Great point...That is worth it, I wish it was free, but the price of freedom and choice involves dollars, blood, and sweat. There are a lot of troops at Vets for Freedom who believe in that as well...We have freedoms and choices because things that are worth it cost dollars, blood, and sweat...simple as that. God bless the troops!... Heck even Hillary and Obama will not commit to having troops out by 2013...It is funny about the talk of an exit strategy, when they cannot commit to a full pull-out in a 5 year time table... I am proud of the many troops who feel this is a worthy cause because the benefits of a peaceful, stable democracy in the middle east ( considering how much of the world's violence and problems stem from the region ) is realistic and we can do it through support, and effective strategy driven by better leaders such as General Patreaus... P.S. : Great read by the war reporter...
Fair enough. Rather pathetic, but I'm not one to make a stink about it. Thanks again for the excellent debate.
What is rather pathetic is rhad labeling over 10,000 former Iraq/Afghanistan troops as "phoney"... Will the Wrath of Rhad know no bounds?.... Membership Vets for Freedome has over 20,000 members in 50 state chapters. Most members are veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vets_For_Freedom_Action_Fund
It's a poor decision to quote wikipedia. Especially when the referenced "fact" has no corresponding citation. Extra especially when the history tab of that page shows a trend to edit out data concerning the rather strong connection of the organization's leaders to Bush and the GOP. More extra especially when the homepages of the wikipedia editors in question have pro-GOP icons plastered all over. Extra especially-especially more especially when the page in question, at the very top, points out the pro-war ideology of the group. Really. Please stop. You are making a fool of yourself. It's no longer interesting - just sad, boring, repetitive, and misinformed, like most pro-war arguments.
Not necessarily, much of what is quoted has corresponding citation... Well, well, one of the few statements of fact without corresponding citation,...surely you can divvie up some liberal slanted source which has information to the contrary...Please share... Based on your reading from a source with a rather strong connection to bias against Bush and the GOP? Ok...maybe so...but further understand there is cited data showing political connections to an independent and a democrat as well...If anything this extra shows the underlying emphasis to be as non-partisan as possible...If there was ONLY a connection to Bush or the GOP, you may have had a point...but of course, you dont... Now, you are getting especially, especially ...weird. No I won't stop if it means allowing the voice of those in the military to be heard!...10,000 fists baby!...
