News about Iraq elections

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by argleby, Dec 10, 2005.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. lamont5123

    lamont5123

    Messages:
    2,415
    I am glad they will survive.

    However, I do believe some of their injuries might be permanent.

    Bob Woodruff is a great reporter.

    He gave it his all while in New Orleans for Katrina.
  2. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2006
  3. lamont5123

    lamont5123

    Messages:
    2,415
    DaveNJ,

    I appreciate your words. I am quite pleased that you saw through the word-twisting.

    I know a few didn't exactly get my points.

    But I believe a couple of the ones who made noxious comments did.

    They had their own agenda.

    And I thank you for coming to my and my son's defense.

    Oddfellow,

    The better body armor should have been made available. Period.

    Or the invasion should have been delayed until it was.

    Contrary to Rumsfeld's viewpoint, you don't go to war with the army you have.

    You go to war with the army you need.

    That is the way most of the troops in Iraq feel.

    If they hadn't felt that way, so many of them would not have complained, not to the press, but to their parents in letters and *****s about the lack of body armor and lightly armored vehicles.

    I am sure you read the countless stories of soldiers scrounging for wrecked trucks to take parts off and weld it on to their vehicles.

    One female Captain was threatened with a court-martial for trying to protect the lives of soldiers she was in charge of.

    That is NOT the way to get people to encourage their children to join the military.

    Or get folks to believe that the Bush Team truly cares about the men and women they've ordered into harm's way.
  4. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    Lamont-

    Thank you, and you are welcome.

    I can appreciate your position as the father of someone who has actually served in Iraq. You are right about that changing ones perspective.

    For what it is worth, I know that some posters here took things you said and completely twisted your words, missing the bigger point. I fully believe you do not support the terrorist elements in Iraq, and that you are intelligent enough to distinguish between a foreign Islamist in Iraq and an Iraqi nationalist. It is a shame that so many people are only interested in supporting their viewpoint, thereby missing the point of what others post if it is not in line with their point-of-view.
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2006
  5. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    You both make good points and I think what it boils down to is this:

    The better body armor should be AVAILABLE to the soldiers. Whether they were it or not on a daily basis isn't the point, because right now they do not have the option to do so. Right now it is not available to enough soldiers for them to have the option (or to be ordered) to wear it. I may decide I want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet some days, but I'm still glad I own a helmet for the times I think I should wear it.
  6. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    Lamont,

    You're sort of skipping over the key point. The press hates Bush, so they find a line of attack, bend the facts, then amplify their false conclusions, just like you're doing.

    If you were not wearing body armour while running accross a street while an RPG blows up within 30 feet of you and it doesn't kill you because you got accross the street fast

    becomes

    Wearing body armour while running accross a street while an RPG blows up within 10 feet of you and it does kill you because you did not get accross the street fast.

    That's sort of the GI's point isn't it? If the body armour tires you out, slows you down and makes you ineffective, how does it save your life?
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2006
  7. lamont5123

    lamont5123

    Messages:
    2,415
    Oddfellow,

    You are absolutely correct about this.

    However, there is a major flip side and it's this:

    If U.S. forces in Iraq had been provided better body armor and more heavily armored Humvees and trucks, many soldiers who died because of sniper fire or improvised explosive devices would have survived.

    And that is a fact.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10746976/from/RSS

    Which is why I, and many other parents of Marines, screamed incessantly to the Pentagon to rush over better body armor and to weld metal plates on the sides of vehicles.

    It does not matter that a few soldiers or Marines spout off to reporters about what they want to or don't to wear in the desert heat.

    If they're ordered to don the heavier body armor by their Captains, they will wear it.

    Just like they were ordered to put on their chem suits in the opening weeks of the war in 105 degree heat when Saddam's forces fired off the few Scud missles they had managed to keep in operating order.

    You can bet your sweet ass everyone of those soldiers quickly ran to their duffel bags and scrambled to get into those chem suits after the radio alarms came in that Scuds, possibly armed with chemical agents, were incoming.

    Soldiers follow orders.

    Even if those orders are to wear or ride in something that's uncomfortable.

    The bottom line is the Bush administration failed those kids over there.

    Which is why Bush's approval ratings among the military, though still decent and above the general population's, continue to fall.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2006
  8. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    This is the key point. You can look at the deficit and focus on that or imagine what the economy would be like if we were suffering 911 attacks on a regular basis. The deficit may be huge, but the economy is humming along pretty well. And of course, you can imagine lower spending and no overseas involvement, but the people have to vote for and support an arguement. So far, the fear, real or imagined, of terror, is leading the people to support the current policy.

    Personally, I think the war on terror is as big a deal as WW2 was and that the threat is so significant that we MUST be on the front lines in the Middle East. And I do think things would be worse if we were not.
  9. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    Lamont,

    I have heard interviews with U.S. servicemen in Iraq stating that they don't want more body armour and that with all the stuff they have to carry, having more weight on them would only slow them down and make them more of a target.

    Your opinion?
  10. lamont5123

    lamont5123

    Messages:
    2,415
    DaveNJ,

    I thank you.

    I appreciate your ardor.

    You know what the real problem is with the poster you are referring to?

    He knows I am right. It's apparent that he knows very little about the Shi'ite, Sunni and Wahabi divisions of Islam, so he cannot fathom how the Shi'ites in Iran are giddy with glee for the U.S. giving them a chance to create a dual-Islamic state.

    He also missed all those wire service stories about the U.S banning this political group and that political group and ordering certain individuals off the ballots in the run-up to the Iraqi election.

    Just like most on his side forget that when Saddam was giving acid baths to his enemies, the only people hollering in protest were people on the Left.

    I told him I had a direct link to a Department of Defense Web site, but he refuses to acknowledge this. I am happy that you did.

    And this is the same guy, who puffed up his chest and said for a certainty that not one U.S. soldier had died in combat in Iraq in the last year. Now after his despicable comments, does anyone even think he would care?

    Most of the Pro-War crowd who tend to get upset quickly and hurl insults have no military background and no relatives in the service.

    To them, soldiers in uniform are mere talking points. They're not real people to such ones.

    If so many die in one week, what's it to them? They don't know any of them.

    And they wouldn't let their own children or nephews or nieces within three miles of a recruiting station.

    I'm damn proud of my son. Just as I am proud of all of those fellas he served with.

    But even he can see the futility of continuing a battle for the hearts of minds of an enraged people that has obviously already been lost.

    And my son now knows that he was lied to, given inferior body armor and told to risk his life for a bunch of ingrates like the poster in question who'd rather see him dead simply because he and his Dad can think for themselves.

    When I told my son what that poster said, his response was typical Marine-like.

    He'd love to meet that wuss in a bar.

    But I'm just going to leave it like it is.

    It's not worth it.

    I know I am right. Events have borne out all of the predictions of those who said this invasion of Iraq is the dumbest idea in the history of dumb ideas.

    Those who think it's grand should volunteer their own children or loved ones to go fight in it.

    Then we'd see how courageous they really are without their keyboards.

    Saddam posed no threat to anyone. Iraq had military equipment that was 12 years old and in disrepair.

    But Iraq does sit on the world's third largest reserves of oil and its crude is the easiest and cheapest to refine.

    Which is why when U.S. armed forces first entered Baghdad, they had only one objective: Safeguard the Oil Ministry Building.
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2006
  11. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    To be fair, it would be more accurate to say the UBL offered a truce, not asked for one. It may seem like a minor difference, but it is more than that. Those who ask for a truce are coming from a place of weakness, those who offer it come from strength.

    And you may want to look at who's sucking who's resources dry. Have you seen the National debt & defecit lately? It is only going to get worse as we hop from conflict to conflict abroad.
  12. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094

    I said Middle East, not Iraq. By the time we are done in Iraq, we can have a base there, at their choice, of course, move a large contingent to Kuwait or we may even be in Iran by then.

    Please note that AQ is now in Iraq and Afghanistan trying to defeat us. UBL has just asked for a truce so that those countries can be re-built. We are sucking AQ's resources dry. And they were involved in 911, last time I checked.

    And also please note that defending our country can be best accomplished by changing the culture in the Middle East. Democracy in Iraq is not some kind of charity operation. It is a strategic choice.

    Regarding Syria and Iran. Do you think we would be better able to deal with them from here or is it just possible that having 130,000 troops next door may help us to "negotiate" with a bit more clout?
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2006
  13. goofy3

    goofy3

    Messages:
    160
    Well, so much for the notion that we want democracy in the Middle East. You're saying that we are there, and staying there, whether the people that live there want us there or not. So much for the idea of government for the people by the people - unless of course they're our people I guess. Sounds distinctly un-American in theory, but it's sadly all too American in practice.
    We went in to defend our perceived self interests in the region, not for the physical defense of the US. Even the administration has said that Iraq was not involved in 9/11. The only Iraqi link to 9/11 is that the hijackers largest motivation was that US troops were stationed in Saudi. Those troops were there to contain Iraq.
    Even if we had not invaded, pulled all forces out of the region, and lifted all sanctions against Iraq, they would not have constituted a direct threat to the US. They would however have been an immediate concern for all of their neighbors. Not that we were all that concerned with Iran or Syria, but we couldn't have Iraq messing with Kuwait, Saudi, or Israel again. I'm not saying that defending these allies is wrong, just don't wrap the US flag around the reason.
  14. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    This axiom is shattered by 911. The rationale for Iraq is defense and it is working. In fact, I expect us to stay in the Middle East until some limp wristed populist gets elected and saves us from the evil neo-cons.
  15. goofy3

    goofy3

    Messages:
    160
    Isn't ironic that the posters that think "liberal" is an insult are using the most liberal of reasons - that we went in to Iraq because Sadam has an evil bastard, and we are there to help the Iraqi people - to defend this war? I'd feel better if I could really believe that.
    A traditional conservative view would be that the US should avoid overseas intanglements. There is an old political maxium that conservatives want a large military and don't want to send it anywhere; liberals want a small military but want to send it everywhere.
    I have real doubts about Lamont's Israeli conspiracy theory - about as much as I doubt the WMD excuse, or the idea that we invaded to fight terrorists that weren't in Iraq when we invaded.
    I believe that we invaded based on that most basic of conservative motivations, our self interest as seen by the current administration. As long as Hussian, or one of his sons, remained in power we would have to maintain a military force in the area. The presense of those troops was becoming a de-stablizing factor: a recruiting tool for the radical Islamics and a political problem for allies in the region.
    The problem is that all of the facts that mitigated removing Hussain at the end of Desert Storm are still in play. The reason we didn't take him out then was to avoid exactly the same type of mess that we have now.
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2006
  16. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    Ozzy,

    Not that I had much respect for you before you made the above statement. However, any little bit that I may have had is now gone for sure. Are you a complete idiot? How can you look at yourself in the mirror after saying something so stupid and clearly wrong. I'm pasting Lamont's post that you are referring to. Let's look at the links he provided one by one.

    I have no knowledge of this website. So, for the sake of arguement I'm willing to let you have this one.


    Again, not so familiar with this site, or its political leanings,but I skimmed the article itself. Again, for the sake of arguement, you can have this one.

    Happy?? Don't get used to it. That's the last one for you.

    The fact that you referred to the PNAC website as radically left in your rant to lamont is just sad. Does it hurt when you add numbers larger than 10??

    News flash everyone. The DOD is now officially a leftie organization, according to Ozzie in his infinite wisdom. Ozzy, can you walk and chew gum at the same time, or does it interfere with your breathing?

    This is the funniest of them all. You say that Lamont uses links to leftie websites that carry articles we wouldn't see on CNN. Well dummy, I think CNN carries stories that would appear on CNN.

    Do you bother to read peoples posts, or do you just start typing after you log on to UG? I mean seriously, your comment is the single most stupid thing I have ever read anywhere. I've met some stupid people in my day, but no one I've ever met would call the DOD & PNAC radically left organizations. And nobody with half a brain would say that CNN wouldn't carry a story that CNN carries.

    Thank you for illustrating your utter stupidity. Dumbass.
  17. lamont5123

    lamont5123

    Messages:
    2,415
    Regardless of whatever opinion anyone espouses, wishing harm to members of their family or to any active serviceman or woman simply because one disagrees with their parent's political point of view is wholly uncalled for.

    Now, if anyone disagrees with that, perhaps they need to look up the word human.

    And thank you, DonQuixote.

    But I'm not surprised at the comment.

    Or the tired justification of it.

    You should read what leaps off the keyboards of some these so-called "patriotic Americans" in news forums.
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2006
  18. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    In my opinion Lamont's implication that tens of millions of Iraqi citizens walking to the polls and electing its own government has no value or binding force is far more tasteless. His imagined puppetmaster role for the U.S. is so just plain wrong.
  19. donquixote04

    donquixote04

    Messages:
    2,174
    In my opinion, this is the single most tasteless post I have read on ug. I suspect this opinion might be shared by people on both sides of the political spectrum, and even by those who don't give a shit about politics. And, given that this IS ug, and has talented posters like vermeer trying their hardest everyday to be tasteless, ozzy has "achieved" quite a milestone here.
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2006
  20. lamont5123

    lamont5123

    Messages:
    2,415
    Proof positive that people like you have nothing but contempt for the U.S. Constitution and the right to dissent.

    It's also proof positive that people like you really don't give a damn about the brave men and women in harm's way.