President brute forces Do Not Call into law

[Firestarter 0]

And this just reeks of desperation in trying to get his approval numbers up...

Christ, is everything Bush does a conspiracy theory to some of you?

So the Pope is visiting DC, and President Bush takes him sailing on the USS Sequoia, the old presidential yacht. They're talking about this and that, when, all of a sudden, the Pope's hat blows off his head and falls into the river. A Secret Service agent starts to call for an escort speedboat idling nearby to come around and pick it up, but the President just waves him off.

"I'll take care of this," says the President. He turns to the Pope and pats him on the shoulder. "Don't worry, I'll be back in a second."

The President vaults over the railing and lands on Potomac. Calmly, he straightens his jacket and walks over the water to the Holy Father's hat, bobbing in the waves. He leans down and picks it up, then walks back to the yacht and climbs up with the help of the stunned agent.

"Here you go," says the President, handing the flabbergasted Pope his hat.

 

The next morning, this little incident makes the front page of the New York Times. It's the top story of the day, with photos, commentary, and international reactions. The headline:

 

BUSH CAN'T SWIM

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

A classic.

 

It's funny 'cause it's true...

[Vyce 0]

I'm really starting to believe Marney is right.

 

To some Democrats, Bush is alternately the biggest idiot on the planet or an evil supergenius coming to take away all of our freedoms and rights.

 

On any given day they just wet their finger and stick it in the air each day to decide which argument to use.

[Firestarter 0]

You can say all you want about us freeing the Iraqis from this and that. But I fail to see where they show their gratitude, when I'm being shown clips of American troops getting rocks thrown at them every night. And, $87 billion dollars for this war is unbelievably ridiculous

"I went to Iraq a couple of weeks ago to resolve for myself the recent contrast between gloomy news coverage and optimistic Pentagon reports of our progress. My trip left no doubt that the Pentagon's version is far closer to reality. Our news coverage disproportionately dwells on the deaths, mistakes and setbacks suffered by coalition forces... no better signal of our commitment to this effort could currently be provided than for Congress to quickly approve, with little dissent or dithering, the president's request for an additional $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course no one wants to spend such a sum. But it is well worth it if it leads to a stable, secular representative government in Iraq, something that could immeasurably improve our future national security."

 

Click here to read the full article by Representative Jim Marshall (D-GA).

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

Go home until you can name one.

-=Mike

...I am home. ??

[NYU 0]

You can say all you want about us freeing the Iraqis from this and that. But I fail to see where they show their gratitude, when I'm being shown clips of American troops getting rocks thrown at them every night. And, $87 billion dollars for this war is unbelievably ridiculous

"I went to Iraq a couple of weeks ago to resolve for myself the recent contrast between gloomy news coverage and optimistic Pentagon reports of our progress. My trip left no doubt that the Pentagon's version is far closer to reality. Our news coverage disproportionately dwells on the deaths, mistakes and setbacks suffered by coalition forces... no better signal of our commitment to this effort could currently be provided than for Congress to quickly approve, with little dissent or dithering, the president's request for an additional $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course no one wants to spend such a sum. But it is well worth it if it leads to a stable, secular representative government in Iraq, something that could immeasurably improve our future national security."

 

Click here to read the full article by Representative Jim Marshall (D-GA).

That's nice. If some, or as one article said - most, Iraqis appreciate American involvement - that's all well and good. But the fact of the matter is that American soldiers are STILL getting killed there and STILL getting rocks thrown at them by unhappy Iraqis. This fact can't be denied. And again, if Iraqis wanted to really show their gratitude, they would gang up on those throwing rocks and make sure they don't do it again. This is what SHOULD be going on - but it's not, in reality. Picture it for a second:

 

Your friend takes care of you during a rough time in your life. Someone was making your life hell, and this friend stepped in and made sure it ended by using force. After that, this friend helped you through other difficult times. He/She gave you food when you were hungry, medicine for when you were sick, and tried to help you learn to defend yourself and become a better person. One day, you see this friend getting the shit beaten out of him/herself. Do you stand there and go, "Hey. Thanks for uh....doing all that stuff for me. Later." or do you help him and end chase away this new enemy ? The Iraqis choose #1. #2 should be the correct answer.

 

It's easy to say thanks, and then shut your eyes to everything around you. Iraqis should be making sure the American soldiers are being protected since, you know, they are the ones that liberated them and improved their lives, like they "appreciate." But they're not doing anything to show it, and the American death count rises with every day.

 

We're being given no protection over there, and it's just one more family member that is being murdered by these rebel Iraqis, with no approving Iraqis helping us in the process. This, to me, was not worth $100+ billion dollars. Not when they are countless problems to be solved here.

[Firestarter 0]

American soldiers are STILL getting killed there and STILL getting rocks thrown at them by unhappy Iraqis... if Iraqis wanted to really show their gratitude, they would gang up on those throwing rocks and make sure they don't do it again. This is what SHOULD be going on - but it's not

Read the article.

 

"We not only need Iraqi tips and intelligence, we need Iraqis fighting by our side and eventually assuming full responsibility for their internal security. But Iraqis have not forgotten the 1991 Gulf War. America encouraged the Shiites to rebel, then abandoned them to be slaughtered. I visited one of the mass graves, mute testimony to the wisdom of being cautious about relying on American politicians to live up to their commitments.

For Iraqis, news of America's resolve is critical to any decision to cooperate with coalition forces, a decision that can lead to death. Newspaper start-up ventures and sales of satellite dishes absolutely exploded following the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime. With this on top of the Internet, Iraqis do get the picture from America - literally...

Instead of being negative about Iraq, Democratic presidential candidates should emphasize the positive aspects of their own plans for Iraq. Save the negative attacks for the issues of jobs and the economy. Iraqis are far less likely to support the coalition effort if they think America might withdraw following the 2004 election."

 

This, to me, was not worth $100+ billion dollars. Not when they are countless problems to be solved here.

Like, say, building a memorial to the people who died in the WTC, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Or giving the families of the victims some closure and comfort, and doing our utmost to ensure that nothing like 9/11 will ever happen again. Or living up to the ideals enshrined in our own Constitution.

 

Not worth $100 billion? It's worth much, much more than that to me.

Edited October 2, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[NYU 0]

Okay, but honestly, this does nothing for us now. Are the Iraqis to have an infinite time limit on when they decide to help us ? They're going to wait until after the 2004 election - and then what ? Wait some more to see if they can TRULY trust us ? We have soldiers dying on a daily basis. We have money constantly being sent out of America towards Iraq. But still, we have no trust and we aren't worth the trouble of getting the Iraqis to help defend for us. I think we have shown that this is an entirely different situation than the Gulf War and that obviously, there can be no backing out now. But still, they choose to remain quiet.

 

Simple Arithmetic: Just say.....75% of the people in Iraq appreciate the American effort. 25% don't. For every Iraqi that murders an American soldier or throws rocks at a G.I., there should be three other Iraqis that beat the shit out of him. It's a large majority and would show that, since we decide to help the Iraqis, they decide to help us. But this isn't happening. I'm sorry, but I would like to see the Iraqis do SOMETHING for the soldiers in Iraq besides dance in the street. Now is the time to protect the soldiers - when the murders are daily. Not in 2005, 2006, 2010, whenever. When the situation has been a lot more stabilized, with no thanks to the Iraqis who FEEL gratitude but have no desire to SHOW it.

[NYU 0]

This, to me, was not worth $100+ billion dollars. Not when they are countless problems to be solved here.

Like, say, building a memorial to the people who died in the WTC, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Or giving the families of the victims some closure and comfort, and doing our utmost to ensure that nothing like 9/11 will ever happen again. Or living up to the ideals enshrined in our own Constitution.

 

Not worth $100 billion? It's worth much, much more than that to me.

I'm sorry, elaborate. I don't see what you're saying here. Yes, a fraction of the $100 billion dollars would be better spent on building a memorial. And, since not one document has been discovered linking Iraq with 9/11, or one weapon of mass destruction, let's not say this is a war to comfort those who lost a loved one on that day or to make sure no one will attack us again. That was what the war in Afghanistan was for.

[Guest MikeSC]

That's nice.[\QUOTE]

 

Yes, it is, isn't it?

 

If some, or as one article said - most, Iraqis appreciate American involvement - that's all well and good. But the fact of the matter is that American soldiers are STILL getting killed there and STILL getting rocks thrown at them by unhappy Iraqis.

 

And, a Marney pointed out, we basically sold out the Shi'ites in 1991 by instigating a rebellion and then leaving them when they needed our help. That might lead to some resentment. And some people made money through Saddam --- there is an outside shot they might wish to do something to get weak-kneed, weak-willed Westerners (not to name names, but one is looking at you in the mirror on a daily basis) to want us out due to the "extreme costs" of this.

 

This fact can't be denied.

 

No, the fact can't be denied. The RELEVANCE of it, though, is up for serious question.

 

And again, if Iraqis wanted to really show their gratitude, they would gang up on those throwing rocks and make sure they don't do it again.

 

Because, God knows, it's human nature to risk one's own life to save others. Heck, if they DID do that, you'd probably bitch and moan about THAT.

 

Can't have you pissy, can we?

 

Well, we can't avoid it, I suppose.

 

This is what SHOULD be going on - but it's not, in reality.

 

Any idea how we managed to get Saddam's kids?

 

Man do you ever tire of being wrong?

 

Picture it for a second

 

Oh, this should be fun.

 

Your friend takes care of you during a rough time in your life. Someone was making your life hell, and this friend stepped in and made sure it ended by using force. After that, this friend helped you through other difficult times. He/She gave you food when you were hungry, medicine for when you were sick, and tried to help you learn to defend yourself and become a better person. One day, you see this friend getting the shit beaten out of him/herself. Do you stand there and go, "Hey. Thanks for uh....doing all that stuff for me. Later." or do you help him and end chase away this new enemy ? The Iraqis choose #1. #2 should be the correct answer.

 

Except that Iraqi citizens have helped us nab major Iraqi officials. Other than that --- nah, your analogy is STILL bad.

 

It's easy to say thanks, and then shut your eyes to everything around you. Iraqis should be making sure the American soldiers are being protected since, you know, they are the ones that liberated them and improved their lives, like they "appreciate." But they're not doing anything to show it, and the American death count rises with every day.

 

Man, you'd have been a hoot after the Civil War. "Screw them former slaves --- if they wanted to help us, they'd prevent our boys from getting killed.

 

True, they'd be slaughtered if they did anything, but hey..."

 

We're being given no protection over there, and it's just one more family member that is being murdered by these rebel Iraqis, with no approving Iraqis helping us in the process. This, to me, was not worth $100+ billion dollars. Not when they are countless problems to be solved here

 

Seeing as how you've been incredibly asinine thus far, I guess a little more is not too much.

 

What, exactly, IS worth it to you?

-=Mike

[Firestarter 0]

I would like to see the Iraqis do SOMETHING for the soldiers in Iraq besides dance in the street.

So would I. But I'm less concerned about protecting 140,000 soldiers than I am about protecting 290,000,000 citizens. Our soldiers can take care of themselves. They're well-trained and well-equipped, and they're the best in the world. Their morale is high, they're doing good work, and they don't want to do a half-assed job. We can help them best by giving them the support they need and NOT pulling them out before they've had time to wrap things up. If we do that again they'll only be heading back in another few years.

 

not one document has been discovered linking Iraq with 9/11

Irrelevant. Terrorism or support for terrorism of any kind can no longer be suffered.

 

or one weapon of mass destruction

Yet.

 

let's not say this is a war to comfort those who lost a loved one on that day or to make sure no one will attack us again.

It absolutely is. We have to prove that we have the resolve to see this through. It was precisely the kinds of actions you are advocating that gave al-Qaeda the nerve to pull off 9/11. They thought we'd run back to our borders as soon as the first body bags arrived. They have now learned that a great deal has changed since Mogadishu.

 

I don't see what you're saying here.

I didn't really imagine you would, but I thought I'd try anyway. You're quibbling over less than 1% of our GDP. Do you have any idea what kind of domino effect a stable, secular, friendly, and democratic Iraq could have on the region? Do you have any idea what that would mean for our national security? If only economic considerations carry weight with you, consider the fact that we'd save trillions over ten short years in force projection alone.

Edited October 2, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[NYU 0]

Mike, I can't argue with you. It's like talking to a brick wall. It doesn't listen to you, doesn't make you any more intelligent. The only difference is that the wall doesn't give lame put-downs and doesn't bitch about non-sensical facts with no proof to back it up. So there, you're more infuriating to talk to than a brick wall. Congratulations. I don't have the time to constantly argue with you about stuff like last night, because you just LOVE to stick your fingers in your ears and go "Na, na, I can't hear you." So there you go. Great job.

 

So would I. But I'm less concerned about protecting 140,000 soldiers than I am about protecting 290,000,000 citizens. Our soldiers can take care of themselves. They're well-trained and well-equipped, and they're the best in the world. Their morale is high, they're doing good work, and they don't want to do a half-assed job. We can help them best by giving them the support they need and NOT pulling them out before they've had time to wrap things up. If we do that again they'll only be heading back in another few years.

 

Most of our soldiers can take care of themselves. But there are still those that can't overcome the numbers, or are being taken down by sneak attacks. These are the soldiers that upset me - because their deaths could be prevented. They are well-trained and well-equipped but make no mistake, their morale is not high. At this point, they WANT to go home. They're getting tired of some of the Iraqi resistance they're enduring and are just waiting to get home. From the CS Monitor:

 

WASHINGTON – US troops facing extended deployments amid the danger, heat, and uncertainty of an Iraq occupation are suffering from low morale that has in some cases hit "rock bottom."

Even as President Bush speaks of a "massive and long-term" undertaking in rebuilding Iraq, that effort, as well as the high tempo of US military operations around the globe, is taking its toll on individual troops

Some frustrated troops stationed in Iraq are writing letters to representatives in Congress to request their units be repatriated. "Most soldiers would empty their bank accounts just for a plane ticket home," said one recent Congressional letter written by an Army soldier now based in Iraq. The soldier requested anonymity.

In some units, there has been an increase in letters from the Red Cross stating soldiers are needed at home, as well as daily instances of female troops being sent home due to pregnancy.

"Make no mistake, the level of morale for most soldiers that I've seen has hit rock bottom," said another soldier, an officer from the Army's 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq.

Such open grumbling among troops comes as US commanders reevaluate the size and composition of the US-led coalition force needed to occupy Iraq. US Central Command, which is leading the occupation, is expected by mid-July to send a proposal to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on how many and what kind of troops are required, as well as on the rotation of forces there.

 

At this point, they are getting SO frustrated that they would rather do a half-ass job and go home than continue to stay there. This shouldn't be how the soldiers feel, but they realize that a good number of Iraqis don't want them there and they are just tired of dealing with all the hardships and hostility. If they had the Iraqis helping him, the burden wouldn't feel so heavy.

 

not one document has been discovered linking Iraq with 9/11

Irrelevant. Terrorism of any kind can no longer be suffered.

 

Is relevant. There's no sign that Iraq was even preparing for a terrorist attack. To prove it, we were told that Iraq had a connection to 9/11. This hasn't been proven yet. So, until someone shows me that there was an attack being planned by Saddam for the future, I can't agree that the war was necessary during such an economic crisis.

 

or one weapon of mass destruction

Yet.

There CAN'T be that many more places in Iraq to search.

 

 

let's not say this is a war to comfort those who lost a loved one on that day or to make sure no one will attack us again.

It absolutely is. We have to prove that we have the resolve to see this through. It was precisely the kinds of actions you are advocating that gave al-Qaeda the nerve to pull off 9/11. They thought we'd run back to our borders as soon as the first body bags arrived. They have now learned that a great deal has changed since Mogadishu.

 

My feeling is that we should have never started because it wasn't needed. So far, there hasn't been one rock-solid fact shown that said we needed to get Iraq right now, or face a terrorist attack in a month. I'm not advocating the kinds of actions that gave Al Qaeda nerve. I AGREED with the war in Afghanistan. The terrorists in there NEEDED to be captured and destroyed. It would have been a LOT better if we got Bin Laden, but we did get some terrorists. Great. It NEEDED to be done. But I don't see anything saying that this needed to. Unless we go into the humanitarian excuse, but then that means we'll be playing the humanitarian for anybody suffering all throughout the world.

 

-My opinion, again: The people in the United States should be taken care of first before the people in Iraq, by the United States. The unemployed should be given jobs, the homeless should be helped, the economy should be improved. This stuff should be taken care of first, especially if we're going to be helped so little by the Iraqis for spending $100+ billion plus over there and toppling a government. Now we're improving their lives and neglecting those here that need help. This shouldn't be happening.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, I can't argue with you.

 

Yeah, I've noticed that.

 

It's like talking to a brick wall. It doesn't listen to you, doesn't make you any more intelligent. The only difference is that the wall doesn't give lame put-downs and doesn't bitch about non-sensical facts with no proof to back it up.

 

Quoting your high school debate coach verbatim now? Shouldn't you at least give some credit? Kind of harsh for him to say that to you, huh?

 

I don't have the time to constantly argue with you about stuff like last night, because you just LOVE to stick your fingers in your ears and go "Na, na, I can't hear you." So there you go. Great job

 

And that would help when reading your tripe how?

 

Most of our soldiers can take care of themselves. But there are still those that can't overcome the numbers, or are being taken down by sneak attacks

 

Ah, that American toughness.

 

How did it COMPLETELY miss you?

 

And quoting the Christian Science Monitor? Wow, struggling, huh?

 

At this point, they are getting SO frustrated that they would rather do a half-ass job and go home than continue to stay there. This shouldn't be how the soldiers feel, but they realize that a good number of Iraqis don't want them there and they are just tired of dealing with all the hardships and hostility. If they had the Iraqis helping him, the burden wouldn't feel so heavy.

 

Of course, they ARE getting quite a bit of help from Iraqis. You constantly seem to miss that.

 

And it's amazing that you still listen to the press, when ANYBODY who goes over there says that the media's reporting is not even close to reality. But, hey, whatever floats your boat.

 

Is relevant. There's no sign that Iraq was even preparing for a terrorist attack. To prove it, we were told that Iraq had a connection to 9/11. This hasn't been proven yet. So, until someone shows me that there was an attack being planned by Saddam for the future, I can't agree that the war was necessary during such an economic crisis.

 

The Bush Doctrine, again, is that those who HARBOR terrorists and SUPPORT terrorism -- which Saddam does(well, did) --- will be treated no differently than terrorists themselves.

 

I'm almost laughing myself sore at you now.

 

There CAN'T be that many more places in Iraq to search.

 

Since --- by your own words --- they're being attacked and killed on a DAILY basis, when, exactly, did they have time for serious searching?

 

My feeling is that we should have never started because it wasn't needed.

 

And your feelings mean squat, as they are as asinine as your opinions.

 

So far, there hasn't been one rock-solid fact shown that said we needed to get Iraq right now, or face a terrorist attack in a month.

 

Saddam supported terrorism, if nothing else. That is reason enough.

 

I'm not advocating the kinds of actions that gave Al Qaeda nerve.

 

Just leave a country the moment a little counter-fighting occurs. Yup, THAT wouldn't give terrorists some nerve, would it?

 

"We'll DESTROY you --- well, until you fight back a little. Then we'll cave in. But we won't let you beat us. Well, unless you fight back a little..."

 

I AGREED with the war in Afghanistan.

 

Doth thou wanteth a cookie?

 

The terrorists in there NEEDED to be captured and destroyed. It would have been a LOT better if we got Bin Laden, but we did get some terrorists. Great. It NEEDED to be done. But I don't see anything saying that this needed to.

 

Of course, a list of the things you don't know would fill up the Grand Canyon.

 

Unless we go into the humanitarian excuse, but then that means we'll be playing the humanitarian for anybody suffering all throughout the world.

 

And, God, THAT would be horrible. Helping people. Shameful.

 

Nobody is saying that we should all suffering. We can't do so. But, when a dictator supports terrorism, he SHOULD be dealt with harshly.

 

My opinion, again: The people in the United States should be taken care of first before the people in Iraq, by the United States. The unemployed should be given jobs

 

So, bloat the deficits even MORE by hiring MORE unneeded federal employees? Yup, that's a winning plan right there.

 

Time for a hint: Governments are spetacularly inept at "providing jobs" for people. Private industry tends to do better.

 

the homeless should be helped

 

Care to guess how much is spent on just that? Any ideas? Care to guess how many have serious mental or drug problems?

 

the economy should be improved.

 

And the gov't can do this how, exactly?

 

Heck, why not have the gov't ALSO provide a nice, 2-story house, a really hot wife (or husband), cheap cable, high-speed internet access, and no sickness or injuries to befall anybody?

 

Is life nice in CandyLand?

 

This stuff should be taken care of first

 

And ANYBODY is supposed to take your opinion seriously after this?

 

, especially if we're going to be helped so little by the Iraqis for spending $100+ billion plus over there and toppling a government.

 

Hey, we spend A LOT more than that here and we have FAR more killings here.

 

I guess we're ungrateful and the gov't should just abandon the country.

 

Hmm, now that might not be that bad an idea...

 

Now we're improving their lives and neglecting those here that need help. This shouldn't be happening.

 

And, again, what can the gov't do to improve the economy? Demand you spend more money RIGHT NOW?

 

Buy a clue.

 

Heck, you'd be doing you part then.

-=Mike

[Firestarter 0]

They are well-trained and well-equipped but make no mistake, their morale is not high. At this point, they WANT to go home. They're getting tired of some of the Iraqi resistance they're enduring and are just waiting to get home.

"Volunteers are not hard to come by, as many of the soldiers have now experienced the appreciation that the Iraqi villagers displayed. More than one soldier expressed that it had been their best day yet since arriving in Iraq a month or two previously. And it is likely that it was the best day in quite some time for the Iraqi villagers too."

- Army's 244th Engineers in Tikrit

 

Similar reports can be found all over the Web.

 

At this point, they are getting SO frustrated that they would rather do a half-ass job and go home than continue to stay there.

This isn't true of anyone I know in the armed forces of the United States.

 

There's no sign that Iraq was even preparing for a terrorist attack.

Saddam Hussein was giving $25k per Palestinian suicide bomber to their families in Israel. Iraqi anti-aircraft missiles regularly shot at our fighter jets. Iraq failed to disarm as it had agreed to do after the Gulf War. No imminent threat was required to justify war.

 

To prove it, we were told that Iraq had a connection to 9/11. This hasn't been proven yet.

Ansar al-Islam was a terrorist group under the al-Qaeda umbrella. They operated out of Northern Iraq and slaughtered Kurdish villages such as Khela Hama on a regular basis. Next.

 

I can't agree that the war was necessary during such an economic crisis.

Wars almost invariably help the economy.

 

There CAN'T be that many more places in Iraq to search.

No? The country is over 271,583 miles square. That's over 100,000 square miles bigger than the state of California. And Saddam Hussein's had YEARS to hide his toys.

 

My feeling is that we should have never started because it wasn't needed. So far, there hasn't been one rock-solid fact shown that said we needed to get Iraq right now, or face a terrorist attack in a month.

If we wait for that kind of imminent threat, your first evidence will be a body count that makes 9/11 seem as serious, orderly, and civilised as brief disagreement over a head of lettuce involving two elderly aunts somewhere in Martha's Vineyard.

President Bush said it best:

"Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, 'where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril.'

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring."

- Cincinnati, OH 10/07/02

 

Unless we go into the humanitarian excuse, but then that means we'll be playing the humanitarian for anybody suffering all throughout the world.

No, there's no need for that, and I agree, we shouldn't play the role of a global cop. Look up a few lines at what the President said for the real reasons we had to go in.

 

The unemployed should be given jobs, the homeless should be helped, the economy should be improved.

A very shortsighted opinion. Preventing further terrorist attacks is a vastly more important task than helping the homeless.

Edited October 2, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[Firestarter 0]

Just leave a country the moment a little counter-fighting occurs. Yup, THAT wouldn't give terrorists some nerve, would it?

 

"We'll DESTROY you --- well, until you fight back a little. Then we'll cave in. But we won't let you beat us. Well, unless you fight back a little..."

Okay, that was bloody hilarious. Thanks a lot, Mike - I was drinking my tea when I read it and it took several minutes to clean up the monitor.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Saying Saddam wasn't involved with 9/11 in any way whatsoever is lame. The guy hates us and most likely supported terrorists in some way.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

"Volunteers are not hard to come by, as many of the soldiers have now experienced the appreciation that the Iraqi villagers displayed. More than one soldier expressed that it had been their best day yet since arriving in Iraq a month or two previously. And it is likely that it was the best day in quite some time for the Iraqi villagers too."

- Army's 244th Engineers in Tikrit

 

Similar reports can be found all over the Web.

Does that mean that nobody wants to go home? I can tell you that's not a fact because I've had someone over there complain to me in the past few weeks about the lack of concrete information on this. He doesn't MIND being over there, not at all, but wants to know when he can leave.

[Guest Sagrada3099]

Sadaam supporting terrorism? Yes.

 

Sadaam supporting 9/11? No chance.

 

Osama Bin Laden hates Sadaam Hussein. Why? Because Sadaam actually had the nerve to consort with America and the U.N. Sadaam sold oil to us, and in Osama's eyes, dealing with an infidel makes you an infidel by proxy.

 

No way Sadaam could have been a force behind 9/11. I'll agree that he has funded other terrorism for many a year, but to say that he financially backed the 9/11 attacks is stupid.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well even Bush said a few weeks ago that there was no connection to Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. Marney went off on connections with people who have connections to Al-Qaeda, but that's a different story than aiding them pull off the attacks.

[Firestarter 0]

Does that mean that nobody wants to go home?

No, of course not. Just means that it's not Vietnam. As the President said at the beginning of Operation Infinite Justice, our mission is defined; our objectives are clear; our goal is just.

[Firestarter 0]

Marney went off on connections with people who have connections to Al-Qaeda, but that's a different story than aiding them pull off the attacks.

Yes, but I was answering the question of an al-Qaeda link, not a specific 9/11 link. And there was an al-Qaeda link.

 

Well even Bush said a few weeks ago that there was no connection to Hussein and the 9/11 attacks.

I'm not sure who's supposed to have made that connexion in the first place. It certainly wasn't the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, or the DCI. And it wasn't me either. As far as I know there is no indication of any direct link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

[Guest Sagrada3099]

Well, I wasnt actually implying that the Administration or Marney made any connection. I was more responding to Rico Constantio.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

This was a really good letter to the Daily Trojan in regards to the "troops wanna go home" argument:

 

I am an active duty officer in the United States Navy, as well as a graduate student in USC's Professional Writing program. The following editorial response represents my opinion as an individual and an American. It does not in any way speak for the opinions of the U.S. military or its civilian leadership.

 

I appreciate that Mr. Stern takes a great enough interest in the welfare of our troops abroad to editorialize so passionately about them ("Troop morale is Achilles heel for Bush," Sept. 25).

 

However, in his broad brush descriptions and insinuating quoting, he has run the risk of creating a self-prophesying and dangerous rhetoric. As an active duty military member who spent seven unending months onboard an aircraft carrier in the middle of the Arabian Sea during the Afghan conflict, I assert a fundamental truth about being deployed: Any reason to come home sounds like a good reason to come home when you're homesick.

 

Containing the inevitable decay in morale that results from a deployment is a leadership challenge that, in this country, dates back to Valley Forge (You think those conscripted farmers were touting the values of liberal freedom when their toes were falling off?).

 

It is something dealt with within the context of a military unit. That the modern faculties of the Information Age allow the discontented rank and file to voice their opinions globally is a potentially dangerous thing — as we see when an enthusiastic editorialist cuts and pastes disgruntled and biased news service commentary from the lowest ranks to induce pejorative conclusions about the reigning administration of the federal government.

 

This kind of indiscretion is at its best irresponsible journalism; at its worst, it is a contagion that denigrates good order and discipline to the ultimate detriment of the soldiers and sailors out on the front lines serving their country.

 

I submit that while the military mother quoted in the article must certainly miss her child (as my mother very much missed me when I was deployed), she is in no greater position to pass judgment on strategic policy than a hot dog vendor on Pennsylvania Avenue; to imply some mandate on her part to enunciate the "lie of the Bush administration" is extremely poor editorial practice.

 

In the interest of criticizing government policy, it would be of greater value to interview policymakers than pedestrians. (We won't get into the murky sourcing from the British newspaper— wasn't Andrew Gilligan reporting by any chance, was it?)

 

The ultimate thrust of the article — that low troop morale might reflect poorly in the Republican ballot box come next November — is one that could have had more value under the weight of a more considered argument. Yes, it's true: Some troops may want to come home and they might vote in the interest of that feeling.

 

There are, of course, two sides to every story. Last weekend, the freshman class in our Naval ROTC Unit participated in a camping trip down at Camp Pendleton, a Marine Corps base.

 

While sitting around the camp fire they were approached by three young enlisted Marines who asked to join them. The young Marines had just returned from Iraq. They told our "Mids" about the boredom; they told them of the intense desire to come home. They also told them of the camaraderie and of the pride they felt in mission accomplishment.

 

Peacekeeping is, perhaps, the most onerous mission assignment for those in the military service. It is monotonous, thankless, and often fraught with danger (certainly the case in Iraq), circumstances which can sink the morale of even the most patriotic soldier.

 

Would the allied soldiers under fire in Europe during the post-D-Day occupation have had better things to say than the soldier in Stern's article interviewed from the 101<+>st? How about the Marines participating in the Chosin Reservoir withdrawal during the Korean War?

 

Lest we dismiss the lessons of both history and legend, forget not that even the fictive Odysseus' most fervent wish was one shared by every soldier who has since campaigned: the desire to go home.

[Guest MikeSC]

^

 

Very well-written piece.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

our objectives are clear

*snort*