US troops call for Iraq pullout by GinoBiffaroni

"More than 200 men and women from the United States armed services have joined a protest calling for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, organisers say."

They should be fired from the jobs they volunteered for..READ what I just wrote...Again.....Again....once more....Well, it's true.......

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 6:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"More than 200 men and women from the United States armed services have joined a protest calling for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, organisers say."

They should be fired from the jobs they volunteered for..READ what I just wrote...Again.....Again....once more....Well, it's true.......

The way I see it, they volunteered to protect and defend their country, if the policys of your government are creating more of a threat than would exist otherwise, and to no end.....

Wouldn't that make your government the enemy they really volunteered to fight ?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 6:41 PM

You are talking about 200 soldiers, let them be given a dishonorable discharge. Cindy sheehan needs company....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:16 PM

MISSTRESSAHARA

Y'know, I wasn't born during the Vietnam war and never really understood the harshness and total idiocy of that war, or the disregard people had for the soldiers that were sent over there and then basically abandoned by everyone when they were made scapegoats for the failure of Nixon and his government.

Now I do.

If I'm a bitch, then life just got interesting

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:39 PM

Such narrow mindedness...

Take a step back and see what's going on. You can't see the forest for the trees.

"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Misstressahara:
Y'know, I wasn't born during the Vietnam war and never really understood the harshness and total idiocy of that war, or the disregard people had for the soldiers that were sent over there and then basically abandoned by everyone when they were made scapegoats for the failure of Nixon and his government.

Now I do.

If I'm a bitch, then life just got interesting

Hunh?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 8:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Misstressahara:
I...never really understood the harshness and total idiocy of that war, or the disregard people had for the soldiers that were sent over there...

Now I do.

Hunh?

What misstressahara is saying, Kaneman, is that your comments reveal a disturbing callousness for the women and men who are fighting, bleeding and dying because of the incompetence of President Bush and his cronies. She is saying that you don't really care about their well-being, you just want some vague military goal to be accomplished. She's saying too many people feel the same way.

She's right.

"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:53 AM

"Kaneman, is that your comments reveal a disturbing callousness for the women and men who are fighting, bleeding and dying because of the incompetence of President Bush and his cronies."

Wrong, women and men are dying because they are protecting America from terrorists and the extremists in the Muslim religion(shit I'll say it). This massive wave(200 traitors) joined a volunteer army, many after the war was started. What I am saying is give them a dishonorable discharge. Instead of whining about the president, they should be thanking the president. Never before have so few soldiers died in a conflict this large(Afghanistan / Iraq). And for that they should thank their lucky stars...They didn't join the boy-scouts, things could be a lot worse.....

PS
The army isn't run by political polls. You fight when congress and the president says to. Your political beliefs mean zilch.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:26 AM

Kaneman can't see the trees because he cut them down.

I still believe a withdrawal from Iraq will be a disaster. Some more heads need to roll to prove to the Iraqis we aren't torture central, and also, we need to stop being torture central. But we shouldn't just be handing Iraq back to the strongest hand that wants it.

I've gotten to the point where I think if Iran invades and conquers with the backing of communist china, that would actually be one of the better end scenarios that is likely to transpire after we leave.

It's important to bear in mind that the Iraqi people are intelligent, resourceful, and very familiar with democracy. They know that they want it, and they suspect that we don't have it. Their leaders are constantly trying to take it away from them, even now, even in the new Iraqi govt.

We should support the Iraqis in this, because we owe them that, at the very least. We should not throw them to the wolves just because "we might get hurt" and make no mistake: this is the motivation. I read it everywhere the cut and run appears. "so many americans have been killed" What did people think would happen when we went to war? Do we think america is invincible? You start a war and someone gets killed.

If you take the more moral argument "so many iraqis have been killed" isn't going to lead you to the cut and run position. We need a better strategy, but Iraqis might get slaughtered when we leave, because there's no end of people who want that oil, and without a strong defense, Iraq doesn't stand a chance.

I'm not saying that Bush is doing a bang up job, except in the sense that Iraq is a train wreck, or that Obama will do a better job because if he follows the advice of his new friends, he won't. But a better job must be done. No job fails to qualify under the heading of a better job

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 5:02 AM

Double post

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 5:08 AM

"Kaneman can't see the trees because he cut them down."

Don't know about you, but I like using toilet paper. What do you use your sleeve?

Love always kaneman

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 5:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
...women and men are dying because they are protecting America from terrorists and the extremists in the Muslim religion(shit I'll say it).

I thought it was WMDs? No, wait, it's removing a tyrant, right? No, it's defeating extremists who, just five years ago were a tiny fringe group of wackos. Now, there are countries full of Muslims who think we want to destroy them. And we're not fighting them, we're rallying them, we're creating them.

And what about the other 30 odd tyrants around the world, some of which actually have WMDs?

Quote:
This massive wave (200 traitors) joined a volunteer army, many after the war was started.

Bet it's more than 200 now...

Quote:
The army isn't run by political polls. You fight when congress and the president says to. Your political beliefs mean zilch.

Honestly, I couldn't agree more. However, this "war" goes way beyond the simple political disaster it has become. It is illegal. By our own laws, by international laws, it is illegal.

"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:47 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"Instead of whining about the president, they should be thanking the president.

"Thank you for sending us out to die for a constantly shifteing, and totally bullshit reason, Sir!"

Yeah, great plan.

And, if it's such a righteous war... why havn't you enlisted again?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:57 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
The website allows service members to sign the appeal that will be presented to members of Congress. Organisers said the number of signatories had climbed from 65 to 219 since the appeal was posted a few days ago and Wednesday when it was publicly launched.

Wow, 219, out of 140,000.

Make that 220. Guess they don't check to see if your really in the military or if your name is real.

Hey everybody! Go sign the fake petition.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:34 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey there Zero - did you crawl away from the M J Fox thread to expose yourself over here?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:13 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Wow, 219, out of 140,000.

Make that 220. Guess they don't check to see if your really in the military or if your name is real.

Hey everybody! Go sign the fake petition.

It's ammusing to me that someone who's closest contact with the military is sitting on his arse watching TV scream "Yeah we got the bad guys! we got 'em good!" would think they no the first thing about it.

Just keep 'em comin' 'Hero'.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:40 AM

You know there are more than that out there... they are afraid of retribution, they haven't heard about it, they don't have access to the internet. It may turn out to be just a couple of hundred GIs, but then again, it may not.

"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:43 AM

I'm replying to my own message... sad.

Where do you guys find these numbers? I don't see it anywhere. And is there any way to know if they're real soldiers signing the petition?

"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 12:53 PM

CITIZEN

Because they have to submit personal information that proves whether or not they are in the military

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 6:55 PM

First of all

Next,

my sister works at the va, she sees thousands of vets coming back from iraq.

The majority do not support a cut and run policy, but neither does a majority support bush. I get the feeling that a powell coup would be fine with them. They're certainly not happy with the present order. If that helps the democrats in the election, than sobeit.

But I'm sick of all this pandering political positioning that people do around elections, and while I'm at it, the rest of the time as well. Let's be honest about the situation. Rummy and co made a mess of this war. It could have been done a lot worse. It wasn't the worst idea of all time, but it was a pretty bad one. The went in with about the amount of plan and care that bonnie and clyde would rob a bank with, or perhaps a great deal less. Now they are in the bank, scared kids with guns, and everything is chaos all around them.

The situation needs new leadership on a much larger scale than just a change of goons in the oval office. It needs a new alliance. Maybe we should bring Iran in. Offer a cooperative partnership to stablize Iraq. Nuclear program? Oil? who cares. We need help, they are there and have the resources to do it, and no one else fits that bill. They would ask for something in return, like a simple "we do this, and you don't attack us" and we should take it. Time to get off our high horses, gain a little humility and admit that we are in over our heads. It doesn't mean we need to stick our tail between our legs and skedattle, but it does mean that we can't go on all barrow gang and expect a happy ending.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 5:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
First of all

The situation needs new leadership.... Maybe we should bring Iran in.... We need help, they are there and have the resources to do it, and no one else fits that bill.

This is exactly the kind of creative, out-of-the-box thinking that is simply beyond the abilities of the current president. We're stuck until somebody pushes him hard enough. Maybe next week, if the democrats can harness some of the unhappiness out there.

"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 6:36 AM

CORNCOBB

Quote:

The army isn't run by political polls. You fight when congress and the president says to. Your political beliefs mean zilch.

You say this like it's a good thing. It's not. The people in power don't automatically know best.
Ever heared of conscientious objection? I doubt these people are protesting because they're not willing to risk their own lives. It's a moral issue. You talk about how few soldiers have died in Iraq. Have you looked at the civilian death toll? Or do you just not care?
These protestors have my support. They're brave to go up against the government on this.

"Gorramit Mal... I've forgotten my line."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 12:52 PM

This is a touchy subject for me because I’m in the Army. I haven’t deployed yet, but I most likely will within the year. I have had many friends serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Personally, I believe that these individuals have the right to legally petition their government representatives, although I do not agree with their request for “Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq”. So long as it does not effect their ability to serve as soldiers, let them protest. My political beliefs are very different from those of the current administration’s, but that hasn’t hindered my capacity to function at the best of my abilities. I don’t think that a veteran voicing their desire for the war to end is unpatriotic or worthy of scorn.

What concerns me is the detachment with which many civilians treat soldiers. Yes, we volunteered to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, but that does not entail turning off our minds or happily subjecting ourselves to undue abuse. The Army is currently being over-worked, with active units being deployed after only seven to ten months of stateside rotation – the standard is one year. Minimum. People are having four months tacked on at the end of their tours. This is wreaking havoc on families. Training schedules and standards are suffering. The Army is rushing to train up green recruits so they won’t get themselves killed once their in a combat zone. Equipment is wearing out. People who have completed their service obligations are being forced to stay in longer.

In addition to this, while “few” soldiers have died, the numbers of wounded have risen dramatically and these are not veterans who are leaving with just a few scars. These are individuals who have suffered serious trauma, missing multiple limbs or eyesight or mental facilities. And shamefully, the Army is cutting these people loose with substandard benefits, denying adequate long-term treatment and financial aid, because it all comes down to dollars these days.

Political rhetoric and finger-pointing aside, I understand and sympathize with those soldiers who come forward demanding that the war end immediately because it is, quite possibly, killing the military. And it’s very easy for many people to hide behind the shield of “you people volunteered”. I can see why some would think “not for this” and say that this war is not worth the toll that it is taking on the soldiers.

And a lot of soldiers are very pissed off at how the civilian side has interfered with operations from the get go. Most soldiers I know don’t “support” this war, but they’ll fight it. They have the right (within UCMJ/all other relevant laws) to voice their opinions about it.

If you can't do something smart, do something right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 12:58 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"More than 200 men and women from the United States armed services have joined a protest calling for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, organisers say."

They should be fired from the jobs they volunteered for..READ what I just wrote...Again.....Again....once more....Well, it's true.......

The way I see it, they volunteered to protect and defend their country, if the policys of your government are creating more of a threat than would exist otherwise, and to no end.....

Wouldn't that make your government the enemy they really volunteered to fight ?

Actually, the oath they take is something like this: I (name) do solemly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegience to the same...etc, etc...

They don't swear to protect and defend their country.

Now saying that. A military member is not and should not be involved in politics. The member signed the paperwork. If they don't want to fight they should go for CO status. It is the job that they agreed to. Do I like it? NO Would I want my kids to do it? NO

WE the citizens of this country should be the ones protesting and ending this war. Military members have more important things to consider like staying alive.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 1:05 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Zisker

WELL said!

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 2:32 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by Zisker:

In addition to this, while “few” soldiers have died, the numbers of wounded have risen dramatically and these are not veterans who are leaving with just a few scars. These are individuals who have suffered serious trauma, missing multiple limbs or eyesight or mental facilities.

I remember a vet telling me once that 1 KIA requires the work of 1 other ordinary military person to deal with the results: grave registration, shipment of the body, paperwork, benefits, etc.; but that it takes 5 others, highly skilled, to deal with one wounded: corpmen, ambulance drivers, helicopter pilots, doctors, nurses, therapists, etc.

And the seriously wounded will be a burden on society for a very long time-- years, even lifetime.

The figure for wounded is a more serious cost than the loss of KIA, but it's messier and uglier, and not as dramatic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:10 PM

Quote:

This is exactly the kind of creative, out-of-the-box thinking that is simply beyond the abilities of the current president.

Citizen, Thanks. I think the only good thing that could come of a democratic takeover re: the world political situation is that they might impeach bush and we could get powell as his replacement. I think Hillary will do everything in her power to see that this doesn't happen.

Quote:
And a lot of soldiers are very pissed off at how the civilian side has interfered with operations from the get go.

Zisker,

Sure, no argument. My point is that though americans may feel they have been set up to be knocked down, the iraqis are much more in that position. If we drop out of this conflict, they might get slaughtered. In your opinion, what do you think we owe the Iraqis?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:33 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
http://www.appealforredress.org/
US troops call for Iraq pullout

Wednesday 25 October 2006, 21:50 Makka Time, 18:50 GMT

About 140,000 US soldiers are currently serving in

More than 200 men and women from the United States armed services have joined a protest calling for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, organisers say...

Gino. What's the source of the information you posted? The Appeal for Redress site doesn't have it, and in fact doesn't provide much info at all.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 5:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

My point is that though americans may feel they have been set up to be knocked down, the iraqis are much more in that position. If we drop out of this conflict, they might get slaughtered. In your opinion, what do you think we owe the Iraqis?

You know, that's a very complicated question. I've heard two kinds of stories coming out of Iraq: One is that the Iraqis are great people working hard to get their country back together. The other is that they'll say anything to get their shot at the American dollars being put into public project funds. In reality, there's probably a mix, but until I go over there and see the situation for myself, I don't think that I can give a well-informed opinion on what we owe to the Iraqis. I'm also not sure how much I can get in depth on a public board before I'm running the risk of violating any OPSEC (they're very careful with that these days), so I apologize for being so vague. I hope that made sense.

And there's the seperation between what the US military owes Iraq, what the US government owes Iraq and what America/the World owes Iraq.

And at what point do we stop owing? If the situation is still "imminent violence", but 95% of the population wants all foreign troops to leave, should we do that?

That question is, of course, far beyond my pay grade (and one that I've been pondering for some time).

If you can't do something smart, do something right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 29, 2006 7:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"More than 200 men and women from the United States armed services have joined a protest calling for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, organisers say."

They should be fired from the jobs they volunteered for..READ what I just wrote...Again.....Again....once more....Well, it's true.......

The way I see it, they volunteered to protect and defend their country, if the policys of your government are creating more of a threat than would exist otherwise, and to no end.....

Wouldn't that make your government the enemy they really volunteered to fight ?

Actually, the oath they take is something like this: I (name) do solemly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegience to the same...etc, etc...

They don't swear to protect and defend their country.

Now saying that. A military member is not and should not be involved in politics. The member signed the paperwork. If they don't want to fight they should go for CO status. It is the job that they agreed to. Do I like it? NO Would I want my kids to do it? NO

WE the citizens of this country should be the ones protesting and ending this war. Military members have more important things to consider like staying alive.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

But, if the government is systematicly making the country less safe to no clear end.... don't it become that domestic enemy mentioned in the oath, and action to defend against it required ?

" Fighting them at their own game
Murder for freedom the stab in the back
Women and children and cowards attack

Run to the hills run for your lives "

http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/ironmaiden/liveafterdeath.html#12

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 29, 2006 7:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
http://www.appealforredress.org/
US troops call for Iraq pullout

Wednesday 25 October 2006, 21:50 Makka Time, 18:50 GMT

About 140,000 US soldiers are currently serving in

More than 200 men and women from the United States armed services have joined a protest calling for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, organisers say...

Gino. What's the source of the information you posted? The Appeal for Redress site doesn't have it, and in fact doesn't provide much info at all.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=
2006-10-25T180751Z_01_N25371819_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ-USA-CAMPAIGN.xml

" Fighting them at their own game
Murder for freedom the stab in the back
Women and children and cowards attack

Run to the hills run for your lives "

http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/ironmaiden/liveafterdeath.html#12

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 29, 2006 2:48 PM

FMF,
"Actually, the oath they take is something like this: I (name) do solemly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegience to the same...etc, etc..."

Ah semantics,

This means what? They will protect their country as the President and Congress sees necessary. Shit defend the constitution, come on. We have Supreme court justices who can't agree on what the constitution is, means, or contains..never mind 340,000 soldiers deciding and defending it...The rest of your post I agree with.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 29, 2006 3:06 PM

"But, if the government is systematicly making the country less safe to no clear end.... don't it become that domestic enemy mentioned in the oath, and action to defend against it required ?"

No. That being said, the question is based on a fallacy to begin with, and shouldn't be answered by anyone. We are safer now. We were attacked all through out the Clinton years right up to going into Afghanistan and Iraq, since then..zilch. Been awhile, right? Fences going up, Patriot act, and taking the war to the Islamofacists makes for a much safer country. The way terrorists were getting more brazen with each attack(USS Cole, embassies, trade center one, 9-11) I can't imagine what would have happened had we not gone into Afghanistan. Now you worry about us pissing them off. They were already coming to destroy America. We said nope, take these cruise missiles and wash em down with the soles of our boots. We twisted up the American flag, wet the tip, and snapped the Middle East in the left ass check with it. We're good like that. Actually, come to think about it, we are the only country that can do shit like that. Damn it's great to be an American......Well, it's true.........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 29, 2006 3:16 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
They were already coming to destroy America.

According to this, America's been the target since the 50s.

http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/february/presence.php

---
"What the world needs now is love, sweet love - it's the only thing that there's just too little of. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. No, not just for some, but for everyone."

http://richlabonte.net/tvvote

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 29, 2006 3:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Quote:
They were already coming to destroy America.

According to this, America's been the target since the 50s.

http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/february/presence.php

---
"What the world needs now is love, sweet love - it's the only thing that there's just too little of. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. No, not just for some, but for everyone."

http://richlabonte.net/tvvote

Anyone care to discuss the reasons why the US is a target ?

Perhaps their has been no attacks within the US... lately, but attacks against your troops and dwindling supporters have been quite effective.

Withdrawing your troops is one thing, but the only way to make your country safe is to rethink the way you deal with others, and in this Democrat or Republican you country has been equally bad.

We only have South and Central American trying to form a coalition to limit your interference... But hey Chavez is crazy

Old Europe stuck in a past where they don't follow your orders

China, well China is laughing their many collective asses off as you lose face and treasure , and hand it off to them.

But hey, Mission Acomplished

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 29, 2006 3:53 PM

"South and Central American trying to form a coalition to limit your interference"
*chuckle*

"China, well China is laughing their many collective asses off as you lose face and treasure"
*giggle*

"Old Europe stuck in a past where they don't follow your orders"
*yawn*

Tissue anyone? Or an umbrella for that falling sky?...Do you believe this GB? If you do...Sorry.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 29, 2006 4:44 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
Anyone care to discuss the reasons why the US is a target ?

The United States is the ultimate representation of the New World, and this is the heart of everything bad (according to the man they profiled in the article). It's not necessarily because of how we act, but because of who we are, and what America means to these fanatics (yes, I am using that term correctly). I'm not sure if this is precisely from the article, but those men believe that the height of civilization was sometime during the Middle Ages, or maybe even before. Because America, the titan of industrialization and modernization (in their eyes, and most everybody else's), it is their main target. If, for example, The United Kingdom was the one (publicaly) leading the way for modernization, the terrorists may have attacked them instead.

Modernism, at least for Sayyid Qutb, represents the ultimate in "barbarism" - and, the United States represents the ultimate in modernism.

At least, that's the conclusion my dad and I came to...

---
"What the world needs now is love, sweet love - it's the only thing that there's just too little of. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. No, not just for some, but for everyone."

http://richlabonte.net/tvvote

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 29, 2006 7:10 PM

Yingyang,
"At least, that's the conclusion my dad and I came to..."

Did you and dad also come to the conclusion that this guy is a little light upstairs?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 29, 2006 7:45 PM

ANTIMASON

deciding whether we should pull out of Iraq or stay, to me.. is kind of like being given the option to cut off either your arm or leg. its time we all realize there is no "winning" for us, the common man, in this 'war', since every war and 'conflict' is engineered to further a political agenda; there is just no winning within the system, its already controlled. the war in Iraq from the very beginning was a pre-conceived political agenda masked in fraudelant intelligence and funded by corportations and american financial interests. if you want to know why, its probably because the middle east is not entirely under the control of the elite cabal puppetmasters of the western governments. we are actually decieving the Arabs and co-opting their existing power structures. that doesnt prevent "terrorism", that is terrorism. it is hypocritical for us to wage a 'war on terror' in that part of the world, against purported "Islamic fascism" when we ourselves are a fascist nation. America is fascist, we put capitalism ahead of all else, and we cling to a globalist mindset that IS fascist. the elite proponants of this globalist idealogy, the Bushs and Clintons and Kissingers and Rockefellers..like the rest of the bilderberg members, are the real terrorists that had the motive to set up 9/11; they are the only ones who could harness the media to sell us the offical lie(s), and then lead us by the nose into a war(of even more lies/destruction). why anyone chooses to associate themselves with those criminals, the ones really perpetrating war and injustice on innocent people.. is beyond me

the best thing the people of the world could possibly do is to recognize the role that governments have played traditionally in sponsoring terrorism AGAINST THEIR OWN CITIZENS as a means of furthering the political or financial gain of a super affluent fraction of a minority of the overall populace. there are actually real problems in the world like famine and disease and environmental degradation.. but no legitimate campaign or effort will ever be raised, because instead we get more of the same killing and murder, done willingly, by the brainwashed public, to advance what is obviously the establishment status quo. in Iraq all we're really supporting is a political coup consisting of lies upon lies, to expand the networks of societal control, SIMPLY masquarading as a 'liberation', so as to fool the profane. im sorry that soldiers and citizens have to be sacrificed for these agendas that only really benefit the elite, who just see us as cattle, sheep, and pigs at a feeding traugh

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 2:50 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
http://www.appealforredress.org/
More than 200 men and women from the United States armed services have joined a protest calling for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, organisers say.

The soldiers said they did not think it was worth their while to be in Iraq and questioned the use of repeated tours of duty.

The campaign, called the Appeal for Redress from the War in Iraq, takes advantage of defence department rules allowing active duty troops to express personal opinions to politicians without fear of retaliation.

I got a little curious about an organization with a Washington D.C. PO box for an address, a Washington State phone number, and no names listed as officers, founders, members, etc.

Google listed 31,700 hits for "Appeal for Redress". Most were similar to te Reuters article. One was this: http://www.mudvillegazette.com/milblogs/2006/10/27/#006854

Quote:
Yesterday, a company that does public relations for the liberal activist political action committee MoveOn.org, Fenton Communications, organized a conference call for reporters and three active-duty soldiers to unveil the soldiers' anti-war group Appeal for Redress.
...A staff member at Fenton Communications who requested anonymity said his company was approached last week by a longtime peace activist and former director of the anti-nuclear proliferation front known as SANE/Freeze, David Cortright, to publicize Appeal for Redress. Mr. Cortright is now president of an Indiana-based nonprofit group, the Fourth Freedom Forum, and his biography on the organization's Web site says he helped raise "more than $300,000 for the Win Without War coalition to avert a preemptive attack on Iraq in 2002–03."

Without going into the motives behind Appeal for Redress, or suggesting that this type of spin resides on one side only, it seems to be less a grassroots movement and more a contrived media event.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 3:42 PM

Quote:

And at what point do we stop owing? If the situation is still "imminent violence", but 95% of the population wants all foreign troops to leave, should we do that?

I suspect we should probably do whatever brings that violence down, one step at a time. I suspect that would mean redeploying to borders, and to internal ethnic boundaries, and to guard reconstruction projects and official govt. offices, police, etc.

Some people think a pull out would be the answer, I think that someone would have to prove that that would reduce the violence of the situation.

imho

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 3:47 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
FMF,
"Actually, the oath they take is something like this: I (name) do solemly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegience to the same...etc, etc..."

Ah semantics,

This means what? They will protect their country as the President and Congress sees necessary. Shit defend the constitution, come on. We have Supreme court justices who can't agree on what the constitution is, means, or contains..never mind 340,000 soldiers deciding and defending it...The rest of your post I agree with.

It is not semantics when the point of the post was to state that they (the military) do NOT take an oath to defend this country. They take an oath to defned the constitution. Big difference. And I never said they decide what that means, but the general public needs to understand that there is a difference.

As for agreeing with the rest of my post, now I have to go read it to see where I could have gone wrong.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 4:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I suspect we should probably do whatever brings that violence down, one step at a time. I suspect that would mean redeploying to borders, and to internal ethnic boundaries, and to guard reconstruction projects and official govt. offices, police, etc.

Some people think a pull out would be the answer, I think that someone would have to prove that that would reduce the violence of the situation.

imho

Roger, but the fact is that they're already trying to do that and the troops are stretched too thin. My analysis of the situation is that the military will not be granted the resources it needs to fully "reduce the violence of the situation" simply because we were never given the resources we requested to begin with and now we're very far behind the power curve. And it's not because of anything the Army is doing, it's because of the way that the civilian government ordered us to war (ex. Rumsfeld v. Shinseki).

Now, all "best intentions" aside, eventually the government is going to go "to hell with it" because they know that they want an Army around for the next time something comes up. And the truth is that between the back-breaking deployment schedule (and let's be honest, not a one of them will ever try a draft over Iraq. It'd be political suicide and the public would never stand for it) and benefit slashing, retention is getting harder and harder. Recruiting is a problem as well, but the destruction of the professional soldier core due to demands that can not be justified is, in my opinion, the biggest problem facing the Army right now. Because, as many are quick to point out, we are all volunteers - but that doesn't mean we'll volunteer over and over for this kind of treatment. When you spend thirty months out of thirty-eight months in the military deployed in a war zone . . .that makes most people think twice about trying to go career.

It's more likely that the government will withdraw the Army (declaring victory, I'm sure) from Iraq not because peace and stability has been established, but because the military has been exhausted along with the budget. Politicians are far too pragmatic and masters of the fine art of self-preservation to allow sentimentalism about the state of a people whom they will never see face-to-face to overcome their "long-term" visions and goals.

But, hey, what do I know?

If you can't do something smart, do something right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 5:37 PM

Zisker,

sure. i see that. i think it would take allies. i think upping us forces straight would be a mistake because some desk jockey would divert them to iran or syria to start a new war if the force got large enough. Besides, as you said, unlikely scenario.

earlier i suggested bringing in iran as an ally, which wasn't actually my idea, one of our generals in the field came up with it, and the iraqi govt, our command and some guys from iran started discussing it and the desk jockeys and agenda monkeys killed the idea.

If the iraqi forces got up there, they could help, but that's not going to happen because the recruits weren't sufficiently guarded, and got attacked, and now no one wants to sign up, understandably. at least, that's how it appears from here.

i don't share your optimism that there will be no draft. I think the dems might do it, they keep failing to promise not to. But it will be a subdued draft, like you have to sign up to get welfare or pell grants or something. but i think a draft will also be a disaster. just as it would be great to have 500,000 guys to complete the mission, it would be a disaster to have some loon send them into iran to attack a nuclear site or something. and a draft is a blank check, it can become millions.

I think part of the problem is that the civilian leadership is finding too much for the military to do and not staying focused. given the set of circumstances, they should have narrowed in on one thing, like 'kurdistan' rather than all of afgh, iraq, with an eye on syria, iran, missions over pakistan, talk of africa, lebanon, NK. It's overkill. I take the argument "saddam was a threat to the kurds," sure, is a fine one. focus would've helped. shoulda woulda coulda though, we're where we are now.

you make some very good points. i think this all goes back to aristotles rants about why democracy is doomed back some 2500 years ago. It probably *could* work, but not the way it is now.

Picture a scenario like this: what if the govt. was allowed to determine the agenda, but it ended there. Like the guys in washington said "we want to displace saddam hussein and replace him with a democratically elected govt" and that was as far as they could say, and then the military got to decide the how why and when of what they should do to accomplish that goal. would that work?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 5:52 PM

"i think this all goes back to aristotles rants about why democracy is doomed back some 2500 years ago"

What should we do smart ass? I'll sit here with my hand on my puss 'till you come up with something better than our democracy...really, what? I know what you really want, you coward...say it!!!! You are, as Soupcatcher said.."full of shit"..You are all about the conspiracy...sucks to be you...or your parents...Well, it's true......

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 11:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Picture a scenario like this: what if the govt. was allowed to determine the agenda, but it ended there. Like the guys in washington said "we want to displace saddam hussein and replace him with a democratically elected govt" and that was as far as they could say, and then the military got to decide the how why and when of what they should do to accomplish that goal. would that work?

The military is only supposed to determine the tactical ways to accomplish that mission. In Iraq, that would have been:

1. Remove Saddam from power.
2. Secure the country so he can be replaced with a democratic government. (And, if we're pretending it's March 2003, locate and neutralize WMDs)
3. Support further specified actions to accomplish the end-state of a democratic Iraq.

At that point, the State Department steps in with their plan (which they had been working on for years, but got thrown out a month before the invasion by Rumsfeld and the Dept. of Defense) and the military supports it. In return for ordering the military into action, the government should give the military the support it needs.

Would it work? Well, as it hasn't happened I wouldn't know. I believe it would have gone a lot better if the Army had been permitted to deploy the initial number of troops it deemed required to secure the country.

But I will bet you my next two paychecks that there will be no draft. The civilian population would not support it and the military DOES NOT want it. The protest movement of the Vietnam-era would look like child's play compared to what would result from an Iraq Draft.

Democracy (or any democracy-based system) is doomed where ever people are not willing to work for it and defend it from those who would bastardize its system (which is highly susceptible to manipulation) for their own benefit. And no, I don't mean "defend" in the military sense. Of course, America has never been a democracy in the literal sense, which is probably a good thing. Aristotle was writing about a form of government very different from our own. But that's an entirely different discussion and we've rather gotten off topic.

Back to my original point: If the troops who fight and suffer for the war want to protest, so long as they are doing it legally, they have every right to do so and I support them in exercising their rights as soldiers. If civilians can whine about what a crappy day they had at work, then somebody who's been in a war zone can darn well say they don't think it's worth it.

If you can't do something smart, do something right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 6:48 PM

zisker,

I don't doubt the will of the iraqi people to preserve their democracy. They were pining for it long before we got there. They've wanted it since 1919. The danger is that some *other* outside force will support a non-democratic or anti-democratic movement in iraq if we pull out. There are a fair number of powers in the world capable of subduing iraq who will do just about anything for oil

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 2:12 AM