AWOL tough guy invites militants to attack the men and women that actually serve.

Nice posts, guys. I guess I'm more inclined to understand the view of Texas Stoke, (especially since my father and two uncles served in combat and can talk about it), than I am the Bruce Willis type of picture of Juan Valdez. I'm sure the truth, as ever, is somewhere in between. I sure to god hope that the washington post story isn't 100% on target. That's incredibly depressing.

 

Well I guess they are taking Bush up on his words.

One U.S. Soldier Killed, 19 Wounded in Iraq

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - One U.S. soldier was killed and 19 were wounded in two attacks in central Iraq on Thursday night, the U.S. military said on Friday.
A sniper shot dead one American soldier in Baghdad, while the 19 U.S. soldiers were wounded in an attack near the town of Balad, north of the capital, a military spokesman said.

 

All you did was post something that has nothing to do with the Bush quote. Way to go.

Personally I can't believe these Iraqis are attacking Americans. I guess they would rather see their country go to flames than see the USA rebuild it into a functioning democracy.

And whoever said the US soldiers are all scared and want to return home- give me a break. They are not kids, and they know what they are doing. They know they are establishing order in a crazy region. They know that successful completion of the mission will keep Americans safe for years to come.

We all know where 9/11 originated from. And I think we all know why Europe, Japan, and several other regions are free and democratic right now.

 

Really? well maybe if you read the post that I quoted in big bold letters right above the article you would understand its relevance more.

The relevance to what I quoted and the article, and correspondingly the Bush quote, was pretty clear to b-bob, I suppose you are the exception. Mr. C, you're an intelligent poster, and I don't think its unreasonable to expect you to be able to see the connection, even if you disagree with the sentiment.

Either way, don't blame the messenger.

 

SF, I re-read the article, and I still don't see how it shows that Bush is insensitive, or how JuanValdez is wrong.

JuanValdez said- "US soldiers are not a bunch of pansies to cry over the potential to get shot in Iraq. " True.

"They know what they're doing there and they know the dangers involved. I'd even go so far as to guess that most of them think they are doing a good thing there and that the risks are worth the taking. " I think this is correct.

'Will they really object to their commander telling the world, "We're ready; test our meddle." ' I don't think they would object to that.

Your article relates to the difficulty of managing post-war Iraq and how soldiers want to come home. A very relevant and important topic. But how does this relate to Bush's supposedly being an insensitive goon? 2 different issues in my mind. The troops aren't ready to turn against Bush or our policy of democratizing Iraq, which is what people seem to be implying.

 

and when you can't contend with the valor and resolve required, it is all over.

 

Reconcile this with "Bring em on!"

"U.S. officials need to get our [expletive] out of here," said the 43-year-old reservist from Pittsburgh, who arrived in Iraq with the 307th Military Police Company on May 24. "I say that seriously. We have no business being here. We will not change the culture they have in Iraq, in Baghdad. Baghdad is so corrupted. All we are here is potential people to be killed and sitting ducks."

Start splitting hairs....now.

 

So we stuck it to them and won't pull out until they are impregnated with a democratic government.

(That was supposed to be a joke, but I don't know how it will come off, get it , COME off LOL)

 

I actually agree with you very much. I felt there were questionable methods in manipulating public favor to support the war, but now that we're there we can't act like we're scared to have casualties. They are a fact of war. JH, I actually LOVE your sig. too....There is a great book I recently got that has quotes from Benjamin Franklin.

One other point though is that everytime violence happens against US/British troops it is assumed they are Islamic Militants or Baath Party people or someone of that nature which is absurd. I'm sure many people that aren't 'extremists' would be pissed if they're country is held by an outside force or country. Ever seen Red Dawn?? Though we may ultimately do good there, resistance will be there. Some people would rather make bad decisions themselves than be forced into good ones.

 

Speaking as someone who is currently serving, I can say that this is exactly what 99% of us want to hear. Couple it with tough action - and if there is nothing else in doubt about the Prez, the fact that he actually carries through on his tough talk is not in doubt - and you have something that gives us warm fuzzies. We rather like it when our Commander in Chief tells the bad guys he's going to waste them, and then promptly does so. We don't even mind being the tools that he uses to do it.

It's alot better than something along the lines of "Well, uh, if you guys don't play nice I'm gonna shoot a cruise missile at you. Or, wait, no! TWO cruise missiles at you..."

Our enemies respond to force, not kind words. They are learning - and have been for a couple of years - that when this president talks like a drunk roadhouse brawler, force follows. This is exactly what they need to hear, too.

 

99% is a big number. Have you polled the entire military? We appreciate your service treeman but are you actually over there enduring the conditions some of your fellow servicemen are? are you in the same amount of danger as them?

 

I am quite sure that 99% (yes, it is a big number) of the people over there would rather not be there. No one does. It's currently a hell-hole where your chances of being shot at are almost as good as in the Third Ward, so of course no one wants to be there. It is dangerous. It is dirty. They have to go for long periods of sleep without rest. They have to do things that piss the locals off (like raiding houses, regulating traffic, and dealing with protestors) with practically no thanks from anybody. They have not seen their families in months. Of course they don't want to be there.

But - yes - 99% (OK, that's not an exact number, but you get the drift) of those I have talked to, including those who are just returning home, have told me that they believe that it is an important mission that has to be done. Most of them are bewildered at the arguments that some here are putting forth against that mission - they honestly cannot understand why some people here do not understand the good that they are doing, or the necessity of it. It's demoralizing.

Me? I was lucky. About half of the Army deployed there, meaning the other half was fortunate enough to not have to. I was one of the lucky ones. Although I can honestly say that a good number of those of us who did not are/were perfectly willing to do so, quite a few of us even eager to do so. Personally, I am just getting off of a year-long stateside deployment which one colonel termed the most difficult in the Army, and having talked to people who actually went I can honestly (even if perhaps naively or stupidly) say that I would rather have gone to Iraq. I would rather have taken my chances in combat for three weeks and then have had to deal with what is effectively a bad neighborhood. For one thing, I would have had to wear less poundage daily and would only have had to do it for six months... But that is another discussion.

I know what our people are saying and thinking about Iraq. I talk to them daily, and can sympathize with them in ways that only those who have served can. I know that it is no picnic - it is undoubtedly the hardest thing that 99% of them have ever had to endure in their lives. Undoubtedly. But does that mean that I - or those who have actually done it - do not think that it is worth it? Or necessary? No.

On the contrary: the hardest things in life are the ones most worth doing. And saving 25 million people from tyranny is definitely worth doing.

 

Replacing one tyrannical rule with another isn't progress.

 

Let me know when we've murdered 800,000 Iraqis so I know when to care what you think, grasseater.

 

Cause we'll only be in the wrong when we do exactly what Saddam has done...excellent reasoning, no problems there...

 

Well, I'm glad we understand each other, MacBeth. Not like we have to put words in each others' mouths, no, we wouldn't want to do that...

 

Sorry...is there another interpretation? Honestly, I thought that was your point.

 

Well, as a matter of fact there is another interpretation: things are not nearly as bad as you believe them to be, we are not doing the wrong thing here, and it is entirely possible that someone, even someone over there right now, actually thinks that this is a worthwhile mission. Not that such an interpretation would ever cross your pinheaded little mind, but... You asked. But Yes, there is another interpretation.

 

Ahh...treeman resorting to insults...and the sun came up today...

One small point, tree, if I can elevate my intellect, however briefly, so that you and I might be able to communicate...the interpretation in question was about your comment, and the correlation between having to kill 800, 000 people to qualify as a tyrant...but don't let a little thing like a fact get in the way of your position. Stick with the insults and numbers...like " 99.9%, no scratch that, 100%" certainty that the vans were proof of an ongoing chemical weapons program...

tree, we are in agreement on one thing; if you are the standard fo what qualifies as intelligent, I am indeed not intelligent...

P.S. tree...I'm still waiting to hear back from you regarding your 'challenge' that I answered...No response? Gonna ask me to post it yet again? Thought so...Let me know, I'll do it again...

 

I do know what you were talking about, you know. I just didn't think that your comment deserved a reasonable comment back, since it was itself so unreasonable. You were trying to insinuate that even if we have not done as much evil as Saddam has, we are still doing evil, and that is just plain silly. It is almost as silly as insinuating that we are imposing tyranny on a conquered state... I suspect you have nothing more solid than a wet noodle to back up such an idea, but I also suspect that you were as usual just throwing out a sound byte.

OK.

Well, it was a biological weapons program, but I don't expect you to be able to understand a little detail such as that. Why don't you ask your chemistry major friend (why is a self-proclaimed college professor rooming with a college student anyway, BTW?) to explain the difference to you - you know, the one who thought the idea of mass murder with WMD was funny?

And BTW, I have yet to see the CIA or DIA present a retraction of their report. As it stands, those trailer systems were still almost certainly not used for legitemate purposes, no matter what your girlfriend may say. They are what they are, no matter what you want to believe they were not.

Now, now, don't go beating yourself up about it. We both know you're intelligent, you're just intellectually dishonest, that's all. Don't be so hard on yourself.

Challenge? Refresh my memory, I honestly do not remember. I tend to not keep track of every little challenge you and I put forth, as you have a distinct tendency to disappear after they get to a certain point. Only the big ones. But of course, given my limited attention span (it is not infinite) I may have walked away from one too. Which one was this?

You know, there is more to life than a message board.