4,000 dead Americans

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Well, looking at who ran for re-election and who didn't, it seems kind of obvious.

[theintensifier 0]

Lol. That is true, but not every mission is at night so you can't use stealth. They were doing some heavy patroling through the city without ammunition, just a few flares, their K-Bar, and the platoon Sgt. would have a few hand grenades.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

See, that's BS. They should either have a war or not.

[theintensifier 0]

Which is why a lot of our military is disgruntled.

 

*Thousands of miles away from home, family, spouses, partners, friends

*In a country that hates and doesn't fear them anymore

*Our country doesn't protect our troops, but instead our enemy

*One wrong move, you get discharged and thrown in the brig

*Our weapons are old and constantly breaking down

*Our body armor is old, cracked, or doesn't work

*It's hotter than hell

*You can't tell who's who over there

*People that you are defending will spit in your face and curse you for the war, like you had a choice to go over there anyway

[SuperJerk 0]

Feingold said it better than I can:

 

The fact is this commission was composed apparently entirely of people who did not have the judgment to oppose this Iraq war in the first place, and did not have the judgment to realize it was not a wise move in the fight against terrorism. So that's who is doing this report. Then I looked at the list of who testified before them. There is virtually no one who opposed the war in the first place. Virtually no one who has been really calling for a different strategy that goes for a global approach to the war on terrorism. So this is really a Washington inside job and it shows not in the description of what's happened - that's fairly accurate - but it shows in the recommendations. It's been called a classic Washington compromise that does not do the job of extricating us from Iraq in a way that we can deal with the issues in Southeast Asia, in Afghanistan, and in Somalia which are every bit as important as what is happening in Iraq. This report does not do the job and it's because it was not composed of a real representative group of Americans who believe what the American people showed in the election, which is that it's time for us to have a timetable to bring the troops out of Iraq.

Did I miss something here? Didn't this bipartisan group advocate for a withdrawal?

 

I'd think Feingold would be jumping for joy that an independent voice is calling for exactly what he wanted.

 

No, they definitely didn't call for what Feingold wants.

 

And what would that be? A shiney new bicycle? A Red Rider B-B Gun? An X-Box 360? Or the withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq? Because the report definitely called for one of those things.

 

Timetable for withdrawal by '07.

 

So, the Iraq Study Group is being criticized for not calling for all troops out of Iraq by 2 WEEKS FROM NOW????

Edited December 15, 2006 by SuperJerk

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Mid '07.

 

And the ISG didn't call for a timetable.

 

But 2 weeks from now would be okay with me.

 

That magic pony isn't going to suddenly appear in Iraq in '08, either.

[SuperJerk 0]

[snuffbox 0]

I'm pretty sure the only people hoping for a 'magic pony' are those still hoping for Stay Duh Course to pan out well.

[SuperJerk 0]

There are more choices besides "Stay the Course" and "Leave Immeditately."

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, finally entered the real world, albeit about 4 years too late...

 

...

 

Most of the pessimistic warnings from the mainstream media have turned out to be right — that the initial invasion would be the easy part, that seeming turning points (the capture of Saddam, the elections, the killing of Zarqawi) were illusory, that the country was dissolving into a civil war...

 

The “good news” that conservatives have accused the media of not reporting has generally been pretty weak. The Iraqi elections were indeed major accomplishments. But the opening of schools and hospitals is not particularly newsworthy, at least not compared with American casualties and with sectarian attacks meant to bring Iraq down around everyone’s heads in a full-scale civil war. An old conservative chestnut has it that only four of Iraq’s 18 provinces are beset by violence. True, but those provinces include 40 percent of the population, as well as the capital city, where the battle over the country’s future is being waged...

 

http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjE1NQ==

 

This cover, from May '05, will never get old to me.

 

[Guest NYankees]

Which is why a lot of our military is disgruntled.

 

*Thousands of miles away from home, family, spouses, partners, friends

*In a country that hates and doesn't fear them anymore

*Our country doesn't protect our troops, but instead our enemy

*One wrong move, you get discharged and thrown in the brig

*Our weapons are old and constantly breaking down

*Our body armor is old, cracked, or doesn't work

*It's hotter than hell

*You can't tell who's who over there

*People that you are defending will spit in your face and curse you for the war, like you had a choice to go over there anyway

 

 

You did have a choice. Last time I checked there wasn't any draft. Stop bitching and do your fucking job. I cant stand people who sign up to be the Govt's bitch when they know full well what the fuck they are getting themselves into. The system is flawed but your job is to do as told.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

That's true, but it's still the government's job to not put them in harm's way unless absolutely necessary, and to back them fully when they do.

[NoCalMike 0]

Is anyone seriously wondering if they will install a draft or at least try to?

 

Lets look at the situation:

 

The right is already basically saying Iran is fully involved in arming Sunnis and they want something done to Iran. Considering how shaky the evidence was to get us into Iraq, it would be of no suprise if War in Iran wasn't coming soon.

 

Bush already came out today and said he wants to increase troop size for Iraq.

 

We have major generals arguing that there is no place to get these imaginary troops, and that if Bush is thinking about calling up more National Guardsmen then he is crazy because they are not trained for this type of stuff, and definately did not sign up for this.

 

Bush has acknowledged that our military right now is stretched thin which could hurt our efforts in not only the current War(s) but other problem sports around the world.

 

So since the war in Iraq sees NO END IN SIGHT, on the contrary, looks to be expanding, to possibly be including Iran in the near furture. Where are we going to get all these extra troops from?

 

Then you have to look at it like this. Bush is an unpopular lameduck President. If he tries to reinstate the draft before he leaves office, sure his popularity would go down some more, but it is already in the shitter, what does he have to lose now? It would also take the pressure off the next President from having to make that kind of decision, especially if they it happened to be a GOP member, as this whole situation can and probably will be blamed on Bush once the next President is sworn in, no matter who it is, and the draft could equally be blamed on Bush.

 

The only thing is I dunno if the President has the unilateral power to reinstate the Draft. I am sure before this administration the answer was, "No He doesn't" but all of this new War On Terrorism doctrine stuff seems to leave an awful lot up to the President and the President alone.....!?!

[SuperJerk 0]

Which is why a lot of our military is disgruntled.

 

*Thousands of miles away from home, family, spouses, partners, friends

*In a country that hates and doesn't fear them anymore

*Our country doesn't protect our troops, but instead our enemy

*One wrong move, you get discharged and thrown in the brig

*Our weapons are old and constantly breaking down

*Our body armor is old, cracked, or doesn't work

*It's hotter than hell

*You can't tell who's who over there

*People that you are defending will spit in your face and curse you for the war, like you had a choice to go over there anyway

 

 

You did have a choice. Last time I checked there wasn't any draft. Stop bitching and do your fucking job. I cant stand people who sign up to be the Govt's bitch when they know full well what the fuck they are getting themselves into. The system is flawed but your job is to do as told.

 

The government has a responcibility to provide them with the tools they need to do the job the government sent them over there to do.

[Art Sandusky 0]

So new Secretary Gates had breakfast with 15 everyday soldiers today in Iraq, who told him what they needed were reinforcements. Given the photo-op nature of this administration I have to wonder if they cherry-picked 'em. I wouldn't normally be so suspicious, but given that the White House admitted the "Secretary Rumsfeld, why don't we have any armor or proper supplies" Q&A episode was due to not screening the questions thoroughly enough I have to be leery whenever the soldiers on the ground magically agree with the most stubborn course of action.

[EricMM 0]

I'm sure they learned their lesson from that and other instances where people who aren't worried about staying on the WH press corps actually get to ask bush real questions.

 

It so rarely goes well for him.

 

Just, some of those Daily Show bits about Bush's "town hall meetings" or whatever they're called are so ridiculous, it would be embarassing if I actually cared about bush's status.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Congress would have to re-authorize the draft. I think it's safe to say the Democrats wouldn't go for it, even if Bush asked them to.

[theintensifier 0]

Which is why a lot of our military is disgruntled.

 

*Thousands of miles away from home, family, spouses, partners, friends

*In a country that hates and doesn't fear them anymore

*Our country doesn't protect our troops, but instead our enemy

*One wrong move, you get discharged and thrown in the brig

*Our weapons are old and constantly breaking down

*Our body armor is old, cracked, or doesn't work

*It's hotter than hell

*You can't tell who's who over there

*People that you are defending will spit in your face and curse you for the war, like you had a choice to go over there anyway

 

 

You did have a choice. Last time I checked there wasn't any draft. Stop bitching and do your fucking job. I cant stand people who sign up to be the Govt's bitch when they know full well what the fuck they are getting themselves into. The system is flawed but your job is to do as told.

 

Are you in the military? I'm assuming you're not. I don't seem to remember ever "bitching" about joining the service on my own free will, nor about the draft, or being the government's "bitch", or about taking orders. I must have missed that angry anti-government/military post I made when I said all of that stuff.

 

No, what I did post was how our government treats our troops, lack of operational equipment, etc. There's a difference in my post, and what you described. Everything I listed is well known with the War on Terrorism. Every Marine, Sailor, Soldier, Fly Boy, and everyone in-between has mentioned those things I've listed, even the 0-4's and 0-5's I worked with.

 

Until you've walked a mile in my boots, or the boots of the other service men/women, keep you're opinion to yourself, because it's not wanted, or needed.

[SuperJerk 0]

Army asks dead to sign up for another hitch

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Army said Friday it would apologize to the families of about 275 officers killed or wounded in action who were mistakenly sent letters urging them to return to active duty.

 

The letters were sent a few days after Christmas to more than 5,100 Army officers who had recently left the service. Included were letters to about 75 officers killed in action and about 200 wounded in action.

 

"Army personnel officials are contacting those officers' families now to personally apologize for erroneously sending the letters," the Army said in a brief news release issued Friday night.

 

The Army did not say how or when the mistake was discovered. It said the database normally used for such correspondence with former officers had been "thoroughly reviewed" to remove the names of wounded or dead soldiers.

 

"But an earlier list was used inadvertently for the December mailings," the Army statement said, adding that the Army is apologizing to those officers and families affected and "regrets any confusion."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/05/dead.letters.ap/index.html

[theintensifier 0]

Ouch. That's not good. Makes our military look awfully bush league.

[snuffbox 0]

How similar will Wednesday night's address be to Nixon's "Silent Majority" speech on 'Nam from 1969?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I just surged in my pants.

[snuffbox 0]

WOAH-UH!

[Art Sandusky 0]

Hearing demonstrators while networks are talking to people at the White House after a Presidential speech is weeeeeeird.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

This speech gives me a good spot to relay some info from my friends and coworkers living and working in Iraq (I work for a contractor in DC). This is all purely anecdotal, but you might find it interesting, darkly amusing, or really disappointing.

 

-Extra troops in Anbar is probably a fairly useless effort. You don't win Anbar by sending in troops; you win Anbar by renting the services and support of particular tribes, essentially paying them to not kill you and to kill other people instead. Money, not bodies, gets you into Anbar.

 

-Most high-ranking decision-makers, particularly those at Camp Victory, have never seen or met a real-live Iraqi.

 

-Every gym at a military facility, of which there are hundreds, is staffed by no less than 4 uniformed personnel who sit at the entrance to make sure coalition personnel are wearing the right footwear when they work out. That and logging how many people come into the gym is their only job.

 

-Attacks on Forward Operating Bases throughout the provinces have decreased. This isn't because our troops are winning and stopping the insurgency; it's because the insurgents don't view us as a threat and know we won't shoot at them if they don't shoot at us first.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Surprised there hasn't been more discussion on the president's speech on this board yet.

 

Probably one of the better speeches Bush has ever delivered (and yes, I know that's setting the bar pretty low). That said, I can't help but feel this troop increase will be a wasted effort.

[snuffbox 0]

Phrases like "change the course" and "on a battleship" dont do the Bush team/toadies any good. In the halcyon days of his Presidency GWB could always deliver a prepared address very well but that has changed drastically of late. He looked shaken, confused, like a child that knew he was in trouble but still trying to weasle out of it.

 

The SPs in the liberal media wont bother themselves with showing how noticeably & dangerously Bush has flipflopped on his Iraq policy. "Stay the course and "we are winning" for years were said, on video, in the face of the facts...then, a midterm election makes Bush "change the course" and admit "failure". If this is really what the soldiers there need, as GWB says, then the only reason they are getting this is because of an American election. Had the GOP won on Nov 7 they would not be getting what "they need" now. Obviously the liberal media will only lightly, if at all, touch on this but for most Americans it will be painfully obvious.

 

The Dems could have done alot better than Dick Durbin giving the response but Im not surprised. Why get someone who can bring some passion to the podium like Feingold or Webb when you can coddle a fat dude with tenure? Barack Obama's response with "we wont babysit a Civil War" was pretty good but he also said "uh" about a million times in 10 minutes.

 

Barry Goldwater must be looking down with a 44 magnum clutched in his hands to see a Republican President giving a speech rallying the idea of nation-building. We are seeing a major historical political switch here with the Republicans truly taking up the cause of Big Govt.

[Guest "Go, Mordecai!"]

Dick Durbin: The Pride of East Saint Louis. Doesn't he do the responses pretty often? I was hoping he'd be muzzled after the gulag comment last year, but I'll be damned, he even slipped past Daley's reprimand and is still talking. Great.

 

What's it going to take to get the Republicans to advocate small government again, or is that just a plank of the past? Save us, Libertarian Party.

[SuperJerk 0]

Dick Durbin: The Pride of East Saint Louis. Doesn't he do the responses pretty often? I was hoping he'd be muzzled after the gulag comment last year, but I'll be damned, he even slipped past Daley's reprimand and is still talking. Great.

Durbin outranks probably anyone who has a problem with him within the party.

[snuffbox 0]

It is time for the Libertarian Party to make the GOP the Whigs of the 21st Century.

 

Dick Durbin is the Ed Muskie of our generation. And he should stop.