FINALLY! Our whorish mainstream media reports on the memo

well, it is good that there are people who are not cowards.

dont join the army if you dont want to fight. again i wonder if you understand the nature of our army. our soldiers are volunteers. you join only if you choose to be a soldier.

where i live they always need cops and even recruit on tv. i guess i am a stupid hypocrite for enjoying the security they provide while not actually being one.

give it up.

what are you, a military analyst? you do not know that we are understaffed in iraq. i dont know either. i have no clue how many soldiers it takes.

i didnt say that. i like when people address each other on forums by quoting each other directly and responding. the mission is worth doing. i dunno if i would classify it as "critical". i would still be free if it didnt happen. less secure over the long term probably. certainly the spread of democracy worldwide will make humans safer for generations.

 

don't think that i'm denying americas contributions to the world by way of defeating villanous dictators. however, until now, those victories manifested from wars of agression, not pre-emptive invasions based on preconcieved intelligence, or to countries that pose no immediate threat to amercia or any other nation.

well fortunately, or unfortunately as it were, i do. 2 very close friends of mine, as well as my cousin/best friend, are currently serving in and around bagdad. and that evidently is very much the case, given that their mission is now officially 'nation building'.

 

There are more than enough troops state side, that if we wanted more in theater, we would send more. Pres. Bush has stated that if the commanders on the ground want more, all they have to do is ask. Again, if one of them asked and didn't recieve them, it would be all over the news the next day. Operational strengths fluctuate from week to week, as the mission dictates. The mission and it's political implications are much to important for Bush to risk mission failure by not committing enough troops.

 

who cares if a bunch of Iraqis died, hell Middle Easterners kill each other off in record numbers every year, and in much more horrible ways. Its just like a liberal to believe the foreigner media (the media exist to sell publications, not to tell the truth) - so what if Bush lied, politicians lie on both sides, thats why they are politicians... dont be so f king naive.

Now go sulk about the election, invent some conspiracy theory and further ruin your parties image, so that there will never be another weak minded, puppet liberal in the white house.

 

Iraq Body Count, an anti-war organization that "is a human security project to establish an independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq resulting directly from military action by the USA and its allies in 2003." They say that the maximum number of civilians killed by Iraq military intervention is 24324. So roughly 12,000 a year since the US and our allies liberated them.

It is a horrible thing that so many civilians have died but they have died for freedom that is now in their country. However, those killed by Saddam were just killed because he hated the Kurds and to repress the people from expressing their will. I don't know how you can say that Iraq is not better off for the 24324 who have died for something that will let their children and their childrens children have a better, freer, democratic life.

 

So let's see...Plan A (defeating him in an open election) didn't work. Plan B
(conspiracy theory that the election was rigged by Diebold, among others)
doesn't seem to be working, either. So now we're on to Rex's Plan C (when all
else fails use questionable foreign document to call for impeachment).

Wake me up when you get to Plan X for removing George Bush from office, Rex...we ought to be inaugurating Giuliani by then. :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

 

Did you support Clinton's war in the Balkans, Rex? If so, why didn't you volunteer to serve? Are you one of these chickenhawks of whom you speak?

I know you don't have an answer that won't make you look like a hypocrite, so I won't expect one.

 

This victory also manifested from a war of aggression...the one that Saddam
Hussein launched aginst his neighbor, Kuwait. Do you really think that this is
a whole different war than the one fought in 1990-91? That war never actually ended, per se...it went into a state of cease-fire, contingent upon Saddam meeting certain terms. When Saddam failed to meet said terms (he actually violated terms of the cease-fire the first time his AA batteries opened fire on UN planes patrolling the no-fly zone...an act of war in and of itself), the cease-fire ended and hostilities resumed. This war was Saddam Hussein's doing from the very beginning, not ours. If we had allowed him to continue his defiance, do you really believe that he wouldn't have eventually posed a threat to that part of the world? It's that kind of thinking that prevailed at Munich in 1938...although in their defense, at least Hitler didn't have at the time, a track record of open aggression. There's no excuse for that kind of appeasement thinking today.

 

Just so long as somebody else is the victim of that 10% rise in crime, right Rex?

 

Not sure where you get such bull****.

Fallujah was once a huge insurgent bastion but has since fallen off into being one of the safest cities in Iraq.