Harry Reid says "War is lost"

[Bob26003]

You suggesting then that to support any Military action of a President, one needs to join the Army?

It's easy to support a War when you have to sacrifice nothing.

[AROCES]

It's easy to support a War when you have to sacrifice nothing.

All you need to do is understand what is at stake and you don't need to to loose your life or a relative to give support to what is being done.

We both care for the troops, now you don't want them harmed for you don't agree with the policy. I don't want them harmed either, but I think differently than you do. I rather our Military deal with an enemy now than ignore it and deal with a bigger and stronger enemy in the future.

Those were the lesson learned when the world ignored the threat of the NAZI, they could have prevented the Blitzkrieg had they acted instead of just hoping for the best.

[Bob26003]

All you need to do is understand what is at stake and you don't need to to loose your life or a relative to give support to what is being done.

We both care for the troops, now you don't want them harmed for you don't agree with the policy. I don't want them harmed either, but I think differently than you do. I rather our Military deal with an enemy now than ignore it and deal with a bigger and stronger enemy in the future.

Those were the lesson learned when the world ignored the threat of the NAZI, they could have prevented the Blitzkrieg had they acted instead of just hoping for the best.

We should not be destroying an entire Nation to fight a small element of the population........ It is immoral. Besides, Iraq was not a hotbed of Terror before we invaded. The longer we stay, the MORE jihadis there will be. This War has been a shot in the arm for Jihadist and recruitment worldwide........ All the official documentation says so.

[AROCES]

We should not be destroying an entire Nation to fight a small element of the population........ It is immoral. Besides, Iraq was not a hotbed of Terror before we invaded. The longer we stay, the MORE jihadis there will be. This War has been a shot in the arm for Jihadist and recruitment worldwide........ All the official documentation says so.

And Saddam didn't destroy it? Saddam destroyed not only Iraq but Kuwait too.

Not a hotbed of terror? then why the more than 10 uyears of sanction, embargo, no flyzone and UN resolutions?

Good, the Jihadist are coming to us, hunting them down was a problem when we started the war on terror.

[Bob26003]

And Saddam didn't destroy it? Saddam destroyed not only Iraq but Kuwait too.

Not a hotbed of terror? then why the more than 10 uyears of sanction, embargo, no flyzone and UN resolutions?

Good, the Jihadist are coming to us, hunting them down was a problem when we started the war on terror.

No Saddam did not destroy it. Iraq was on the verge of becoming a first world nation until the Sanctions. Which, BTW, hurt the Iraqi people way more than Saddam. The Sanctions had nothing to do with terror anyway.

And no, the Real Jihadist are gaining power in Afganistan and Saudia Arabia and other places........ We are creating Jihadists in Iraq.

[KingTomis]

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007345.htm

an interesting read

[AROCES]

No Saddam did not destroy it. Iraq was on the verge of becoming a first world nation until the Sanctions. Which, BTW, hurt the Iraqi people way more than Saddam. The Sanctions had nothing to do with terror anyway.

Oh really? Years of war with Iran and having their Army destroyed after Kuwait got them in the verge of becoming a first world nation?

There you go, you said it yourself, it hurt the Iraqi people. And the Iraqi people is Iraq, so much for your Saddam didn't destroy Iraq.

And no, the Real Jihadist are gaining power in Afganistan and Saudia Arabia and other places........ We are creating Jihadists in Iraq.

Real Jihadist? What the heck is a real Jihadist compare to a Jihadist????

Edited April 21, 2007 by AROCES

[Bob26003]

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007345.htm

an interesting read

Michelle Malkin You can't be serious

[KingTomis]

And you have no opinion on what the troops are saying.

Mind you the troops that YOU do not care for in the least bit.

[Fluffybunny]

Real Jihadist? What the heck is a real Jihadist compare to a Jihadist????

Aroces, I figured would know the answer to this...it is all about the union membership. Do you really want a jihadist that isn't licensed, bonded, and insured? Scam city... 60 Minutes did a segment on uncertified jihadist doing half-assed work; it was horrible. Trust me, if you want a real jihad, go union.

[Caesar]

Aroces, I figured would know the answer to this...it is all about the union membership. Do you really want a jihadist that isn't licensed, bonded, and insured? Scam city... 60 Minutes did a segment on uncertified jihadist doing half-assed work; it was horrible. Trust me, if you want a real jihad, go union.

Would that be Local 911

[Caesar]

The vast majority of people who protest the war say, "Support our troops. Don't waste them on an Iraqi civil war". The troops are individual human beings (unusually admirable ones) who deserve a normal lifespan. If you want to demonstrate your respect for them, give them the opportunity to celebrate a 50th anniversary with a partner they love. Give them the option of playing with their grandkids, or maturing as experts in their careers, or 50 years of exploration and contemplation. THAT is the best thing we can give them. Using them as pawns in a political war and giving them medals pales by comparison.

I don't think there is anything wrong with people opposing the war, my problem is that the same people who at one time voted for the war now are against it with these lies on why we went there and this Bush agenda, like we did it for oil, Haliburton ect or that we targeted civilians, used chemical weapons and other lies. the fact of the matter is that our intelligence was wrong under Clinton and it was wrong when we invaded Iraq. there were connections with terrorists there too, like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. and intelligence reports from Russia

" Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country warned the United States several times that Saddam Hussein's regime was planning terror attacks on the United States and its overseas interests."

Putin: Russia warned U.S. of Iraq terror

Here are some quotes from the left before Bush was elected

""One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002."

Quotes reproduce statements made by Democratic leaders about Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction.

In light of 9/11 I think the war with Iraq made sense. we won and the time to leave is soon, very soon! the military is made to fight and win wars, not conflicts like what is in Iraq now.

[supercar]

Supercar: are you in the service? If not, why not? Sometimes I wish that the young conservatives who are so aggressive about defending this war would stop ranting and just join the military. Try walking your talk.

Well let's see. If I was in the military I probably wouldn't be able to post messages here very often. But I guess that's your plan. You want me to join the military so I won't post messages here. Nice try at suppressing free speech.

[supercar]

the vocal minority that use disturbing techniques and flawed logic to try and get their way at any cost; rights and freedoms be damned...

You're talking about yourself,right?

Edited April 22, 2007 by supercar

[supercar]

This is the exact argument they used to silence the opposition during the Viet Nam war

What on earth are you talking about. The opposition was never 'silenced' during the Vietnam war. The opposition(protesters) were far from silent during the Vietnam war.

[supercar]

trai·tor

–noun 1. a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.

2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.

'In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor'

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

[EmpressStarXVII]

Well let's see. If I was in the military I probably wouldn't be able to post messages here very often. But I guess that's your plan. You want me to join the military so I won't post messages here. Nice try at suppressing free speech.

She wasn't suggesting the suppression of your free speech, just acknowledging that if you are so for this war and wanting to rid the enemy, why aren't you over there fighting?

[Bob26003]

Bush and Co. presented false and skewed Intelligence to Congress..................

This is well known.

You right Wingers are smart enough to understand that.

Give it a rest allready.

And as far as Supercar...

This is Bush's War, and the Radical right's War. Nobody else supports it. So yeah supercar, get your butt in gear. Quit being like your draft dodging heroes Bush and Cheney.

Edited April 22, 2007 by Bob26003

[Bob26003]

What on earth are you talking about. The opposition was never 'silenced' during the Vietnam war. The opposition(protesters) were far from silent during the Vietnam war.

Ever heard of Cointelpro?

[Stardrive]

I opposed the Iraq war from the start. I felt it was unnecessary because Saddam was contained and kept Iran in check. But, like a good american when the decision to go in was made to go into Iraq, I fell in line trusting they knew something I didnt. Now thats its dragged on all these years several things have occured to me. I wont mention no WMD found or doing such a halfassed job in Afghanistan leaving it behind to go into Iraq.

Oil man in office, price of crude oil goes up to border line retarded high prices. Now, if you own a well(s) your getting the going rate for your crude, no matter it's origin. So lets work some numbers and see something.

Lets say you own several wells here in the US, and you get a million barrels a week production. Before the Iraq war it was at about $33/barrel. now it's at $65.50/barrel (and expected to go $85.15/barrel within a year SOURCE.) Lets take the old and, for simplicity's sake, current prices and use those as our base numbers.

The difference between pre-Iraq war price and price now is: $65.50 - $33 = $32.50. In one week the war earned you 32.5 million dollars more now than before the war. In a year: 52 weeks/year X $32,500,000/week extra revenue = $1,690,000,000. In english thats, one billion six hundred and ninety million more dollars per year. I would say the real numbers whistle dixie compared to my example.

It's clear to me now what the war was really about. Getting more money for the crude oil WE produce. And of course anyone else that produces gets more also, so they arent complaining to much. Will this war drag on? If oil producers have anything to do with it, yes.

[Fluffybunny]

You're talking about yourself,right?

No I am not, and you know that, but good try. I guess.

[Fluffybunny]

It's easy to support a War when you have to sacrifice nothing.

We have a winner!

[Fluffybunny]

Well let's see. If I was in the military I probably wouldn't be able to post messages here very often. But I guess that's your plan. You want me to join the military so I won't post messages here. Nice try at suppressing free speech.

Not an attempt at supression of free speech at all; most soldiers their have access to internet on a regular basis to be able to send emails, and be able to surf the internet like most people do. The military does it's best to be able to create as many things as they can to help make life in a warzone "normal". I get emails on a regular basis from friends in the region.

I think her point was something of supporting the soldiers as you claim and putting your money where your mouth is, so to say. It seems like you could benefit by REALLY supporting the troops(in the way you seem to define the term) by grabbing a rifle and covering them while on missions. My definition of supporting the troops is a bit different in that from actual experience of combat the best way to support the soldiers and marines there is to stop risking their lives unecessarily, so for me supporting the troops means limiting their time in the region and bringing them home to be safe and rested(try 3 or 4 tours in the combat zone; it wears on you) should they need to be used to protect this country, or to destroy another country if absolutely necessary. The whole nation building thing is not working and a mistake. It isn't part of the militaries job description.

Anyway, her comment was not meant to silence you as you think...

[Fluffybunny]

'In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor'

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

So you are trying to find a definition of a traitor that doesn't apply to you? Etymology and symantics allows for more than one definition, and I made it pretty clear how I was using the definition of the term that applied to you. Just because you do not like that fact doesn't mean that you can decide to use a different definition of the word to try and think otherwise and clear you own conscience.

I simply illustrated that throwing around terms like traitor, treason and like terms is pretty serious business, and if you work hard enough at it, you can apply it to anyone.

[Harmon-E Cherry]

It's easy to support a War when you have to sacrifice nothing.

Truer words were never written.

To me worst thing that Bush ever said was (right before The Surge) saying that we should send a bunch more kids over there as a test "to see what will happen". We wouldn't consider sending a relative or neighborhood kid out on a dangerous street to "see what would happen". So why is it so much easier to send thousands of kids out on Iraqi streets? Because "our nation is at War"? I love my country (sounds stupid, but it's true). But I feel that when the loss of these troops is balanced against access to oil and our international reputation, it's too much of a loss. We should get them out of there.

I wonder how Bush would feel about "making the sacrifice" if his kids were out on the firing line? As Bob wrote, it's easy to support a war when you aren't the one making the big sacrifice. Would Bush feel okay about having one of his kids take a bullet through the chest because "she died in the service of her country"?