Another poll, but telling

[waste gate]

In the latest Fox News poll, just out today, the pollsters asked the following question:
Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?
Here are the results:
Overall: 63% Yes 22% No 15% Don’t Know
Democrats: 51% Yes 34% No 15% Don’t Know
Republicans: 79% Yes 11% No 10% Don’t Know Independents 63% Yes 19% No 17% Don’t Know

Even though we have some 150,000 troops in harm’s way and we universally profess to “support the troops,” over 1/3 of our society either wants them to fail or doesn’t know if they want them to succeed. Even more chilling are the results regarding our currently dominant political party. 49% of Democrats either want us to lose in Iraq or “don’t know” if they want us to succeed.

[Tchocky]

It's a needlessly politicised question, bad polling. The question brings in personal views on Bush as opposed to asking clearly defined questions about Iraq.

Even though we have some 150,000 troops in harm’s way and we universally profess to “support the troops,” over 1/3 of our society either wants them to fail or doesn’t know if they want them to succeed. Even more chilling are the results regarding our currently dominant political party. 49% of Democrats either want us to lose in Iraq or “don’t know” if they want us to succeed.
You're falling for it, too. Personally, I'd prefer to see another plan succeed, because I believe Bush's plan will make things worse rather then better. So what hole do I punch? It can only be No or Don't Know.

I'm not surprised at Fox, though. This is rather insidious.

[waste gate]

It's a needlessly politicised question, bad polling. The question brings in personal views on Bush as opposed to asking clearly defined questions about Iraq.

Even though we have some 150,000 troops in harm’s way and we universally profess to “support the troops,” over 1/3 of our society either wants them to fail or doesn’t know if they want them to succeed. Even more chilling are the results regarding our currently dominant political party. 49% of Democrats either want us to lose in Iraq or “don’t know” if they want us to succeed.
You're falling for it, too. Personally, I'd prefer to see another plan succeed, because I believe Bush's plan will make things worse rather then better. So what hole do I punch? It can only be No or Don't Know.

I'm not surprised at Fox, though. This is rather insidious.

OK, if I see another plan I can discuss its value. Unfortunately I haven't seen this 'other' plan. Perhaps you have. Please enlighten me. I'm open to the possibility.

[bradclark1]

Maybe someone should ask the new commanders what their ideas are.
To some the poll probably means "Should we send more troops over to Iraq"? What exactly is Bush's plan anyway?

[Tchocky]

OK, if I see another plan I can discuss its value. Unfortunately I haven't seen this 'other' plan. Perhaps you have. Please enlighten me. I'm open to the possibility.
I wasn't discussing the plan itself, I was using it to show how ther poll is biased. Someone, like me, who believes that Bush's plan would make things worse, would naturally select No or Dont Know. As we can see from the first post, they can then be unfairly labelled as wanting to lose the war. It's a dangerously slanted poll,

Why did you put other in quotation marks?

[waste gate]

B/C I am looking for 'another' plan. 'Other' than the current Bush plan. prferably from a policy maker.

[waste gate]

Are you still looking for one (an other plan) Tchocky?

[bradclark1]

B/C I am looking for 'another' plan. 'Other' than the current Bush plan. prferably from a policy maker.
Ah, so you don't know what Bush"s plan is either besides tossing in another twenty thousand troops that the generals did not want. I think a good plan would be to make Iraqi's do their jobs. I think that has been brought up quite a lot. Sounds like a plan to me.

[waste gate]

B/C I am looking for 'another' plan. 'Other' than the current Bush plan. prferably from a policy maker.
Ah, so you don't know what Bush"s plan is either besides tossing in another twenty thousand troops that the generals did not want. I think a good plan would be to make Iraqi's do their jobs. I think that has been brought up quite a lot. Sounds like a plan to me.

That plan works for me. I'm looking for someone else to give another.

Like I said I'm open to other plans, I just haven't heard one that makes sense visa vis cut and run.
(re-deploy)

[Skybird]

Instead of
"Do you think the troop boost will succeed in what it intends?",
they ask
"Do you want our troops to fail?".

Reminds me of myself having said: "Iraq cannot be won for this and that reason", and people attacking me, saying "Skybird hopes and wishes for America to fail."

Suggestivfrage (leading question) this method of manipulation is called. Tells everything one needs to know about that poll. Oh, Fox News, you say? Okay, that explains all.

The German TV and print/online medias that I scan refer to other American polls regularly, once or twice a week. General mark: two out of three Americans doubt that Iraq will be successful (no one talks of victory anymore, even Bush has given up that phrase), or that a troop boost is helpful and desirable. Two longer TV docus since X-mas in German TV referred to field commanders saying: "This is far too little, and comes far too late."

Are all these Americans wishing that they hopefully will fail? Hardly. But a sense of realism finally seems to gain the upper hand over blind emotions. The one who thinks he can decide in a state of emotion, is wrong - he gets decided.

[waste gate]

Instead of
"Do you think the troop boost will succeed in what it intends?",
they ask
"Do you want our troops to fail?".

Reminds me of myself having said: "Iraq cannot be won for this and that reason", and people attacking me, saying "Skybird hopes and wishes for America to fail."

Suggestivfrage (leading question) this method of manipulation is called. Tells everything one needs to know about that poll. Oh, Fox News, you say? Okay, that explains all.

The German TV and print/online medias that I scan refer to other American polls regularly, once or twice a week. General mark: two out of three Americans doubt that Iraq will be successful (no one talks of victory anymore, even Bush has given up that phrase), or that a troop boost is helpful and desirable. Two longer TV docus since X-mas in German TV referred to field commanders saying: "This is far too little, and comes far too late."

Are all these Americans wishing that they hopefully will fail? Hardly. But a sense of realism finally seems to gain the upper hand over blind emotions. The one who thinks he can decide in a state of emotion, is wrong - he gets decided.


Again what is the 'other' plan?

I'll give you the poll is flawed, like all others. But is cut and run the best plan and in the best interest of the US? Perhaps if you lived during the Carter presidency.

[Bort]

Like I said I'm open to other plans, I just haven't heard one that makes sense visa vis cut and run.
(re-deploy)
It's not cut and run, its not sending any more troops into the meat grinder, which is what Iraq has become, both in terms of human lives and the readiness and effectiveness of our military. I think that the time has come to face up to the fact that the US has done all it can, and all that remains is to determine how many more US, UK and other coalition soldiers will die before we finally buckle down and make the only real decision there is to make and leave. What I would advocate is a massive infusion of military equipment for the Iraqi army and a phased withdrawl with remaining coalition troops concentrating almost exclusively on training the Iraqi military. Its the worse possible choice, aside from all the others...

[Sea Demon]

Like I said I'm open to other plans, I just haven't heard one that makes sense visa vis cut and run.
(re-deploy)
It's not cut and run, its not sending any more troops into the meat grinder, which is what Iraq has become, both in terms of human lives and the readiness and effectiveness of our military. I think that the time has come to face up to the fact that the US has done all it can, and all that remains is to determine how many more US, UK and other coalition soldiers will die before we finally buckle down and make the only real decision there is to make and leave. What I would advocate is a massive infusion of military equipment for the Iraqi army and a phased withdrawl with remaining coalition troops concentrating almost exclusively on training the Iraqi military. Its the worse possible choice, aside from all the others...

The so called "meat-grinder" you describe as Iraq has "ground" less than 1% of all coalition forces deployed. I think there is what now, 3,200 deaths in how many years?? Thank God you people weren't around in 1942. Thank God this media was not around during the Battle of the Bulge, Midway, Coral Sea, etc.

[Skybird]

I'll give you the poll is flawed, like all others. But is cut and run the best plan and in the best interest of the US? Perhaps if you lived during the Carter presidency.

The other plan? Wastegate, I have said it often enough, I think, that imo the attack already was the one deciding move that lost the match. What you do is like asking for how one could score more goals in order to finally win - after the referre has already whistled off the match. what is left for you now is this: think of the human interests of your men and women being there, and not wasting their health, life and psychological integrity and cause suffering to their families at home. Act in the interest of them - the Iraqi's interests are already beyond your reach. And the strategical interests of your country has been delivered the biggest and most serious blow since many, many decades. For that you better hold your president and the people behind him responsible, not me, or Europe or anybody else.

So, the other plan is this: save your fellow countrymen from being wasted headlessly - for innerpolitical interests of the parties only. There is no more price you could win in Iraq. It's over. The aftergame party will be organised by Iran, and others - and you Americans are not invited.

Really, I don't want to attack you with this my opinion, or attack America, or flame the Iraq issue again, so let it rest. I mean it serious what I say and feel for the men and women you have send there. I never had a quarrel with the soldiers you have send - only with your politicians and economical leaders. Your troop's lives get wasted, for party interests only. Bring them home, and learn from the mess Bush has created. The strategical costs of this folly will be felt for decades to come.

[waste gate]

Like I said I'm open to other plans, I just haven't heard one that makes sense visa vis cut and run.
(re-deploy)
It's not cut and run, its not sending any more troops into the meat grinder, which is what Iraq has become, both in terms of human lives and the readiness and effectiveness of our military. I think that the time has come to face up to the fact that the US has done all it can, and all that remains is to determine how many more US, UK and other coalition soldiers will die before we finally buckle down and make the only real decision there is to make and leave. What I would advocate is a massive infusion of military equipment for the Iraqi army and a phased withdrawl with remaining coalition troops concentrating almost exclusively on training the Iraqi military. Its the worse possible choice, aside from all the others...

The so called "meat-grinder" you describe as Iraq has "ground" less than 1% of all coalition forces deployed. I think there is what now, 3,200 deaths in how many years?? Thank God you people weren't around in 1942. Thank God this media was not around during the Battle of the Bulge, Midway, Coral Sea, etc.

Great point Sea Demon!!! Yet I haven't heard another plan from these folks.
I will now assume they have none, and their opposition to the current Bush plan is their politics. Not' what is best for the US.

[Tchocky]

The so called "meat-grinder" you describe as Iraq has "ground" less than 1% of all coalition forces deployed. I think there is what now, 3,200 deaths in how many years?? Thank God you people weren't around in 1942. Thank God this media was not around during the Battle of the Bulge, Midway, Coral Sea, etc.

They are hardly similiar situations.
And yeah, I'm glad I wasn't around in 1942.

Waste_gate, the poll isn't just flawed, it's actively malignant, misleading, and constructed to serve a particular agenda..

[waste gate]

The so called "meat-grinder" you describe as Iraq has "ground" less than 1% of all coalition forces deployed. I think there is what now, 3,200 deaths in how many years?? Thank God you people weren't around in 1942. Thank God this media was not around during the Battle of the Bulge, Midway, Coral Sea, etc.

They are hardly similiar situations.
And yeah, I'm glad I wasn't around in 1942.

Waste_gate, the poll isn't just flawed, it's actively malignant, misleading, and constructed to serve a particular agenda..

Then every poll can can be interpreted as 'actively malignant, misleading, and constructed to serve a particular agenda'?

[Tchocky]

Then every poll can can be interpreted as 'actively malignant, misleading, and constructed to serve a particular agenda'?

No, because not every poll uses leading questions. I've been through this, as has Skybird

[tycho102]

Like I said I'm open to other plans, I just haven't heard one that makes sense visa vis cut and run.
(re-deploy)
1. Cut and Run. Bail out. Eject, eject, eject. Gator freighters, C-5's, C-130's. Stick guys in the ferry pods on F-18 pylons.

2. Let the Shi'a genocide/annhilate the Sunni. The Sunni hate the kuffir, and the Shi'a hate the kuffir. They both follow the 9th Sura, and are instructed to follow the 9th Sura by their clergy. This is one thing the madrassas agree upon. The 9th Sura abrogates the 2nd and 3rd Suras. Let their own intolerance of each other take precedence over the kuffir.

3. Some Sunni will escape to Saudi Arabia. Others to Syria, Egypt, Jordan. They will form their own mujahideen gangs there and attack the local populaces as apostates to "true" islam.

4. The various Shi'a gangs will vie for power in Iraq. The Supreme Council of Iran will extert authority over the whole country's Shi'a gangs, by force.

5. Iran will run huge cargo convoys of various explosives and parts, openly, across Iraq roads -- all bound for Syria. From Syria, these parts will go to the West Bank and south Lebanon. 40,000 ball bearings, multi-stage rockets, mortar rounds, recoiless rifles, grenade launchers, IR SAM launchers (manpads). Hamas and Hezbollah.

6. Iran will also start attacking Saudi Arabia, with the intention of disrupting their oil exports. This will drive up the price of oil, allowing Iran to make massive profits if they can keep their own oil flowing. This will serve as a morale boost to Iranian mujahideen. Victories embolden combatants.

7. When the liberal cowards in Berkeley can't make it to the WTO protest because their VW van ran out of gas, they'll just stage their own little sit-in protest in the university theatre. When the rolling blackouts start, those same university professors will have a tough time indoctrinating their classrooms because their iPods and iBooks won't work (no electricity).

8. The local gangs will use the opportunity of decreased police "presence" to launch raids all across the city. Anti-gun liberals will die by the thousands because the gangs will choose easy targets and there's not enough private guards for hire.

9. The combined problems occuring because of insufficient electrical-production will become far more tangible to white-collar workers. They'll re-bribe congressional members and depose the environmentalists. Windmills will go up, to hell with birds. Nuclear plants will be approved, to hell with plutonium proliferation. Solar power stations will be constructed, to hell with migration patterns.

10. We will become independent from muslim oil. Lubricants will become completely synthetic, and more concrete will be used to make roads.

[PeriscopeDepth]

The so called "meat-grinder" you describe as Iraq has "ground" less than 1% of all coalition forces deployed.

Which is far too many. That sh!thole isn't worth ONE American serviceman's life, let alone thousands. I guess we'll just have to wait for 'Peace with Honor' again. :roll:

PD

[Sea Demon]

The so called "meat-grinder" you describe as Iraq has "ground" less than 1% of all coalition forces deployed.

Which is far too many. That sh!thole isn't worth ONE American serviceman's life, let alone thousands. I guess we'll just have to wait for 'Peace with Honor' again. :roll:

PD

That sh!thole as you describe contains the worlds vast oil reserves. And if you haven't noticed, that's what fuels our economy. I honor those who have served, and hope that we keep the resolve to see it through to make that region of the world somewhat stable. And at the very least, keep the oil reserves out of the hands of Islamic fanatics. Their will be no honor "re-deploying" (surrender) our military while the region goes into deeper chaos. We virtually have no choice but to stay and see it through. I just wish Bush would kick out the media, Tell the Democrats to stuff it, and do the job correctly. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have the backbone to do that. Well 1 out of 3 is a start. He's pretty much told the Democrats to pack sand last week. I'll take it.

[Tchocky]

Why kick out the media? Is a free press dangerous to the preservation of oil reserves?

[Sea Demon]

Why kick out the media? Is a free press dangerous to the preservation of oil reserves?

Well, when they work against you in a time of war, they are. Did you know that FDR threatened to throw the editors of the Chicago Tribune in prison during WW2? We now have a hostile media in the USA that is working to demoralize the war effort. They don't report any of the good news, and they agonize over every death. What's the purpose other than to demoralize? When they work against us, I say deny them access to the battlefield. Absolutely. If they're balanced and can leverage good and bad, then give them access. The point is, the "free" media is only free to print the bad.

[bradclark1]

Great point Sea Demon!!! Yet I haven't heard another plan from these folks.
I will now assume they have none, and their opposition to the current Bush plan is their politics. Not' what is best for the US.
You don't even know what Bush's plan is. Their isn't one. We have a deficient president who can't seem to understand that 'Hey, this isn't working! Lets try something else'. He completely ignored the Iraq panel.
I'll tell you what this presidents plan is seeing as nobody's figured it out yet. Keep the troops in Iraq doing the same thing that isn't working then dump it on the next president. The voters told this failure that the same thing is not working so change it. Yes, even the average American voter can see what this president doesn't. You tell these Iraqi leaders to get off their butts and do their jobs for once and start right now or we stop propping them up.
Stop trying to put western psychology in a middle eastern mind. Make them put up.

[Sea Demon]

You don't even know what Bush's plan is. Their isn't one. We have a deficient president who can't seem to understand that 'Hey, this isn't working! Lets try something else'. He completely ignored the Iraq panel.
I'll tell you what this presidents plan is seeing as nobody's figured it out yet. Keep the troops in Iraq doing the same thing that isn't working then dump it on the next president. The voters told this failure that the same thing is not working so change it. Yes, even the average American voter can see what this president doesn't. You tell these Iraqi leaders to get off their butts and do their jobs for once and start right now or we stop propping them up.
Stop trying to put western psychology in a middle eastern mind. Make them put up.

Bush admitted mistakes, and also said he was changing tactics. What else do you want? You want him to give a press conference on what those tactics are? Do you want Bush to give a national press conference on what locations troops will be at, their compositions, and when we'll move? Why not invite Muqtada Al-Sadr to the front row? I don't think you or other Democrats are that important that yuou need to know exaclty how a commander in chief, his military advisors or military leaders are going to commence from this point. You Democrats are too full of yourselves.

[bradclark1]

Their will be no honor "re-deploying" (surrender) our military while the region goes into deeper chaos.
BINGO!! Even you see it yet you steadfastly support a president who doesn't!

[Sea Demon]

Their will be no honor "re-deploying" (surrender) our military while the region goes into deeper chaos.
BINGO!! Even you see it yet you steadfastly support a president who doesn't!

I don't think you read me correctly sometimes. Bush is not advocating surrender. He is advocating a change of tactics. That's actually a good move. If we surrender and do what the Democrats want with "re-deploying" (surrender), that's what will lead to out and out civil war with no hope at all. Despite your wish to call it a lost cause, we ain't there yet. I know you are desperate to demoralize this nation into believing it though. :nope:

[CCIP]

Another telling poll:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286755.stm

:hmm:

[ASWnut101]

ahh, always trust a poll, counted in tiny percents of the world population...:roll:

[bradclark1]

Their will be no honor "re-deploying" (surrender) our military while the region goes into deeper chaos.
BINGO!! Even you see it yet you steadfastly support a president who doesn't!

I don't think you read me correctly sometimes. Bush is not advocating surrender. He is advocating a change of tactics. That's actually a good move. If we surrender and do what the Democrats want with "re-deploying" (surrender), that's what will lead to out and out civil war with no hope at all. Despite your wish to call it a lost cause, we ain't there yet. I know you are desperate to demoralize this nation into believing it though. :nope:
What I bingo'd is you finally recognize that Bush has been lying and the blind faith crowd are finally opening their eyes. More Republican politicians are realizing Bush has lost all sense of reality and are swapping sides. Maybe now we will be able to make the Iraqi's work for their own country instead of them believing we will prop them up indefinitely.

[Tchocky]

Maybe now we will be able to make the Iraqi's work for their own country instead of them believing we will prop them up indefinitely.

Thats a firece arrogant attitude to take, Brad. I know I wouldnt react well to it.

Guys who invaded my country: you must be responsible for your own country,

[bradclark1]

Maybe now we will be able to make the Iraqi's work for their own country instead of them believing we will prop them up indefinitely.

Thats a firece arrogant attitude to take, Brad. I know I wouldnt react well to it.

Guys who invaded my country: you must be responsible for your own country,
I agree to a point. When a nations own citizens refuses to stand up for themselves for five years and depend on the U.S. to prop themselves up because they don't want to........... Where do you set the limit?
Yes we were the aggressors and invaded. Yes by international law we are responsible for their well being and safety but where do you draw the line? What do you do when they refuse to take responsibility? We can defend them from foreign forces. We can provide the money and services for their well being but we can't defend them from themselves if they don't want to.

[Rose]

It was a FOX news poll. That is all.

[The Avon Lady]

Maybe now we will be able to make the Iraqi's work for their own country instead of them believing we will prop them up indefinitely.

Thats a firece arrogant attitude to take, Brad. I know I wouldnt react well to it.

Guys who invaded my country: you must be responsible for your own country,
Repeated link: We owe the Iraqis exactly nothing (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014384.php).

As for a change in strategy: Victory in Iraq (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014881.php).
What I bingo'd is you finally recognize that Bush has been lying
How and where did you "bingo" that people like Sea Demon accept the claim that Bush lied? :hmm:

[Sea Demon]

What I bingo'd is you finally recognize that Bush has been lying and the blind faith crowd are finally opening their eyes. More Republican politicians are realizing Bush has lost all sense of reality and are swapping sides. Maybe now we will be able to make the Iraqi's work for their own country instead of them believing we will prop them up indefinitely.

I made no such assertions of Bush lying. I think all the "lying" charges are totally bogus anyway. Bush is putting more heat on the Iraqi's because we have a two party system. And one side of that equation....your side, is intent on surrender, weakness, betrayal, and lack of foresight. So I think Bush is realizing that because of the whining from the left, and their own lack of any plan whatsoever, he's got to put some heat on these people before he leaves. Republicans like Hagel won't last anyway in the long run. So who cares?

Put it this way, getting our troops out of Iraq "as fast as possible" is not a solution to the problems. Finding a way to end the chaos, establish security, and root out and destroy terrorist elements is the winning end for the USA here. That's what Bush is working toward. Of course that means Bush wins and looks good. And you guys can't have that, so you root against the USA and whine that we have to get the troops out now and call it a failure. Despite those pleas from you lefties, Bush ain't doing that. Thankfully. So any point you could have made is totally moot. ;)

[Sea Demon]

As for a change in strategy: Victory in Iraq (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014881.php).
What I bingo'd is you finally recognize that Bush has been lying
How and where did you "bingo" that people like Sea Demon accept the claim that Bush lied? :hmm:

Thanks AL. :up: And excellent links there. There is absolutely no substitute for victory in war.

[The Avon Lady]

As for a change in strategy: Victory in Iraq (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014881.php).
What I bingo'd is you finally recognize that Bush has been lying
How and where did you "bingo" that people like Sea Demon accept the claim that Bush lied? :hmm:
Thanks AL. :up: And excellent links there. There is absolutely no substitute for victory in war.
I suggest you carefully read both articles I linked to and not base you opinion of them on their misleading titles.

[Skybird]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011101572.html

In another interview with German newspaper Die Welt, Brzezinski also said, that a military solution would be possible ,maybe, if having 500000 troops in Iraq and letting them brutally brake lose and wage war like it was done in the past. What reminds me of the destruction of a Vietnamese city, "in order to save it". The president's plan he called pointless, a lost cause, and expressing nothing, and he said that in the long view america has to accept that it's mere presence in Iraq alone is what enflames the conflict more and more - which makes it a logical conclusion that the 26000 additional troops will not ease but increase the violance. The declared goal of taking on the militias of Al Sadr he put into relation by referring to their numbers (60000) and the unifying effect such a direct confrontation would have, and that it escapes one's understanding how a growing of one'S enemy's numbers and cooperation standards should be a road to victory. Next he said that all neighbours in the region have a legitimate interest in what happens in Iraq, and that this is a valid demand for being taken into account - even if the US interests is different. US interests therefore do not rule out Iran's interests, for example. One must not like it, but you can't come around Iran. He cautiously expressed his fear that Bush may try to escape the mess he has brought the US into by trying to widen the conflict and get Syria and Iran involved in fighting, so that the war will widen. He compared the atmosphere of rejecting and/or fleeing reality to the level the WH has seen during Watergate. Here, like in the WP interview and in other comments before he expressed that you cannot gain anything anymore if you behave like a colonial power. These ages are gone.

One must not like his conclusions, but I can't see how one can avoid their content
eternally. Take them as an illustration of how stupid and self-hurting this invasion has been.

http://www.welt.de/data/2007/01/23/1186054.html

[bradclark1]

I made no such assertions of Bush lying. I think all the "lying" charges are totally bogus anyway. Bush is putting more heat on the Iraqi's because we have a two party system. And one side of that equation....your side, is intent on surrender, weakness, betrayal, and lack of foresight. So I think Bush is realizing that because of the whining from the left, and their own lack of any plan whatsoever, he's got to put some heat on these people before he leaves. Republicans like Hagel won't last anyway in the long run. So who cares?

Put it this way, getting our troops out of Iraq "as fast as possible" is not a solution to the problems. Finding a way to end the chaos, establish security, and root out and destroy terrorist elements is the winning end for the USA here. That's what Bush is working toward. Of course that means Bush wins and looks good. And you guys can't have that, so you root against the USA and whine that we have to get the troops out now and call it a failure. Despite those pleas from you lefties, Bush ain't doing that. Thankfully. So any point you could have made is totally moot. ;)
I'll tell that to (R) Sen Warren. I wouldn't call making the Iraqi's do their jobs running. It might be okay with you to sacrifice U.S. troops needlessly but not me. Put our strength in making them take care of themselves. Your way has already proved to be the way of the loser.

[Enigma]

And one side of that equation....your side, is intent on surrender, weakness, betrayal, and lack of foresight. So I think Bush is realizing that because of the whining from the left, and their own lack of any plan whatsoever, he's got to put some heat on these people before he leaves.

Ho hum. Where does one begin?

First off, that whole thing about the left being hell bent on surrender and betrayal and all that yap, I think i'll pass. Seriosuly, if we cant elevate the conversation above "your side is chicken!" with absolutly absurd comments like this, is there really a point?

As for the left not having a plan, you may have a point. (with the exception of Biden, who will scream his plan until somebody listens. Including TIm Russert.) However, throwing anoter 20'000 troops into a conflict with no clear objectives, no time table, and no support at home or in the international community isnt exactly a stellar plan either. Ask Lyndon Johnson.

Foresight?!!? Invasion without exit strategy? You kidding?

As for the poll that started this conversation, it is an obviously skewed poll with an obvious agenda, but a network that makes no bones about its bias under the guise of not being bias. It's a joke, pure and simple, designed to be used by ....well,...those who see it conveniently fit to be used. :hmm:

[bradclark1]

Thanks AL. :up: And excellent links there. There is absolutely no substitute for victory in war.
I suggest you carefully read both articles I linked to and not base you opinion of them on their misleading titles.

:rotfl:

[bradclark1]

As for the left not having a plan, you may have a point.
Most of what Democrats are saying and have been saying is set benchmarks. That sounds like a plan to me. Two words that cover a lot of territory when broken down.

[Sea Demon]

I'll tell that to (R) Sen Warren. I wouldn't call making the Iraqi's do their jobs running. It might be okay with you to sacrifice U.S. troops needlessly but not me. Put our strength in making them take care of themselves. Your way has already proved to be the way of the loser.

That's exactly what Bush is doing. But it would be nice if the left-wing whining would stop for a change. Bush has to step on these people because your side is pushing for total surrender. I just wonder whether or not we're going to leave them with an inactive terrorists underground that is waiting for us to leave before they resume. Because of the left's abject weakness, this is a distinct possibility. The timetable being sought now and rush to get everyone out, even if the job remains undone will most assuredly make this a reality.

[Sea Demon]

Thanks AL. :up: And excellent links there. There is absolutely no substitute for victory in war. I suggest you carefully read both articles I linked to and not base you opinion of them on their misleading titles.
:rotfl:

Hey, crap happens. :D :shifty::lol:

[Sea Demon]

As for the left not having a plan, you may have a point. Most of what Democrats are saying and have been saying is set benchmarks. That sounds like a plan to me. Two words that cover a lot of territory when broken down.

Benchmarks help the bad guys gauge our activities. :down: The only way to deal with terrorists is screw the banchmarks, and go all out and destroy them. Unfortunately, With a Democrat congress, Bush has no choice but to do some of this their way.

[Enigma]

That's exactly what Bush is doing. But it would be nice if the left-wing whining would stop for a change.

Seriosuly, lefties! Stop standing up for your beliefs! didnt you get the memo about rubber stamping everything the President wants to do despite his repeated failures in almost every major action of his presidency? Geez!


Bush has to step on these people because your side is pushing for total surrender.

Complete baselss drivel. Also, there is a civil war in Iraq. What exactly are we to surrender? We hold no land, we hold no asset....


I just wonder whether or not we're going to leave them with an inactive terrorists underground that is waiting for us to leave before they resume. Because of the left's abject weakness, this is a distinct possibility. The timetable being sought now and rush to get everyone out, even if the job remains undone will most assuredly make this a reality.


Whats a bigger possibilty, that Liberals have created terrorists by taking a position, or that invasion and occupation has created terrorists? Besides, I think it hardly fair you make this a democrat issue when it was Bush Sr who left Iraq prior to what can only be described as a sectarian slaughter....

[Enigma]

I also must add....

This is the first Democratic congress/Senate in, what, 12 years? Bush has had the house to himself for 7 years. The dems have had the house for 3 weeks. Yet, already, its the lefts fault that Bush is struggling with Iraq policy?

Give me a break.....

[Sea Demon]

Seriosuly, lefties! Stop standing up for your beliefs! didnt you get the memo about rubber stamping everything the President wants to do despite his repeated failures in almost every major action of his presidency? Geez!

For your info, I don't like his handling of the war either. But I think it would be a bad idea to just drop everything and quit, like what we hear everyday from Democrats. I don't want the "rubber stamp" either. But if the Democrats cannot come up with anything other than partisan criticism, they are not part of the solution. Bush has admitted mistakes and is changing tactics. Now shut-up and let the people we elected to office do their jobs.



Complete baselss drivel. Also, there is a civil war in Iraq. What exactly are we to surrender? We hold no land, we hold no asset....

If we leave that region before the job is done, we may have to commit resources in the future to tackle something that may be bigger than what we have to face now. We may have to go back due to the chaos that is likely to happen. The Democrats lack of foresight on this is stunning. Face it now and finish it.


Whats a bigger possibilty, that Liberals have created terrorists by taking a position, or that invasion and occupation has created terrorists? Besides, I think it hardly fair you make this a democrat issue when it was Bush Sr who left Iraq prior to what can only be described as a sectarian slaughter....

Liberals have not created terrorists, but they sure do help them by demoralizing this nation from having the resolve to win and complete the job. And I don't think you understand what happened after Gulf War 1. There was a cease fire. Bush Sr., due to a UN agreed upon cease fire, could not have done what you propose. Perhaps he should not have agreed to the cease fire before Hussein was deposed. :hmm: Of course the blood would have continued to spill. I think the UN hoped that Hussein would live up to his agreements which he didn't. Are we learning anything from UN agreements, and appeasement in general yet???

[Sea Demon]

I also must add....

This is the first Democratic congress/Senate in, what, 12 years? Bush has had the house to himself for 7 years. The dems have had the house for 3 weeks. Yet, already, its the lefts fault that Bush is struggling with Iraq policy?

Give me a break.....

Oh no, I blame Bush for not executing the war properly. But I fault the Democrats for criticising every move made, not offering up anything of value to counter, failing to realize that the President IS the CINC and we don't have Democrats in congress to be a bunch of little mini-CINC's themselves. And the fact that they do everything in their power to effect in the minds of every American that "we lost" before it's over. This type of effort toward national demoralization by the Democrats make me cringe. What a bunch of absolute lemmings I might add.

[ASWnut101]

Complete baselss drivel. Also, there is a civil war in Iraq. What exactly are we to surrender? We hold no land, we hold no asset....

no asset? unless you don't want to drive anymore, I think there is somehting there. Hint: its black, flammable, and is an asset.

[Tchocky]

Complete baselss drivel. Also, there is a civil war in Iraq. What exactly are we to surrender? We hold no land, we hold no asset....
no asset? unless you don't want to drive anymore, I think there is somehting there. Hint: its black, flammable, and is an asset.

Yes! Of course! The oil!

*slaps forehead*

How the hell is it yours?

[ASWnut101]

it's everyones. and since you obviously don't want to protect it, someone (the U.S.) must do it for everyone, even through the people we are protecting it for wish for us to fail.

[Enigma]

even through the people we are protecting it for wish for us to fail.
Do people even realize how absurd, and probably pretty offensive, this repeated claim actually is?

[Sea Demon]

even through the people we are protecting it for wish for us to fail.
Do people even realize how absurd, and probably pretty offensive, this repeated claim actually is?

The truth hurts.

[Enigma]

The truth hurts.

Pathetic.

[Sea Demon]

The truth hurts.

Pathetic.

Perhaps if the Democrats in the USA, the socialists in Europe, and the American media would stop reporting every coalition death or American setback with glee, I might believe you. But your refusal to see how these people openly root against us is delusional. Don't tell me you're one of those Democrats that "are against the war, hate the President, think the USA is imperialistic and evil, but are "patriotic" & support the troops." :roll: That sir, is pathetic.

[Tchocky]

it's everyones. and since you obviously don't want to protect it, someone (the U.S.) must do it for everyone, even through the people we are protecting it for wish for us to fail.
How is it everyones? Please explain how the oil under the soil of Iraq belongs to everyone. That flies in the face of any kind of property right.

Perhaps if the Democrats in the USA, the socialists in Europe, and the American media would stop reporting every coalition death or American setback with glee, I might believe you. But your refusal to see how these people openly root against us is delusional.

Reporting with glee? Can you show proof or examples of this?

[Enigma]

Don't tell me you're one of those Democrats that "are against the war, hate the President, think the USA is imperialistic and evil, but are "patriotic" & support the troops." :roll: That sir, is pathetic.


I'm not a Democrat.

I am against the War.

I do not hate the President. However, I do think him and his have proven beyond the pail to be far from the best we can do. In fact, I consider his tenure as President to be nothing but a series of set backs and failues of policy, politics, and execution on almost all fronts.

I do not think the US is neither Imperialistic, nor evil.

Patriotism has nothing to do with bumper stickers, and has alot more to do with questioning government than not.

"Support the Troops" is another phrase that has been made an almost empty meaningless slogan by our beloved media and politicians, none the less, I do so sir, Yes. Im sorry if that disapoints you. I'm also sorry that based on the fact that I disagree with this war, you have, (in a not so veiled manner) reffered to me as:

one of those Democrats that "are against the war, hate the President, think the USA is imperialistic and evil, but are "patriotic" & support the troops."

And, of course....

Pathetic.

Pathetic indeed.

[Sea Demon]

Reporting with glee? Can you show proof or examples of this?

Yes. It's there blaring across the headlines everyday. Today we get a video story on the front page of CNN news titled "War Weary families". How about balancing that out with a story of a proud family who's family member is serving in Iraq? And their pride in their military family member. We have yet another helo crash with 5 killed from AP on CBSnews. Agonizing over every death. How does that help with resolve to complete the job? Every death, reported. If that doesn't look like a concerted effort to demoralize our nation, what is? How many terrorists have we killed? What's the ratio of good guy to bad? What's the actual percentage of deaths to those who have been deployed? And how does it compare to other wars? If you read today's media, you would think we're taking record casualty rates of 95%. When in fact it's less than 1%. You can't see the media bias, that's your problem. Put your head back in the sand, hate America, hope for failure, and vote Democrat above all. Some people are just a lost cause.

[Enigma]

Put your head back in the sand, hate America, hope for failure, and vote Democrat above all. Some people are just a lost cause.

I get the feeling you dont like where this conversation is going. :lol:

[Tchocky]

Reporting with glee? Can you show proof or examples of this?
Yes. It's there blaring across the headlines everyday. Today we get a video story on the front page of CNN news titled "War Weary families". How about balancing that out with a story of a proud family who's family member is serving in Iraq? And their pride in their military family member. We have yet another helo crash with 5 killed from AP on CBSnews. Agonizing over every death. How does that help with resolve to complete the job? Every death, reported. It's not the job of the media to build morale and resolve, what you're thinking of is propaganda maybe?
Should the media balance every report of a plane crash with stories about all the planes that landed safely? No they shouldnt, because troops getting killed in these kind of numbers (25 over the weekend?) is not normal. It is abnormal. It is news.
Would you honestly prefer that the deaths weren't reported?

If that doesn't look like a concerted effort to demoralize our nation, what is? How many terrorists have we killed? What's the ratio of good guy to bad? What's the actual percentage of deaths to those who have been deployed? And how does it compare to other wars? If you read today's media, you would think we're taking record casualty rates of 95%. When in fact it's less than 1%.

No, I think that when troop surges of 20,000 are reported, along with "high" casualty figures of 5 per day, most people can work out that 95% of troops arent dying out there.

You can't see the media bias, that's your problem. Put your head back in the sand, hate America, hope for failure, and vote Democrat above all. Some people are just a lost cause.
Of course I can see media bias. I'm not saying "the" media bias because there is more than one. every outlet has it's own slant, whether you can see it or not.
I don't hate America. I've made my home here before, and I'm doing it again now.

[Sea Demon]

I'm not a Democrat.
I am against the War.
I do not hate the President. However, I do think him and his have proven beyond the pail to be far from the best we can do. In fact, I consider his tenure as President to be nothing but a series of set backs and failues of policy, politics, and execution on almost all fronts.
I do not think the US is neither Imperialistic, nor evil.
Patriotism has nothing to do with bumper stickers, and has alot more to do with questioning government than not.

"Support the Troops" is another phrase that has been made an almost empty meaningless slogan by our beloved media and politicians, none the less, I do so sir, Yes. Im sorry if that disapoints you.


Nope. Since when do we start defining terms to our liking? Patriotism is now defined as questioning the government?!?!?! Actually, patriotism is defined by Merriem Webster as "Love and devotion to one's country". How we come to those ends can be debated. But the anti-war left sure has a funny way of showing it. I might as well cheat on my wife to show her that I love her. :doh:

And no, I fail to see how you can support the troops if your doing everything in your power to demoralize the nation's support for their actions, doing everything in your power to hinder their Commander in Chief, and redefining established terms to fit the agenda of political malcontents like you've attempted in this thread. "To some of us, "Support the Troops" is alot more than lip service. At least you've admitted it is an empty term to you.

[Sea Demon]

It's not the job of the media to build morale and resolve, what you're thinking of is propaganda maybe?
Should the media balance every report of a plane crash with stories about all the planes that landed safely? No they shouldnt, because troops getting killed in these kind of numbers (25 over the weekend?) is not normal. It is abnormal. It is news.
Would you honestly prefer that the deaths weren't reported?

Of course I can see media bias. I'm not saying "the" media bias because there is more than one. every outlet has it's own slant, whether you can see it or not.
I don't hate America. I've made my home here before, and I'm doing it again now.

It's not the job of the media to have an agenda, yet they do in this case. It's the anti-war agenda unfortunately. And it's totally antithetical to America's success. And yes, the media should balance out the bad with the good. That's what I would prefer. A balanced and total view of the news for the purposes of informing the citizens. They aren't doing that now. And thus, they are a hostile media.

In addition, we have a major political party (Democrat)working towards America's defeat. And not being subtle about it. Yet claiming they support the troops. How foolish to believe them. Whether they want to admit it or not.

[Enigma]

And no, I fail to see how you can support the troops if your doing everything in your power to demoralize the nation's support for their actions, doing everything in your power to hinder their Commander in Chief, and redefining established terms to fit the agenda of political malcontents like you've attempted in this thread. "To some of us, "Support the Troops" is alot more than lip service. At least you've admitted it is an empty term to you.

:lol: This is really boyond a joke now....

What I said: and has alot more to do with questioning government than not.

What you said I said:Patriotism is now defined as questioning the government?!?!?!

Nuff said. The rest is just the rantings of a right winger, who believes anyone who disagrees with him is unpatriotic and wants his friends (3 dead in my case) and countrymen to be killed, and for America to fail. It's a chumps way out. It's baseless. And most of all, it's the most fundamentaly un-American thing an American can do.

Im out on this one. Once it becomes personal (and irate, apparantly..) , theres rarely a sensible discussion to be had...

[Tchocky]

It's not the job of the media to have an agenda, yet they do in this case. It's the anti-war agenda unfortunately. And it's totally antithetical to America's success.
There is no single outlet with a single agenda. I thought I went over this. Would you call Fox News' slant anti-war?

And yes, the media should balance out the bad with the good. That's what I would prefer. A balanced and total view of the news for the purposes of informing the citizens. They aren't doing that now. And thus, they are a hostile media.

Not every situation has an equally balanced "good" and "bad" side, so how could this new medium you're talking about be anything but biased? Take the case of a serial murderer. "Sentenced to death. Killed grannies. Nice haircut."

[Sea Demon]

Nuff said. The rest is just the rantings of a right winger, who believes anyone who disagrees with him is unpatriotic and wants his friends (3 dead in my case) and countrymen to be killed, and for America to fail. It's a chumps way out. It's baseless. And most of all, it's the most fundamentaly un-American thing an American can do.

Im out on this one. Once it becomes personal (and irate, apparantly..) , theres rarely a sensible discussion to be had...

Of course you're out on this one. But I only said things based on what you said. You said "Support the Troops" is an empty phrase to you. You tried to redefine patriotism into a definition that doesn't exist. Nobody said you can't question the government, but that does not define what a patriot is. Look in a dictionary. I'm only going by what the Democrats say, how the media behaves in it's reporting, and questioning your arguments as fundamentally flawed and confused. There is honest dissent, but the Democrats don't provide that. When you have Democrats bickering for months about needing to change tactics and for Bush to admit mistakes....then he does that....then the Democrats nail him for it and move the goal posts....that's not honest dissent. That's partisan BS. And it hurts the country. That is not patriotic. If they were honest, they would give him credit for it, and give his new strategy a chance to work. They've already declared it a failure and the implementation hasn't started. You can't see it? OK. Enjoy the land of intellectual dishonesty.

[Enigma]

Nope, you actually twisted my words at every possible turn, but Ill just leave them as they are for anyone to see. Thats fine with me. Somehow, it even seems fitting, or expected, perhaps.

Have a nice day.

[bradclark1]

you would think we're taking record casualty rates of 95%. When in fact it's less than 1%.
Pray tell where you get 1% casualty rate from? I'd say it's a bit more than 1%.

U.S. Deaths: 3060
Wounded No Medical Air Transport Required: 16,164
Wounded - Medical Air Transport Required: 6,670
Total: 25894

UK Deaths: 130
Other: 123

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/PieCountry.aspx

[bradclark1]

Edited

[bradclark1]

then the Democrats nail him for it and move the goal posts....that's not honest dissent. That's partisan BS. And it hurts the country. That is not patriotic. If they were honest, they would give him credit for it, and give his new strategy a chance to work.
Change that to Bi-Partisan. Watch any news to include Fox if you want.
He admitted mistakes when the American public voiced their disgust and you were still going on about what a great job he was doing.

[bradclark1]

Benchmarks help the bad guys gauge our activities. :down: The only way to deal with terrorists is screw the banchmarks, and go all out and destroy them. Unfortunately, With a Democrat congress, Bush has no choice but to do some of this their way.
Umm.:hmm: It's been a Democrat congress for less then 30 days. What about the other 5 years?

[Tchocky]

Another telling poll:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286755.stm

:hmm:

These questions seem fair, highlighting the difference between using a polling organisation such as GlobeScan, and a biased network asking it's own questions.

[Sea Demon]

you would think we're taking record casualty rates of 95%. When in fact it's less than 1%.
Pray tell where you get 1% casualty rate from? I'd say it's a bit more than 1%.

U.S. Deaths: 3060
Wounded No Medical Air Transport Required: 16,164
Wounded - Medical Air Transport Required: 6,670
Total: 25894

UK Deaths: 130
Other: 123

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/PieCountry.aspx

Depends on how you count it. But if you look at all troops deployed, rotated to both theaters of major conflict, it adds up to around 1% of deaths. It was just in a CENTCOM report. If you look at Iraq and take a single rotation of 130,000 troops, of course that number will reflect a higher percentage. And of course adding wounded (permanently or less serious) makes the picture bleaker.

But ya' know. What I really find sad, is that you almost seem to be salivating at these losses to prove some kind of point in how America is failing and all is lost. Is it your goal to make your fellow Americans who served think that they and their fellow soldiers wasted their times and lives? I currently have two friends over there. I just went to one of their weddings in St. Louis not too long ago. He volunteered to go back. And he also told me how absolutely bogus the media is on reporting about conditions on the ground. He said times were tough, but most guys in his unit are hoping that they get the resources and support to succeed. He said some don't like the way Bush is conducting it, and wish they could do things differently, but they felt their presence was needed, and running away would be the wrong thing to do. Despite Mother Nancy, and Ted the Red, alot of these people feel that what they are doing is worthwhile. So continue to demoralize, wring your hands, and salivate over American failure. You may get what you ask for. But you may not like what you get served.

[Tchocky]

But ya' know. What I really find sad, is that you almost seem to be salivating at these losses to prove some kind of point in how America is failing and all is lost..............................So continue to demoralize, wring your hands, and salivate over American failure. You may get what you ask for. But you may not like what you get served.

He disputes your assertion that the casualty rate is 1%, where's this salivating going on?

[Enigma]

In the paranoid corners of the brain, perhaps. :-?

[Sea Demon]

But ya' know. What I really find sad, is that you almost seem to be salivating at these losses to prove some kind of point in how America is failing and all is lost..............................So continue to demoralize, wring your hands, and salivate over American failure. You may get what you ask for. But you may not like what you get served.

He disputes your assertion that the casualty rate is 1%, where's this salivating going on?

OK. But when you go by this, it's around 1%:

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/million.html

And by the way, this is not a good news piece. This basically says we are stretching the military to the limit. One of the reasons I'm not too happy about the way Bush is conducting the war.

At any rate, it doesn't matter. The reason I use the term salivate, is because the anti-war crowd typically use casualty figures as a way to demoralize the nation into believing the war in total is a lost cause. It's almost obsessive. And at the same time, it's patently destructive to the war effort. Like it or not, we're there. And I find it sickening that the anti-war crowd, a few of whom may be honest in their dissent, are largely seeking to end the war as fast as possible at any cost. That's not going to end the problems. Leaving without achieving stability may make it worse. But they don't seem to think 5-10 years down the road as forward looking. They are like my 5 year old niece who want what they want NOW! Darn the consequences.

[Ducimus]

All poltical bull**** aside there is no easy answer, and neither side of the poltical isle can come up with one. We're stuck between a rock and a hardplace. Im no poltician or armchair general. Just a vet sitting in a cubicle. I see only three options:

1.) Find a poltical solution.

or

2.) Go full bore. If were going to follow a plan of "clear and hold" for counterinsurgency in iraq where going to need alot more the "20K additional troops stall tactic to dump the mess on the next president" bull****. Reinstate the draft, were talking to the tune of keeping 500 to 600 thousand combat troops incountry to hold areas once cleared.

or

3.)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a8/Vietnamescape.jpg

Option 2 is out. This country will never accept a draft. Polticaly active mothers everywhere would flip out. That leaves option 1 and 3.

[bradclark1]

Depends on how you count it. But if you look at all troops deployed, rotated to both theaters of major conflict, it adds up to around 1% of deaths. It was just in a CENTCOM report. If you look at Iraq and take a single rotation of 130,000 troops, of course that number will reflect a higher percentage. And of course adding wounded (permanently or less serious) makes the picture bleaker.
Look bleaker? Is that why you just count deaths as casualties? 1% makes it look brighter?
Use facts. A casualty is a KIA and a WIA.

But ya' know. What I really find sad, is that you almost seem to be salivating at these losses to prove some kind of point in how America is failing and all is lost. Is it your goal to make your fellow Americans who served think that they and their fellow soldiers wasted their times and lives?
Please point to where you trying to manipulate casualty numbers equals me salivating! The point I'm making is you don't tell the truth.
My goal is to replace incompetence with someone that knows what they are doing.

So continue to demoralize, wring your hands, and salivate over American failure. You may get what you ask for. But you may not like what you get served.
So now you think telling the truth is demoralizing and salivating over failure? Sorry! What concerns me is people like you who try to cover the truth and belch rhetorical propaganda to try and cover the failures instead of changing the course of action.
Congress hasn't been in session two weeks and you are already blaming congress for your failures of five years. Thats what happens when political idiots try to play general with people like you cheering them on. Thank god this isn't the second world war because we'd be speaking German.

You may get what you ask for. But you may not like what you get served.
Doesn't that about sum up the whole Iraq affair. Should have said that to this administration.

[Sea Demon]

Look bleaker? Is that why you just count deaths as casualties? 1% makes it look brighter?
Use facts. A casualty is a KIA and a WIA.

Please point to where you trying to manipulate casualty numbers equals me salivating! The point I'm making is you don't tell the truth.
My goal is to replace incompetence with someone that knows what they are doing.

So now you think telling the truth is demoralizing and salivating over failure? Sorry! What concerns me is people like you who try to cover the truth and belch rhetorical propaganda to try and cover the failures instead of changing the course of action.
Congress hasn't been in session two weeks and you are already blaming congress for your failures of five years. Thats what happens when political idiots try to play general with people like you cheering them on. Thank god this isn't the second world war because we'd be speaking German.

Doesn't that about sum up the whole Iraq affair. Should have said that to this administration.

Well if you're concerned for the truth, total troop deployment to total casualty ratio should be your guide. And in that regard, especially compared to other conflicts, those numbers are pretty low. And my friend, all you do is dig for bad news. You seem to hope for failure. You seem to be somebody that is concerned for focusing on the bad to ensure that people lose the will to see things through. You aren't searching for the truth. Far from it. And I'm afraid you are going to get your way anyway. And there will be hell to pay because of it. The truth is, not all is lost. We have not lost yet. I'm concerned because the focus seems to be to get the American people to think we've lost. Demoralize them to the point of frustration.

And that's why I think your side is dangerous and ultimately will see to it that things will not only prolong, but we may have to face a stronger version of this same enemy down the road because of the lack of resolve now. And my concern in that is that there are people over there that need our support. Democrats will see to it that they died in vain. I say if you're going to fight, fight to win. If only the Dems had as much fighting spirit against the terrorists as they seem to have for Bush. You think Bush is incompetent, yet you're people don't even have an idea of what to do. Whether you like it or not, Bush is the CINC. And the fact that you guys seem to offer nothing other than criticism of Bush, I don't think you guys are up for the task. You guys want surrender. You guys don't want to face this enemy. And as such, your grandchildren may have to fight this war. Your lack of foresight will guarantee it. Indeed if this was WW2 and you people were around, the USA and the allies would be screwed.

[August]

Sea Demon I believe you are going to far. IIRC Brad has served his country, have you?

[Sea Demon]

Sea Demon I believe you are going to far. IIRC Brad has served his country, have you?

Yes. Enlisted and then Officer after college (USAF). For more than a decade of service. Topic closed for me. Consider me zipped up.