From 'Gook' to 'Raghead'

[akyron]

For any of you who think this is some sort of sick liberal bias I suggest that you check out the credentials of all involved. ?

OK I bothered to get a closer look since I was a bit bored at work.

NYT Smear
Bob Herbert of the NYT has a column where he presents a Conscientious Objectors word as final. Trouble is, I was there too and closer to the action than Aidan Delgado the mechanic.

The compound where the riot took place, compound 8, was run by my Company, the 870th MP Co. The riot also was an escape attempt. It wasn't just a few stone throwers; the sky was black with throw debris, which effectively suppressed the compound towers from their overwatch duties. The stones being thrown represented a deadly force threat. Some of them were head size. It was only when the riot became a danger of a serious breakout attempt and less than lethal force(rubber shot from M203 and rubber point munitions from 12 GA shotguns) had been applied to no effect was the request for deadly force made. When permission was granted, two soldiers fired on the ring leaders. 3 were killed outright, ending the riot immediately. One more died later and 12 more were wounded. I know both of the soldiers who fired; they are good people and only did what they had to do to keep others from further harm. Given that one of the soldiers was using a M249, it could have been a bloodbath. Both soldiers showed remarkable restraint in picking their targets and only using necessary force. There was a AR 15-6 investigation and CID also investigated. The shootings were found to be justified and both soldiers were decorated for their actions.

This Delgado guy was a mechanic; he was no where near those compounds. I also highly doubt he "confronted" the SGT who fired; he wouldn't have even known who he was. Different unit, not working anywhere near the compounds.


http://www.alternet.org/story/20935
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/12/19/Floridian/War_s_horrors_turn_vo.shtml
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/17/1447233
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/global/pr_adelgado.html



Several versions of the same story. He got his 15 minutes of fame.
He was with a different unit, not working anywhere near the compounds.
Delgado embellishes his stories more and more as time goes on.

Thanks Bob Hebert for the entertainment.
Too bad he did not think of Toiletgate first.

 

[akyron]

Yes, and weren't we told by this admin. that the war would only take days or possibly weeks at most. After which the good people of Iraq would be throwing parades in our honor. Now that the thing has turned into a mess conservatives are making statements like "It is a WAR...There is no such thing as a great success." Whatever happened to the flowers and ice cream our troops were suppose to be enjoying?

Thanks for making me look up a war that took less than a week.

World's Shortest War

On August 27th, 1896, a British battle fleet delivered Said Khalid, the pretender Sultan of Zanzibar, an ultimatum to vacate his palace. When he refused, fighting broke out. Hostilities peaked at 9:15 and ceased at 9:40.
The war was over in 38 minutes, its turning point the sinking of Zanzibar's only warship, the aging Glasgow, with two shells.




Q: Buster Glosson says that if he could have carried on hitting the strategic targets, Saddam would have waved the white flag...
Waller: Anyone who says if they had been allowed just a few more days of strategic bombing that there wouldn't have been a need for a ground attack, I think is absolutely smoking something...
General Calvin Waller (Deputy Commander, CENTCOM)


Weren't we told by this admin. that the war would only take days or possibly weeks at most?

We were obviously such fools to believe we could get in and out of there with over 50000 troops, equipment,support staff, bases, setup a self sustaining democracy, and leave in six days or less. Toss chow time somewhere in there and I think we have a plan.
Did you really think that for a moment?
-Exactly what branch of the government staffs the gypsy fortune tellers that can unerringly predict the future. I would like to call them so they could give me Wednesdays lotto numbers. Thanks

 

[Pacridge]

Thanks for making me look up a war that took less than a week.

World's Shortest War

On August 27th, 1896, a British battle fleet delivered Said Khalid, the pretender Sultan of Zanzibar, an ultimatum to vacate his palace. When he refused, fighting broke out. Hostilities peaked at 9:15 and ceased at 9:40.
The war was over in 38 minutes, its turning point the sinking of Zanzibar's only warship, the aging Glasgow, with two shells.




Q: Buster Glosson says that if he could have carried on hitting the strategic targets, Saddam would have waved the white flag...
Waller: Anyone who says if they had been allowed just a few more days of strategic bombing that there wouldn't have been a need for a ground attack, I think is absolutely smoking something...
General Calvin Waller (Deputy Commander, CENTCOM)


Weren't we told by this admin. that the war would only take days or possibly weeks at most?

We were obviously such fools to believe we could get in and out of there with over 50000 troops, equipment,support staff, bases, setup a self sustaining democracy, and leave in six days or less. Toss chow time somewhere in there and I think we have a plan.
Did you really think that for a moment?
-Exactly what branch of the government staffs the gypsy fortune tellers that can unerringly predict the future. I would like to call them so they could give me Wednesdays lotto numbers. Thanks

"Nobody's knows if this war is going to take six days, six weeks or maybe even six months" Donald Rumsfeld.

While we were being sold this war many people in this admin. made statements just like that. Now that we're into for years and not mere days, weeks and months there seems to be no accounting for the mistake. In fact we're told basically- "What did you expect? It's war- it's the middle east- it's going to be a long hard road." That's in no way what they said going into it.

Good luck on your lotto numbers.

 

[akyron]

All of this brings us back to the creditability of the DOD. I'm not saying that they are not an excellently run department, for they are. What I am saying is that they lie regularly to further their causes, and do so at the expense of American lives and money.

They are probably as credible/accurate as any government run agency since the 1940s. (That is rather sad).

What causes are they furthering exactly?
Those same crappy pieces of technology all end up adding to our deficit and have since the invention of military spending. It is not like they would not buy them anyway.
Top of the line equipment has always been the most expensive and it opens more paths to innovation. We want to remain number one if at all possible.

It is impossible to predict all the costs associated with new technology.

 

[gordontravels]

We have a very small minded individual here that insists on links to even consider, which he doesn't, that another poster may have actually found the material rather than just made it up.

The DOD is under his politicians as well as those he perceives as his opposites and controll the oversight that is provided for in our Constitution. I will repeat for his deaf ears: Do you think those Liberal representatives of the far far left such as Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Edwards, leader of the Democrat party Howard Dean, Joseph Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and numerous other liberal congressmen/women and Senators are just sitting on their hands while a few in the Administration or across the isle just run right over them? Please.

I didn't just cite the DOD information which is available for viewing at www.us.gov but I also cited a Seargent in the army serving in Iraq that I personally know and who's job it is to coordinate logistics for the many building projects in Iraq. If you read the NYT's or listen to any of the news outlets including FNC you will only find the mention of many of these projects on Oliver North's program on Sunday night FNC. If you think Ollie is too right wing, which he is, you should watch so you can hear the words directly from the mouth of the troops. They are doing the things cited in my post and I for one will thank them.

ABC news, some 6 months ago, did a door to door poll which they had announced they would do in advance, in Iraq asking it's people if they were happy the Americans were there. Then they had to report the overwhelming support for the war among the Iraqis. They haven't made that mistake sense. :duel

 

[Pacridge]

ABC news, some 6 months ago, did a door to door poll which they had announced they would do in advance, in Iraq asking it's people if they were happy the Americans were there. Then they had to report the overwhelming support for the war among the Iraqis. They haven't made that mistake sense.

When was that poll done? Do you have a link? The last poll I saw has done by the "occupation authority" and it showed that 80% of Iraqi's didn't trust or favor the American forces. And that poll was conducted prior to the prison abuse scandal was reported. I find it hard to believe that our support improved.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22403-2004May12?language=printer

 

[26 X World Champs]

We have a very small minded individual here that insists on links to even consider, which he doesn't, that another poster may have actually found the material rather than just made it up.

Hi there! It's me...the guy with the small mind :think:

The DOD is under his politicians as well as those he perceives as his opposites and controll the oversight that is provided for in our Constitution. I will repeat for his deaf ears: Do you think those Liberal representatives of the far far left such as Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Edwards, leader of the Democrat party Howard Dean, Joseph Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and numerous other liberal congressmen/women and Senators are just sitting on their hands while a few in the Administration or across the isle just run right over them? Please.

The Republicans, aka Bush control the DOD as well as the other cabinet departments. They release THEIR facts, they make up THEIR facts. Is some of what they're saying true? Of course! Is some of what they're claiming, lies? Of course! Does anyone believe that if a Democrat was now President that we would have invaded Iraq? :hm

I didn't just cite the DOD information which is available for viewing at www.us.gov but I also cited a Seargent in the army serving in Iraq that I personally know and who's job it is to coordinate logistics for the many building projects in Iraq.

The way that this community works, as a courtesy, is that when someone cites an outside source as their fact base you provide a link to the exact page of the source, not something as gigantic as www.us.gov. When someone does not provide the exact page it shows that he has something to hide, that he is unsure of the facts that he quoted, and he is AFRAID of being shown to be wrong. As is typical of someone who aims to deceive, his response when challenged is to defend his mistake, not correct his mistake. To ask us to go to www.us.gov and look up the ridiculous list of facts that he previously wrote about is a transparent tactic aimed at discouraging people from finding these so called facts since it would be a laborious task to do so, which is why we here who have nothing to hide always provide the exact page that we cite our facts as coming from.

Anything less is BS, and everyone here can smell the BS through their PC's speakers.

The post in question raised many issues that required real answers, as the points listed were purposley deceptive and vague in describing the "accomplishments" vs. the 1700+ lives already sacrificed in Iraq. Instead of answering the questions we get post after post about not needing to provide proof to his claims and that we should answer the questions that his post raised without him. That is very, very lame. :stop:

ABC news, some 6 months ago, did a door to door poll which they had announced they would do in advance, in Iraq asking it's people if they were happy the Americans were there. Then they had to report the overwhelming support for the war among the Iraqis. They haven't made that mistake sense.

This last part of his post is a perfect example of misusing facts and not providing a source for the allegations. What poll is he refferring to? When was it taken? If it was indeed 6 months ago what are the results today, asking the same questions? Instead of providing facts we get some distorted posting that is not factual in its content.

You want a poll from LAST WEEK with a link to its source?

CBS News Poll. May 20-24, 2005. N=1,150 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). RV = registered voters

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"

Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %
ALL adults 38 57 5
Republicans 73 21 6
Democrats 16 82 2
Independents 29 64 7

Source: http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

How about this piece from early May 2005?

Published on Wednesday, May 4, 2005 by USA Today
Support for Iraq War at Lowest Level
35-percentage-point drop from high in '03
by Bill Nichols and Mona Mahmoud


Support for the decision to go to war in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level since the campaign began in March 2003, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll released Tuesday.

The findings, made public on the same day that Iraq's first democratically elected government in 50 years was sworn in, show that 41% say the war was worth it; 57% say it wasn't.

“The patience of the American public is beginning to get worn down a little bit by how long this is taking,” said Charles Pena, a military affairs analyst at the Cato Institute, a think tank in Washington. “While we have made progress … I think people are just tired of this and want it to be over.”

The poll conducted Friday through Sunday asked 514 adults the question. The margin of error was +/-5 percentage points.

Public support peaked as Saddam Hussein's regime fell in 2003 when 76% of those polled said the war was worth it.

The latest poll shows a drop in positive feelings sparked by Iraqi elections in January. In a similar poll taken Feb. 7-10, 48% said the war had been worth waging, while 50% said it had not been. Violence declined in the weeks after the election, but insurgents launched a wave of suicide bombings and attacks in recent weeks, raising concerns that violence will continue.

Among 492 adults asked whether the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq in view of developments since the war began, 49% say it was a mistake, while 48% say it was not. In a poll taken Feb. 4-6, 45% said sending troops was a mistake; 55% said it was not.

U.S. officials continue to cite steady progress in Iraq. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Tuesday that a captured letter to insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi shows “that his influence and effectiveness is deteriorating.”

In Baghdad, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari pledged to unite Iraq's ethnic and religious factions as the new government he will lead was sworn in.

“You all know the heavy legacy inherited by this government. We are afflicted by corruption, lack of services, unemployment and mass graves,” al-Jaafari told lawmakers after taking the oath of office. “I would like to tell the widows and orphans … your sacrifices have not gone in vain.”

Five ministries — including defense and oil — and two deputy prime minister slots remained unfilled as al-Jaafari continues efforts to bring Iraq's Sunni Muslim minority into the new regime while juggling demands of other groups.

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0504-12.htm

You see this is how one backs up his claims, with facts and links directly to those facts. Anything less is DECEPTION, it's calculated, and it's meant to not allow someone to dispute the facts as written. In other words it is meant to allow for bogus or exaggerated claims that cannot be checked out without some serious time spent, rather than simply cutting and pasting the link to where these so-called facts were derived from.

Not providing facts with suitable links makes the post a fairy tale. :tink:

 

[walrus]

I understand your point that this war is seeing a steady (and not unsurprising considering the coverage) decline in popularity. I would argue that whether the American people think a particular war is a good idea is fairly irrelevant. Most American people can't name their congressional representative, and yet we report their opinion on something as complex as a war as if it were truly a decisive element. If America had been polled, most Americans (some historians guess as many as 80%) would have been against the Revolutionary War. Now, before you get if a huff - I am in no way comparing the Revolutionary War with this little fracas in Iraq; except to say the the "American People" opposed both. War is not pretty, and in the past our exposure to the wars in which we have been involved has had the sanitizing effects of a time delay.

I just had another thought, but I think I'll turn it in to a thread...

 

[26 X World Champs]

I understand your point that this war is seeing a steady (and not unsurprising considering the coverage) decline in popularity. I would argue that whether the American people think a particular war is a good idea is fairly irrelevant. Most American people can't name their congressional representative, and yet we report their opinion on something as complex as a war as if it were truly a decisive element. If America had been polled, most Americans (some historians guess as many as 80%) would have been against the Revolutionary War. Now, before you get if a huff - I am in no way comparing the Revolutionary War with this little fracas in Iraq; except to say the the "American People" opposed both. War is not pretty, and in the past our exposure to the wars in which we have been involved has had the sanitizing effects of a time delay.

I think one big difference is our ability to communicate in the 21st century vs. the 18th century.

I also think that most Americans do not feel the daily pain of this war, and if they did then the numbers against it would be severely anti-war. Certainly the families of those in the military feel the effects of this war, but for most other Americans the Iraqi War is nothing more than a debating subject, a TV news show, a newspaper report. Let's face facts? The average American has virtually zero ownership in this war.

During WWII the whole country was invested in that war. Since then the conflicts we've been in have had less and less ownership. The most obvious reason for this is the lack of a draft (thank God!). Translation? The average American family is not touched by this war directly yet 57% are still against it! What would the number be if we had a draft?

BTW - I said "Thank God" for no draft because I have a 15 year old son and there's no way I would ever let him go into the military due to the Iraq War. Maybe for a real, worthwhile cause, but there's no way my children are going to participate in this unjustified war...

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

I think one big difference is our ability to communicate in the 21st century vs. the 18th century.

I also think that most Americans do not feel the daily pain of this war, and if they did then the numbers against it would be severely anti-war. Certainly the families of those in the military feel the effects of this war, but for most other Americans the Iraqi War is nothing more than a debating subject, a TV news show, a newspaper report. Let's face facts? The average American has virtually zero ownership in this war.

During WWII the whole country was invested in that war. Since then the conflicts we've been in have had less and less ownership. The most obvious reason for this is the lack of a draft (thank God!). Translation? The average American family is not touched by this war directly yet 57% are still against it! What would the number be if we had a draft?

BTW - I said "Thank God" for no draft because I have a 15 year old son and there's no way I would ever let him go into the military due to the Iraq War. Maybe for a real, worthwhile cause, but there's no way my children are going to participate in this unjustified war...

I do not advocate a draft. (by the way: nor has any Republican, recently. it's only been advocated by several Democrats...Fritz Hollings & Charles Rangel & about 15 other supporters; all Democrat...check Senate Bill 89 & House Resolution 163).

BUT...I would think that one would want to serve his or her country. I served during the late 80s. No wars during my years of service but we did have several deployments into hostile areas...Honduras, Panama just to name a couple.

I would not discourage my son from joining the military. He is 12 right now & in 6 years it may be a choice he makes.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I do not advocate a draft. (by the way: nor has any Republican, recently. it's only been advocated by several Democrats...Fritz Hollings & Charles Rangel & about 15 other supporters; all Democrat...check Senate Bill 89 & House Resolution 163).

BUT...I would think that one would want to serve his or her country. I served during the late 80s. No wars during my years of service but we did have several deployments into hostile areas...Honduras, Panama just to name a couple.

I would not discourage my son from joining the military. He is 12 right now & in 6 years it may be a choice he makes.

Hey Fonz - I agree that the talk of a draft comes from Rep. Rangel et al. Nevertheless my point was that except for the families of those in the military the Iraq War is not affecting people's day to day lives. No ownership, no personal pain.

I also respect your opinion regarding doing service for your country and not discouraging your son from enlisting.

I was 18 in 1974 so there was no way I would have ever considered joining the military at that point in history. My birth year was the last year to be assigned a draft lottery number.

My point re my son is that neither he nor I accept the Iraq War as a justifiable conflict that is worth the risk that enlisting would provide. It's a bad war.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Hey Fonz - I agree that the talk of a draft comes from Rep. Rangel et al. Nevertheless my point was that except for the families of those in the military the Iraq War is not affecting people's day to day lives. No ownership, no personal pain.

I also respect your opinion regarding doing service for your country and not discouraging your son from enlisting.

I was 18 in 1974 so there was no way I would have ever considered joining the military at that point in history. My birth year was the last year to be assigned a draft lottery number.

My point re my son is that neither he nor I accept the Iraq War as a justifiable conflict that is worth the risk that enlisting would provide. It's a bad war.

Why do you not think the Iraq War is justified? AND, what would make a justifiable war in your eyes?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Why do you not think the Iraq War is justified? AND, what would make a justifiable war in your eyes?

Iraq /Saddam was not a threat to the USA, and that was THE reason given to us for our invasion. OBL runs free while we diverted our manpower and funds to Iraq.

No one can convince me that America was being threatened by Saddam. He had not killed even one American from 1991 until 2003. OBL? He killed thousands of Americans, including people I knew here in Manhattan.

Justifiable war? Afghanistan was most definitely justifiable. It's just too bad that we haven't completed the mission and that we let OBL get away. Even today we've allowed Afghanistan to become the Poppy capital of the world, it's the engine that drives their GNP. Great fact, isn't it?

Sorry to say that Vietnam was a disaster of monumental proportions. To date, IMHO, it stands as the worst defeat and worst conflict we ever participated in. The men who lost their lives, or whose lives were/are affected to this day by Vietnam are the saddest part of the Vietnam experience. All those people killed out of a crazy phobia America's leaders had regarding Communism.

As a basis of comparison, consider this? During the 50's aholes like Joe McCarthy stirred up so much fear and hate regarding Communism that it led America into disastrous decision making in the early & mid 60s that killed more than 50,000 Americans. The fears were unfounded, made out to be much more than the reality. Americans were duped into believing that our way of life was threatened by Communism in Southeast Asia. Of course when the South fell and Vietnam became a Communist country America did not turn red, nor did it end up being a threat to the American way.

I smell the same crap out there today re Iraq. We were sold a bill of goods about WMDs, and how we were all seconds away from being vaporized. It's the same damn sick scare tactics with a different "enemy." The really horrible thing is that our idiot President isn't even smart enough to know who are real enemies are, and instead of putting the majority of our resources into finding and castrating OBL and his boys, he pour hundreds of billions of dollars into a 21st Century Vietnam. Thank God that the casualty rate is much lower, so far.

Sorry for the rambling here, but the disgust I have for Bush and his henchmen in leading America into a WAR is hard to contain.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Iraq /Saddam was not a threat to the USA, and that was THE reason given to us for our invasion. OBL runs free while we diverted our manpower and funds to Iraq.

Ah...so that's the only reason you decided to latch onto. Though that was the underlying reason it was certainly not the only reason. It was really a combination of several things I've stated & so have some others in other posts that contributed to Iraq's threat to the USA.

No one can convince me that America was being threatened by Saddam. He had not killed even one American from 1991 until 2003. OBL? He killed thousands of Americans, including people I knew here in Manhattan.

He had threatened an ally (Kuwait) who he had already attacked once. Plus his defiance to any UN resolution given to him. The original being what stopped us from going into Baghdad the first time...& some don't want to believe Saddam was a thorn in our side...?

I will give you the fact that our mission to get OBL has put aside...or at least apparently. Dealing with a terror supporter such as Saddam does help our war on terror (Lybia ring a bell...?). I'll address why Iraq & not another country later...

Justifiable war? Afghanistan was most definitely justifiable. It's just too bad that we haven't completed the mission and that we let OBL get away. Even today we've allowed Afghanistan to become the Poppy capital of the world, it's the engine that drives their GNP. Great fact, isn't it?

We allow...?...we are not the government of Afghanistan. It's amazing how many complain that we didn't finish our mission in Afghanistan but wish our government would abandon our mission in Iraq. The Afghan government never attacked us either. So your other argument just got flushed with the Koran.

Sorry to say that Vietnam was a disaster of monumental proportions. To date, IMHO, it stands as the worst defeat and worst conflict we ever participated in. The men who lost their lives, or whose lives were/are affected to this day by Vietnam are the saddest part of the Vietnam experience. All those people killed out of a crazy phobia America's leaders had regarding Communism.

Crazy phobia...? The only reason that war was a disaster of monumental proportion is because of the anti-war/anti-American movement right here at home who considered our retreat as a victory...those same people then spat upon our soldiers when they returned home.

As a basis of comparison, consider this? During the 50's aholes like Joe McCarthy stirred up so much fear and hate regarding Communism that it led America into disastrous decision making in the early & mid 60s that killed more than 50,000 Americans. The fears were unfounded, made out to be much more than the reality. Americans were duped into believing that our way of life was threatened by Communism in Southeast Asia. Of course when the South fell and Vietnam became a Communist country America did not turn red, nor did it end up being a threat to the American way.

So, I take it you believe the "cold war" to be bogus & not worth the money we spent on it...?

I smell the same crap out there today re Iraq. We were sold a bill of goods about WMDs, and how we were all seconds away from being vaporized. It's the same damn sick scare tactics with a different "enemy." The really horrible thing is that our idiot President isn't even smart enough to know who are real enemies are, and instead of putting the majority of our resources into finding and castrating OBL and his boys, he pour hundreds of billions of dollars into a 21st Century Vietnam. Thank God that the casualty rate is much lower, so far.

The casualty rate alone shows how absurd the Vietnam comparison is.

Sorry for the rambling here, but the disgust I have for Bush and his henchmen in leading America into a WAR is hard to contain.

Don't be sorry for your opinion.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Don't be sorry for your opinion.

AAAAAY! :clap:

 

[gordontravels]

Hi there! It's me...the guy with the small mind

The Republicans, aka Bush control the DOD as well as the other cabinet departments. They release THEIR facts, they make up THEIR facts. Is some of what they're saying true? Of course! Is some of what they're claiming, lies? Of course! Does anyone believe that if a Democrat was now President that we would have invaded Iraq?

The way that this community works, as a courtesy, is that when someone cites an outside source as their fact base you provide a link to the exact page of the source, not something as gigantic as www.us.gov. When someone does not provide the exact page it shows that he has something to hide, that he is unsure of the facts that he quoted, and he is AFRAID of being shown to be wrong. As is typical of someone who aims to deceive, his response when challenged is to defend his mistake, not correct his mistake. To ask us to go to www.us.gov and look up the ridiculous list of facts that he previously wrote about is a transparent tactic aimed at discouraging people from finding these so called facts since it would be a laborious task to do so, which is why we here who have nothing to hide always provide the exact page that we cite our facts as coming from.

Anything less is BS, and everyone here can smell the BS through their PC's speakers.

The post in question raised many issues that required real answers, as the points listed were purposley deceptive and vague in describing the "accomplishments" vs. the 1700+ lives already sacrificed in Iraq. Instead of answering the questions we get post after post about not needing to provide proof to his claims and that we should answer the questions that his post raised without him. That is very, very lame.

This last part of his post is a perfect example of misusing facts and not providing a source for the allegations. What poll is he refferring to? When was it taken? If it was indeed 6 months ago what are the results today, asking the same questions? Instead of providing facts we get some distorted posting that is not factual in its content.

You want a poll from LAST WEEK with a link to its source?

Source: http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

How about this piece from early May 2005?

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0504-12.htm

You see this is how one backs up his claims, with facts and links directly to those facts. Anything less is DECEPTION, it's calculated, and it's meant to not allow someone to dispute the facts as written. In other words it is meant to allow for bogus or exaggerated claims that cannot be checked out without some serious time spent, rather than simply cutting and pasting the link to where these so-called facts were derived from.

Not providing facts with suitable links makes the post a fairy tale.

Your whole post is wrapped up in one simple stumbling block; CBS. LOL. You can access polls from any news organization just as I have through the search function on those sites. I will continue to post from my own actual knowledge and you can sit back and cry foul because you are unaware. You have a computer; use it. I cited a poll by ABC. There is your link, go find it; type in "polls" in their search and learn. You act as if you don't know how. Would you like me to tuck you in (sarcasm). :duel

 

[26 X World Champs]

Your whole post is wrapped up in one simple stumbling block; CBS. LOL. You can access polls from any news organization just as I have through the search function on those sites. I will continue to post from my own actual knowledge and you can sit back and cry foul because you are unaware. You have a computer; use it. I cited a poll by ABC. There is your link, go find it; type in "polls" in their search and learn. You act as if you don't know how. Would you like me to tuck you in (sarcasm).

You're the one who is being rude to every member of this community. Your lack of courtesy (or is it your planned deception?) is clearly expressed by you in your own words in your posts.

If you think that not providing links to back up your blustery claims makes you look creditable, well, then you might want to rethink your position? :idea:

Or, maybe you want to reconsider the stances you're taking since they appear to me, IMHO, to be wildly misinformed. You're like a propaganda machine for the Republican party. They say, you do, or is it you do what they say?

You might want to also read the rules of this forum? It says:

Copyrighted Material -All material posted from copyrighted material MUST contain a link to the original work. Proper format is to post the relivant quote and then link to the article for the rest. Please do not post entire articles.
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

A link to the original work...so when you post a long list of achievements from Iraq that you copied from a website you're supposed to attach the link to that specific page. You're not supposed to tell us to find it ourselves.

Now you know! I'm sure from now on you'll respect the rules of this forum and the copyright laws of the USA. In your travels haven't you ever learned to be courteous to those around you? :naughty

 

[akyron]

It's a bad war.

What was a good war by your definition?

 

[gordontravels]

You're the one who is being rude to every member of this community. Your lack of courtesy (or is it your planned deception?) is clearly expressed by you in your own words in your posts.

If you think that not providing links to back up your blustery claims makes you look creditable, well, then you might want to rethink your position?

Or, maybe you want to reconsider the stances you're taking since they appear to me, IMHO, to be wildly misinformed. You're like a propaganda machine for the Republican party. They say, you do, or is it you do what they say?

You might want to also read the rules of this forum? It says:

A link to the original work...so when you post a long list of achievements from Iraq that you copied from a website you're supposed to attach the link to that specific page. You're not supposed to tell us to find it ourselves.

Now you know! I'm sure from now on you'll respect the rules of this forum and the copyright laws of the USA. In your travels haven't you ever learned to be courteous to those around you?

You think me rude? You who use name calling to bolster your posts? You then label me with "lack of courtesy", "planned deception", "blustery claims", "wildly misinformed" (you who don't go to the sites for your own education), "propaganda machine", and a disrespector of "the rules of this forum and the copyright laws of the USA". And you worry about my being courteous or haveing learned its tenents? You are so misinformed that it is incredible however you do strike one note that I will pay attention to.

I will, from now on, adhere to the rule you point out. Although I think that posting the actual website where this information is readily available is good enough, I will, from now on, only post my opinion based upon the sites I visit. As far as copyright law I refer you to the Library of Congress, www.loc.gov where you will find the complete listing of what we must follow. Please, let me know if I have broken one or more.

I think that is a civilized response. I see a point of yours, respond to it and point out you intransigence. Debate. Why not. You and I both seem to take it personal. I must say that if you think I do. I think the debate is more important than winning because winning doesn't happen in cyber town. We will oppose one another and through that opposition we will, at the least, understand ourselves better, if not each other. Anyway, I enjoy your labels and take no offense whatsoever. Besides, my opinion is better than yours (sarcasm with a smile). :duel

 

[gordontravels]

Oh and the original article cited in the original post to this thread is a lie. :duel

 

[26 X World Champs]

What was a good war by your definition?

Of course no war is a good war! All that being said, some wars are justified, some are not. Afghanistan, justified. Iraq not. WWII, justified. Vietnam not.

 

[walrus]

A couple of things I want to address, a few posts back I believe 26X said she(?) would not let her son join if he were drafted. What if there were no draft and your son wanted to volunteer? Would you attempt to prevent it? No point here, just a question.

The question has come up several times as to whether this war, or in fact any war, is justified. I am willing to hold judgment on this war until we have the benefit of a few years to look back on it. I was opposed to it from the beginning, and I wish we would get the hell out of it now, but that is not really the point I want to make. There are two purposes to a war; to take something that someone else has, or to prevent someone from taking something away from you. Anyone who tells you any other reason for a war is trying to sell you something. I am not saying these can not be perfectly justified reasons. I am an American, and first and foremost in the world I look to the interests of America. If someone has something that is vital to America - we should take it. If someone wants to take something away from us - we should apply maximum force until they are all dead or so terribly sorry for bothering us in the first place that they will sit quietly and make radios for the next hundred years or so. But anyone who tells you we are in this (or any other war) for some silly idea about freedom for people other than Americans, or liberation, or revenge over a failed assassination attempt, or justice is either naive or trying to misinform you. Anyone who thinks justice is found in a war has obviously never been anywhere near one.

 

[Pacridge]

A couple of things I want to address, a few posts back I believe 26X said she(?) would not let her son join if he were drafted. What if there were no draft and your son wanted to volunteer? Would you attempt to prevent it? No point here, just a question.

The question has come up several times as to whether this war, or in fact any war, is justified. I am willing to hold judgment on this war until we have the benefit of a few years to look back on it. I was opposed to it from the beginning, and I wish we would get the hell out of it now, but that is not really the point I want to make. There are two purposes to a war; to take something that someone else has, or to prevent someone from taking something away from you. Anyone who tells you any other reason for a war is trying to sell you something. I am not saying these can not be perfectly justified reasons. I am an American, and first and foremost in the world I look to the interests of America. If someone has something that is vital to America - we should take it. If someone wants to take something away from us - we should apply maximum force until they are all dead or so terribly sorry for bothering us in the first place that they will sit quietly and make radios for the next hundred years or so. But anyone who tells you we are in this (or any other war) for some silly idea about freedom for people other than Americans, or liberation, or revenge over a failed assassination attempt, or justice is either naive or trying to misinform you. Anyone who thinks justice is found in a war has obviously never been anywhere near one.

First I believe "26" is a he, not sure but I'm fairly sure.

Second, I think I agree with a lot of what you've said here. The mere fact that we're so far into this blunder and still can't be certain that what we're doing is justified tells me that it was a complete mistake. War has huge costs associated with it. Not just material cost but costs in lives, many lives both on our side as well as theirs. Not just military lives but civilian lives, lots of civilian lives. According to many reports the number of civilian lives far out weighs military loses. In fact I don't think I seen any reports that have the civilian lives lost at a lower number then military loses. Saddam was an evil man. Taking him out was no doubt a good thing. I now firmly believe that the nation of Iraq will be better off in the long run due to our efforts. That's not how I felt going in to this, I was fairly certain that our efforts could lead to a possibly worse over all situation. However I always believed that there were other options to achieve the goal of removing or at least limiting Saddam's behaviors. Options that didn't include sending so many young men and women to theirs deaths. Options that didn't include putting so many young lives in harms way, resulting in so many returning with horrible devastating injuries and wounds. Wounds that are not always physical.

As for "If someone has something that is vital to America - we should take it" I can't agree with that thought.

 

[gordontravels]

A couple of things I want to address, a few posts back I believe 26X said she(?) would not let her son join if he were drafted. What if there were no draft and your son wanted to volunteer? Would you attempt to prevent it? No point here, just a question.

The question has come up several times as to whether this war, or in fact any war, is justified. I am willing to hold judgment on this war until we have the benefit of a few years to look back on it. I was opposed to it from the beginning, and I wish we would get the hell out of it now, but that is not really the point I want to make. There are two purposes to a war; to take something that someone else has, or to prevent someone from taking something away from you. Anyone who tells you any other reason for a war is trying to sell you something. I am not saying these can not be perfectly justified reasons. I am an American, and first and foremost in the world I look to the interests of America. If someone has something that is vital to America - we should take it. If someone wants to take something away from us - we should apply maximum force until they are all dead or so terribly sorry for bothering us in the first place that they will sit quietly and make radios for the next hundred years or so. But anyone who tells you we are in this (or any other war) for some silly idea about freedom for people other than Americans, or liberation, or revenge over a failed assassination attempt, or justice is either naive or trying to misinform you. Anyone who thinks justice is found in a war has obviously never been anywhere near one.

I have been in a war, wounded three times (last was the charm) and can see a justification for war rather than just "we". This country stands for something and that is freedom. Even FDR was finally forced by the Japanese to deal with Hitler by helping the French, British, Russians, all the other enslaved European countries and even the people of Germany and Italy. I just wish he would have acted earlier to shut down the death camps; a strong justification for war (although those dead Jewish men, women, children, babies and pregnant women had nothing to do with us taking something from Adolph or stopping him from taking something from us). So my short synopsis?

Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of his people with a bullet to the head and more including the indescriminate gassing of men, women, children and babies (Kurds) for politics and not a shooting war. Saddam attacked what he termed his "province to the south" as we would attack Baja California. When the world reacted he fired missiles on Saudi Arabia and Israel while the latter kept a promise and stayed out of the conflict. After Saddam agreed to the terms of the Coalition Forces and signed the papers, he proceeded to break the terms of the agreement and the Clinton Administration bombed him nearly daily for years (it didn't do any good but it was good enough for the Clinton Administration) while our pilots remained in harms way. None of the majority of the 17 United Nations Resolutions during the Clinton Administration nor those agreed to by the U.N. Security Council (unanimously by all 15 countries) during the Bush Administration were heeded by Saddam as his sons continued to execute soccer teams that lost and rape even the daughters of prominent goverment officials under Saddam's employ. We all saw Saddam hug his scared little British guest (hostage) on our own televisions as he prevented foreigners in his country legally from leaving and returning to their own countries.

Please, if any of the above are not facts without opinion, let me know what. And now? My opinion? The war against Saddam was justified. :duel

 

[gordontravels]

First I believe "26" is a he, not sure but I'm fairly sure.

Second, I think I agree with a lot of what you've said here. The mere fact that we're so far into this blunder and still can't be certain that what we're doing is justified tells me that it was a complete mistake. War has huge costs associated with it. Not just material cost but costs in lives, many lives both on our side as well as theirs. Not just military lives but civilian lives, lots of civilian lives. According to many reports the number of civilian lives far out weighs military loses. In fact I don't think I seen any reports that have the civilian lives lost at a lower number then military loses. Saddam was an evil man. Taking him out was no doubt a good thing. I now firmly believe that the nation of Iraq will be better off in the long run due to our efforts. That's not how I felt going in to this, I was fairly certain that our efforts could lead to a possibly worse over all situation. However I always believed that there were other options to achieve the goal of removing or at least limiting Saddam's behaviors. Options that didn't include sending so many young men and women to theirs deaths. Options that didn't include putting so many young lives in harms way, resulting in so many returning with horrible devastating injuries and wounds. Wounds that are not always physical.

As for "If someone has something that is vital to America - we should take it" I can't agree with that thought.

Good motives PACKRIDGE but even the hurt for the dead in this war can't get the picture out of my mind of the Iraqi woman kneeling by the mass grave with over 4,000 bodies wondering which of the thousands of bones belonged to her husband and two sons; one just 6 years old. This comes from memory and I am sorry there is no link available but it was during the time that our news media found the mass graves interesting.

People still want to talk options with a guy like Saddam? Like he would listen or even care? He sits down to steak every night while millions of his people are under nourished? They sip drinking water you have to boil and let sick children die for lack of any help from anywhere let alone their own government who builds over 20 palaces as second homes? Justification abounds and I say North Korea should be next if the word "liberation" means what I read in Websters. I'm not worried about Iran because eventually the will of the people will overwhelm the Mullahs. :duel