The GOP facing the truth.

Why do they hate America?
Havent they heard? The insurgents are in their
last throes....freedom is on the march!!

Exactly, because as li'l Philly said, they're on the "wrong side of all the important issues facing the country." On the administration's watch:

Over 2,500 US soldiers have been killed, and over 30,000 have been wounded, some severely, since 2003

Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the two principal engineers of the 9/11 attacks and murderrs, are still on the loose

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, who has created a terrorist machine in Iraq since the invasioon, is still on the run

Iraq is a physical and environmental disaster, overrun by terrorists south of the Kurdish area up to the Shiite areas, which fanatics now control.

Islamicist Shiites control Iraq's parliament and PMship

The PM got his main support from Moktada Al-Sadr, a sworn enemy of the US, and a friend of Iran

Iran's anti-American prez is racing to create nukes and has called for the destruction of history

Iran's and Syria's leaders recently posed together and the two countries now agree on multiple issues

The VP and others authorized his assistant to out a covert CIA agent who was working on anti-nuke proliferation issues involving Iran

In Palestine, Hamas, the radical anti-Israeli party, won an outright majority in the parliament, and can form a government without a coalition

In Egypt, the Islamicist opposition has strengthened its support among the people

In Yemen, insiders are alleged to have helped known al-Qaeda militants escape from the prison, and they are still on the run

Militants trained in Iraq have participated in suicide bombings in Afghanistan

Pakistani fanatics also are supporting the Taliban, which continues to wreak havoc in Afghanistan

Hundreds of thousands of Aghans still lack basic necessities, and the infrastructure of the country remains a mess, while the warlords still control vast swathes of the country and there is no real democracy or women's rights, both of which the US promised, in those areas

But hey, who's paying attention?

[ February 15, 2006, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Hey, you're not suppose to point out facts like those.

Remember, we dont wont the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

They need to send Cheney back over there to get some more flowers ready to hand out. I hear the supply is running low.

Cheney should go over there...he could use the target practice! You're doing one heck of a job, Cheney!

Sorry ladies and gentlemen. As is too often the case I came on here to make a quick comment but I ended up going on a tirade. There are certain things that fire me up and when they do I have a hard time harnessing my tongue and my typing fingers. Please bear with me.

"Some" would be an understatement. "Thousands" would be more accurate. "Some" would even be an understatement when referring to those who have lost their arms and/or legs and vital organs in the war. Medical advances have given us the ability to lower the number of deaths from combat (and this makes the war more tolerable to the average American) but the flip side of this is that we will have a much higher percentage of casualties with lifelong injuries and disabilities, the extent of which has never been seen before. In this sense the casualty list should be as critical in the war debate as the death list.

It's time that Americans start demanding to see the real costs of this war. It's time that we see the videos from the combat zones. It's time that we see the videos of torture and the rape of Iraqi boys (a shameful coercion technique employed by Iraqi and coalition interogators and passively endorsed by many in our country, including officially by the current administration) that the Senate committee saw and determined were too disturbing to release to the American public. It's time to see the flag draped coffins being flown back to the country by the scores. It's time to see the soldiers who have lost their arms, legs, eyes and internal organs. It's time to hear from the kids who went over there with a promising life ahead of them but have come back physically and mentally disabled. If we are to have a legitimate debate on the costs and benefits of this war then we need to have all the facts. If, when presented with all of the facts, America still believes that the costs are worth the sacrifice then I will grudgingly accept the result as I pack my bags and seek citizenship in a country that has not lost its moral compass.

We will never know the extent of or lasting consequences of this war on our society. We will have tens of thousands of young people, especially men, who will come back alive but forever scarred by what they have seen, experienced and done in this war. We will try to diminish our guilt over this by joking about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and demeaning and dismissing those who suffer from it. I think that this is one of the lasting tragedies of war. We send kids into battle to see, experience and do things that no human should have to, and then we laugh at them, question their manhood and abandon them when they have a mental breakdown. The sickest thing about this is that those who do the laughing and questioning are usually people who have never spent a day in the military much less in combat. The same people who consider it a crisis when they have a bad day at work or break a fingernail.

Anyone who knows me personally or knows me through this site knows that this is a VERY touchy subject for me. I have ZERO tolerance for people with “hawk” mouths and “dove” asses. Examples of this phenomenon would include G.W. Bush (but not his father), Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Bill O’Reilly, Tucker Carlson, and Toby Keith. Only G.W. has ever spent a day in the military, though his service record and “technically legal” draft dodging is very questionable. NONE of them has ever seen one second of combat outside of a John Wayne movie. Don’t get me started on John Wayne! Yet another American “war hero” who never spent a day in the military. What the hell's up with that? Even a few posters to this site fit this description. It’s probably best that these people stay out of my line of fire. All of these hawkmouthed/doveassed people love to beat the war drum as long as it’s other people’s bodies (OPB) and other peoples’ kids (OPK) that will make the sacrifice and pay the price for their fantasies. Having spent 12 years in the Marine Corps, including combat duty in Desert Storm, and having an adolescent son may have something to do with my passion on this issue. I have seen and experienced things that I NEVER want my son, or anyone else’s kid, to endure. There is a difference between supporting a cause and being a “hawk”. People should make sure that they know the difference and unless they have worn the uniform or have a very intimate connection to the military or the war should temper their arguments concerning war accordingly.

By the way, I want to make it very clear that I don’t put fantomas in this category. Just because I started this unsolicited sermon out with his quote doesn’t mean I am referring to him with anything I said beyond the first paragraph. I’m sure he would be the first to agree with what I said in at least the first paragraph. After that only he can say.

Additionally I think it is important to point out that, contrary to the propaganda perpetuated by many in this country, especially within the current administration, one can be 100% pro-troops and 100% pro-America and still be opposed to this war and/or the way it was initiated and/or the way it has been administered. I will always support my country and the brave men and women who put their asses on the line to defend it. That’s why I have such an issue with those who would take advantage of their commitment in order to push their personal agenda by declaring war before all other options had been exhausted. Iraq IS NOT the war on terror. If anything it is the greatest distraction FROM the war on terror and has actually created more terror than it has prevented. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that more Iraqis have been killed, injured and tortured (by insurgents as well as Iraqi and occupying forces) yearly since the fall of Saddam than in the year prior to the invasion. This doesn’t even count the American and “coalition” forces casualties or the environmental and financial costs. Then there are the heightened East/West, Muslim/non-Muslim tensions and the devastating, dangerous and long lasting political, cultural and religious instability that this war has created, or at least exacerbated, in this fragile but crucial part of the world.

Unfortunately, war is sometimes necessary. When it is, history shows that the majority of the country will support it without being misled. Some people will never support war. That’s a given. I disagree with these people but at the same time I thank God for them and their voices. However, the vast majority of Americans will support a war when the cause is just and other options have been exhausted. It is indefensible to make exaggerations and mislead the American people in order to dupe them into approving a war plan that was devised long before 9/11. Anyone who claims that this administration didn’t know that the information it used to support the invasion was based on flawed and even doctored intelligence is playing see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. They are apologists plain and simple. The Downing Street memo was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me. I, with a sense of duty and a blind belief that my government would never lie to me in order to send our troops to their deaths, supported President Bush 100%, as most others (Democrat and Republican) did, before the truth came out. So I’m hardly some ultra liberal Bush hater. I am actually a Libertarian. However, I have definitely joined the “anyone but Bush” crowd. Not because I am a pinko, anti-war, tax and spend Liberal but because I am a pro-American, pro-military veteran, small government, fiscal Conservative.

Sermon over, lets eat!!

[ February 16, 2006, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: UMRebel/Bucfan ]

Other examples....PhillyFan, MIB, MI"Matt"

UMRebel, applause and great post. About the only thing I would add are that it is not just boys being raped; you have probably heard about the women prisoners who leave prison pregnant or who send notes to their male relatives asking that they be killed because of their "shame". (That they are not the ones who should be ashamed is true but another issue.)
And also let us mention the damage done, the even worse damage done, to the innocent civilians of Iraq, who are being killed, maimed, orphaned, who have no jobs or food or electricity, who are being held in secret prisons.
I too want to puke over what is called the 101st Fighting Keyboarders. They love the war as long as they don't die. They support the troops while cutting veterans' benefits to subsidize tax cuts for billionaires. They love freedom except when someone dissents.

I intentionally did not mention specific names of posters. I won't comment on if I think any of the additional people listed fit into that category or not. I generally try to deal with the people that I was referring to through private messages and as civily as I am able. For the most part, these discussions have been very respectful and, in my opinion, have had positive results. Even some of the seemingly most shrill posters on Outsports can be swayed with a good argument and a respectful tone. I hope I'm not ruining any of their bad boy reputations. wink

Ms de Blazer, you are absolutely right. I didn't intend for one moment to dismiss or overlook the women who have been raped. The case that I mentioned was specifically referring to the video tapes that the Senate committee viewed where young Iraqi boys were seen being raped by Adult Iraqi and possibly American guards in order to coerce information from their fathers or other Iraqi youth and adult prisoners. I don't believe that the specific video that I referenced showed women being raped although there are many credible reports of the same thing happening to girls. I can remember watching the committee the day after they saw the tape, explaining, with faces as white as ghosts and voices trembling, that they were sickened by what they saw. They said that to release the videos to the public would result in World War III. Even on national TV they hinted at what the tapes contained. The outrage and disgust was absolutely bi-partisan. Some of those who spoke most strongly were Republicans so it wasn't like it was a Democratic propaganda stunt. Strangely and sadly Americans, with their 20 minute attention spans and being so easily distracted by sparkly things in their peripheral vision (like perfectly timed raised terror alerts) had lost their anger and disgust within a couple of weeks. It's like they would just rather not know the gory details so that they can keep waving their flags and sporting their yellow ribbon car magnets feeling all warm and fuzzy and patriotic while our boys and girls are dying and being mamed in a war that may could have been avoided and definitely could have been conducted properly when and if the time came that it was unavoidable.

I most definitely add the rapes of women and the terrible toll on Iraqi civilians to my list of things that we need to hear more about if we are to have a real, credible and legitimate discussion and debate about whether this war is truly worth the cost. You can't judge the value of something when you don't have a full understanding of its cost. The most f*cked up thing about the situation in Iraq, as it now exists is, is we CAN’T just pull out quickly and completely without establishing some sort of stable infrastructure first. The region would absolutely explode into the bloodiest, most costly and most malignant factional conflict in human history. The problem is, now that the situation has gotten so out of hand, I don't think that we will ever be able to put a lid on it. I pray to God that I'm wrong. So President Bush has created a dismal self-fulfilling prophesy. I am soooo not a conspiracy theorist but on some level it truly seems that he was on some mission to bring about the Apocolipse. What’s most frightening about this is, I fear he could very well succeed. Barring a miracle, the current situation in Iraq, Iran and the Middle East region could very well prove to be the seeds of WWIII.

[ February 16, 2006, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: UMRebel/Bucfan ]

You're right on, UMC and Ms. de Blazer. I should have written MANY severely injured, many (the majority, from some reports I've seen) returning with post-traumatic stress disorder, and all of them--and our society--will have to deal with the repercussions of the unfounded and unnecessary war in Iraq, as well as the necessary war in Afghanistan.

APPLAUSE!

VERY Well Said UMC, MS DB, Fantomas.

The costs (non monetary) of this war are astronomical, and growing exponentially. This all threatens to spin completely out of control (if it ever was controlled).

The true costs of this war, like Vietnam and others before and since will be in decades of PTSD, homelessness, split families, and severely disabled survivors.

I am a vet who is proud to have served my country. I used to believe that it was not necessary for the CIC to have served. I am still not sure it is necessary, but we should never have placed the country in the hands of people who have deliberately avoided, ducked, or deferred service. At the very least, it is a point of character to have stepped up and served honestly; to be able to say ‘I was willing to make a personal sacrifice to serve my country’. It is another point of character altogether to have refused to do so.

Our great leader shrub now finds it nescessary to cut veterans health care and benefits. I have never been so angry. I say throw them all out of office - no exceptions.


R

[ February 16, 2006, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

Wow, to be honest I had my back all up ready for a fight. Great to hear the positive responses. Certainly someone is going to call me an un-American Bush hater or a pinko commie or SOMETHING. If so, please do it quick while my juices are flowin’ and my adrenaline is pumpin’. I'm still itchin for a scrap. What can I say, you mix one part Mississippi redneck with one part Marine and one (fabulous ) part queer and the result is bound to be volatile! wink

ITJock, I have come to the same conclusions about the CIC. I’ve never thought that military service should be required to be President. I am starting to have some second thoughts about that however. There seems to be something wrong with the idea of a Commander in Chief of the armed forces having never worn a uniform. I’m still working my way through how I feel about that. Like you, I have no second thoughts about where I stand on people who avoided service being CIC or even a Congressman. It should absolutely not be an option.

Having said that let me make my feelings on the draft perfectly clear. Even though I am a veteran, I am totally against selective service and the draft except in the most extremely necessary circumstances. Most especially when the HOMELAND is threatened. The last two conflicts in which the draft was used (Korea and Vietnam) in my opinion, did not meet the minimum standard for enactment. It is completely inappropriate, in my opinion to draft American kids to defend a foreign country except, once again, in extreme circumstances (granted this threshold is VERY hard to quantify). Those undertakings should be pursued with a 100% volunteer military. As a Libertarian, I see selective service and the draft as an unacceptable violation of individual liberties and a gender and class biased system. In the rare event that a draft was absolutely necessary, it should be applied across the board for all Americans, male and female, and with no deferment exceptions outside of physical disabilities. We will be amazed at how high the threshold for declaring war goes when peoples’ sons AND daughters, poor AND rich, unknown AND famous will be expected to fight. I think it's high time that we raise that bar a bit.

So I, unlike many people, have no issue with any private citizen who dodged the draft or refuses to serve in the military, but I sure as hell don't think that they should be eligible to be Commander in Chief of the armed forces or even a member of Congress that has the power to send troops to war. Nor do I want to hear them miraculously find their hawks’ wings the moment that they age out of draftable age. If you don't want to serve your country in wartime then don't become a pro-war spokesperson later.

And with that I've shot my wad. Thanks for allowing me to rant.

[ February 16, 2006, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: UMRebel/Bucfan ]

No, rant all you want. I'm with you.

Hey, did anyone else see that Emperor Katrina is giving our soldiers the lowest pay increase in a while? Supporting those troops!

Also, did you hear Secretary Condi today arguing about how things were so dandy in Iraq? According to the FT (Financial Times ), the special Inspector General's report contradicted what she'd said. So she had to backtrack a bit from her earlier spewing out of the faith-based claptrap she'd prepared. Less potable water, less electricity, less gas, less oil being pumped--why not send Brownie over there to shore things up?

Also, looks like the Shi'ites have got roving death squads on the loose.

Somehow, as bad as all this seems, I am really afraid this is only the beginning, and it's going to get a lot worse. God help us in our hour of need.

2,000 dead. 20,000 Americans seriously wounded, another 10,000 "just slightly" wounded. And that's just the Americans.

Repub apologists, please post your excuses. Go.

rebel, thank you for saying so eloquently what many of us feel and think, but have trouble communicating without a lot of emotional baggage attached.

and unlike many, on both sides of the war issue, you have -- in my opinion -- increased credibility because of your service. your opinions aren't the result of spoon-fed media spin, but were formed in the military, and that matters.

if that was your sermon, i have but one thing to say,

AMEN!

tell it brother!

Though I was blown away by the passion and insight of your first post on this thread, I have to enter a caveat on the above quote. For us to remain in Iraq with the current administration in power would do more harm than good. Only with a new one could we fix the current mess - not this one.

And in the news this morning, which "spoon feeds" me wink Shrub wants yet another $40 billion for Iraq/Afghanistan. Excuse me, but didn't he just ask for something like $140 Billion just 2 weeks ago? Iraq has become a cancer which is feeding off the US Treasury in my opinion. We need to get the others in the " coalition" to contribute as well.

well Tom...the "coalition of the willing" has become a coalition of the dwindling....I'm not sure there are many countries still helping out other than Britian. The US makes up 88% of the troop commitments and probably pays for 95% of the operations. But don't worry....our administration promised us that revenue from the Iraqi oil would pay for everything.

[ February 17, 2006, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: HotlantaTarheel ]

I swear I don't mean to write a damn book every time I post. I really have got to learn how to edit for length. Even in high school, when the class got an assignment for a ten page report everyone else in the class would groan. Not me. I would ask if that was a minimum or a maximum.

sportinlife, After seeing the total incompetence of this administration in administering a war (legit or not) and it's absolute inability, or unwillingness, to admit even one mistake in its actions, I can't help but come to the conclusion that you are absolutely right. Unfortunately we passed up on that opportunity in November of 2004. In my opinion, this was one of the darkest days in American history. Up until that day the world, and much of America, believed that this war was President Bush's mistake and that the election would allow the American people to show their disapproval. After that day the American people became an accessory to the crime. Now it's not only the arrogance of President Bush that is hated around the world but also the arrogance of the American people. That is very sad and has drastically and negatively changed the credibility of America and its leadership on the international stage.

I just want to say something that some may not like but I think it is important. You will notice that I refer to our President as "President Bush", not "Shrub", not "Warrantless-Wiretapper" or any other creative nickname. I do this not because of my respect for him as a person or because I respect his policies but because of my great respect for the office that he holds and what that office represents and because, like it or not, he was elected to the position by the American people through the democratic process proscribed by our Constitution (at least the second time, I won't go into the scandalous 2000 debacle, it would take a real book). Although I find these nicknames amusing and I understand the anger and frustration behind them, I find them to be counter productive to a reasonable, credible and persuasive debate over his policies. The moment one uses such terms, minds turn off and defensive reactionary babble ensues. If a person's goal in debate is the argument itself and not to change minds and influence opinion, then this tactic is very effective and will produce the desired result every time. However if the point of discussion and civil argument is to educate, enlighten and possibly sway your opponents’ opinions then it is the most effective way to fail in your endeavor. I have seen so many valid and reasonable arguments on this site get completely dismissed because the argument started out with the word "Shrub" when referring to our President. Yes OUR President. If you love him or hate him, if you voted for him or not, even if you question the circumstances surrounding his first "election", like it or not he is OUR President and he remain so until what time he is impeached (unlikely) or we replace him through our time tested process of federal democratic elections. I will be the first to say that President Bush is a warrantless wiretapper (noun NOT proper noun). I can even think of some appropriate adjectives to describe him, but they will always precede "President Bush". In my opinion it is important that we respect our highest elected office, the figurehead of our republic and the Constitution upon which it was founded, even if we don't respect the person who holds the office and even if the person who holds the office doesn't respect the very Constitution that he represents and vowed to defend.

I want to make it very clear that I am not judging other people's choices in expression. Lord knows I understand where their passions come from and lord knows I find myself impulsively wanting to go down the same road. I'm just explaining why I personally don't use these tactics and hope that some may consider how much more effective their arguments could be if they did the same. After all, if you're having a discussion with someone who doesn't take offense at the word "Shrub" then you're probably preaching to the choir. You are having a love fest instead of a debate, and that’s great fun. However, I would suggest that people save those kinds of terms for discussions with like-minded people but consider using more respectful terminology when having a debate with a Bush supporter. It takes a little more restraint and a bit more thinking but I think the positive results are worth it. At least that has been my experience.

I've found that if I have a good argument, maintain civility, respectability and self control in a debate, it not only has more positive results in getting die hard opponents to at least consider my points but it also tends to disarm and shame those who don't return the courtesy. It's worked extremely well with some of the most die-hard neo-conservative posters on this site (who I may disagree with but I respect all the same). It's also important to me that I keep my mind open in a debate, even when I think my opponent is un or under-informed, partisan or a raving idiot. I have always learned more from people who disagree with me than I have from those that share my opinions. You don't have to agree with someone to learn from them. Funny how it works that way.

One of my favorite people on these boards, who doesn't even know it, but will probably figure out who he is from this post, often makes wonderful, informed points in his comments but his credibility and persuasiveness always seems to get lost right after the first “Shrub” or “WW”. That is so unfortunate because I know he is very intelligent and could be such an effective force in educating people, changing minds and influencing people, if only his arguments were allowed to stand on their merits without partisan editorializing (real or perceived) and/or name calling. Sorry man, I love ya bubba, but I has to calls em likes I sees em. wink Remember, you owe me one free pass! (inside joke that I’m sure he will get)

Sorry guys, I did it again. For the life of me I can't stay on topic or express my opinion in 5,000 words or less. At least the Brokeback thread is getting a break!

[ February 19, 2006, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: UMRebel/Bucfan ]

You get your free pass! LOL

But on another note, I do use the term "WW" and others (Emperor Katrina, Stormy, W) to refer to the president. I think he's repeatedly debased the office, and shows zero respect for the American people. When he is spending $1.62 billion dollars on propaganda, some of which has been ruled illegal, when he repeatedly manipulates the truth or denies it altogether (and he did this back in 2000 during the presidential debates), when he stages Potemkin Village-style rallies that bar opponents from attending (which other presidents did not do), and when he refuses for years to allow open forums in which Americans can ask him basic questions, I think he's made his contempt for the people whom is supposed to be serving quite clear. The same is true of the Vice President (see, I have not called him any names in this post), who did not even have the decency to alert the media directly and immediately of his shooting accident. I cannot think of another major world leader or second in command who would have had a well-connected private citizen contact a small, local paper to let such important information out, especially given that her accounts didn't square or changed, and that the event involved one of the most powerful people in the world, not just the United States.

The real issue here is: this country belongs to the American people, not to an elitist, self-enriching band of people who do everything they can for one political party and its wealthy supporters to the exclusion of everyone else. I cannot think of any recent presidency, Republican or Democratic, in which so many horrible events have followed in succession, and with such continual, inept responses. The situation in Iraq alone should be giving everyone, except those who are unwilling to face the truth, considerable pause. How did we end up with a pro-Iranian, Islamicist government, now under the sway of a religious fanatic, that is now authorizing (openly or tacitly) roving bands of death squads, alongside an insurgency that continues to murder both US troops and Iraqi civilians? And we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars just to stay afloat with this mess, even though we were repeatedly assured that it wouldn't cost anywhere near this amount and that the war would pay for itself! This strikes me as one of the worst outcomes one could think of. Yet we continue to get rose-colored or nonsensical assessments from the people in power. Is it that they don't care? That they don't know what to do? That they think most of us are fools?

Though I was a small child when Richard Nixon was president, I remember the disaster that his administration wrought on the country and on his party. It took a generation to overcome it. I would submit that while people may be suffering from scandal-fatigue and criticism-fatigue and so on with the current administration of George W. Bush (see, I called him by his correct name), and while some may be just exhausted and not want to hear any more bad news, the far worse effects that we as a society will have to deal with are yet to come. Some of us said this on here even before the war, and sadly, it has come to pass. Don't think it won't get even worse.

[ February 17, 2006, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

...or the gradual destruction of our society by the incompetence, selfishness and greed of a few people who have found clever ways to circumvent your constitutional process twice: 2000 and 2004.

Its my opinion that the debacle in Iraq will go down at the biggest foreign policy blunder ever committed in US history.

wink

And fantomas, I think you just slipped up and proved my point. That was an excellent, fact filled and persuasive argument that called a spade a spade without the first "Shrub" or "WW". eek!

[ February 19, 2006, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: UMRebel/Bucfan ]

Are Eritrea, Macedonia and Uzbekistan kicking in much?

The most interesting fact about the "Coalition" forces, is that in EVERY single case, as far as I know, the governments of the participating countries are supportive of the war but the citizens are overwhelmingly against having their troops in Iraq. In England, Poland, Italy and Korea (the four largest Coalition partners) the people of these countries are OVERWHELMINGLY against their country's participation in this war. As time goes by, and the situation deteriorates, how long can we expect these governments to defy the will of their people? My guess is, NOT LONG.

By the way, far right conservative governments in Italy and Poland (two of the "Coalition" partners) have used a really interesting tactic in order to distract their citizens from their dismal records and their unpopular pro-war positions in order to win elections, form governments and stay in power. They have, get this, scapegoated homosexuals and stirred up fear surrounding gay issues and the supposed breakdown of "traditional" national and family values. Isn't that clever and strangely familiar? I wonder where they got the idea to do that? Who knew that Karl Rove spoke Italian and Polish?

[ February 19, 2006, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: UMRebel/Bucfan ]

Slightly off topic but related to what UMRF just said, the new government in Poland is extremely homophobic, to the point that it's trying to take the country back to the days before the end of Communism. A Polish scholar I work with was explaining the situation to me, and it sounded almost too strange to be true, except that I've since come across several online discussions of it. One of the more bizarre aspects I've read about is that twin brothers, Lech and Jaroslaw Kaczynski, I believe, are in control of the Polish government: Lech was elected president over another right-leaning candidate, while Jaroslaw, who basically controls the parliament, installed a puppet in his place, in part because he realized that having twins controlling two of the governmental branches might have endangered Lech's chances at being elected. They have allied themselves with extreme anti-gay religious and political elements. Recently a gay rights march was brutally attacked and 67 participants were thrown in jail. The sharp anti-gay shift caused some real friction with the rest of the EU.

[ February 22, 2006, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Applause.

Well stated.

Rob

Now some of the \"dead enders\" in their \"last throes\" have blown up one of the most sacred shrines in Shi'a Islam, in Samarra.

Well oh well, they've wanted a civil war.

There's been a low-grade one going on (between Sunni Iraqi and Al Qaeda forces on the one hand, and Shiite security death squads and troops on the other).

Now Shiites all across the country have taken to the streets, and Shi'ite minister Moktada al-Sadr, who helped appoint the Islamicist Prime Minister and who's vowed to defend Iran to the death, is riling up his militias.

Meanwhile the US Ambassador has been reduced to threatening to cut off funds to the pro-Iranian, Islamicist Shiite government under Jafari because it's being intransigent and doesn't want to include secularists or Sunnis.

So this is what our 2,200+ dead and 30,000 wounded soldiers, and over many thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have died for?

Let's see if the American people get a straight, unspun response from Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney or any of the other people behind this war.

Headlines in my paper about Iraq descending slowly into civil war. Brownie oughta pick up the phone and call Shrub to tell him, " your doing a heckuva job Georgie".

Which kicks in first - the "last throes" or the civil war?

Is this part of the "cakewalk?"

Rebel

Excellent posts. You have my respect!! You have managed to encapsulate what many have been trying to say for a long time.

hmmmm. Well read, erudite, funny, veteran.

(fanning himself furiously).

Fant You hit the nail on the head fant.

Everyone, this crosses party lines: are you hearing about the explosion of violence in Iraq? As of this morning, 168 Sunni mosques have been torched or destroyed and three Sunni clerics in Baghdad were killed outright, while the fourth was kidnapped, as the Iraqi police have looked on and done nothing. Also Sunni Iraqi and foreign prisoners have been dragged from jails and shot to death, and the Sunnis in the government have withdrawn from talks with the Shiites and Kurds.

Is Iraq's president Talabani capable of stopping this? No. Does the PM, Jafari, a Shiite, want it to end? The Imam al-Sistani basically said that the Shiites were going to take whatever responses they deemed necessary after the destruction of the Sammarra holy shrine. Also, in Baquba a Sunni mosque was blown up and 8 Iraqi soldiers, as well as non-combatant citizens, were killed. The worst thing of all is that many of the enraged Shiite and Sunni leaders are blaming the US, and specifically the US Ambassador, for pressuring the Shiites (threatening them, really), which they claim led this burst of violence. Seriously, people, the situation there is spiraling out of control. I ask again, is this what our soldiers were sent there for?

The US could have simply funded the Shiiites to topple Saddam and initiate a civil war, as George H.W. Bush had pledged to do but didn't, without us being caught in the crossfire....

[ February 23, 2006, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Indeed fan, where are all those on the right, whom supported this war and Shrub. What say you all???. This is what you wanted, this is what you get. One hell of a mess. Send Shrub over there to clean it up!!! :mad:

Originally posted by fantomas:

fantomas, as I'm sure you are aware, it wasn't as simple as an unkept pledge. President G.H.W. Bush actively promoted an insurrection by the Iraqi people against Sadam: by the Shiites in the south but more specifically by the Kurds in the north who had been especially brutalized by the Hussein regime. He publicly and unequivocally stated, on numerous occasions, that the US would back any domestic rebellion against the dictator. Unfortunately the Kurds and Shiites took him at his word and began to mount such a campaign. Sadam cautiously began aerial bombing assaults on Kurdish camps in the north, fearing that the President would live up to his word and retaliate. It didn't happen. Not only did the President not retaliate militarily but he didn’t even support them verbally. Washington turned its back on the Kurdish rebels and shamefully allowed Sadam to increase the frequency and ferociousness of his attacks right up until the point that Sadam was bombing thousands fleeing civilians at will. This is reminiscent of the shameful way in which the US pushed the Hungarian people to revolt against the Soviet Union in the late 40s and then turned our backs as they were slaughtered. (We don’t read a lot about this in American History 101). Not until European countries began reporting on, and showing videos of, the carnage and asking publicly why the US was allowing this tragedy, did the President begrudgingly institute and enforce the northern and southern “no fly zones”. A shameful act, or lack of action, that has proven to be a lasting black eye on American credibility and its self-appointment as THE moral authority in the international theatre. Sadly and tragically his son has not only matched his dismantling of America’s credibility and international reputation but he has surpassed it in ways that I would have never thought possible.

I supported (both theoretically and practically, through combat service) President Bush’s decision to initiate Operation Desert Storm (the first, and only legitimate war with Iraq). Sadam had invaded a virtually defensless sovereign neighbor, without cause or provocation, causing a regional crisis that had far reaching significance to American and international stability. The President properly used diplomacy and worked cooperatively with the international community to exhaust all non-military options. He developed a true international coalition of forces and had the support of both the majority of the American people and his allies, all without misrepresenting or fabricating the facts. He strategically and with surgical precision carried out accomplished the established goal of the mission and the mandate of the coalition, WITHOUT overstepping that authority and marching into Baghdad. This last point seems to be a bone of contention with both Liberals and Conservatives, but the fact of the matter is he did not have the mandate nor the authority, through international law, to oust Sadam at that time or through that mission. I totally supported, and continue to support, his restraint. Up until that point he was a golden boy of foreign policy in my book. I strongly supported his post-war anti-Saddam propaganda, and believed in his stated policy of supporting the Shiites and Kurds in their self-determinative mission to overthrow Hussein. This allowed IRAQIS to determine Iraq’s future without the assault on their national pride, culture and religion that would result with the direct overthrow by, and occupation of, a foreign, western, Christian nation. However his (our) subsequent abandonment of the Kurdish and Shiite people, who courageously took up his challenge, gallantly fought and were shamefully massacred, leave me contemptuous of his overall policy as it related to Iraq. I lay much of the blame for the current situation at his feet. I believe that much of this tragedy could have been avoided had President GHW Bush put his power where his mouth was. Ironically, in the most tragic of ironies, it is his much less intelligent, internationally ignorant and militarily unqualified son who is left to sort out this mess. Where the father failed to accomplish the son is an accomplished failure. Sadly this lesson has come at the expense of thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of American lifelong injuries, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths and injuries, military and civilian (before you think that only civilians are innocent consider that most of the young men and boys were drafted into military service under fear of execution and felt that they were gallantly defending their country from foreign aggressors), the utter devastation of the Iraqi infrastructure, civil, sectarian and religious turmoil and infighting and the sacrifice of American credibility, moral authority and good standing in the world. I would suggest that the price of the Bush family’s arrogance, ignorance and pursuit of personal vendettas is simply too high.

If that makes me an un-American, pinko, liberal commie then I stand guilty as charged and I stand in good company. Maybe I should consider going on tour with other’s who have acquired this label: Sheehan, Hackett, and the countless other veterans and their families who have spoken out against this war. After all we are only combat veterans and/or mothers and fathers of dead or injured soldiers. We don’t have the moral or patriotic authority of truly great American defenders like Bill O’Reilly, Tucker Carlson or Toby (“I am an American Soldier” who never spent a day in uniform) Keith, fighting the good fight in the trenches of propaganda with nothing more than a microphone, a national audience, a mute button and a perfectly timed commercial break to defend themselves against the un-American, anti-family, un-Godly insurgents that make sniper attacks on our glorious President, his righteous war, the American family, Jesus and Christmas. And those kids in Iraq think they've got it tough without body armor or properly shielded Hummers. What p*ssies! With all of their guts, determination, righteousness and wisdom I really don't understand why O'Reilly and his platoon don't put all of these talents to good use on the streets of Baghdad. They could probably wrap this situation up single handedly if only given the chance. Unfortunately all of these people seem to be experts at shooting off their mouths, small defenseless fowl and elderly hunting buddies but they're not so good at actual combat.

[ February 23, 2006, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: UMRebel/Bucfan ]

Gentlemen?

Chickenhawks?

Speak!

Interesting piece by a former neocon.

I'm waiting to read the story on the day that the number of Americans killed in Iraq exceeds the number killed on 9/11. Shouldn't be too far off. What have we accomplished, except that we doubled the pain?

I can't believe the right is so silent today about whats going on in Iraq. Haven't been quiet up until today though. Hmmmmm.....

The silence, on this particular thread, of certain neo-Conservatives (who NEVER remain silent about anything) has been deafening and glaringly conspicuous. Are we to assume that there is finally some dissention in the pro-Bush/pro-"Republican"/pro-war ranks. Their silence speaks a thousand words loudly and clearly.

[ February 23, 2006, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: UMRebel/Bucfan ]

So today the news is that things have gotten so bad Baghdad is practically in a lock down mode. Time to send Mr. flower ambassador, (Dick Cheney) back over I say! eek!

Send Dick over there with his gun and a few beers. That should clear things up in a hurry!

Looks like US forces will be required for quite some time. The only Iraqi battalion capable of fighting on its own has been downgraded to level 2 meaning it can only fight with US support.

Iraqi Troops downgraded

In other news, US death toll rose again today, passing 2200 dead.

But wait, Bush just said yesterday things are going well over there and some of the posters on here have already claimed that Iraq was fine, so what do the facts on the ground or US and coalition casualties, as well as dead Iraqi noncombatants, have to do with it?

fantomas, what have I told you about clouding the issue with the facts? President Bush and many of the posters to this site have never allowed their propaganda campaigns to get bogged down with too many FACTS.

I hope this hasn't already been posted somewhere. I thought it was interesting and covers information I have not yet seen in the news.

Zogby poll of troops in Iraq

Why do the troops hate America?

The most interesting thing to me...
"Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks"

I guess they didnt get the memo that Saddam had no "role in 9/11".

Originally posted by RazorbackTX:

"..."Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11..."

Does this poll make any sense? I mean really, don't they have access to reputable news that has now--for quite a while--defuncted this myth?! Because if they knew the truth they'd be mad as hell to know that they're endangering their lives for the sake of an outright lie. :mad: