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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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

--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*

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

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

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

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?

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