Taking it Out on the Troops

[mimartin]

3401 and 25,245 are the only polling numbers that matter. These numbers represent an American father, mother, son, daughter, brother or sister that has been killed and wounded in this war. Another important number is 63,610 the conservative number of civilians reported killed in Iraq since the war began.

 

Those are the “numbers” that Bush should be watching. I don’t care if this is the most popular or unpopular war in history, that has nothing to do with this leadership inability to stage a successful campaign. The Commander and Chief shouldn’t fight a war based on polling numbers, but these numbers should and must be taken into account. These numbers should tell us that our strategy has not been working up to this point.

 

Is it being taking out on the troops? With 28,646 killed and wounded and who knows how many affected mentally for the rest of their lives, I’d say yes, it is being taken out on the troops.

[GarfieldJL]

Comparied to 618,000 people killed on both sides in the American Civil War? Seriously, I know this sounds cold, but people die in war.

[mimartin]

Very true and technology advancements have made the killing and the protecting of human life more efficient since the Civil War. If we were fighting this war with Civil War technology then the loss of life would be greater than the number killed thus far in this war. War gives us great advancement in medical technology and we have gone from a wounded soldier being killed to merely being disfigured for the rest of their life.

 

I understand they are soldiers and that is their job. Their job is to protect our freedoms even at the cost of their limbs or very life. Remember the government and the people also have a responsibility to them due to their service to us. We should not unnecessarily be putting them in harms way. We must keep our promises to them and not be extending their duty beyond the agreed limits. We must get them any and all equipment necessary to protect them from harm.

 

What I’ve been trying to say is Bush needs to be more flexible. When something is not working he needs to be willing to change our strategy. I’m not saying pull out! Even though it was Bush that made the promise to the Iraqi people, he is our legally elected President, so it was a promise made by the American people. If the Iraqi government and people are unwilling to make their country work then and only then we need to get out. I just want Bush to listen to the so called experts and be willing to modify his strategy and do what is the best interest of the American soldiers and the Iraqi people.

 

If this does turn out to be a full born Iraq Civil War then we must be willing to pull out. The world was told by Bush that we are there to liberate the Iraqi people, not as conquers.

[GarfieldJL]

The problem is that a fair bit of the violence is due to Iranian special ops trying to incite violence as well as providing IEDs.

[JediMaster12]

There is a distinct possibility that the Saddam's chemical and biological weapons were smuggled out of Iraq and/or buried somewhere before we invaded.

You have any idea what the shelf life is of biological weapons like say anthrax? Not very long. To be honest I haven't trusted anything the govt. has said about his supposed weapons of mass destruction. I haven't trusted anything since the fool in the big white house with the pillars in the front came into office.

 

Those are the “numbers” that Bush should be watching. I don’t care if this is the most popular or unpopular war in history, that has nothing to do with this leadership inability to stage a successful campaign. The Commander and Chief shouldn’t fight a war based on polling numbers, but these numbers should and must be taken into account. These numbers should tell us that our strategy has not been working up to this point.

I do think that better attention should have been paid as to how this campaign was to be staged. Of course the hardcores say that it is war and in war people die. Yes people do die in war but at what point do we stop and take a look as to how it affects the bigger picture?

[Windu Chi]

 

The Commander and Chief shouldn’t fight a war based on polling numbers,

You do realize this Commander and Chief is a useless failure?

 

These numbers should tell us that our strategy has not been working up to this point.

I think that is obvious now.

[GarfieldJL]

Seriously, I think you give the President far too little credit. Clinton would have just gone to the UN after 9/11 and whined.

[Darth Manus]

I don't know about that, but a self righteous trigger happy dumbass cowboy isn't what I'd consider an improvement over Clinton.

[mimartin]

Seriously, I think you give the President far too little credit. Clinton would have just gone to the UN after 9/11 and whined.

 

 

After 9/11 Clinton and any other elected official would have done what they were elected to do and been the Commander and Chief. One difference they would of headed straight for Washington instead of hiding out till the danger was gone. The major difference between Clinton or any other sane and intelligent President in our history and the current George Bush is we would still have world support for our fight against terrorist. After 9/11 we had the world’s sympathy and support, but thanks to President Bush’s outstanding leadership we only really have England’s support now. With Prime Minister Tony Blair stepping down even that support is weakened. Even his father knew the importance of world support in fighting a war. This go it alone and we are always right mentality is not appropriate for five years old and certainly not appropriate for the leader of the free world (although I do not see the US as leader of the free world any longer).

 

I don’t understand why Bush supporters want to go after Clinton all the time. After all he is one of the few people on earth that say you can’t blame Bush for the lack of WMD in Iraq. He stated on CSPAN from the University of Arkansas that he would have made that same mistake. However, he felt the there was still not enough evidence to overthrow the countries leadership and that it was more important to go after the instigators of 9/11.

 

Clinton had/has a flawed personal life, but overall he was a successful President. Will Bush Presidency be considered a success? Only time will time and Iraq will tell. If he doesn’t solve the problem with Iraq before the end of his current term (highly unlikely), then it was a failed Presidency.

 

I don't know about that, but a self righteous trigger happy dumbass cowboy isn't what I'd consider an improvement over Clinton.

 

He isn't a cowboy, he really is a city boy that wants to be a cowboy.

[Nancy Allen``]

Bush will forever be remembered, unfairly, as the greatest evil the world has ever seen, and his occupation of Iraq is the sole reason for such a vicious backlash.

[GarfieldJL]

Bush will forever be remembered, unfairly, as the greatest evil the world has ever seen, and his occupation of Iraq is the sole reason for such a vicious backlash.

 

 

Sad thing is I think I can believe that Nancy, that people would believe the left wing lunatics in the Media whom paint Bush as being Hitler reincarnated, even though it is complete garbage.

 

Seriously, Clinton had several terrorist attacks occur during his administration, and he let Bin Laden go anyways, he also pardoned terrorists so Hillary could get elected as Senator of New York. So the idea of Bush not being an improvement over Clinton is laughable putting it mildly.

[Windu Chi]

Sad thing is I think I can believe that Nancy, that people would believe the left wing lunatics in the Media whom paint Bush as being Hitler reincarnated, even though it is complete garbage.

I don't believe Bush is evil, I do believe he is a racist (Hurricane Katrina ) and a idiot.

So the idea of Bush not being an improvement over Clinton is laughable putting it mildly.

Laughable !

What in the hell are you talking about, this guy is the worst president in the history of presidents.

This is not a wise commander in chief, his policies are wasting lives over there in a war that is an obvious stalemate.

About 2 U.S. soldiers die everyday, that means death rates, if the rate continue as is, factor in as 14 (2x7 days) per week and 60 (2 x 30 days) per month and if the rate continue about 730 (2 x 365 days) per year, base on the death toll now which is 3,401 as of May 16, 2007.

But two deaths may result tomorrow.

And the wounded is huge, at least 25,378 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon.

That include loss sight, loss hearing, loss limbs, loss feeling in the limbs and etc.

You might as well say, it includes everything that can be related to being wounded, like PTSD (Post-traumatic stress disorder), with that some soldiers who survive and came back home have blown their brains out because of that nightmare there.

The things this guy does is nonsense, GarfieldJL.

Not to mention how he is destroying our liberties with that damn patriot act or probably something else he maybe working on.

 

If you think this guy is a good president then you are lost.

 

Also I know some will argue that those fatality figures

are small, but this isn't WWII as some have compare Iraq to, we aren't fighting for survivable of the planet in Iraq, we aren't fighting the Nazis, the Nazis are all but extinct, Hitler is not in Iraq.

It was suppose to be a peace keeping operation, not a war.

You don't suppose to lose this many people in a peace keeping operation, but

thanks to that idiot's polices, he have gotten us into a stalemate, that is a disgrace to the troops and dishonorable.

They are dying for nothing over there.

The Iraqi government is useless and corrupt, I don't see them taking control of their future for a long time to come.

Only if someone in the civilian population, step up.

If there is someone who really still give a damn about their country's future.

 

Our troops should be in Darfur stoping that genocide from happening, but because of racist Bush, in which he don't give a damn for Africans, so they continue to perish, when is someone is going to get mad as hell in that administration and do something about the

genocide in Darfur, how many more have to be murder there, I guess a million in like in Rwanda.

[Totenkopf]

About 2 U.S. soldiers die everyday, that means death rates, if the rate continue as is, factor in as 14 (2x7 days) per week and 420 (14 x 30 days) per month,

 

That should read 60/month, not 420.

 

Also, Clinton wasn't a good president. However, Bush has proven a big disappointment as well. Think massive govt spending, poor border security and immigration policies and ineffective management of the war in Iraq. However, it will be interesting to see where presidential historians place these men in about 15-20 years. Reagan was roundly abused during his terms in office, but has since become more highly rated with the passage of time.

[Windu Chi]

That should read 60/month, not 420.

You are right, Totenkopf, well when you work with complex differential equations like I do you forget simple arithmetic.

 

However, Bush has proven a big disappointment as well.

 

An extreme disapointment, Totenkopf.

[Allronix]

"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war. ... War settles nothing."

-Dwight Eisenhower

 

Too bad he'd never make it in the modern GOP

[GarfieldJL]

Okay Windu, you're saying George W. Bush is a racist, when he appointed the first Hispanic American to the supreme court and had the first African American Secretary of State, and then the first African American Woman Secretary of State. The Katrina fiasco was primarily due to the Governor of Louisanna, not the President. Simply put Bush would have violated federal law if he had brought in the National Guard without the permission of the Governor. The reason this little fact wasn't reported in the mainstream media is because the Governor of Louisanna was a Democrat. So why don't you do some research before you accuse someone of being racist. (Though calling people racist is a common tactic of the Democrats and the ACLU).

[mimartin]

GarfieldJL is the Governor of Louisiana in charge of FEMA? No, then she isn’t the only one to blame for what happen during Katrina. The federal government (which Bush presumably is in charge of), the state government, the Parish government and the city government all failed in their responsibility to their citizens.

 

Did it have anything to do with the race of those in need? I would like to think it didn’t. Did it have anything to do with the economic status of the victims? Again I’d like to think not, but I’m not that stupid. Compare the response to 9/11 and you get your answer. When the financial capital of the world was struck every government agency was there almost before the towers hit the ground. You can say that was because of the location differences, but that does not wash. There was no warning to 9/11, but with a Hurricane you do some type of warning.

 

The media also failed miserably by focusing too much on who was to blame and New Orleans. Parts of Mississippi were wiped off the face of the earth, but all we heard about was New Orleans.

 

Much like Iraq, Bush focused on the wonderful job everyone was doing instead of kicking his agencies in the seat of their pants and getting the job done. That and flying Air Force One 10,000 feet over the area gave people the impression Bush was out of touch or just didn’t care.

 

Do I believe Bush is a racist? I have no way of seeing into his heart. Therefore I do not believe anyone but George Bush can answer that question. Do I believe he is to blame for what happen during Katrina? Yes and so are a lot of other people. I just hope we have learned our lesson and don’t let history repeat itself. I also hope we don’t have to put those lessons to use this year.

 

 

Do I think Bush is evil? No. I actually think he is a good man. I just question his leadership ability or lack there of. Something he was actually good at as Texas Governor. I’ve heard people say that he is listening to the wrong people and blaming everything that has gone wrong on Chaney and/or Rumsfeld, but they are there/were there at the President’s pleasure. He can get rid of them at anytime. I question Bush's intelligence because he got rid Colon Powell and kept them.

[Windu Chi]

Okay Windu, you're saying George W. Bush is a racist, when he appointed the first Hispanic American to the supreme court and had the first African American Secretary of State, and then the first African American Woman Secretary of State.

Don't give me that bull about Condoleezza Rice, that women is a puppet of Bush, she is just a token brown women, to make Bush look like he care for African Americans, he don't give a damn about people with my brown skin color.

I thought she would be p--- off about what's happing in Darfur, but she isn't doing nothing, useless Secretary of State.

Thousands continue to die under her watch in Darfur.

Why do you think Colin Powell left?

Because Bush policies made him look like a fool when he went to the U.N. over a lie.

 

The Katrina fiasco was primarily due to the Governor of Louisanna, not the President.Simply put Bush would have violated federal law if he had brought in the National Guard without the permission of the Governor. The reason this little fact wasn't reported in the mainstream media is because the Governor of Louisanna was a Democrat. So why don't you do some research before you accuse someone of being racist. (Though calling people racist is a common tactic of the Democrats and the ACLU).

 

If you believe that then I don't know what you are smoking.

And don't give that bull about federal law.

Bush is violating the law now with his spying programs.

Bush should have said, damn that and did something, that is a useless excuse, if it won't brown people out there drowning, I bet he would got his ass up and done something, I assume, unless he is completely useless.

 

Also I'm about tire of hearing about this left wing media, to put it clearly I don't trust media anyway because they don't investigate UFO reports, like some other media around the world.

There is no left wing media there is a lying media.

But if the news about Katrina, his spying programs and other reports are a lie then you can't trust nothing completely from the news.

Not even the weather.

So, to me it's 50/50 when it come towards the media info.

I'm damn sure not going to watch FOX news they are obviously bias toward everybody except republicans.

[Jae Onasi]

If you believe that then I don't know what you are smoking.

windu6, I've seen this kind of statement a couple times in the last few days. It's flamebaiting. Please stop. This is your public warning.

[Nancy Allen``]

On Bush, a lot of it goes back to the 2000 elections when people were outraged that he won. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that people have been looking for a reason to attack him, and Iraq has been by far the biggest and most legitimate reason to go after him. Is that his only crime? No I don't think so. Is he evil? Absolutely not, Is Bill Clinton better or worse than Bush? The biggest criticism I can label at him is cutting the military, cutting away muscle rather than fat. But the problem is he was crucified over the Monica Lewinski scandal, just the same as Bush is now being crucified for Iraq.

[Windu Chi]

windu6, I've seen this kind of statement a couple times in the last few days. It's flamebaiting. Please stop. This is your public warning.

Ok, Jae, I'm not trying to entice no one into a argument.

I guess my red colors is threating to some, I'm not trying to start no arguments with anyone.

Let me clear some things up here, for you won't think all the time when I use red colors I'm mad at someone.

These the words I usually color in red and don't think that I'm mad at you when post this below, this is how I'm.

I hate death, I hate the Holocaust, I hate genocide I hate the Nazis, eventhough they are extinct I still hate them same for Hitler, I hate evil

and racist= Holocaust.

 

I'm not a mean person, I'm extremely far from that, Jae.

I care far to much for what happen to the people in the Holocaust, to be evil. *

 

I'm not saying you think about me that way, but I suspect some here do.

 

You are completely beside the point: it's not a matter of who is evil and who isn't. It's not about the colors of the fonts either. It's about the content of your posts and the fact that you've been calling other members "ignorant", "closed-minded", "naive and crazy" or telling them things like "If you believe that then I don't know what you are smoking" when they don't agree with you. Criticize the ideas/opinions if you want but do it in a respectful manner and avoid attacking the person behind those ideas. You've been doing it a lot recently and we won't tolerate this any longer. I hope this clears things out.

 

Now, back on topic - if you wish to answer this post, PM me. I'll pass on the messages to the rest of the staff. -d3

[GarfieldJL]

windu, I actually looked at wikipedia and actual Federal Law to cross-reference the Katrina stuff. Federal Law clearly points out that it is the Governor has to give permission for the National Guard to be called in, which the Governor did not do. Thus President Bush's hands were tied on the matter. What you're saying Bush should have done was against Federal Law. The reason I consider Fox to be more trustworthy is because they are under a lot more scrutiny by the Left-Wing Mainstream Media hoping that Fox News will screw up so they can bash them into the ground.

[Prime]

The reason I consider Fox to be more trustworthy

In what sense? To provide unbiased journalism?

[Totenkopf]

Perhaps he means "less biased".....

[GarfieldJL]

I mean the mainstream media outlets are waiting with baited breath to bash them if they misreport something because they can't stand the fact that Fox News exists.