are at the center. They are intolerant of everything and everyone. And so they should not receive our tolerance. Tolerance for Islam, is tolerance for death, bloodshed, murder, hatred, and violence.
Personally, I don't think they approached this situation correctly and I think the best to do at this point is re-assess the war plan and plan our exit from Iraq. Do you think we have a big chance for success the ways things are going now? I don't understand how we even had a chance to win this war fighting it with this asinine "sensitivity to Islam". Why should we be sensitive to Islam? Is Islam sensitive to us or other people of the world? No! They are abhorrent mongrels who hate every non-Muslim in the world. In more than 95% of all violent conflicts in the world, Muslims are at the center. They are intolerant of everything and everyone. And so they should not receive our tolerance. Tolerance for Islam, is tolerance for death, bloodshed, murder, hatred, and violence.
DOGS THAT BARK said:
If you consider the job being 'done' in either Afganistan or Iraq, then I don't know what else there is to say.
there a link to a NYT story that would illustrate what you're saying? I was born in 71
--how about 43 straights days with prison abuse story on front page page simultaneous with Algazeera. Don't you think 1 or 2 days like newsweek would do enough to turn Muslims and the world against our troops???
I got out of Viet Nam/Cambodia/service April 1st 1971
"If you consider the job being 'done' in either Afganistan or Iraq, then I don't know what else there is to say"
Matt my friend your beginning to stray from the center--If you want them to be like Germany it will probaly take as long or longer.
However when you have taken occupation of both Afgan and Iraq in matter of days each--set up democracy in each--and have their armys fighting with you--I would think even the most liberal of liberals would acknowledge that is at least a tad of an improvement over Russia's 10 year fiasco.
--how about 43 straights days with prison abuse story on front page page simultaneous with Algazeera. Don't you think 1 or 2 days like newsweek would do enough to turn Muslims and the world against our troops???
I got out of Viet Nam/Cambodia/service April 1st 1971
"If you consider the job being 'done' in either Afganistan or Iraq, then I don't know what else there is to say"
Matt my friend your beginning to stray from the center--If you want them to be like Germany it will probaly take as long or longer.
However when you have taken occupation of both Afgan and Iraq in matter of days each--set up democracy in each--and have their armys fighting with you--I would think even the most liberal of liberals would acknowledge that is at least a tad of an improvement over Russia's 10 year fiasco.
Last edited:
DOGS THAT BARK said:"If you consider the job being 'done' in either Afganistan or Iraq, then I don't know what else there is to say"
Matt my friend your beginning to stray from the center--If you want them to be like Germany it will probaly take as long or longer.
However when you have taken occupation of both Afgan and Iraq in matter of days each--set up democracy in each--and have their armys fighting with you--I would think even the most liberal of liberals would acknowledge that is at least a tad of an improvement over Russia's 10 year fiasco.
Do you really think we will leave these countries a peaceful, lasting democracy in either of those countries? Honestly, please. Because that is the very last thing that can possibly happen that can save this admins rep regarding this decision. I submit that it's not possible. I'm just being realistic.
As far as straying from center? Not sure what that means. That's another ridiculous sterotype, that if somebody is against a particular war, that makes them 'left' somehow.That makes no sense. I'd be every bit against this war if a democratic president handled it like this. So what would that make me then? I'd be against a war started by a leftie? Would those cancel each other out and make be back in the center?
Or what if I was in favor of a war started by a leftie? As we all know, you just HAVE to be conservative if you're in favor of a war. But i'd be aligning with the democrat. So what would that make me. Would it be a wash and put me back in the center again?
I was strongly in favor about invading Afghanistan. So in that case, I went along with the rightie admin AND I supported the war. Does that make me a conservative in that case?
Every situation is different and I don't simply accept what the government tells me, unlike some here.
You are so anxious to throw out labels that you don't really think about what you're saying sometimes.
I would say you have made me dizzy Kosar. LOL! This is one of the great weapons of the Hawks. To wrap themselves in the flag and say everyone who isn't with them is a commie or a socialist or something. It is as ridiculous an argument today as it was during that other useless war in Vietnam. We can stay in Iraq for 20 years and when we leave the outcome will be the same as if we left today. Same as Vietnam. Johnson and Nixon both prolonged that war and everybody saw what happened at the end. No one is hoping for failure. That is another stupid argument they throw out.
DOGS THAT BARK said:
Yes, I do think that was excessive and did stir the pot, but I think they hated us way before that incident. Just to further demonstrate who we are dealing with here, do you remember when Muslims barricaded themselves in a church and used pages of Bibles as toilet paper? Christians and westerners did not riot or burst out in rage. They did not call for death and execution. But when a single story of an alleged Koran being tossed in the toilet appears, Muslims go into animalistic rage. They riot and kill. They behave like unreasoning beasts - like mindless animals.
DOGS THAT BARK said:I got out of Viet Nam/Cambodia/service April 1st 1971
I was still baking in the oven. LOL!
Born on 9/8DOGS THAT BARK said:
I had no problem with going into Afghanistan like Kosar, or Iraq for that matter, based on what was presented at the time to the UN. I do not think that the administration lied, but were just going off of bad intelligence. The problem I have is with the plan of action here, I really think they underestimated what these people would do for their freedom. Our country worked in the beginning because we had the want and desire to be free. You talk about setting up the democracies, but I honestly don't think they would survive (in either country) without our help. I wish I was wrong because of the loss of life that has taken place in the war, but I just don't see it happening at this point. So, the 64k question, what do we do? I wish I knew. I know we can't leave tomorrow, but something has to change. Bottom line, I support all of our troops in both countries, but I think these war planners need to try something else to make this transition a bit smoother. My hopes for long-term success are very dim, but I hope I'm wrong.
StevieD said:
Obviously, we didn't achieve our objective in Vietnam and things aren't going the best in Iraq, but I think it is disrespectful and demeaning to the soldiers to call their efforts useless. They were/are only following orders and I respect them for their time and sacrifice.
Lux, I do not demean the soldiers. I demean those who sent them there. Don't fall for the trap that says you don't support the soldiers if you don't support the war. We can talk about the lack of a plan to protect our soldiers and we can talk about budget cuts for veterans and we can talk about a multitude of other issues including not preparing our soldiers with the proper armer. We will never know how many American soldiers lives the protesters saved. That is why we protest because we care about the soldiers.
The planning is what makes me sick. There are those that say things like we only lost 2000 men in Afghan and Iraq. Well one is to many. We go to Iraq with poor equipment. And some idea that want's the statue of Saddam was down the war was over. So stupid. And we took our eye of the real threat Bin and split the force by pulling men out of Afghan. Stupid again. And to keep coming up with different reasons why were in Iraq. Why they keep failing over and over with there reasons is stupid to.
We should not put our soldiers in harms way for B S. Afghan yes Iraq no.
We should not put our soldiers in harms way for B S. Afghan yes Iraq no.
Last edited:
I was kidding you on moving from the center matt--as I stated before I do not consider you far left by any means--we just have diff of opinion on some issues--and thats not bad.
---and yes I think it will be next to impossible to have free running democracies in either afgan or Iraq without internal presence of the west holding their hand for quite some time.
Many no win situations--Religious fantics being the biggest--and can't step on too many drug lords toes in afgan or they will throw in with the enemy. A very tough job but quite necessary in my opinion.
---and yes I think it will be next to impossible to have free running democracies in either afgan or Iraq without internal presence of the west holding their hand for quite some time.
Many no win situations--Religious fantics being the biggest--and can't step on too many drug lords toes in afgan or they will throw in with the enemy. A very tough job but quite necessary in my opinion.
