Will They Ever Get The Hint?

[moreluck]

We need to show more sympathy for these people. They travel miles in the heat, they risk their lives crossing a border, they don't get paid enough wages, they do jobs that others won't do or are afraid to do, they live in crowded conditions among a people who speak a different language, they rarely see their families, and they face adversity all day every day.

I'm not talking about illegal Mexicans, I'm talking about our troops. Doesn't it seem strange that the Democrats are willing to lavish all kinds of social benefits on illegals, but don't support our troops and are now threatening to defund them?

 

[over9five]

"Doesn't it seem strange that the Democrats are willing to lavish all kinds of social benefits on illegals, but don't support our troops and are now threatening to defund them?"

Excellent point! It would seem strange, but it is SOP for Dems.

 

[SeniorGeek]

"Doesn't it seem strange that the Democrats are willing to lavish all kinds of social benefits on illegals, but don't support our troops and are now threatening to defund them?"

Excellent point! It would seem strange, but it is SOP for Dems.

You must have meant Repubs!

House Minority Leader John Boehner -

Boehner voted numerous times to limit the deployment of troops in Somalia. On at least two occasions, he supported amendments to move up the deadline to bring troops home from Somalia (House Roll Call Vote #179, 5/22/93 and House Roll Call Vote #555, 11/9/93). He also voted against $1.8 billion in funding for the operation in Somalia (House Roll Call Vote #188, 5/26/93).

John McCain - In Oct. 1994, McCain called on President Clinton to withdraw forces from Haiti "as soon as possible."

In my view that does not mean as soon as order is restored to Haiti," McCain said. "It does not mean as soon as democracy is flourishing in Haiti. It does not mean as soon as we have established a viable nation in Haiti. As soon as possible means as soon as we can get out of Haiti without losing any American lives.

[Last month?] on CNN, Repub Senator John Kyl attacked the withdrawal plan, claiming it was "the first time I know of - in the middle of a war - that a country just announces that on a specific date it's walking off the battlefield."

However, in June 1998, Kyl voted in favor of provisions that called for U.S. forces to "walk off the battlefield" by a certain date in Kosovo and Bosnia. He then supported a bill to "require the President to submit to Congress a plan for withdrawing United States forces from Bosnia and Herzegovina if the Congress does not so act by March 31, 1999." In May 2000, Kyl supported an effort by Congress to compel Clinton to withdraw all ground forces from Kosovo by July 1, 2001.

In 1999, in regards to our operations in Kosovo George W. Bush explicitly said, "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."

 

[govols019]

There's them mean old facts again messing things up.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

There's them mean old facts again messing things up.

It's plainly obvious that Over9Five was saying that the majority (meaning most but not all of them) of the Ties in Washington trying to sell our troops short are Democrats. Print up a list of all the Democrats and Republicans that have wanted to short change our troops in Iraq and in previous engagements and I guatantee you that the side of the paper with the list of Democrats will use much more ink than the Repulican side. That will show you the facts.

 

[av8torntn]

There's them mean old facts again messing things up.

So does this mean that you now agree that we should not surrender to the terrorists?

 

[govols019]

Show me where I ever said that we should. Remember, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

 

[av8torntn]

I am a little missled here are you saying Bosnia and Haiti had something to do with 9-11? Not trying to pick at you I was just wondering what you thought the mean old facts were.

 

[diesel96]

Good post SeniorGeek,I don't think these guys get your point.Lets enlighten them.
Reguardless of whatever conflict the U.S. is involved in, Senior Geek points out these (un-patriotic Republicans)not supporting our Troops.How Ironic .

Next lesson,Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11--didn't we go in there to rid of WMD's?

Should we surrender to the Terrorist?
You mean the local domestic Iraq Terrorist who poses no threat to US borders.They only pose a threat to OUR soldiers because our Rep. leadership keeps them there.

We all as Americans "support our troops" reguardless of what your the Far right is feeding you,the questions really is:

Are we even fighting the right Terrorist?
Have we given up on Osama?Have'nt we de-funded our troops in Afganistan/Pakistian border?
Should'nt our efforts be targeting Int'l Terrorist Groups who pose a threat to Europe and the US?

Could it be we are still in Iraq because this Republican Leadership is waiting for a positive note to pull out,so they have a mi-nute chance of winning the 2008 elections?

It's not that Dems don't support our troops,(even though many or most of our troops come from Democratic homes)
It's that Dems and even some Rep dont support Goerge "W" and his cabinet troops.

 

[av8torntn]

Good post SeniorGeek,I don't think th
Should we surrender to the Terrorist?
You mean the local domestic Iraq Terrorist who poses no threat to US borders.They only pose a threat to OUR soldiers because our Rep. leadership keeps them there.

Are we even fighting the right Terrorist?
Have we given up on Osama?Have'nt we de-funded our troops in Afganistan/Pakistian border?
Should'nt our efforts be targeting Int'l Terrorist Groups who pose a threat to Europe and t

So you mean we should be looking for Fallah Nassr of the Abu Shemshi cell? I know you know who he is that nobody we caught with 500000 in US currency, recordings of the NY subway system and the names of the cell members and their US cell phone numbers. No wait that guy was in Iraq.

Maybe you meant that we should be looking for Sadoon Abid a senior Al-Quaidia commander? No wait sorry that guy was caught in Iraq also.

Maybe you think that the Mehida militia is a bunch of great guys doing really groovy things in the middle east. I only mention them because 1) they were lots of trouble before 9-11 2)you guessed it they are in Iraq 3) the top guys are fairly well trained and funded and 4) they are shia so they wouldnt be Al-Quaidia (just because I feel like there is more to this war than Osama)

I could go on but you can see that I of course feel that we are fighting a global war on terrorism and sadly Osama as you say is not the only bad guy.


It would be great if we were all living in peace but that is not the way it is. I for one do not think it is our fault terrorists are in Iraq like it seemed that you would imply. We could all point fingers as to why we ended up in Iraq. I will not do that because it does not change anything and anyone can make the case that we should have gone in years before or waited even longer and let the situation get worse before we did the right thing.

Since your guestion is are we fighting the right terrorists it seems obvisious that we are and thanks for pointing that out. Or maybe you were saying that we are fighting the wrong terrorists ? Either way I for one am sure glad no more attacks have happened on our soil since that horrible day. I may be the only one here who does not care where they came from or where we ended up taking them on as long as it never happens here. If you know what a soft target is look around and you may begin to understand why I would feel this way.






I really do not care if you guys think that you will be supporting the troops or not if our leaders make them surrender to the terrorists or as you seem to think the really misunderstood people in some country we decided to attack and occupy for whatever your reason of the day is. I just jumped on here a couple of months ago trying to understand why you guys thought the way you do. I am still not sure why but it is entertaining trying to understand some of you.

Oh yes you are partly right about one thing one of the many reasons the president laid out to go to war in Iraq was because they had WMD and we could not take the chance of them handing them over to a terrorist organization. While some of you on here seem to always want to point out the failures of men and women over there by not finding all the
WMD's that we know were over there. We found some but in a way I can understand your fustration there should not be room for error here because of the damage even one round can do if used properly. Just look at it as a little bonus when Osama says Iraq is the central front in his actions against the West we can get him to use his resousces over there instead of here.

And since you think that there is not enough funding going to Afghanistan and funding starts in the US House maybe you could start a campaign to have them send more money to that front. Do not be suprised if they seem shocked to learn that that front is de funded as you say.


One final note it looks like congress may be finally getting the hint and funding our troops at least for a little while longer.

You guys and gals have a great day!!!

 

[SeniorGeek]

I am a little missled here

Yes.

are you saying Bosnia and Haiti had something to do with 9-11?

No. At least, not Haiti, AFAIK.

Not trying to pick at you I was just wondering what you thought the mean old facts were.

The mean old facts* presented were about some of the hardheaded ideologues in our government who whine about how timetables/deadlines/limits undermine our troops. The mean old facts* show that, by their own stated standards, those same whining hardheaded ideologues have undermined our troops in past conflicts.

In addition to Bush, Repubs John McCain, John Kyl and John Boehner have done what they now claim undermines our troops.

[* the word "facts" is tempered by the fact that I found the information on the web, where everything and anything is true]

...
I could go on but you can see that I of course feel that we are fighting a global war on terrorism and sadly Osama as you say is not the only bad guy.

So you must be thinking we should invade/occupy/go-to-war-in Iran, Syria, Cuba, North Korea and Sudan. (Those are listed by our State Department as State Sponsors of Terrorism. Iraq is no longer listed.)

If it is truly a global war, I suppose our military needs to occupy any country that contains a terrorist threat that is not under control - the United States, too. (The FBI lists many domestic terrorist threats - white supremacists, black separatists, citizen militias, sovereign citizens, animal rights and eco-terrorists. They have not updated the list to include pizza delivery.) I suppose, for their own protection, our military should start with a house-to-house search and confiscate firearms.

... Just look at it as a little bonus when Osama says Iraq is the central front in his actions against the West we can get him to use his resousces over there instead of here. ...

What an idiot bin Laden must be, to reveal his strategy to the world.

 

[av8torntn]

So you must be thinking we should invade/occupy/go-to-war-in Iran, Syria, Cuba, North Korea and Sudan. (Those are listed by our State Department as State Sponsors of Terrorism. Iraq is no longer listed.)

If it is truly a global war, I suppose our military needs to occupy any country that contains a terrorist threat that is not under control - the United States, too. (The FBI lists many domestic terrorist threats - white supremacists, black separatists, citizen militias, sovereign citizens, animal rights and eco-terrorists. They have not updated the list to include pizza delivery.) I suppose, for their own protection, our military should start with a house-to-house search and confiscate firearms.

What an idiot bin Laden must be, to reveal his strategy to the world.

Well if you want to know what I think it would be that we should not use our military force against our citizens on our own soil. I also think that we have to use our forces where we can get the most out of it. I would go in the order you suggest except I might would move Cuba to the end of the list we can still hope that they will take care of themselves after Castro leaves and they seem fairly well contained now anyway. But if things go well in Iraq democracy and freedom have a way of spreading so we may be able to go back to the law enforcement approach of fighting terrorism. I have plenty of problems with Mccain on the war on terrorism like the fact that he wants to tell our commanders how many troops they need to do their job. I would rather have him trying to give more than needed than some of the others trying to take away what is needed. Trust me I understand that americans are reluctant to go to war. For you to imply that we chose to go to war for no reason is at the very least uninformed.

I just base my opions on my experience and I was only trying to understand where some of you got yours from. All it seems like you can do is find a link that you think supports your side or correct someones spelling to make you feel smarter or go on a free speech rant or quote an old Nazi to imply that our country is the same or maybe blame the president since the guy you probably voted for lost. The only reason I tried to get you to explain your views in the first place was because you seemed to have strong views and you would type in such long posts so I was hoping at the very least that your views would be very well thought out. It seems like I was wrong again.

I suppose it is always possible that we took the actions of the terrorists wrong and they are really nice people. If we just give in to their ways they will stop trying to kill us. I doubt it.

 

[av8torntn]

Yes.

So you must be thinking we should invade/occupy/go-to-war-in Iran, Syria, Cuba, North Korea and Sudan. (Those are listed by our State Department as State Sponsors of Terrorism. Iraq is no longer listed.)


So now you admit some success in Iraq? Or you may be saying that since they are no longer state sponsors of terrorism that would be a bad thing?


And yes as I said before if war is the best option to provide national security. That would not be my call. We have elected officials to make those decisions for us. If the call comes I will answer again.

 

[brazenbrown]

Well if you want to know what I think it would be that we should not use our military force against our citizens on our own soil. I also think that we have to use our forces where we can get the most out of it. I would go in the order you suggest except I might would move Cuba to the end of the list we can still hope that they will take care of themselves after Castro leaves and they seem fairly well contained now anyway. But if things go well in Iraq democracy and freedom have a way of spreading so we may be able to go back to the law enforcement approach of fighting terrorism. I have plenty of problems with Mccain on the war on terrorism like the fact that he wants to tell our commanders how many troops they need to do their job. I would rather have him trying to give more than needed than some of the others trying to take away what is needed. Trust me I understand that americans are reluctant to go to war. For you to imply that we chose to go to war for no reason is at the very least uninformed.

I just base my opions on my experience and I was only trying to understand where some of you got yours from. All it seems like you can do is find a link that you think supports your side or correct someones spelling to make you feel smarter or go on a free speech rant or quote an old Nazi to imply that our country is the same or maybe blame the president since the guy you probably voted for lost. The only reason I tried to get you to explain your views in the first place was because you seemed to have strong views and you would type in such long posts so I was hoping at the very least that your views would be very well thought out. It seems like I was wrong again.

I suppose it is always possible that we took the actions of the terrorists wrong and they are really nice people. If we just give in to their ways they will stop trying to kill us. I doubt it.

Nice post av8torntn!

Unfortunately some people just don't get it and probably never will!!

 

[SeniorGeek]

So now you admit some success in Iraq? Or you may be saying that since they are no longer state sponsors of terrorism that would be a bad thing?

Yes, we succeeded in Iraq. I think we toppled that terrorism-supporting government in 2003. We found Saddam in 2003. We need to get out of the business of creating more terrorists, and we need to aim our diplomacy (if we have any left) and military (if needed) where they will do the most good.

And yes as I said before if war is the best option to provide national security.

Thanks for the tautology. If/when it is the best option, then war is the best option. However, someone has to choose when it is "best" to put our troops lives at stake, and that is where the differences begin.

That would not be my call.

But you are free to express your opinion about it. I do not get to make the call, either. You haven't seen that shut me up.

We have elected officials to make those decisions for us. If the call comes I will answer again.

This sounds like, "Once we elect them, we shall not question their decisions". Will you allow Hillary to make those decisions for you if she is elected?


Note: When I make a worst-case-scenario hypothesis, somebody is going to think that is my desired outcome. Let me clarify - I do not want Hilarity to be our President. I want av8torntn to consider the possible consequences of the rules he makes, and apply the same rules to himself as he does to others.

As I have said in the past: Do not give power to a government you trust unless you are willing to have that power end up in the hands of a government you do not trust.

 

[av8torntn]

This sounds like, "Once we elect them, we shall not question their decisions". Will you allow Hillary to make those decisions for you if she is elected?


Note: When I make a worst-case-scenario hypothesis, somebody is going to think that is my desired outcome. Let me clarify - I do not want Hilarity to be our President. I want av8torntn to consider the possible consequences of the rules he makes, and apply the same rules to himself as he does to others.

As I have said in the past: Do not give power to a government you trust unless you are willing to have that power end up in the hands of a government you do not trust.

All I can go on here is my own experiance. When her husband was president he sent us to Bosnia. I did not understand why we were there and still do not. I do not blame the president I blame my chain of command if anyone. I did not complain but I am or was a soldier and that wasnt my place. I would never question your right to complain and if I came across like that it was not my intention. I fully understand that I am looking at these things from a different angle than the next guy I was more curious than anything as to how some of you came to the conclusions that you did when I feel that you are so wrong.


On a more positive note it looks like the leadership in congress decided to surrender to the president instead of the terrorists. If nothing else it will be interesting to see how everything is spun in the news in the coming days.

 

[av8torntn]

I am glad to see that you think we have had some success in Iraq so now the question is why do you think that we should end security and stability operations now? I think it of course would be a bad idea to do that.

 

[SeniorGeek]

I am glad to see that you think we have had some success in Iraq so now the question is why do you think that we should end security and stability operations now? I think it of course would be a bad idea to do that.

You can name them "security and stability operations", and their stated intent may be to provide security and increase stability, but I see evidence that the plan is backfiring and we are getting the opposite of the desired effect.

Who said to end operations "now"? Does that mean the only other choice is "never"?

This morning, I heard (part of) an interview with an Iraqi police officer. He is afraid of US soldiers - the same fear that he has of the illegal militias. His impression is that US soldiers start randomly shooting anytime things do not happen their way. When the police see our behavior as equivalent to that of the criminals, it is no wonder that the number of insurgents is increasing.


It's not new....

In Ramadi..., the marines are jumpy. Sometimes, they say, they fire on vehicles encroaching with 30 metres, sometimes they fire at 20 metres: 'If anyone gets too close to us we friend---ing waste them,' says a bullish lieutenant. 'It's kind of a shame, because it means we've killed a lot of innocent people.'

- The Economist (some time in 2005, I think)

When did we go from "Walk softly and carry a big stick" to "Shoot first, ask questions later"?

 

[av8torntn]

You can name them "security and stability operations", and their stated intent may be to provide security and increase stability, but I see evidence that the plan is backfiring and we are getting the opposite of the desired effect.

Who said to end operations "now"? Does that mean the only other choice is "never"?

This morning, I heard (part of) an interview with an Iraqi police officer. He is afraid of US soldiers - the same fear that he has of the illegal militias. His impression is that US soldiers start randomly shooting anytime things do not happen their way. When the police see our behavior as equivalent to that of the criminals, it is no wonder that the number of insurgents is increasing.


It's not new....- The Economist (some time in 2005, I think)

When did we go from "Walk softly and carry a big stick" to "Shoot first, ask questions later"?

I did not name them anything that is what it is called.

Congress was saying end operations now.

You take a couple of car bombs to your patrol and we will see how close you would allow them to get to your vehicle or that of the men serving under you. They all know not to drive up to military or police checkpoints. They know when to pull over and stop. When it is time for their vehicle to be searched we or they let them know.

I know now you are not saying that we are randomly shooting people for no reason. The rules of engagement are very clear. For security reasons I cannot post them of course, but they are very clear and easy to understand.

Who was this police officer? Was he one of the few that set off IED's on our troops? Who was shooting at him and why? I can think of many more questions I would ask if I was the reporter. Who is embedded with his police company? Where is the report that coalition forces submitted that say we were being shot at by friendly forces? Is he part of the insurgency that slipped through the cracks in the rush to hire more IP's? (I would be trying to find out if he is with the wolf brigade)
My point is he may have a good reason to fear our troops but it is not that he is afraid of being randomly shot because things do not go their way. Maybe you would just rather take his word for it but it sounds like a poor job of doing an interview to me.

 

[SeniorGeek]

Well if you want to know what I think it would be that we should not use our military force against our citizens on our own soil.

We both agree with our Founders on this. I wrote that to encourage people to consider the point of view of the friendlies - the people we are allegedly helping. The cure should not kill the patient.

I also think that we have to use our forces where we can get the most out of it. I would go in the order you suggest except I might would move Cuba....

Somewhere around the 3rd nation that we invade based on our own allegations of harboring terrorists, I expect that we would have few allies in this world. We might not have much in the way of military resources left. We would not be completely alone - Saudi Arabia would still be our friend, because they want us to keep ignoring the terrorists they harbor.

But if things go well in Iraq democracy and freedom have a way of spreading so we may be able to go back to the law enforcement approach of fighting terrorism.

The way that democracy and freedom spread is cultural. I think the format of a government is culturally-entrenched. One example is Russia - the Czars and the Bolsheviks were political opposites, but both were totalitarian. After the Bolshevik revolution, the people found it reassuring that someone would continue to tell them what to do. Their government is again drifting toward totalitarianism. Freedom is a scary thing for most cultures.

I do not know much about the cultures of the Fertile Crescent/Cradle of Civilization/Middle East, so I have little idea of what might work for them. Centuries of outside interference have created more problems than have been solved, I think. Our interference is probably more of the same, but better armed.