Well, it's official. I've changed parties.

[Don Vito Corleone]

Why should we care about your "change"?

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackllotus
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9
For your first day as a republican, you got your president pardoning his criminal friends who got convicted.. Hope you agree with his "values"!</end quote></div>

I sure do The whole trial was a sham.</end quote></div>

Was the jury rigged or something? Trial by jury except when the outcome disagrees with what I want.</end quote></div>

Well, the Clinton impeachment hearing were a sham too...right?

Touche

One was about a blowjob, the other was about treason. Oh, and you don't get to call your own "touche". "Douche".

 

[keird]

Don't sweat the haters, Blackangst. They're a vocal lot. Welcome to the GOP.

I enjoy voting in the Primaries. It allows you to appreciate the Democratic process that much more.

My town record says that I'm a Republican and that I have 2 cats. I got a kick out of the town office when I went there to register after moving. A pleasant woman frowned, looked down at her ledger and said, "Hey, you got another one." to one of her Republican co-workers.

That's democracy. Like or not.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

I'm a registered Republican since 1994 but would like to see all senior members of the Bush administration in prison, 'defense' spending drastically cut, and the entire 'Religious Right' acsending to their Heaven at once.

Ahhh that would be a grand day.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
With the exception of illegal immigration reform and spending, I agree with everything the Republicans have done in the last 7 years. </end quote></div>

Thank you for continuing to solidify the proof of your hate for this country.

You've been on quite a roll the last two days.</end quote></div>

and BTW Dave...why is it that when someone stands for something you personally disagree with you bring out the hate America card?

Now that you've professed your love for what has been done to the Country by your Heror and his supporters...well let's hear it, what do you stand for?

What is your agenda for America?

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
With the exception of illegal immigration reform and spending, I agree with everything the Republicans have done in the last 7 years. </end quote></div>

Thank you for continuing to solidify the proof of your hate for this country.

You've been on quite a roll the last two days.</end quote></div>

and BTW Dave...why is it that when someone stands for something you personally disagree with you bring out the hate America card? </end quote></div>

Now that you've professed your love for what has been done to the Country by your Heror and his supporters...well let's hear it, what do you stand for?

What is your agenda for America?

WTF, are you the forum Hannity?

"Say you hate America...say it!"

LOL.

 

[Arkaign]

BD you made me LOL with that one.

I'm still waiting for the answer to why he thinks the Iraqi invasion/mission is such a great place to spend over 500 billion dollars and thousands of young American patriots?

As for a more conservative opinion, why not listen to a Republican combat veteran? No, not the sellout McCain, but rather this man :

Calling conditions in Iraq "an absolute replay of Vietnam," Sen. Chuck Hagel said Friday that the Pentagon is making a mistake by beefing up American forces in Iraq.

U.S. soldiers have become "easy targets" in a country that has descended into "absolute anarchy," the Nebraska Republican and Vietnam combat veteran said in an interview with The World-Herald.

He said that in the previous 48 hours, he had received three telephone calls from four-star generals who were "beside themselves" over the Pentagon's reversal of plans to bring tens of thousands of soldiers home this fall.

Instead, top Pentagon officials are suspending military rotations and adding troops in Iraq. The Pentagon has estimated that the buildup will increase the number of U.S. troops from about 130,000 to 135,000.

"That isn't going to do any good. It's going to have a worse effect," Hagel said. "They're destroying the United States Army."

Hagel previously has likened the war in Iraq to Vietnam, but Friday's comments drew a stronger connection. They followed a speech on the Middle East that Hagel delivered at the Brookings Institution.....

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackllotus
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9
For your first day as a republican, you got your president pardoning his criminal friends who got convicted.. Hope you agree with his "values"!</end quote></div>

I sure do The whole trial was a sham.</end quote></div>

Was the jury rigged or something? Trial by jury except when the outcome disagrees with what I want.</end quote></div>

Well, the Clinton impeachment hearing were a sham too...right?

Touche

"As I understand it, Bush political appointee James Comey named Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Fitzgerald filed an indictment and went to trial before Bush political appointee Reggie Walton. A jury convicted Libby, and Bush political appointee Walton sentenced him. At sentencing, Bush political appointee Judge Walton described the evidence against Libby as "overwhelming" and concluded that a 30-month sentence was appropriate. And yet the claim, as I understand it, is that the Libby prosecution was the work of political enemies who were just trying to hurt the Bush Administration."

http://volokh.com/archives/arc...07_07.shtml#1183437010

 

[blackangst1]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Arkaign
BD you made me LOL with that one.

I'm still waiting for the answer to why he thinks the Iraqi invasion/mission is such a great place to spend over 500 billion dollars and thousands of young American patriots?

As I, and many other supporters of the troops objectives have said, I support the reasons we went, but do agree the excecution was messy. That said, maybe there is a book somewhere called "Launching Clean Wars for Dummies?"

As for a more conservative opinion, why not listen to a Republican combat veteran? No, not the sellout McCain, but rather this man :

God, I hate McCain...

Calling conditions in Iraq "an absolute replay of Vietnam," Sen. Chuck Hagel said Friday that the Pentagon is making a mistake by beefing up American forces in Iraq.

In terms of what exactly? The one thing everyone is so in a bunch about-deaths? I think our esteemed general has forgotton how deadly Vietnam was. How about a refresher?

US Military battle deaths by year:

- Prior to 1966 ? 3,078 (Total up through 31 December 1965)
- 1966 ? 5,008
- 1967 ? 9,378
- 1968 ? 14,589 (Total while JFK & LBJ were on watch ? 32,053)
- 1969 ? 9,414
- 1970 ? 4,221
- 1971 ? 1,381
- 1972 ? 300 (Total while Nixon was on watch ? 15,316)



U.S. soldiers have become "easy targets" in a country that has descended into "absolute anarchy," the Nebraska Republican and Vietnam combat veteran said in an interview with The World-Herald.

Agree.

He said that in the previous 48 hours, he had received three telephone calls from four-star generals who were "beside themselves" over the Pentagon's reversal of plans to bring tens of thousands of soldiers home this fall.

Yeah well I got a call from Warren Buffet stating my 10,000 shares of Berkshire Hathaway were doing quite well. Dont believe me? Well why not? :roll:

Instead, top Pentagon officials are suspending military rotations and adding troops in Iraq. The Pentagon has estimated that the buildup will increase the number of U.S. troops from about 130,000 to 135,000.

Good.

"That isn't going to do any good. It's going to have a worse effect," Hagel said. "They're destroying the United States Army."

Well, we all have opinions dont we. Sure he served in Vietnam valiently. If he's such a great war-mind why hasnt he served on any defense type counsels? Why did he instead serve on commitees like Urban Housing...Banking...Rules and Administration? Oh and how about the honored Position of lobbyist for Firestone? And this is also the guy who, when serving as VA Administrator was quoted as saying "Agent Orange is not much worse than a little teenage acne" Yep we allll have opinions. Dont get me wrong. I love this guy for being a strong soldier during Vietnam. But a great war mind? Not so much.

Hagel previously has likened the war in Iraq to Vietnam, but Friday's comments drew a stronger connection. They followed a speech on the Middle East that Hagel delivered at the Brookings Institution.....</end quote></div>

Sorry if my answers werent direct. They are above in bold.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BD2003
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
With the exception of illegal immigration reform and spending, I agree with everything the Republicans have done in the last 7 years. </end quote></div>

Thank you for continuing to solidify the proof of your hate for this country.

You've been on quite a roll the last two days.</end quote></div>

and BTW Dave...why is it that when someone stands for something you personally disagree with you bring out the hate America card? </end quote></div>

Now that you've professed your love for what has been done to the Country by your Heror and his supporters...well let's hear it, what do you stand for?

What is your agenda for America?</end quote></div>

WTF, are you the forum Hannity?

"Say you hate America...say it!"

LOL.

How come you guys can never just come out and say what your agenda is?

 

[Arkaign]

Angst, you're sort of screwing yourself on the replies there :

"U.S. soldiers have become "easy targets" in a country that has descended into "absolute anarchy," the Nebraska Republican and Vietnam combat veteran said in an interview with The World-Herald."

You say 'agree'

and then to this :

"Instead, top Pentagon officials are suspending military rotations and adding troops in Iraq. The Pentagon has estimated that the buildup will increase the number of U.S. troops from about 130,000 to 135,000."

You say 'Good'

So, if our soldiers are easy targets in a country that has descended into anarchy, WHY say 'good' to adding more troops, putting more lives at risk? Do you honestly think it's going to help anything?

Seriously, your opinions on the Iraq debacle are kind of interesting, in a masochistic way.

 

[Arkaign]

Oh, and about Hagel, at least he SERVED in Vietnam, and didn't dodge it like Clinton, Bush, or Cheney. It seems this administration has gone out of their way to run this war by civilian committee rather than listen to combat vets and the generals.

February 23rd, 2003 :

SEN. LEVIN: General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?

GEN. SHINSEKI: In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commanders' exact requirements. But I think --

SEN. LEVIN: How about a range?

GEN. SHINSEKI: I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.

And then on February 27th, 2003

DEP. SEC. WOLFOWITZ: There has been a good deal of comment - some of it quite outlandish - about what our postwar requirements might be in Iraq. Some of the higher end predictions we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark. It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army - hard to imagine.

Forced retirement : June 2003

Yeah, that's right, this administration doesn't give half a shit about the troops, their lives, or their families. By supporting their madness, you align yourself with those despotic ignorant fools. A majority of REPUBLICANS think the Iraq situation is an unforgivable blunder, yet you stick to it like a zombie.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: BD2003
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
With the exception of illegal immigration reform and spending, I agree with everything the Republicans have done in the last 7 years. </end quote></div>

Thank you for continuing to solidify the proof of your hate for this country.

You've been on quite a roll the last two days.</end quote></div>

and BTW Dave...why is it that when someone stands for something you personally disagree with you bring out the hate America card? </end quote></div>

Now that you've professed your love for what has been done to the Country by your Heror and his supporters...well let's hear it, what do you stand for?

What is your agenda for America?</end quote></div>

WTF, are you the forum Hannity?

"Say you hate America...say it!"

LOL.</end quote></div>

How come you guys can never just come out and say what your agenda is?

Does it matter? Apperantly it does?

*Reduce the federal workforce by 30%. Our government is too friggin large.
*Reform our tax code. The IRS has gotta be overhauled.
*Increase military budget by 10%
*Eliminate lobbying altogether. (I know, a pipe dream)
*Reduce federal business welfare. Not just for big business, but all the way down to farm subsidies.
*Abolish inheritance tax.
*Use the dollar savings from reduced fed gov't to lower taxes on all incomes down to federal poverty levels.
*Lower incentives to stay on welfare of any sort.
*Close 20% of worldwide military bases and stock up here at home.
*Accelerate a viable missle defense system.
*Allow federal agents to shoot-to-kill aliens attempting to cross the border who flee.
*Pass a federal mandate to eliminate the "dont ask dont tell" policy being adopted nationwide for identifying illegal aliens.
*Change the way inflation is calculated by including housing and college costs.
*Eliminating the formation of employee unions (I know, another pipe dream).
*Provide a level playing field for medicine prices (i.e. VA's pay less for meds than we do).
*Reduce our foreign aid by 30%
*Balance the TRADE deficit. Call for whats due. No pay, no play.



That's off the top of my head. Oh and make Nine Inch Nails the official band for the USA, and Trent Reznor our rep to the UN

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Angst, you're sort of screwing yourself on the replies there :

"U.S. soldiers have become "easy targets" in a country that has descended into "absolute anarchy," the Nebraska Republican and Vietnam combat veteran said in an interview with The World-Herald."

You say 'agree'

and then to this :

"Instead, top Pentagon officials are suspending military rotations and adding troops in Iraq. The Pentagon has estimated that the buildup will increase the number of U.S. troops from about 130,000 to 135,000."

You say 'Good'

So, if our soldiers are easy targets in a country that has descended into anarchy, WHY say 'good' to adding more troops, putting more lives at risk? Do you honestly think it's going to help anything?

Seriously, your opinions on the Iraq debacle are kind of interesting, in a masochistic way.

Easy answer. It's all about placement and strategy.

 

[Arkaign]

LOL : A Trent Reznor quote for you :

"One step closer to the end of the world. The one-two combo of corporate greed and organized religion apparently proved to be too much for reason, sanity and compassion."

* 4 November 2004, after the declaration of US President George W. Bush's re-election.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Arkaign
Angst, you're sort of screwing yourself on the replies there :

"U.S. soldiers have become "easy targets" in a country that has descended into "absolute anarchy," the Nebraska Republican and Vietnam combat veteran said in an interview with The World-Herald."

You say 'agree'

and then to this :

"Instead, top Pentagon officials are suspending military rotations and adding troops in Iraq. The Pentagon has estimated that the buildup will increase the number of U.S. troops from about 130,000 to 135,000."

You say 'Good'

So, if our soldiers are easy targets in a country that has descended into anarchy, WHY say 'good' to adding more troops, putting more lives at risk? Do you honestly think it's going to help anything?

Seriously, your opinions on the Iraq debacle are kind of interesting, in a masochistic way.</end quote></div>


Easy answer. It's all about placement and strategy.

Oh, really? You're too much fun, tell us about the placement and strategy, and why this will work when everything else has failed?

 

[Craig234]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
How about a refresher?

US Military battle deaths by year:

- Prior to 1966 ? 3,078 (Total up through 31 December 1965)
- 1966 ? 5,008
- 1967 ? 9,378
- 1968 ? 14,589 (Total while JFK & LBJ were on watch ? 32,053)
- 1969 ? 9,414
- 1970 ? 4,221
- 1971 ? 1,381
- 1972 ? 300 (Total while Nixon was on watch ? 15,316)</end quote></div>

How about another refresher, since your numbers are off - it's a third higher than that for Nixon, over 20,000 killed:

1969 11,616
1970 6,081
1971 2,357
1972 641
1973 168
1974 178

It's also disengenuous of you to lump JFK, who did so much to prevent the war in Viet Nam and was planning to get out, with LBJ.

I also think that the larger issue is how we don't count Iraqi casualties, but that's another issue.

Also, the great advances medically, where we save a lot more badly wounded people now than in Viet Nam, makes the numbers a bit closer when you count wounded, too.

At least you are well on your way in the republican party, with the wrong numbers.

While I'm kdding you on that, unfortunately, the rest of your post (unquoted) really does fit well with the right-wing nonsensical argument, such as implying the Senator is a liar when he says he has the calls with four-star generals, or by trying to discredit his war comments by nit-picking what committees he has sat on.

That shows just the sort of 'try to prove your conclusion any way you can rather than form your conclusion from facts, not ideology' approach that the right is so subject to.

Since your ideology says to oppose the Senator's position, and you can't rebut him on the merits, you go after whatever 'angle' you can to attack him, and his position.

Enjoy your new party. It's a bit like getting into disco in the 1980's or the Nazi party in 1946, but you are just what they need now, when most Americans are turning on them.

 

[Arkaign]

Joining the Nazi party in '46, that's a good one. Although I think it's more apt to say April '45. Enjoy your jackboots, Angst.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Arkaign
Angst, you're sort of screwing yourself on the replies there :

"U.S. soldiers have become "easy targets" in a country that has descended into "absolute anarchy," the Nebraska Republican and Vietnam combat veteran said in an interview with The World-Herald."

You say 'agree'

and then to this :

"Instead, top Pentagon officials are suspending military rotations and adding troops in Iraq. The Pentagon has estimated that the buildup will increase the number of U.S. troops from about 130,000 to 135,000."

You say 'Good'

So, if our soldiers are easy targets in a country that has descended into anarchy, WHY say 'good' to adding more troops, putting more lives at risk? Do you honestly think it's going to help anything?

Seriously, your opinions on the Iraq debacle are kind of interesting, in a masochistic way.</end quote></div>


Easy answer. It's all about placement and strategy.
</end quote></div>

Oh, really? You're too much fun, tell us about the placement and strategy, and why this will work when everything else has failed?

I never implied >> I << had the answer. One thing for sure in this war (that I dont agree with BTW) is control is not giv'n the generals et al on the ground. These guys know how to do it. Let them.

Although I admittedly dont know HOW to do it, I know we have to. Also, the flip-side is true. Just because we are (ahem) failing at this war doesnt mean it cant be won. Like I have always said, I agree it was excecuted sloppily. Unfortunately those who are anti-war just think there are two alternatives-stay and keep doing what were doing, or bail. I propose the answer lies somewhere in between. I also believe the guys on the ground know how to make it happen.

 

[blackangst1]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Craig234
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
How about a refresher?

US Military battle deaths by year:

- Prior to 1966 ? 3,078 (Total up through 31 December 1965)
- 1966 ? 5,008
- 1967 ? 9,378
- 1968 ? 14,589 (Total while JFK & LBJ were on watch ? 32,053)
- 1969 ? 9,414
- 1970 ? 4,221
- 1971 ? 1,381
- 1972 ? 300 (Total while Nixon was on watch ? 15,316)</end quote></div>

How about another refresher, since your numbers are off - it's a third higher than that for Nixon, over 20,000 killed:

1969 11,616
1970 6,081
1971 2,357
1972 641
1973 168
1974 178

It's also disengenuous of you to lump JFK, who did so much to prevent the war in Viet Nam and was planning to get out, with LBJ.

Im not lumping anyone with anyone. Deaths are deaths. Doesnt matter who's watch it was under.

I also think that the larger issue is how we don't count Iraqi casualties, but that's another issue.

The numbers above dont count anything but US casualities. You think our current war would be closer to Vietnam if we did? How about lump all casualities from Vietnam into a bunch and see where we stand?

Also, the great advances medically, where we save a lot more badly wounded people now than in Viet Nam, makes the numbers a bit closer when you count wounded, too.

A bit closer? Are you friggin kidding me? lol

At least you are well on your way in the republican party, with the wrong numbers.

While I'm kdding you on that, unfortunately, the rest of your post (unquoted) really does fit well with the right-wing nonsensical argument, such as implying the Senator is a liar when he says he has the calls with four-star generals, or by trying to discredit his war comments by nit-picking what committees he has sat on.

eh...shall I search for posts where the left has scrutinized or discounted sources based on THEIR opinion? Hello pot my name is kettle!

That shows just the sort of 'try to prove your conclusion any way you can rather than form your conclusion from facts, not ideology' approach that the right is so subject to.

Since your ideology says to oppose the Senator's position, and you can't rebut him on the merits, you go after whatever 'angle' you can to attack him, and his position.

Enjoy your new party. It's a bit like getting into disco in the 1980's or the Nazi party in 1946, but you are just what they need now, when most Americans are turning on them.

Thanks for the Nazi reference. Friggin tool.

</end quote></div>

Responses in bold above.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Arkaign
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Arkaign
Angst, you're sort of screwing yourself on the replies there :

"U.S. soldiers have become "easy targets" in a country that has descended into "absolute anarchy," the Nebraska Republican and Vietnam combat veteran said in an interview with The World-Herald."

You say 'agree'

and then to this :

"Instead, top Pentagon officials are suspending military rotations and adding troops in Iraq. The Pentagon has estimated that the buildup will increase the number of U.S. troops from about 130,000 to 135,000."

You say 'Good'

So, if our soldiers are easy targets in a country that has descended into anarchy, WHY say 'good' to adding more troops, putting more lives at risk? Do you honestly think it's going to help anything?

Seriously, your opinions on the Iraq debacle are kind of interesting, in a masochistic way.</end quote></div>


Easy answer. It's all about placement and strategy.
</end quote></div>

Oh, really? You're too much fun, tell us about the placement and strategy, and why this will work when everything else has failed?</end quote></div>

I never implied >> I << had the answer. One thing for sure in this war (that I dont agree with BTW) is control is not giv'n the generals et al on the ground. These guys know how to do it. Let them.

Although I admittedly dont know HOW to do it, I know we have to. Also, the flip-side is true. Just because we are (ahem) failing at this war doesnt mean it cant be won. Like I have always said, I agree it was excecuted sloppily. Unfortunately those who are anti-war just think there are two alternatives-stay and keep doing what were doing, or bail. I propose the answer lies somewhere in between. I also believe the guys on the ground know how to make it happen.

Okay, #1, you said earlier in this very thread that you agreed with everything the Republicans have done outside of immigration and spending. The Iraq invasion is a purely PNAC/Republican administration policy initiative. #2, you say that 'the guys on the ground know how to make it happen'. Does this mean that you would listen to men such as Spc. Jason Glenn of Mount Grove, Missouri, who said to SecDef Gates "I really think we need more troops here. With more presence on the ground, more troops might hold them (the insurgents) off long enough to where we can get the Iraqi army trained up?. I think it's obvious that trickling a few thousand extra troops will do nothing but fill more bodybags.

What do you say to Shinseki's initial estimates of several hundred thousand?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Oh, and about Hagel, at least he SERVED in Vietnam, and didn't dodge it like Clinton, Bush, or Cheney. It seems this administration has gone out of their way to run this war by civilian committee rather than listen to combat vets and the generals.
...

Yeah, that's right, this administration doesn't give half a shit about the troops, their lives, or their families. By supporting their madness, you align yourself with those despotic ignorant fools. A majority of REPUBLICANS think the Iraq situation is an unforgivable blunder, yet you stick to it like a zombie.

It is typical of politicians and is reinforced by that the military command structure is UNDER the political command structure. The military can act as advisers - however, the president does not have to take their advice.

Kennedy, Johnson & Nixon all ran Vietnam from the civilian side of the house and did not listen to the combat vets and the generals. If they had, the Vietnam conflict would not have existed.

The president puts in advisor's that he feels comfortable with and lets things go from there.

Iraq may have been a blunder in the execution after the attacks.
However, once we were in the quagmire no-one has come up with a way for us to get out and not get drawn back in due to genocide that would happen.

The so called hundred of thousands of Iraqis that have been killed would increase considerably if the place were to be abandoned.

That is the moral dilemma - how to extract ourself without making the situation that we triggered worse.

Now, the current administration has not a clue and stumbles around.
The Democrats chime in by stating, get out - yet they have no plan for the resulting chaos that we will leave behind.

They are just in the dark as how to resolve the problems as the administration.

So just because on does not like that the Democrats are pulling the wool over peoples eyes and burying their heads in the sand, does not mean that the actions of the administration are whole heartedly supported.

Do not be like a McOwen and start smearing tar on everyone due to their political affiliation.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Iraq may have been a blunder in the execution after the attacks.
However, once we were in the quagmire no-one has come up with a way for us to get out and not get drawn back in due to genocide that would happen.

The so called hundred of thousands of Iraqis that have been killed would increase considerably if the place were to be abandoned.

That is the moral dilemma - how to extract ourself without making the situation that we triggered worse.

Do not be like a McOwen and start smearing tar on everyone due to their political affiliation.

I have said a million times we simply pull out.

I have asked a million times show me in the Constitution where it says it is our "moral" responsibility to police the world.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Arkaign
Oh, and about Hagel, at least he SERVED in Vietnam, and didn't dodge it like Clinton, Bush, or Cheney. It seems this administration has gone out of their way to run this war by civilian committee rather than listen to combat vets and the generals.
...

Yeah, that's right, this administration doesn't give half a shit about the troops, their lives, or their families. By supporting their madness, you align yourself with those despotic ignorant fools. A majority of REPUBLICANS think the Iraq situation is an unforgivable blunder, yet you stick to it like a zombie.
</end quote></div>

It is typical of politicians and is reinforced by that the military command structure is UNDER the political command structure. The military can act as advisers - however, the president does not have to take their advice.

Kennedy, Johnson & Nixon all ran Vietnam from the civilian side of the house and did not listen to the combat vets and the generals. If they had, the Vietnam conflict would not have existed.

The president puts in advisor's that he feels comfortable with and lets things go from there.

Iraq may have been a blunder in the execution after the attacks.
However, once we were in the quagmire no-one has come up with a way for us to get out and not get drawn back in due to genocide that would happen.

The so called hundred of thousands of Iraqis that have been killed would increase considerably if the place were to be abandoned.

That is the moral dilemma - how to extract ourself without making the situation that we triggered worse.

Now, the current administration has not a clue and stumbles around.
The Democrats chime in by stating, get out - yet they have no plan for the resulting chaos that we will leave behind.

They are just in the dark as how to resolve the problems as the administration.

So just because on does not like that the Democrats are pulling the wool over peoples eyes and burying their heads in the sand, does not mean that the actions of the administration are whole heartedly supported.

Do not be like a McOwen and start smearing tar on everyone due to their political affiliation.

Well. Thank you for your well-stated post, with clarity and balance. I realize that my criticism of the Iraq debacle may seem purely partisan, but I am not anti-war per se, I fully support (still do) the Afghan mission, and any war that is a logical response to a proven or credible threat. My criticisms of Democrats are just as blistering as those of Republicans when deserved, it just happens that with the recent years of Republican control, they are the primary party to blame for so much plunder and blunder.

If we want to talk about Presidents that I hate, LBJ is probably #1, followed closely by Bush II, Bush I, and Clinton.

The problem that I have primarily with the Administrations Iraq management is that of execution and ignoring obvious truths. It was first obvious to anyone with a brain that Iraq was impotent in almost all areas (certainly when compared to N. Korea, Iran, even Syria), and it was also quite obvious (especially if you are a student of Churchill) that the sects in Iraq were only kept in check by the bootheel of Saddam. Removing that pressure released decades (centuries in some respects) of sectarian strife. So many facts and obvious problems with their plans were ignored, sometimes months or years after they were proven wrong.

As far as I'm concerned, sh*t or get off the pot.

Scenario 1 : start a draft, bring 500,000 troops to the table. Take EVERYONE in Iraq to detention camps for disarmament. Repopulate the green areas with cleared civilians, and make sure the walls and electronic checkpoints are totally secure. Eliminate all arms in the country outside of a mid-sized police/guard force. Divide the country, give the Sunnis, Kurds, and Shiites each a slice of the pie, agriculturally, physically, politically, and socially. Make the terms non-negotiable, and execute the division with extreme prejudice. Build a wall and trench system around the entire land border system.

Scenario 2 : Withdraw, wait for either Saddam #2 to make sense of it, or for external forces (Iran/Syria/etc) to establish local order.

What about the Iraqi civilians, you say? Well what's new? At minimum, tens of thousands have already been killed, the true number is probably north of 100k. What makes Iraqi civilians special anyway? Hundreds of thousands killed in Darfur/Sudan/Chad, but you don't see us there dying with them. Why not? They do have Islamic terrorists (Sudan has been a known Al Qaeda playground for over a decade), but damn, they don't have much infrastructure to break and rebuild, and little oil to exert pressure over.

Bleh. We could always invite the Russians or the Chinese down to the party, they would have no trouble bringing 500k+ to do the job right.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Kennedy, Johnson & Nixon all ran Vietnam from the civilian side of the house and did not listen to the combat vets and the generals. If they had, the Vietnam conflict would not have existed.

I'm going to single out this one comment because it's such a huge lie and I'm sick of seeing it.

*Kennedy ran Vietnam from the civilian side and did not listen to the generals, leading him to STAY THE HELL OUT as far as introducing the combat troops they wanted*.

I'll let the excellent article by David Talbot in last month's Time Magazine summarize:

Kennedy never again trusted his generals and espionage chiefs after the 1961 fiasco in Cuba, and he became a master at artfully deflecting their militant counsel. "After the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy had contempt for the Joint Chiefs," historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. recalled over drinks in the hushed, stately rooms of New York City's Century Club not long before his death. "I remember going into his office in the spring of 1961, where he waved some cables at me from General Lemnitzer, who was then in Laos on an inspection tour. And Kennedy said, 'If it hadn't been for the Bay of Pigs, I might have been impressed by this.' I think J.F.K.'s war-hero status allowed him to defy the Joint Chiefs. He dismissed them as a bunch of old men. He thought Lemnitzer was a dope."...

Nor did President Kennedy have a firm hand on the Pentagon. "Certainly we did not control the Joint Chiefs of Staff," said Schlesinger, looking back at the Kennedy White House. It was a chilling observation, considering the throbbing nuclear tensions of the period. The former White House aide revealed that J.F.K. was less afraid of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev's ordering a surprise attack than he was "that something would go wrong in a Dr. Strangelove kind of way"--with a politically unstable U.S. general snapping and launching World War III.

Kennedy was particularly alarmed by his trigger-happy Air Force chief, cigar-chomping General Curtis LeMay, who firmly believed the U.S. should unleash a pre-emptive nuclear broadside against Russia while America still enjoyed massive arms superiority. Throughout the 13-day Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy was under relentless pressure from LeMay and nearly his entire national-security circle to "fry" Cuba, in the Air Force chief's memorable language. But J.F.K., whose only key support in the increasingly tense Cabinet Room meetings came from his brother Bobby and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, kept searching for a nonmilitary solution. When Kennedy, assiduously working the back channels to the Kremlin, finally succeeded in cutting a deal with Khrushchev, the world survived "the most dangerous moment in human history," in Schlesinger's words. But no one at the time knew just how dangerous. Years later, attending the 40th anniversary of the crisis at a conference in Havana, Schlesinger, Sorensen and McNamara were stunned to learn that if U.S. forces had attacked Cuba, Russian commanders on the island were authorized to respond with tactical and strategic nuclear missiles. The Joint Chiefs had assured Kennedy during the crisis that "no nuclear warheads were in Cuba at the time," Sorensen grimly noted. "They were wrong." If Kennedy had bowed to his military advisers' pressure, a vast swath of the urban U.S. within missile range of the Soviet installations in Cuba could have been reduced to radioactive rubble.

Vietnam was another growing source of tension within the Kennedy Administration. Once again, Washington hard-liners pushed for an escalation of the war, seeking the full-scale military confrontation with the communist enemy that J.F.K. had denied them in Cuba and other cold war battlegrounds. But Kennedy's troop commitment topped out at only 16,000 servicemen. And, as he confided to trusted advisers like McNamara and White House aide O'Donnell, he intended to withdraw completely from Vietnam after he was safely re-elected in 1964. "So we had better make damned sure that I am re-elected," he told O'Donnell.

Fearing a backlash from his generals and the right--under the feisty leadership of Barry Goldwater, his likely opponent in the upcoming presidential race--Kennedy never made his Vietnam plans public. And, in true Kennedy fashion, his statements on the Southeast Asian conflict were a blur of ambiguity. Surrounded by national-security advisers bent on escalation and trying to prevent a public split within his Administration, Kennedy operated on "multiple levels of deception" in his Vietnam decision making, in the words of historian Gareth Porter.

Kennedy never made it to the 1964 election, and since he left behind such a vaporous paper trail, the man who succeeded him, Lyndon Johnson, was able to portray his own deeper Vietnam intervention as a logical progression of J.F.K.'s policies. But McNamara knows the truth. The man who helped L.B.J. widen the war into a colossal tragedy knows Kennedy would have done no such thing. And McNamara acknowledges this, though it highlights his own blame. In the end, McNamara says today, Kennedy would have withdrawn, realizing "that it was South Vietnam's war and the people there had to win it ... We couldn't win the war for them."

So, the opposite of what was said is correct: Kennedy prevented Viet Nam from growing to a full war by doing the opposite of what the generals then wanted.

Had he listened to them, he WOULD have gone to war, instead of preventing it.

It's worth reading for various points about JFK.

Others knew, too; for example, Kennedy biographer William Manchester wrote how the Senate Majority Leader, Kennedy's trusted friend who had visited Viet Nam on his behalf, told Manchester that Kennedy had confided in him that he planned to withdraw from Viet Nam following the 1964 election.

Link