I have an idea. Bush should have his two daughters enlist and go to Iraq. Just think how great a morale booster this would be for our US military serving in Iraq. They could see that George Bush was so convinced he was doing the right thing that he sent his own daughters to help in his valiant effort. I suggest one enlisted in the Army and the other in the Marine Corps.

We have a volunteer army. His daughters are adults and he can't have his daughters enlist if they don't want to. From what I read moral is pretty good in Iraq. But you won't hear that from the MSM. Remember col, the military vote goes to Bush. They support him and what he's doing because they see the real results, not what the media here tells you.

Defending the US and our freedom is brave. The BS in Iraq has NOTHING to do with our freedom. Sending the American military to their death because Bush did not listen to the people thst knew what it would take to control Iraq after Saddam fell. How many died or were injured because Bush did not send the number of people needed to stop the terrorism that takes place every day in Iraq. The Downing street memo's were correct, Bush had no workable plan to control Iraq and our military have paid the price for the Bush choice on the conduct of this war. Even if you agree with the war itself, anyone can see that the way Bush choose to handle it is NOT WORKING! He must have studied military tactics when he was not attending national Guard Drills in 1972!

We have a volunteer army. His daughters are adults and he can't have his daughters enlist if they don't want to

If there was a draft for everyone including women they would not go, I can easily guarantee that. They always send the poor.

I read moral is pretty good in Iraq.

Yeah, that's why they complained to Rumsfeld in a press conference. I don't think moral is as high as you have read.

How many died or were injured because Bush did not send the number of people needed to stop the terrorism that takes place every day in Iraq.

Probably none. You have no evidence or proof that sending more troops would have changed anything. And stop quoting the same thing as usual. I have seen generals that said we have too many troops over there. Everybody has an opinion, and that is all your posts are.

The Downing street memo's were correct, Bush had no workable plan to control Iraq and our military have paid the price for the Bush choice on the conduct of this war. Even if you agree with the war itself, anyone can see that the way Bush choose to handle it is NOT WORKING! He must have studied military tactics when he was not attending national Guard Drills in 1972!

The "memos" have not been proven to be real. Just stop quoting them as fact.

As far as your National Guard comment, you have been proved wrong on that a long time ago. Do you want to bring that up again?

Actually Iraq is working. Elections, Government, markets, more utilities than when Saddam was in power, schools opening, etc. Yeah, Iraq is not working. You are pathetic.

If there was a draft for everyone including women they would not go, I can easily guarantee that. They always send the poor.

Proof?

Yeah, that's why they complained to Rumsfeld in a press conference. I don't think moral is as high as you have read.

You mean the soldier who asked a question for a reporter? Anyways that has nothing to do with moral. Since col never answers this question, do you ever take the time to read and research the good things happening in Iraq?

Anyway, if we always said "This war is bs and would cost too many men, so lets not do it." we wouldn't get anywhere or even be in the same situation we are in today. And the fact is that liberals can make a lot more noise through just a few people on how bad it is over there then what the majority really thinks. Otherwise the only way to show how the moral is over there would be to give me a poll showing what the soldiers think about the war. I have talked to soldiers that have come back and they personally shared the high amounts of progress taking place over there since we came. And the news (if you notice it) only shows everything bad happening like people dying, car accidents, soliders dying, etc....

Well thats all I have to say for now,

The Protector

Otherwise the only way to show how the moral is over there would be to give me a poll showing what the soldiers think about the war

--uh oh, polls arn't accurate, don't you know that...?

I read moral is pretty good in Iraq. Yeah, that's why they complained to Rumsfeld in a press conference. I don't think moral is as high as you have read.

This is plain BULL! It has already been proven that that was a put up job by the media! Nice try! Now try again.

yeah but its better than just assuming it

Proof?

Vietnam, and I mean do you really think that they (Congress or Bush administration) would send their children? if you do then this conversation is over on my side.

This is plain BULL! It has already been proven that that was a put up job by the media! Nice try! Now try again.

Talk to any soldier that comes from Iraq. I think that they are complaining about the fact that they don't have any armor on their vehicles among many other things. I've heard dozens of accounts of soldiers dissatisfaction with their extended tours in Iraq.

Oh and whether it was staged by the media is in my opinion moot considering it elicited this reaction

"The question prompted cheers from some of the approximately 2,300 troops assembled in the large hangar to hear Rumsfeld deliver a pep talk at what the Pentagon called a town hall meeting."

Link

Vietnam, and I mean do you really think that they (Congress or Bush administration) would send their children? if you do then this conversation is over on my side.

Vietnam is not proof. I don't care whether or not Bush sends his daughters off. This is a volunteer army and your commment that only poor people get sent to war is ridiculous.

Oh and whether it was staged by the media is in my opinion moot considering it elicited this reaction

Cheers from a reporter staged question has nothing to do with troop moral.

Damn strange that so many Senators are veterans, isn't it? Man, there must be a lot of rags-to-riches stories there if only poor people are drafted.

Damn strange that so many Senators are veterans, isn't it? Man, there must be a lot of rags-to-riches stories there if only poor people are drafted

--Or,IMO, rags to riches to "rags" (not saying i don't thank them for what they did for their country, but the way some of them have turned out.....*shakes head*

No, I am accusing you of trying to twist public opinion by using fearmongering, inflammatory language and associating Bush's name with Nazism.

The inflammatory language I have already fully admitted to. Fearmongering? Well now who's being inflammatory, I must have missed the part where I said "Run for the hills or George W. Bush is going to eat your babies!"

You know full well the impression your title and that quote gives, and you just won't admit it.

I did admit it, I know full well there are plenty of peope that make those false sort of associations, but as I said it was unintentional hence why I said:

. I agree it could be interpreted that way but it was not my intention,

I think your problem is that you are lumping me in with every other leftie that you have ever debated with. Your mixing an individual up with a stereotype of a group. I personally think that deliberately using false association harms any legitimate arguements you might want to make later on.

Oh well as I said believe what you want to believe, I've already said my piece.

Talk to any soldier that comes from Iraq. I think that they are complaining about the fact that they don't have any armor on their vehicles among many other things. I've heard dozens of accounts of soldiers dissatisfaction with their extended tours in Iraq.

Interesting you would say that. Re-enlistments of Iraq-deployed soldiers are way above projections, much higher than the "normal" rate. Fulfillment of recruiting targets for new enlistees is down, that's true, but many of the guys already in Iraq want to stay to get the job done, in part because they have first-hand knowledge of all the good things that are happening (the things the press doesn't tell anyone) and the progress of transition to Iraqi control.

And "don't have any armor on their vehicles" is a gross and false generalization.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Toblerone -

What about a set of circumstances wherein the people actually are attacked? And what if some individuals by their actions actually do expose them to danger, is it still "Nazi propaganda tactics" for the government to let the people know?

I believe the majority of Americans (based on the election results) believed President Bush had done the right thing in toppling Saddam, whether or not they believed he had a personal score to settle and whether or not the pre-war intelligence on WMD's was faulty, and that it was an appropriate second step in halting the momentum of terrorism. Whether you give the Bush Administration credit or not, the momentum of global terrorism has been seriously slowed since. And an interesting side benefit has been the awakening of peoples in the greater Middle East to the potential benefits of democratization. The vacuum in which terrorism was cradled and allowed to thrive has been punctured after years of ineffectual hand-wringing and celebrated "agreements" violated before the ink was dry. Since in contemporary liberal ideology (as in war) the ends always justify the means, I'm not sure why the left is upset about all this.

Cheers,
Daiwa

What about a set of circumstances wherein the people actually are attacked? And what if some individuals by their actions actually do expose them to danger, is it still "Nazi propaganda tactics" for the government to let the people know?

Well if they are actually are attacked, and they have proof of who was involved, saying someone is attacking you wouldn't be a tactic then. Now tell me when did Iraq attack the US again? Where is the proof that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? Even if you do know that they attacked you I don't think it is acceptable to call people unpatriotic just because they believe war might not be the answer.

I think you want to sidetrack me onto something entirely different for the purpose of extending the debate rather than either conceding the point or agreeing to disagree.

Whether you give the Bush Administration credit or not, the momentum of global terrorism has been seriously slowed since.

I don't see proof of that, all I see is a wasp's nest that has been stirred up. Terrorist feed off war and violence, it's recruiting time. Show me some evidence that terrorism has been slowed rather than just confronted and I'll concede the point.

Since in contemporary liberal ideology (as in war) the ends always justify the means, I'm not sure why the left is upset about all this.

Well guess what? I don't believe the end always justifies the means. I don't know where you get the idea that that is a liberal concept, that is called Machiavellianism last time I checked which is a fascist concept.

Aside from all that whether the war was justified or not isn't really on topic. As CS pointed out, I got sidetracked onto it but it doesn't have anything to do with whether Bushco used the tactics I speak of. I think he did and my point still stands whether anyone actually fell for it or not (and I believe at least a portion of the poplation, not just in the US but worldwide, did).

*Boing boing*,

Tobler

I think your problem is that you are lumping me in with every other leftie that you have ever debated with.

--Thats because so many of them seem to be the same; "Blah blash, bash bush,etc..." I could count off almost 5 right now, there are those who IMO are a lot nicer, and that i enjoy debating with, the others......

Wasn't trying to sidetrack you at all, rather get back to your original topic. You appear to have a rigid mind so "sidetracking" is apparently not possible, anyway. You didn't bother to take my post in toto and digest it in context, so I'm just as done with you as you appear to be with me.

Ciao.

Daiwa

Beyond creating mistrust and fear, I don't see much point in associating someone with a Nazism. You aren't making them look more warm and cuddly...

Wasn't trying to sidetrack you at all, rather get back to your original topic. You appear to have a rigid mind so "sidetracking" is apparently not possible, anyway. You didn't bother to take my post in toto and digest it in context, so I'm just as done with you as you appear to be with me. Ciao. Daiwa

--Two things, 1) are you from italy daiwa? If so, where? I have a friend that lives in Torremaggiore 2)were you talking to me, or bakerstreet?

Beyond creating mistrust and fear, I don't see much point in associating someone with a Nazism.

--that is unless they follow nazism, like your local Knights brotherhood, and KKK "political" party/groups....in my home town,up to about 1983, there was a very large, very active KKK klan... not good!

Well, but in those cases you'd WANT to create mistrust and fear, right?

Yep,BS....(Kinda funny that your initials are 'BS' have gotten fooled in some posts when some had put BS, which i though they were saying bull shit, but they were talking to you...*shakes his head* ) LOL