COL Gene

America has LIED to its Military

▼

America has LIED to its Military

from JoeUser Forums


I served 30 years as a member of first the Regular Army and then the Army Reserve. I met some of the most dedicated people in my life in the military. Almost to a person they accepted the tasks given them even when those tasks caused great hardship to them and their families. From everything I have read and scene on TV today, our military has never been more committed to protecting our great country.

That is what makes what we have done to them so hard to accept. We sent them into combat believing that their sacrifice was to:



Protect us from what they were told was a danger to our homeland from Iraq.



They were told their service in fighting the Iraq War would make America safer.



We told them we would take care of them if they were injured.

The horrible truth is we LIED. Anyone that supports Bush and Cheney has lied to them just like our two top leaders have done. Saddam was no danger to America and Bush had the intelligence and Pentagon estimate that showed he WAS NO DANGER to our country in 2002. The bottom line is that after over four years of fighting the efforts of our military has not made America safer but less safe. That is not because they did not perform admirably but because the mission they were sent on by Bush was one that was WRONG from the beginning and Bush was warned that attacking Iraq would create the horrible situation we see today. Bush failed to listen to the military planners as to the troop levels needed to secure Iraq and most of our dead and wounded are because Bush did not send the required manpower to secure Iraq and prevent the needless bloodshed we see every day in that Hell Hole! When our wounded return we fail to provide decent medical facilities like we say at Walter Reed and a VA system that is NOT capable of providing the long term services needed by our veterans.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have a lot on nerve appearing before the brave members of our military after the way they LIED to them as to WHY we attacked Iraq. They should be ashamed after the way they BOTH failed to serve their country during Vietnam.
politics
26,422 views 122 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top

dainielost

Congress has the right to impose restrictions on how money is spent. They have EVERY Right to say after a date no more money can be spent to support combat operations in Iraq. I believe they should continue to send Bush the SAME BILL and if Bush veto's these bills it will be Bush that cuts off the funding. Congress has provided all the money Bush requested. When the money runs out because Bush has vetoed the supplemental funding he will have to bring the troops home because he will not have the authority to continue the war without the funding


You're correct that Congress can impose restrictions on how money is spent. But that is "not" what they're doing. They're saying that if you want this money you will start bring troops home by this date. That is congress trying to control the military, which they have NO legal right to do. If hey knock off the timetable crap, GW would probably sign the bill even with all the pork in it.
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

The issue is not the pork. In fact some of the added funding is money that the VA needs for our troops that Bush ignored. It is time to bring an end to the war as the VAST majority of Americans and the majority of Congress wants. As I said if it were up to me, Bush would get the very same bill each time he would veto it. When the funding comes to an end he would be forced to end to the war.
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
Congress has the right to impose restrictions on how money is spent. They have EVERY Right to say after a date no more money can be spent to support combat operations in Iraq.


that isn't what they are saying they are telling the president when to bring the troops home

if they want to cut funding them let them say that

the demos want to be able to tell american in october of next year that they are the ones that ended the war in iraq so that they can get elected in november

and that is what it is all about

because he will not have the authority to continue the war without the funding.


just becouse you run out of money doesnt mean you lose the authority to command the troops it just means you can't pay them

oh and by the way iraq was the only country to have a mock up of a jet liner for the sole purpose of training to hi-jacking one

so guess where the al quida members on 9/11 learned to hi-jack planes at

Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
now your response will be that the demos didnt choose october to get elected

they just plucked it out of thin air for no good reason


go ahead and say that i dare you
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
When the money runs out because Bush has vetoed the supplemental funding he will have to bring the troops home because he will not have the authority to continue the war without the funding.


This is wrong as usual for you. Congress can set a date for ending the funds for the war. Congress can not set a date for the troops to come home. They did this in Vietnam so it is not something new for the democrats. To set a date for pulling the troops out of Iraq is outside of their purview.
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
"that isn't what they are saying they are telling the president when to bring the troops home"

Yes by restricting the president's ability to spend money on the war. That is how Congress can affect an end to this war.

"just because you run out of money doesn’t mean you lose the authority to command the troops it just means you can't pay them "

Bush may be in command but without recourses he can NOT conduct combat operations.

"so guess where the al quida members on 9/11 learned to hi-jack planes at "

There is still no link between 9/11 and Saddam.


The issue here is we did not tell our military the truth about the danger posed our country by Saddam. We sent them into combat believing the U.S. was in danger and they were going to make us safer. THAT WAS A LIE. We were NOT in danger from Saddam and their sacrifice HAS NOT MADE us safer!
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes by restricting the president's ability to spend money on the war. That is how Congress can affect an end to this war.


but their not trying to restrict the presidents ability to spend money
they didn't pass this bill to restrict they passed this bill to take the presidents job away from him

if this war is lost then why are we waiting a year and half to bring the troops home

if this war is lost i would want the troops home tomorrow

tell me ARE WE WAITING A YEAR

shall i tell you next year is a presidental election year

most americans have a 30 day attention/memory span

so the demos do not want the troops to come home now they want them to come home a month before the election

and if you cant see that i feel sorry for you

again if this war is lost why are we waiting a year and half to bring them home

if al quida didn't have to fight in iraq then where would they be fighting

Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes by restricting the president's ability to spend money on the war. That is how Congress can affect an end to this war.


This is against the law. You know that pesky constitution thingy.

Bush may be in command but without recourses he can NOT conduct combat operations.


Yeah, that is what Congress tried on Mr. Reagan who found a creative way of dealing with that crap. You call it Iran/Contra. If the president can find money not under control of the Congress the war can go on. I am not suggesting it but the Saudi government has little to lose but much to gain by underwriting the war on terror. The President can send troops anywhere in the world without the Congress.

There is still no link between 9/11 and Saddam.


No one said there was a link. Training terrorist in Iraq was something that was not connected to 9/11 because the idea, planning,and training for 9/11 was done outside Iraq.

We sent them into combat believing the U.S. was in danger and they were going to make us safer.


The U.S. is in danger from AQ and that danger has been pushed back away from our shores. We are not being attacked on our soil because we are taking the fight to them instead of waiting for them to attack us at home.

You have a point but not a valid point.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
"if this war is lost then why are we waiting a year and half to bring the troops home"

Because we have an arrogant President that will not face the truth or admit he was WRONG! To affect an orderly withdrawal and protect our personnel and remove our equipment would take about a year. The time lines in the funding bill are realistic given the magnitude of the withdrawal operation.

"if al Qaeda didn't have to fight in Iraq then where would they be fighting "

They are operating to the extent they are because we removed Saddam and did not have the troops to prevent them from establishing their operations in Iraq. The truth is they also operate in other locations and even if we could some how eliminate them from operating in Iraq they would continue to operate from their other locations.


The U.S. is in danger from AQ and that danger has been pushed back away from our shores. We are not being attacked on our soil because we are taking the fight to them instead of waiting for them to attack us at home. We are not being attacked in the U.S, because we have improved out efforts to keep them out of our country. So far we have been successful. However the fighting in Iraq has NOT reduced the threat from future attacks. In fact because out invasion of Iraq has added to the numbers of groups like al Qaeda, we are in MORE danger of future attack. That is what the NIE said. Iraq has NOT made America less likely to be attached in the future. It has increased the number of Moslems that would be willing to try another 9/11. That make the job of protecting our country harder because Iraq. That is one of the lies to our troops. They thought by going to Iraq they were helping REDUCE the danger to future attacks in the U.S. THAT IS NOT TRUE!
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
Because we have an arrogant President that will not face the truth or admit he was WRONG! To affect an orderly withdrawal and protect our personnel and remove our equipment would take about a year. The time lines in the funding bill are realistic given the magnitude of the withdrawal operation



i am sorry that year and half is the democrats time table. the president doesnt have a time table at least not one he has broadcast to the enamy


It has increased the number of Moslems that would be willing to try another 9/11. That make the job of protecting our country harder because Iraq.


again i am sorry i have heard the number of groups have gone up but the number of people have gone down.

unless of course you use democrats to fill in the numbers

Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
The time lines in the funding bill are realistic given the magnitude of the withdrawal operation


what you don't think if we wanted those troops out now we couldn't do it now

i cant believe anyone is that stupid

Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
“again i am sorry i have heard the number of groups have gone up but the number of people have gone down.”

Better read what the NIE said. The number of radical Moslems has increased and the number of locations where groups like al Qaeda are operating has increased. Anyone that does not understand that our invasion and occupation of Iraq has acted like a recruiting program for the radicals responsible for 9/11 is just living in a dream world!
Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielost Posted: Saturday, April 28, 2007
The time lines in the funding bill are realistic given the magnitude of the withdrawal operation


“what you don't think if we wanted those troops out now we couldn't do it now

i cant believe anyone is that stupid “


Yes you are STUPID. If you had military experience you would realize that to safely excite a withdrawal operation for 160,000 that gets the personnel and equipment out safely can not be accomplished is a short period of time. What you suggest would be like Dunkirk. If we listed to Bush we will NEVER leave Iraq. Look at the violence this past week and over the weekend. ANYONE that says we are winning LIES!!!!!!!
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)COL Gene


grow up

it would not take 18 months to pull our troops out

the withdrew from vietnam only took about 6 months

and we had at least 3 times as many troops there

NIE


you'll have to give me a real name becouse using only those three letters all i can find is national instatute of education, and newspapers in education

and since both of those are controlled by liberals i wouldnt trust their numbers

i have been watching the violence this weekend uh that would be saturday and most of the attacks have been against iraqis

and one more question

when do we pull the occupating army out of germany they have been there for 60 years


yes you going to tell me that they aren't an occuping force

but they are there to 1 protect eurape from the soviet union(oh wait that country no longer exists) and 2 to make sure that germany doesn't try it a third time(although no one will admit that today)



Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top
danielost

First, withdrawal of a force engaged in combat is not like withdrawal from Germany after WWII. I never said it would require 18 Months. However I can see 9-12 months to be totally out with all our equipment removed.

The issue is not if it would take 6, 9 or 12 months. The question is should the process begin. On that issue the vast majority wants us OUT and the majority of Congress agrees. Bush, Cheney and most GOP members of Congress are standing in the door. It is time to end our involvement of what is for the most part a Civil War for the control of Iraq.

Do I believe when we leave the fighting will escalate? YES. Until the people of Iraq say enough is enough, the fighting will not end. Our remaining in Iraq will only prolong the inevitable. The government in Iraq today is unwilling and or incapable of controlling the violence. We have not heard any reports as to how many of the added Iraqi Forces have appeared in Baghdad. Dad after day the Iraqi government is unable to act. Now they are planning to go out of session for most of the summer which means NOTHING will get done to meet the political requirements to end the violence. By the end of August, the assessment of the Surge in Iraq will show that it has not worked. The Congress will be working on the 2008 budget. Republicans up for reelection will be scrambling for cover. The Democrats may cave on the supplemental but if the Surge by then end of summer shows we are not ending the violence the battle to end this war will get HOT and Republicans that continue to defy what the Vast majority want, which is to get out of Iraq, will find themselves in the fight of their life!
Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
again the demos want to wait till next october

can you give me a better explaintion than politics

By the end of August, the assessment of the Surge in Iraq will show that it has not worked.


in other words nobody right now knows if we are winning or losing

which means everything you have said up to this point is a bunch of garbage

oh and that is the commanding generals words about august
Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top
Better read what the NIE said. The number of radical Moslems has increased and the number of locations where groups like al Qaeda are operating has increased.


The only NIE that has been released to the public was the one before the war. Where are you getting this information or are you making it up again?
Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top
"in other words nobody right now knows if we are winning or losing." We KNOW we are not winning and it looks as if it is getting worse every week. Just look at the past two or three weeks. I do not know what you consider Winning but if that includes a stable democracy which is what Bush told us was the objective, we have lost. A win could be a temporary reduction in attacks that will not last after we leave Iraq. The 1.300 years of Hate between the factions is NOT going away because we added another 30,000 troops in this surge. It is not going to be settled because the government in Iraq can not control the violence and there is no sign of ANY agreement that would end the conflict. In fact the government is going on Summer Recess without settling anything. This is a joke and that joke is getting more and more of our troops killed and injured. When this is over, the Bush Surge will be just that - a SURGE in American deaths and injuries!
Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top
The only NIE that has been released to the public was the one before the war. Where are you getting this information or are you making it up again?


"in other words nobody right now knows if we are winning or losing.


So from your answer here it means you made things up again. You lied again! you failed to be truthful again. You tried to mislead again. If you can't make your points by debating the facts you just make them up so you can still be right.

Once again you have been proven wrong and you lied to hide that fact.

Once again I will refuse to take your word because unlike Officers I have Known you can not be trusted. You sir are a political hack that will do anything, say anything to win your points even if the facts don't agree with your position.
Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top
The 1.300 years of Hate between the factions is NOT going away


you just got showed yourself to be wrong again

you stated that if the united states had not taken out saddam that there wouldn't be any killing in iraq

they have been killing each other for 1300 years your words
We KNOW we are not winning and it looks as if it is getting worse every week. Just look at the past two or three weeks.



the worst fighting in world war 2 was when russia entered berlin

when russia entered berlin it wasn't fighting for buildings it was fighting for every inch

would have been japan if we had had to invade it

Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top
Paladin77

OK you idiot READ. You are a LIER of ther FIRST ORDER.

AP
Updated: 7:31 p.m. ET Sept 26, 2006
WASHINGTON - The war in Iraq has become a “cause célèbre” for Islamic extremists, breeding deep resentment of the U.S. that probably will get worse before it gets better, federal intelligence analysts conclude in a report at odds with President Bush’s contention of a world growing safer.

In the bleak report, declassified and released Tuesday on Bush’s orders, the nation’s most veteran analysts conclude that despite serious damage to the leadership of al-Qaida, the threat from Islamic extremists has spread both in numbers and in geographic reach.
This from the NIE I referenced.
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top
Paladin77

I do not care if you accept what I say or not. You are an Idiot that is not worth my time. Everything I have posted has been documented. I do not have to justify myself to the likes of you!
Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top
In the bleak report, declassified and released Tuesday on Bush’s orders


if bush is the biggest lier in this country why would he declassify and/or release this report ever

these roports don't have to be released for 7 years

so if such a report was so bad for the president why would he release it

in 7 years nobody will even know his name unless someone brings it up
Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top
"so if such a report was so bad for the president why would he release it " Because the content of the report had been leaked to the press.
Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top
Because the content of the report had been leaked to the press.


then why didn't he do what ever other president has done before him including clinton and deny it