Iraq is a topic at Truman Days

Leo-

You can't tell me that soliders and marines who are on their 2nd, 3rd or even 4th tour aren't fatigued. Especially now with soldier's tours being extended. I am sure your son is doing his best as well as are his comrades in arms but to say that the army and marine corps are not fatigued and confused after four plus years of endless warfare is disingenuous.

b.e.l., my Marine nephew is on his 2nd tour in the sandbox, and he looks at it as a job that he volunteered for, that deserves to be finished and finished right. If the men (and women) over there were draftees, you might have a point, but they're all VOLUNTEERS. It's just like any task -- it's easier, and a whole lot cheaper, to do it right the first time as opposed to having to go back and do it over. I realize that's a concept that Liberals have a hard time grasping.

If anybody is confused and fatigued, it's senile old Murtha.

If you feel our Troops are confused and fatigued, ask them, not Murtha. Many are on their 3rd, 4th tours, WILLINGLY!!!!

Many may not like this war and use anything to denigrate it, but you get used to the idea that even if we withdraw, terrorists aren't. They will continue fighting and coming after us, as they have done some 15 times since 1979.

The left needs to make up their minds. It is time to get behind our Troops. The call for capitulation is only pleasing our enemies. And, if ya'll haven't figured it out yet, they hate you as much as they hate us.

Yes, our troops are confused.

By our media reporting that paints a worse picture here than what they see over there.

By Dems opposing the surge after they had previously complained there weren't enough troops in Iraq.

By Dems calling for a withdrawal timetable, a gift on a silver platter to Al Qaeda and other terrorists.

By Senator Reid being ready to give up on them.

Murtha and the other Dimocrats must have thought it was a day to dishonor our troops and bash Republicans instead of honoring Truman. Typical of all neorads. I am sure Truman would be ashamed and embarassed for his fellow party members.

My neighbor that is serving in Iraq is fatigued and fed up with the ranking command.

Yes, he volunteered because of 911, but now is tired of all the lies explaining there purpose. He is especially upset with the lies that Generals told about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillmen.

After 4 plus years, you would think that we would have some goals instead of the "we want to win" or "mission accomplished".

Not every soldier over there is proud of how the DoD is managing the war.

Rockville -- There were soldiers in World War II who saw their generals make absurd and incompetent decisions. Should we have abandoned that effort because of that?

Leo
Some advice for you. We all know that when people cannot complete in the realm of reasoned debate, they resort to name calling. You didn't even try to refute Murtha's claim (please don't tell me it's valid to draw conclusions from your sample of one). Instead you called Murtha bad names: "coward, seditionist, traitor...gasbag...windbag of slime...who speaks is his anal cavity"

I understand you're freaking out, but what's accomplished by a post that contains no argument, just name calling? Chill out, my friend. When you behave like this, it's too easy to dismiss you as a nutjob.

Not every soldier over there is proud of how the DoD is managing the war.

Rockville, this happens in every war, there are always some who complain and don't care for it. Funny thing is, they stay in (today, no draft, remember) and down the road tell the best war stories we ever heard.

As for your neighbor, if he is really thatf ed up, maybe he should use his ETS date and not reup. Again, no draft, no one is forced to serve.

If you really checked into numbers, I imagine you would find a whole lot more that can see what the goal is and desire to complete their mission. At least, the multitudes I discuss with at the VFW have no regrets and those still in desire to return.

Rockville, he's pissed off about the Lynch and Tillman lies? Sorry, but I just don't believe you. I think you're making it up. I've seen you people do that here before.

Tell us, what unit is he in? How long has he been in? His MOS? His rank? I'm sure you can google some answers.

Jonas, I gave up the "reasoned debate" thing with Murtha when he sold a number of Marines who patrolled Haditha up the river; without so much as receiving an official briefing; without so much as reading a report. All in the name of trying to curry political favor with the far-left whacked out base of his party.

Having a son in the military, in harm's way, along with a number of personal friends who are and/or have been in theater, I'm sure you can see why I take that jackass' actions personally.

He is persona non grata. He is not worthy of any respect, nor deference.

He is scum.

No amount of makeup could ever dress that pig.

Have I explained my position enough?

Rockville, funny how you just called him your neighbor, and not your friend. If he's just your neighbor and he's in Iraq, do you really talk to him that often? Does he write you letters? Or does he call you every once in a while? I have to admit, I'm a little sceptical.

Heck, I imagine that my dad was a bit confused and fatigued on Saipan in 1944...when you're getting shot at and fighting a long battle, you can get a bit worn out and disorientated from time to time.

Doesn't mean you surrender, though.

the difference of course being that WWII was a war forced on us by the Nazi's and Imperial Japan. Iraq was a war of CHOICE by Bush and his administration. A war of CHOICE

kblack, perhaps it was you Bob Kerrey was thinking of when he wrote The Left’s Iraq Muddle

Please explain, what "choice" is there after 9/11 and virtually the entire world fearing Saddam had WMD's that could fall into the hands of the terrorists? Should he have taken the chance and waited for another terrorist attack?

How many thousands of innocent citizens must die at the hands of terrorists before you leftists wake up? They started fighting us in 1979. No less than 15 attacks against our interests worldwide, twice on our own soil.

We can cut and run and then what? World Peace will follow? Don't bet on it. Terrorists don't sing, hum or dance to Kumbaya.

Please explain, what "choice" is there after 9/11 and virtually the entire world fearing Saddam had WMD's that could fall into the hands of the terrorists?

Posted by: Lew Waters at May 22, 2007 03:57 AM

It was known who was responsible for 9/ll almost immediately after the attack. Iraq was never mentioned. Only after the Bush administration started their campaign against Saddam did we hear about the WMD's and his harboring & conniving with the terrorists. If you can recall, there was such an atmosphere of fear prevalent then, anything the administration put forth was accepted with unquestionable faith. Of course, they were those few who saw through the fog and didn't buy what was being sold, but the majority of Americans did indeed purchase the whole bill of goods. Since then, the numbers have diminished substantially, although you still have a small percentage who, regardless of the truth, will desperately cling to the fantasy.

And, Lew, this belief that the whole world feared Saddam and his attacks on the West, well, you have to put that puppy to bed. If that had indeed been the case, then the U.S. would have been accompanied by numerous allies in their 'shock & awe' foray on Iraq.

Canadian Observer,

Your powers of observation are seriously lacking, or you are blinded by your terminal case of BDS. There were over 30 nations that participated as part of the coalition.

Why do you liberals always fall back on the "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" meme? You still don't get it do you? We are not just fighting those who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks (by the way, those who carried out the attacks are dead and those who planned and financed the attacks are either dead or in US custody). We are fighting the larger war against Islamist Fascists who seek to either force conversion to Islam, subjugation, or the death of all infidels (that would be most of us in the West). Iraq is the central front in that war. But the war is also being fought in Afghanistan, the Phillipines, and elsewhere around the world.

We are fighting against those regimes who are state sponsors of terrorism. Iraq, under Saddam, fell into that category. He paid terrorists to attack Israel. He provided haven and training to terrorists. He continued to ignore the UN resolutions requiring him to disarm and disclose his WMD weapons and programs.

With some of the regimes, like Iraq, military intervention is necessary. President Bush had the backing of two separate Congressional actions to justify invading Iraq. If Congress didn't want military intervention, then they shouldn't have passed the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act and the 2002 Authorization for the use of Force Against Iraq. And don't give me any crap about the President misleading Congress. He wasn't in office in 1998, Clinton was. So if any misleading was being done, it was being done by Slick Willie. In 2002, Congress had the same information that the President had. So did the general public. 12 years of violations of the Cease-Fire. 17 UN Resolutions that were ignored. Billions of dollars of bribes and payoffs to the UN and countries illegally dealing with Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis tortured, maimed, and murdered. US and UK aircraft being fired upon on an almost daily basis. Using WMD against his countrymen and the Iranians. There was no other country on the face of the Earth that had the litany of offenses that Saddam had committed.

With other terrorist supporting regimes, other methods are being used. So don't give me any crap about why we haven't invaded Saudi Arabia since they are alleged to be providing support to terrorists. Last time I checked, they weren't under 17 UN resolutions to disarm.

You do realize (or maybe you are blind to the facts) that Libya renounced terrorism and gave up its WMD programs after seeing what happened to Saddam. Looks like our policies resulted in another rogue country seeing the error of its ways.

I suppose you lilly-livered liberals would have wanted us to stop the Global War on Terror once those responsible for 9/11 were caught or killed. Exactly what approach would you have used to neutralize the remaining 200 or so terrorist organizations with 10's of thousands of followers? Negotiations? Sorry, you can't negotiate with someone willing to blow themselves up as long as they kill a number of civilians too. Appeasement? Do you want to turn over a significant portion of the ME to the terrorists?

Or would you have wanted to wait until they obtain WMD and tens or hundreds of thousands are killed? You know, the pre-9/11 "law enforcement" approach. Let them attack us, then let law enforcement deal with it. It sure worked in the past. Sure stopped the Khobar Towers bombing, and the African embassy bombings, and the US Cole Bombings, and 9/11. About the only thing the law enforcemment approach does is identify the dead terrorists that committed the attack.

You can cut off funding, tighten security, and try to identify terrorist threats. But you still have to deal with thousands of terrorists with weapons who want to kill us. Killing them is the best means of dealing with them. Killing them while they are still in the ME is preferable to killing them on the streets of New York, or LA, or Hometown, USA.

Back OT. Rep Murtha is the one that is confused and fatigued. You don't think Okinawa is a great place to redeploy our forces to if you aren't terribly confused and fatigued.

Rockville,

As for your "neighbor": Is he Active Duty or a member of the Guard or Reserve? If he's AD, what unit/post? If he's RC, what state/unit? He's your "neighbor", so I'm sure that you know these things. Or are you full of BS? (That's a retorical question. We already know you are)

the difference of course being that WWII was a war forced on us by the Nazi's and Imperial Japan. Iraq was a war of CHOICE by Bush and his administration. A war of CHOICE - kblack

And here comes the master spinner. I swear kblack, you must be on the Soros payroll.

Forced on us? Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Using the lefts logic, specifically Richard Gere, shouldn't we have had a measured response? Or would you support dropping the A-Bomb on Afghanistan as we did Nagasaki. Secondly, while it's true Hitler declared war and bombed a few ships, Hitler never posed an imminent threat towards the US.

I love the liberals that point to WWII and their unwavering support of that battle. We lost more men in one day during WWII than we have in four years of this current conflict. Also, it's reported that WWII was responsible for over a million innocent casualties. The left of today would be pissing down their legs in utter fear had they lived during that battle. Yet in hindsight, their staunch supporters. Kind of like the Chihuahua behind the fence barking at the Doberman.

Kblack, you're the biggest coward of them all. So let's review how TOUGH you are. Saddam had continuously killed is dissidents, starved his citizenry due to the oil for food scandal, invaded his neighbors, gassed his own countrymen, violated every single UN cease fire agreement over a twelve year period, and played games with weapons inspectors. Because of that the Clinton administration adopted the policy of regime change in Iraq realizing that Saddam was a gathering danger. Fast forward to 9/11, realizing that appeasement and dialogue was obviously an abysmal failure, Bush decided to take action as a culmination of Islamic violence over the past twenty years. Bush also enacted the policy of regime change in Iraq which gained unanimous support from Congress.

And now, cowards like kblack want us to believe that it was a war of CHOICE, only because he is pissing down his leg in fear.

Leo
I understand you disagree with something Murtha has said in the past. I sympathize with the fear you feel. But don't get up debate in favor of name calling. In your post here you're freaking out because Murtha said the troops are confused and fatigued. That doesn't seem like an outrageous claim to me. With some evidence, I might be convinced that it's true or false or somewhere in between.

Mark Noonan agreed with Murtha's statement. You're not going to freak on Noonan for saying that, are you? Is a statement less true when it comes from Murtha than it is when it comes from Noonan?

This is completely off topic, so forgive me. But I just saw this on Drudge:

Edwards charges $55,000 to speak to UC Davis students about poverty

This was to a crowd of 1700 college students. I guess there are two Americas, the Edwards America and the people he charges.

jonas,

I just reviewed all of the comments and I couldn't find where Mark "agreed" with Murtha's statement. Could you point it out for us, or are you just projecting into Mark's analogy to WWII an agreement with Murtha?

For all of you asking about what unit and stuff it is completely irrelivant, but to shut your mouth.

Army 3rd Infantry Division (out of Ft. Stewart,GA)
Rank Capt.
Mos 66N

Yes, I said my neighbor because my parents live next door to his parents. I see him when he is home on leave. Medical people are like bartenders and these wounded soldiers use them express their true feelings. Because you voluteneer for service doesn't mean that you are there wanting to die.

My father and I both servered in the Military, but my father made it a career. I servered out of defending my country, but left because of poor leadership.

Canadian Observer,

Your powers of observation are seriously lacking, or you are blinded by your terminal case of BDS. There were over 30 nations that participated as part of the coalition.

Posted by A-10 at May 22, 2007 09:09 AM

Yes, that's true, A-10. Now let's have a closer look.

Five countries participated with troops during the initial invasion (termed the Major Combat Operations phase), which lasted from March 19 to May 1. These were the United States (250,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), Poland (194) and Denmark (300).

The media normally use the term U.S.-led coalition to describe this force, since nearly 92% of the troops are from the United States. However, the majority of nations that did deploy troops either confined their men to their bases due to widespread violence, or issued specific orders to avoid hostile engagement (especially true of the Plus Ultra Brigade under Polish command). Thus, the term 'US-led coalition', when used in the context of combat operations, can be considered inaccurate, as the UK is the only nation engaged in occasional raids.

In November 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush, visiting Europe for a NATO summit, declared that "should Iraqi President Saddam Hussein choose not to disarm, the United States will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him." Thereafter, the Bush administration briefly used the term "Coalition of the Willing" to refer to the countries who supported, militarily or verbally, the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation of post-invasion Iraq since 2003. The original list prepared in March 2003 included 49 members. Of those 49, only four besides the U.S. contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, and Denmark). 33 provided some number of troops after to support the occupation after the invasion was complete. At least six members have no military.

The war was deeply unpopular amongst the citizens of all the coalition countries except the United States and at least one, Costa Rica (which has no armed forces), requested in September 2004 to no longer be considered a member. Today the official White House list of the coalition shows 48 member states, however, the relevance of placing several of these members on the list has been questioned.

You must remember also, A-10, that incentives were offered by the U.S. to entice other countries to come aboard.

CO, allow me to give you a quote from former Senator Bob Kerrey (D. NE) in regards Saddam and Iraq after 9/11.

"As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program."

"No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq."

rockville,

Could you please make an attempt to post comments that we can understand. What are you, 12 years old?

Exactly what does: "Yes, I said my neighbor because my parents live next door to his parents." mean? Is he your neighbor or not? Having his parents live next to your parents does not constitute him being your neighbor, unless both you and he live with your respective parents.

So, by your babble I have deduced that he is not your neighbor (so you were lying), but you have seen him once in a while when he was home on leave. That does not make him your neighbor. Have you ever talked to him, or are you projecting that you think that he would say?

"Because you voluteneer for service doesn't mean that you are there wanting to die."

Of course they don't go there wanting to die, you moron. They go there because they are fighting to rid the word of the evil known as Islamist Fascism. They are fighting terrorism there, so they don't have to fight terrorist in our backyard.

And what does "I servered out of defending my country" mean? "Servered" is not a word. Do you mean you opted out of defending your country? That figures. Or, are you saying you were actually a member of the US Armed Forces? When? What Branch? MOS? What type of discharge and reenlistment code? No...let me guess. RE-4/GMB.

CO,

The world knows that the US could go it alone in Iraq, but there is the need for a unified front against Global Terrorism. So what if the other countries only provided notional troops. They supported our efforts to disarm Saddam when the UN wouldn't enforce their own SC resolutions.

Leaders do what is right, regardless of public opinion. It was the right thing to disarm Saddam by military force. Has the aftermath gone according Hoyle? No. No one would disagree. But disarming Saddam was right, justified, and to correct course of action.

Now if the liberals would just shut up and let us finish the job of allowing the Iraqis to decide on their own form of government and provide for their own defense. They undermining of our efforts in Iraq by liberals and Democrats is immoral, unjustified, and borderline treasonous. They are acting as they are for purely political reasons. They (you) are attempting to discredit our Iraq efforts to gain advantage in future political battles, not because what we have done in Iraq was wrong. Almost every Democrat was on board in 1998 and 2002. Since we won the Iraq War (back in Mar-Apr of 2003), they have seen the potential to use the situation in Iraq to better their chances in subsequent elections. They used their comrades in the MSM to distort the progress that has been made in Iraq to capture the House and the Senate. Now they want to "lose" the war that we have already won, to recapture the White House in 2008. The Democrats are lower than vermin. They would sell out their own mother if it gains them a few more votes. They have no qualms about selling out their country for the White House or a few more House or Senate seats. They have alligned themselves with those who are fighting freedom and liberty: the terrorists.

There are only a handful of Democrats that are worthy of respect: Senator Lieberman and Zell Miller come to mind. The rest are worse than worthless. They are dangerous and a threat to our national security.

Murtha has now stooped so low as to flat-out lie about what is going on in Iraq and the MSM is giving him a free pass on it. Has he appeared live on any Fox News show where he would get hard questions? I don't think so. Murtha is showing himself to be not only a prevaricator but also a coward as well.

Someone correct me if I am wrong. I don't have the time to look it up.
Wasn't it Truman that overthrew a democratically elected President of Iran in 1953?

Iran would be celebrating its 54th year as a democracy if it were not for the coup that put the murderous Shah of Iran in power.

The Shah of Iran killed every intellectual associated with the democratic movement, condeming that country to a ruthless dictatorhip and then a theocracy.

We are now suffering the blowback was what our country did back in 1953.

Why was the democratic government overthrown? Because they nationalized the oil companys and threw US and UK oil companies out on their asses.

Murtha is showing himself to be not only a prevaricator but also a coward as well. - Carl

Anyone who was taped accepting bribes from Arabs during abscam and still remains in Congress should be questioned on anything they say or do.

Also, how can we expect anyone from the left to confront fascism when they wont even confront Britt Hume and Fox News?

Someone correct me if I am wrong. I don't have the time to look it up.
Wasn't it Truman that overthrew a democratically elected President of Iran in 1953? - Christian WRONG

WOW. The dishoensty here is striking, even coming from a brain dead liberal.

The Pahlavi family reign in Iran actually began in 1919, with Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, and continued unabated until the Shah of Irans exile in 1979.

What brain dead liberal is dishonestly referring to is the former Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh. Following his nationalization of the oil, which further hurt Irans economy, militarys from both Britain and the US joined forces with Irans military and deposed Mossadegh.

We are now suffering the blowback was what our country did back in 1953. - CW

Jimmy Carter is directly responsible for waht we are seeing in Iran today. If you would, like I could overwhelm you with the evidence.

Please move to Canada, that's more your style.

Iran would be celebrating its 54th year as a democracy if it were not for the coup that put the murderous Shah of Iran in power. - CW

Please follow the link below to read more on how Democrat President Jimmah Carter helped overthrow the Shah who had ruled over a peaceful Iran and helped precipitate our current problems. The following is just an excerpt from this article. Enjoy.

Rôle of US Former Pres. Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran

Exclusive. Analysis. By Alan Peters,1 GIS. Strong intelligence has begun to emerge that US President Jimmy Carter attempted to demand financial favors for his political friends from the Shah of Iran. The rejection of this demand by the Shah could well have led to Pres. Carters resolve to remove the Iranian Emperor from office.

The linkage between the destruction of the Shahs Government directly attributable to Carters actions and the Iran-Iraq war which cost millions of dead and injured on both sides, and to the subsequent rise of radical Islamist terrorism makes the new information of considerable significance.

http://rescueattempt.tripod.com/id24.html

A-10: Absolutely, the US could go it alone in Iraq, but unfortunately, this administration has never allowed the US military to exercise overwhelming force, and has rarely condescends to use diplomacy (because "it doesn't work against terrorists." And since everyone we disagree with is labelled a terrorist, not much diplomacy going on.) The Rumsfeld doctrine of a stripped-down military worked fine to overthrow a tinhorn despot but not to occupy Iraq. The Surge is the right idea -- but not nearly enough men. The Democrats point this out -- and are called traitors. But it is the executive branch that made the big decisions on the war, and were wrong every step of the way, and refuse to admit the smallest misstep.

neocon: If Carter is to blame for the Shah falling, then so is Eisenhower for Batista falling to Castro. It is hard to look into the future. (Just ask George Tenet.) The Shah and Batista were corrupt and repressive but not as bad as what followed. Same with the tsar in 1917, but we can't therefore conclude all revolutions save our own sacred fight against George III are bad. The US is not omniscient and can hardly know which dog in the fight will be the lesser of two evils, and furthermore we're not generally in the business of suppressing popular uprisings in foreign countries. If you blame Democrats and excuse Republicans in every situation, how is anyone expected to take your opinions seriously?

Reagan funded Saddam in the 80s as the lesser of two evils, and the US funded the mujahadeen against the Soviets. They seemed to be the best decision at the time. Unfortunately the world isn't black and white. If you walk around thinking four legs good, two legs bad all the time, you're not going to solve many problems.

If you blame Democrats and excuse Republicans in every situation, how is anyone expected to take your opinions seriously? yeno

Assuming a position I hold with absolutely no proof. I have NEVER excused republicans unconditionally. So retract your statement or I will never take you seriously.

The fact of the matter is, every President must work with the alliances they inherit and use their best judgement. Many of those alliance are unsavory at best, but that is the world we live in. The US supported Saddam in his struggle considering Saddam to be the lesser of two evils. Hindsight has proven that to be incorrect.

The Pahlavi family ruled Iran since 1919 and Carter, following his failed extortion attempts, was directly responsible for the mayhem that followed. What Christian Wright posted was just a flat out liberal lie that needed to be countered.

There is a difference between those who are willing to fight the good fight and those who are too cowardly to battle, therefore offer up nothing more spin, excuses and deception.

A-10,

I owe you nothing. Because I do not live with my parents doesn't make me a liar. If you don't understand my babble, maybe you should learn to read.

It's people like you that want our soldiers to continue to die for an unwarrented war. I don't care how Bush wants it to look, everything was done under the cover of lies.

My discharge date or MOS changes nothing. We should send you over with a Bush mask on and see what kind of welcome you receive.

It's people like you that want our soldiers to continue to die for an unwarrented war. I don't care how Bush wants it to look, everything was done under the cover of lies. - rockhead

There is nobody that WANTS out soldiers to continue to die, aside from may Rosie O'Donnell. What I am sure A-10 would like to see is the end of Jihadist fascist violence, of which liberals are even too afraid to mention these days. You know, people that shoot elementary school children in the back, people that blow up night clubs, blow up communter trains, fly planes into buildings, behead people, and set off IED's.

Have you heard of them? The position you apparently subscribe to is too run away and hide from them because of the fact your pissing down your leg in fear and only hope to survive yourself caring very little about anyone else.

Is that about right?

Hey Rockville, you must be 12. If Bush went over to our troops he would receive a tremendous welcome...take note when he visits a base in the U.S.A. Where I assume you are living right? There are a few pissants like you in the military, but I'll go over with you and take a random survey....my side or your side. If you lose, we will let a regiment have at you. How's that...you unpatriotic duffel bag.

Was Iraq a war of choice? Not if you believed they were working on nuclear weapons it wasn't.

rockville - Your friend is a 66N? You come back with THAT becauser I asked for an MOS instread of a job title like someone would if they really knew someone. 66N Generalist Nurse.

Why didn't you say your friend was a nurse? You just don't ring true.

There is nobody that WANTS out (sic) soldiers to continue to die, aside from may (sic) Rosie O'Donnell.

Posted by: neocon at May 22, 2007 03:52 PM

Rosie O'Donnell wants to bring the soldiers home, neocon.

How does that equate with wanting the soldiers to die? Unless you think the U.S. is such a dangerous place that a soldier's life would be in jeopardy once they were back home.

"By Dems calling for a withdrawal timetable, a gift on a silver platter to Al Qaeda and other terrorists."

Hey, Bigfoot. As soon as we leave Iraq, the insurgency will turn on al Qaeda. At least, that's what all the experts say. And I'm more inclined to believe them than our current leadership.

So, if the insurgency will turn on al Qaeda in Iraq when we leave, how would us leaving be a "gift to the terrorists"? Strikes me as more of a "blow to the terrorists".

ThELefTYFoOL

No one in their right minds would say that our troops are not stretched thin right now. Sure, individual soldiers may be tough, perky, and ready to rumble, but one man ain't an army.

And yes, this is an all volunteer force. But I do know of a good many of these volunteers who are unhappy with the war, and I'm pretty sure that nearly ALL of the troops would rather be home right now with their families than fighting an unwinnable conflict with no significant progress.

Our army's resources are being strained.

And the American public tires of the war.

Anyone who denies these two simple facts is...confused and fatigued.

ThELefTYFoOL

PS- why are we staying in Iraq anyway?
Is it to prevent the deaths of thousands?
Is it to thwart al Qaeda?
This isn't really clear to me, and until it's made clear, I can't really make any specific arguments. Although I suppose you neocons prefer it that way.

How does that equate with wanting the soldiers to die? Unless you think the U.S. is such a dangerous place that a soldier's life would be in jeopardy once they were back home. - CO

Canadian Observer meet twisted sense of humor. Twisted sense of humor meet.....oh never mind.

Honestly, Rosie doesn't care about anyone other than herself and her 15 minutes of fame. By advocating a retreat, she is only ensuring us of another attack and more lost innocent lives in Iraq. But again, SHE DOESN'T CARE, she has an agenda to push and is probably paid very well by Soros to do so.

My father and I both servered in the Military, but my father made it a career. I servered out of defending my country, but left because of poor leadership.

You left because of DADT--you just couldn't keep your mouth shut, rockhead...

"and I both servered"

LOL!

What were you trying to say, rockville, It was SEVERE? Is it that what you meant?

It's not "servered, It's SERVED!

Jeremiah

Thats what the terrorists will do to the libs if they win....'servered'.....sorta like being severed but with much more gusto to the purveyors of filth!

purveyors of filth!

Posted by: dickdee at May 22, 2007 11:22 PM

Are you referring to Liberals, dickdee? If so, I am curious as to why you believe peace to be filthy.

rockville,

When you claimed this individual was your "neighbor", when actually his parents live next to your parents, that makes you a liar. You tried to give the impression that this individual lives next door and you converse all the time. In actuality, you rarely, if ever, see him, and then only if you are at your parents and he happens to visit his parents while he is on leave. Typical of a liberal to attempt to change a definition to fit your distorted sense of reality.

Your refusal to provide basic information about your alleged "service" (again, "servered" is not a word) in the United States Armed Forces, which you have claimed to have, is indication that you are also lying. Simply tell us your branch, MOS, and what unit you were in. Unless, of course, you were a basic training washout.

You realize (of course you don't, since you are a moron) that if you represent yourself as a former member of the United States Armed Forces, when you really aren't, you are committing a federal crime. In addition to a visit from the FBI, you may expect a visit from people who are actual veterans who frown on those who try to pass themselves off as former members of the US Armed Forces. They can be verrrrrrry nasty.

Finally, I don't "want our soldiers to continue to die for an unwarrented war." I don't want any of them to die. But I know they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to defend America. First of all, our efforts to combat terrorism are warranted. Second, the mission to bring freedom to the Middle East is just and right. Finally, who are you but a sniveling coward to question my committment to the troops? I spent 27 years in uniform and continue to serve as a contracted employee of the Department of Defense. Just last Thursday, I conducted a pre-mobilization briefing for a group of Marines heading to Iraq. It was my 10th such briefing this year to various Reserve Component units. And that doesn't include the post-mobilization briefings I have conducted upon the troop's return or the daily assistance I provide to servicemembers with employer related problems.

You are nothing more than a lying, gutless, child, hunched over a keyboard in a stuffy basement, fantasizing about what might have been if you had been born with a spine, instead of being born a worm. Goodbye and good riddance.

and I both servered"
LOL!
What were you trying to say, rockville, It was SEVERE? Is it that what you meant?
It's not "servered, It's SERVED!

Jeremiah

Posted by: Jeremiah

Why does everybody make such a big deal about spelling?
Typos do happaen.
Don't you think we should be arguing the arguments here?

ThELefTYFoOL

fool,

Everyone makes an occasional typo or spells a word wrong once in a while. However, with rockhead, I don't think that's the case.

In his first use of "servered", he probably meant "served". However, the only way I think he "served" in the military is if he worked in a mess hall "serving" meals to members of the military.

In his second use of his immaginary word "servered", in the sentance "I servered out of defending my country" you can't substitute "served" and create a sentance that makes any sense: "I served out of defending my country"? Admit it, the kid's a moron and is way over his head posting comments on B4B. He continually throws out BS and expects everyone to believe him. If his comments have an ounce of truth, he should be able to back up his claims with some proof. Instead, he claims he "owes us nothing". Actually, that's what most of his comments contain: nothing of substance, credibility, truth, or fact.

Back to the argument: Murtha is a disgrace to the United States, the House of Representatives, and the USMC. As a former Marine, I find him to be an old, senile, bitter, corrupt, fool who should do everone a favor and resign and fade into obscurity.

See, even I make typos. Immaginary = imaginary & sentance + sentence.

Murtha is a disgrace to the United States, the House of Representatives, and the USMC.

Posted by A-10 at May 24, 2007 08:22 AM

Perhaps to you, A-10, and to the remaining small number who still support the U.S. occupation of Iraq; but to the rest of us, he was the one voice who dared speak the truth when it was considered politically unwise to do so.

The disgust you show Mr. Murtha in referring to his age is a sad reflection of the obsession our society has with youth. In other parts of the world, the elders are treated with respect and their knowledge and opinions are valued. They are not ridiculed or demeaned by those of lesser years and experience.

CO
Im around murthas age, and fought in Viet Nam.
murtha is a PHONEY, LIAR. As is kerry.
These two pieces of scum are an embarassment to our country and our military.
They are lower than whale S#!T.
You can take that to the bank.
Now go up to montreal and show us how good canadians live.......OH WAIT.....THEY HATE YOU and want to SEPARATE....TO BAD SO SAD!

CO,

While I have more military experience than Rep Murtha (I served a total of 20 years on active duty), I do not possess many of his experiences.

I have never had the experience of been caught on tape discussing taking bribes.

I have never had the experience of being an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case.

I have never had the experience of having by military medals and awards being awarded under questionable circumstances.

I have never had the experience of being given the opportunity of the liberal-leaning MSM to spout moronic statements about re-dploying our troops over 5,000 away from the central front in the War on Terror.

I have never had the experience of accusing our troops of murder before any investigation was done.

I have never had the experience of aiding our enemies by giving them hope that if they can hold on a little longer, the Democrats will take complete control of our government, withdraw our troops with our tails between our legs, give up the entire Middle East to terrorists, and allow the terrorists to attack us at will.

I guess I can live without Rep Murtha's vast experience.

It is common knowledge that as one advances in age, their mental abilities begun to fade. In Rep Murtha's case, they have faded to obscurity.

Lastly, you have no idea how old I am. You are assuming that I am still in my youth. I'll let you do the math. I retire from the US Armed Forces over six years ago. I served for over 27 years. Does that make me young and inexperienced?

A-10

It surprises me that you would make light of an illness as serious as dementia. We all remember how terribly Reagan suffered from this condition and for you to categorize Murtha, who is still articulate and able to debate the mistakes of the Bush administration, as having his mental capabilities fading into obscurity; well, that is a slap in the face of all those who truly are incapacitated by this dreadful disease.

CO,

Typical of a liberal to ignore the facts presented and instead twist what is said to attack the messenger.

I never said or implied that Rep Murtha has dementia. If he does, he has no business serving in Congress. He should resign immediately.

You are the one who is assuming he is so afflicted.