20 Jul 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt is impossible for you to say the Saddam Hussain would never send troops here, and you know it. Whether or not we are going about this war the right way (I'm not saying we are or aren't) we definetely still need to **support our troops**. Unconditionally... So unless you're a general, stop suggesting military tactics.
I meant the American citizens mattered, not just the loudmouth ones. The foreigners you referred to did not.
No, Saddam Hussein would never send troops to the US. However I personally don't mind that we knocked him out. I just don't understand why we stayed still and let any old jerkoff with a rifle or a pipe bomb take a shot at our troops. It' ...[text shortened]... gence and mobility in addition to firepower. We're wasting the first two by occupying Iraq.
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat was your poll... Also, in your post earlier, you said the loudmouth citizens ARE the only ones that matter. So unless you stop contradicting yourself left and right, stop debating. ;-)
You have something more recent?
How 'bout this?
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by CheckMate AAAYou must be kidding. You were afraid Saddam Hussein would invade the United States? You must be joking.
It is impossible for you to say the Saddam Hussain would never send troops here, and you know it. Whether or not we are going about this war the right way (I'm not saying we are or aren't) we definetely still need to **support our troops**. Unconditionally... So unless you're a general, stop suggesting military tactics.
I am not discussing tactics, I'm discussing strategy at the level at which civilians have control of the military. Bush is no general either but he had to make these kinds of decisions. The generals didn't decide how long they were going to occupy Iraq. The citizens did through our elected officials.
You are hurting the troops if you think criticizing the President over how he handled the aftermath of Iraq hurts the troops. Generals disagree with Presidents all the time. They have to obey like every other rank does.
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by CheckMate AAAThat comment of mine that you keep harping about was in response to this:
That was your poll... Also, in your post earlier, you said the loudmouth citizens ARE the only ones that matter. So unless you stop contradicting yourself left and right, stop debating. ;-)
the only people disagreeing that we should be in the war is our own loudmouth citizens and "some" uneducated Iraqi's.
So we're talking about everyone on the planet agreeing except the Americans and some Iraqis. That's how I read it. Since the majority of the populace opposes the war, the writer must be calling the majority loudmouthed. So I meant that out of everyone on the planet, only the American citizens, who had just been called loudmouthed, can make this call.
Now if you still don't understand I won't explain further because it will mean you're deliberately pretending to be dumb to be annoying or you really are retarded.
20 Jul 07
1 edit
Some relevant quotes:
When President Bush goes before the American people tonight to outline his new strategy for Iraq, he will be doing something he has avoided since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003: ordering his top military brass to take action they initially resisted and advised against.
Bush talks frequently of his disdain for micromanaging the war effort and for second-guessing his commanders. "It's important to trust the judgment of the military when they're making military plans," he told The Washington Post in an interview last month. "I'm a strict adherer to the command structure."
But over the past two months, as the security situation in Iraq has deteriorated and U.S. public support for the war has dropped, Bush has pushed back against his top military advisers and the commanders in Iraq: He has fashioned a plan to add up to 20,000 troops to the 132,000 U.S. service members already on the ground. As Bush plans it, the military will soon be "surging" in Iraq two months after an election that many Democrats interpreted as a mandate to begin withdrawing troops.
Pentagon insiders say members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have long opposed the increase in troops and are only grudgingly going along with the plan because they have been promised that the military escalation will be matched by renewed political and economic efforts in Iraq. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the outgoing head of Central Command, said less than two months ago that adding U.S. troops was not the answer for Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901872_pf.html
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI did not say Saddam was going to invade our United States. I said you do not have the power to say that, he could have in 25-30 years, you can't possibly know. I don't know who you think you are, but the troops need are support*. And yeah you're right the generals do have to obey the president, they are in charge of the military on a smaller scale though. Good job G.I. Jane. ;-)
That comment of mine that you keep harping about was in response to this:
[b]the only people disagreeing that we should be in the war is our own loudmouth citizens and "some" uneducated Iraqi's.
So we're talking about everyone on the planet agreeing except the Americans and some Iraqis. That's how I read it. Since the majority of the popul ...[text shortened]... ean you're deliberately pretending to be dumb to be annoying or you really are retarded.[/b]
*Would you like it if you were in the middle of the dessert fighting for your life. Haven't seen your mommy in over a year, and a bunch little fags back in the States being unsupportive because they don't really want to. Man up buddy, and don't call me a retard, it makes you look immature. I can't remember everything you said. But those were the main points that I remember.
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe authors of the Constitution are dead. In case you haven't notice. The only thing I mean by this is that they probably didn't know we would become the most powerful country on the globe.
Are you sure? Where is that in the Constitution?
The fact that we help people does not mean we are morally obligated to do so.
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOh, I understand exactly what your point is. And it would be a good one if you had your facts strait bud. Ever hear the saying "take everything with a grain of salt"?
That comment of mine that you keep harping about was in response to this:
[b]the only people disagreeing that we should be in the war is our own loudmouth citizens and "some" uneducated Iraqi's.
So we're talking about everyone on the planet agreeing except the Americans and some Iraqis. That's how I read it. Since the majority of the popul ...[text shortened]... ean you're deliberately pretending to be dumb to be annoying or you really are retarded.[/b]
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by CheckMate AAAYet their American Dream lives on, and those of us who are Citizens of the United States of America still follow the Constitution and accept it as the defining document for the country and it's governance.
The authors of the Constitution are dead. In case you haven't notice. The only thing I mean by this is that they probably didn't know we would become the most powerful country on the globe.
20 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by CheckMate AAADouchebag, I want to get those soldiers back to their mommies. You're the one who wants them to sit out there and get blown up by IEDs. I support the troops by respecting their lives and limbs.
I did not say Saddam was going to invade our United States. I said you do not have the power to say that, he could have in 25-30 years, you can't possibly know. I don't know who you think you are, but the troops need are support*. And yeah you're right the generals do have to obey the president, they are in charge of the military on a smaller scale tho re. I can't remember everything you said. But those were the main points that I remember.
They don't want to stick around either. The troops agree with me precisely:
89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year, 58% of Marines think so
Feb 2006 - Poll conducted by Zogby International in conjunction with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies
http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI could not agree with that statement more. As an American I believe that with everything i got. However, my point was that the Constitution does not apply to the context in which you used it.
Yet their American Dream lives on, and those of us who are Citizens of the United States of America still follow the Constitution and accept it as the defining document for the country and it's governance.
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by CheckMate AAAThe Constitution defines precisely the responsibilities and limitations of the elected officials. The elected officials are the ones who decide who, how and when we help. Thus the Constitution defines the responsibilities of the country in the international arena.
I could not agree with that statement more. As an American I believe that with everything i got. However, my point was that the Constitution does not apply to the context in which you used it.
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by CheckMate AAALet's invade Australia! They might invade the United States in 500 years!
I did not say Saddam was going to invade our United States. I said you do not have the power to say that, he could have in 25-30 years, you can't possibly know. I don't know who you think you are, but the troops need are support*. And yeah you're right the generals do have to obey the president, they are in charge of the military on a smaller scale tho ...[text shortened]... re. I can't remember everything you said. But those were the main points that I remember.