IRAQ A GOOD IDEA?

[David Mauldin]

  Duck 5 points for your honesty, Tom, are you referring to the whacko congressman who  claimed that a clinically brain dead and blind Terri Schiavo was able to "recognize" and "communicate" with other people? 

[Oscar]

  Duck 5 points for your honesty, Tom, are you referring to the whacko congressman who  claimed that a clinically brain dead and blind Terri Schiavo was able to "recognize" and "communicate" with other people? 

Dave,

"Duck five points"  ??   What are you trying to say?

How did Terry Schiavo get into the thread on Iraq?

Which of my posts are you referring to?

Tom

[David Mauldin]

"Conservatives saw the savager of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attacker."  Karl Rove  speaking Wednesday night in New York.


  O.K. Karl beat me to it!  I was trying to lead this thread in a direction, "Who will take the blame for the war in Iraq"?  And Karl already came out with it. What he did last Wednesday was basically admit the war is already lost. This is a fact!  We will be there 5, 10, 15 years and insurgents will still be there also.  When we do leave the whole country will party!  "We've won!" "we've won!" So whose fault will it be?  That is simple David Mauldin's fault!

[outdeep]

"Conservatives saw the savager of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attacker."  Karl Rove  speaking Wednesday night in New York.


  O.K. Karl beat me to it!  I was trying to lead this thread in a direction, "Who will take the blame for the war in Iraq"?  And Karl already came out with it. What he did last Wednesday was basically admit the war is already lost. This is a fact!  We will be there 5, 10, 15 years and insurgents will still be there also.  When we do leave the whole country will party!  "We've won!" "we've won!" So whose fault will it be?  That is simple David Mauldin's fault!

I guess this goes back to the adage that political debate is less concerned with answers but in defining the question.

If you want to define "losing the war" as being in a country for some arbitrary period of time (say 3 years), then you are absolutely right that the war is a lost cost.  Or, we can define the war success in terms of body count (which seems the only thing the media reports).  When we reach 2,000, we lose.

But some define the wars success or failure in terms of other objectives such as breaking up terrorist cells, liberating a country, ending the reign of Saddam, sending a message after we were attacked, etc.  In this case, the analysts can debate, but things are looking up.

[Oscar]

Dave the logic is simple I asked a question, "Why haven't you enlisted?" Tom's answer "Dave is a communist who lunches with Jane Fonda!" 

David,

1. If I were you I wouldn't be too quick to use an appeal to logic in your posts.   

Its not your strong suit.

2. I taught reading for 20 years, and then structured my History classes to require a lot of reading comprehension practice.  I would be glad to help you with your reading problem.

My answer to your question was, I did enlist!

3. Regarding my comment that you might like to have some wine and cheese with Hanoi Jane...

Dave, I heard all these arguments from the Left when you were playing cowboys back in the late 60's and early 70's.   Ho Chi Minh was the "George Washington of Vietnam".   The war wasn't about stopping the spread of world communism through territorial expansion of the Soviet and Chinese empires...it was about profits for American business and American Imperialism.  All the Vietnamese communists wanted was self-determination. (Which they demonstrated by invading Cambodia and Laos as soon as we were out of the way.)

Your crowd gave aid and comfort to the enemy by demonstrating against the war.  It wasn't the poor boys who demonstrated, it was the children of privilege and wealth...that's why the college campuses were the focus of the demonstrations.   The SDS leader from Cal State Northridge, btw, came out of the closet after the war and admitted that he was a communist.

During the war we killed a whole bunch of NVA soldiers.  We beat them again and again in large and small battles.  There were times when the NV leaders seriously considered pulling out.   

But the North Vietnamese generals have told us that they were encouraged to carry on by the demonstrations and sympathy they received from the American left!

After the war, over 400,000 South Vietnamese were slaughtered. Millions more fled as "boat people" and a huge numbers of them died in the process.  I used to have a teacher's aid who, as a teenage girl fleeing on one of these boats, had been passed around for the "entertainment" of Cambodian pirates. (Stop the Killing was one of the Left's chants).   Then after the Congress abandoned SE Asia by cutting off all funding for the anti-Communist forces Pol Pot took over in Cambodia. 

The estimates of the innocent people he slaughtered have ranged up to four million, but it seems to have been "ONLY" 1.7 million murdered.   

Are the Left repentant?  No.  I know many teachers of my generation who actually BOAST about their anti-war activities!   The only prominent Leftist of those times who I have ever read about taking a shred of responsibility is the singer, Joan Baez.  She at least has admitted to the "unforseen consequences" of the Left's actions.

Hanoi Jane still hasn't faced up to this.   Just like most of the Left.

Now we are in another war where guerilla tactics are being used.  The Jihadists know they cannot defeat us in the field.  Their only hope is to arouse enough opposition to the war so that Congress will bail out again.  They murder innocent civilians and both American and Iraqi military personell...for this purpose/b]. As well they might.  After all, Dave Mauldin and Ted Kennedy have already surrendered.

And the Left, as usual, is encouraging them to keep it up!   

You and your idiot friends are encouraging the murder of American soldiers!

Disgusting.

Thomas Maddux

[Tony]

Tom,

The more that I hear from liberals, the more I think that Savage is right, that it is some sort of a mental disorder.   Or in the least pseudo-intellectualism.   Though I know that most of your facts are very well documented, the poor misled will run the same old argument expecting people to be impressed by their *open-mindedness*.   Some of these arguments for 40 years.     Isn't that one of the definitions of insanity?

   I speak to soldiers every day who return from Iraq and with very few exceptions, the stories are NOT at all what is being represented in the mainstream media.   I know first hand of 4 individuals who served in Iraq and are going back as a security specialist,  two missionaries and one who will be a school teacher.   One of the three will be bringing in six figures in their income.  (You have probably figured out that it isn't the school teacher)
   I am not totally overjoyed about how the administration is addressing and fighting this war but I certainly realize that I do not have all of the facts.   When I hear a liberal screaming at the American pseudo-Allies to offer force to secure the Iraqi boarders, then I'll be interested in what they have to say next.

By the way Tom, can you tell me where there is documented evidence for the following statement:

"But the North Vietnamese generals have told us that they were encouraged to carry on by the demonstrations and sympathy they received from the American left!"

  I have heard this but have not seen a source for this information.   I can certainly believe that it is likely just by looking at the information over the  past 2 years in Iraq.   
Liberal *thinkers* are fodder for madmen and sociopaths.   And they do it under the guise of compassion!??   
Hitler also said that if you speak a lie, no matter how outrageous, loud enough and long enough that people will believe it! (not even close to an exact quote but the same idea)

   Your post was a most excellent one.   

C-ya, Tony   

[Recovering Saint]

Jesus said when you go out to war make sure you can win it. He said to a soldier be content with your wages. The Ten Commnadments say Do not Kill (Murder). Rom 14 says the Leaders carry the sword by divine right to enforce law. People can make many passages say what they want with enough intellectual twist. War or poverty or starvation or rape or any other abuse what is worse?

God wants us all to love one another and respect one another and care for one another but He knew without the shedding of blood no one would be saved. With all the talk you need to finally come to the place of action. The people of the West are standing for Freedom and are seeking to stop the rape pillage and abuse of innocent Iraqis. The insurgents are paid thugs or blind followers of cult leaders (sounds familiar) they are not insurgents who are protecting the Iraqis they are terrorists who are not standing for decency or order but want to maintain fear and disorder to keep people in ignorance and fear and submission.

I say the war against oppression is necessary to stop those who are trying to hurt your loved ones in America. If they hide you find them and stop them because that is what you do against injustice.

In Vietnam there was no clear vision of what was the cause so the people going and the people who were left in America had no purpose and they became confused and demoralized.

Iraq is not about Oil and Gas but about stopping ideologies that cause people to follow someone who says blow yourself up for God and while you are at it take a few Americans with you. If the US laid down and let Sadaam alone someone possibly even Sadaam or Bin Laden would take that as a sign of weakness and do even more destruction. It is not about justice for them it is about annilation of the enemy. They don't co-exist as the liberals view we should all do but they want to remove all western thinkers (including the very left thinkers who think they are standing for freedom) from their sight. We thank God that people do have other opinions this gives us some checks and balances against extremes. Without the liberals the conservatives would not have to think things out. The liberals need to see the actions they propose through and get out of the philosophy mode for a second. It all sounds nice to love but when the Americans left Afgahanstan the first time at the Russian conflict it destablized the region and caused the current crop of terrorists to grow. If they leave Iraq now then the cause is lost. They have to stay the course. The answer to the Insurgents is not cut and run but show them you are just as determined as they are and stay. The answer is to have people experience real freedom and they will drive the insurgents out themselves with their own hands. People who live in a closed society who are not allowed to talk are not free and they will act out of fear rather than rationality. The liberals say they care about freedom but they only really want it if it is No Cost to them that is not freedom that is a cop out.

Hugh

[wmathews]

But the North Vietnamese generals have told us that they were encouraged to carry on by the demonstrations and sympathy they received from the American left!

True words, Tom my friend!

The last of my involvement with Vietnam was working with the 1st Marines on the evacuation using a USNS vessel, the Pioneer Contender. I will never forget the anguish and gratefullness of the Vietnamese people we rescued!  It was a bittersweet experience, especially trying to comfort a young mother whose baby had died of dehydration, refusing to let go of the only remaining possession she had.
I work in a Christian free clinic here in Champaign, and recently treated a middle aged man named Hong Loc, who fled the hell in a boat. He was so grateful for our care (although he has no health insurance, he still thinks the USA is a pretty good place to live. ) It was good for me to be able to say that meeting folks like him makes me think how much I see our efforts were not in vain!  Selah!

Wayne Mathews

[Oscar]

Tom,

By the way Tom, can you tell me where there is documented evidence for the following statement:

"But the North Vietnamese generals have told us that they were encouraged to carry on by the demonstrations and sympathy they received from the American left!"

  I have heard this but have not seen a source for this information.   I can certainly believe that it is likely just by looking at the information over the  past 2 years in Iraq.   
Liberal *thinkers* are fodder for madmen and sociopaths.   And they do it under the guise of compassion!??   
Hitler also said that if you speak a lie, no matter how outrageous, loud enough and long enough that people will believe it! (not even close to an exact quote but the same idea)

   Your post was a most excellent one.   

C-ya, Tony   

Tony,



"That Fonda’s propaganda efforts played an important role in prolonging the war and increasing the death toll is attested to by North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin.  In a postwar interview with The Wall Street Journal reproduced at length in “Aid and Comfort, ” the Colonel, a dedicated Communist cadre for most of his life, confidant of Ho Chi Minh and the architect of the “Ho Chi Minh Trail” along which the North Vietnamese conducted their aggression against the South, and also one of the first officers of their army to enter Saigon on the day it fell, had this to say:

 

Wall Street Journal:  Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi’s victory?

 

Bui Tin:  It was essential to our strategy.  Support for the war from our rear [China] was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable.  Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement.  Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda . . . gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses.

(Emphasis ours)

 

The identical point was made by North Vietnamese Defense Minister General Vo Nguyen Giap, the architect of France’s defeat at Dien Bien Phu.  This was the man most responsible for the Communists’ military strategy in their war with the United States.

 

Stop the killing?  End the war?  Jane Fonda’s treason unquestionably prolonged both.  What she “ended” were the lives of many Americans, and many more Vietnamese for whom she claimed to have such sympathy.

 

Most chilling of all, perhaps, is that the consequences of Fonda’s actions did not begin and end with Vietnam.  In facilitating a Communist victory in Vietnam, Jane Fonda, self-described woman of conscience, contributed to the genocidal bloodbath that would soon follow in Cambodia."

This comes from: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1420218/posts

Tom


 

[Oscar]

Folks,

Here are some more of HJ's "patriotic" comments.

as she claims in her autobiography, the purpose of her broadcasts was to apprise pilots and ground troops of what our bombing was doing to the North, why did she broadcast the following statements (among others like them)?

 

·        The Vietnamese people were peasants—leading a peaceful, bucolic life before the Americans came to destroy Vietnam.

 

·        The Vietnamese seek only “freedom and independence”—which the United States wants to prevent them from having.

 

·        The Vietnamese fighters are her “friends.”

                       

·        The million infantry troops which the United States put into Vietnam, and the Vietnamization program, have failed.

 

·        The United States seeks to turn Vietnam into a “neocolony.”

 

·        Patrick Henry’s slogan “liberty or death” was not very different from Ho Chi Minh’s “Nothing is more valuable than independence and freedom.”

 

·        Nixon violated the 1954 Geneva Accords.

 

·        Vietnam is “one nation, one country.”

 

·        The Communists’ proposal for ending the war is “fair, sensible, reasonable and humanitarian.”

 

·        The United States must get out of South Vietnam and “cease its support for the . . . Thieu regime.”

 

·        “I want to publicly accuse Nixon here of being a new-type Hitler whose crimes are being unveiled.”

 

·        “The Vietnamese people will win.”

 

·        “Nixon is continuing to risk your [American pilots’] lives and the lives of the American prisoners of war . . . in a last desperate gamble to keep his office come November.  How does it feel to be used as pawns?  You may be shot down, you may perhaps even be killed, but for what, and for whom?”

 

·        Nixon “defiles our flag and all that it stands for in the eyes of the entire world.”

 

·        “Knowing who was doing the lying, should you then allow these same people and some liars to define for you who your enemy is?”

 

·        American troops are fighting for ESSO, Shell and Coca-Cola.

 

·        “Should we be fighting on the side of the people who are, who are murdering innocent people, should we be trying to defend a government in Saigon which is putting in jail tens of thousands of people into the tiger cages, beating them, torturing them . . . . And I don’t think . . . that we should be risking our lives or fighting to defend that kind of government.”

 

·        “We . . . have a common enemy—U. S. imperialism.”

 

·        “We thank you [the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese] for your brave and heroic fight.”

 

·        “Nixon’s aggression against Vietnam is a racist aggression [and] the American war in Vietnam is a racist war, a white man’s war.”

 

·        Soldiers of the South Vietnamese army “are being sent to fight a war that is not in your interests but is in the interests of the small handful of people who have gotten rich and hope to get richer off this war and the turning of your country into a neocolony of the United States.”

 

·        “The only way to end the war is for the United States to withdraw all its troops, all its airplanes, its bombs, its generals, its CIA advisors and to stop the support of the . . .  regime in Saigon . . . .”

 

·        “There is only one way to stop Richard Nixon from committing mass genocide in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and that is for a mass protest . . . to expose his crimes . . . .”

 

·        “In 1969—1970 the desertions in the American army tripled.  The desertions of the U.S. soldiers almost equaled the desertions from the ARVN army . . . .”

 

·        American soldiers in Vietnam discovered “that their officers were incompetent, usually drunk . . . .”

 

·        “Perhaps the soldiers . . . who have suffered the most . . . [are] the black soldiers, the brown soldiers, and the red and Asian soldiers.”

 

·        Recently I talked to “a great many of these guys and they all expressed their recognition of the fact that this is a white man’s war, a white businessman’s war, that they don’t feel it’s their place to kill other people of color when at home they themselves are oppressed and prevented from determining their own lives.”

 

·        “I heard horrifying stories about the treatment of women in the U.S. military.  So many women said to me that one of the first things that happens to them when they enter the service is that they are taken to see the company psychiatrist and they are given a little lecture which is made very clear to them that they are there to service the men.”

Yesterday the United States senator from Massachussetts announced that, "we are losing the war."

He is obviously carrying on in the great patriotic tradition of Jane Fonda.

I wonder how many kids will die as a result of his pathetic leftist blather.   

Thomas Maddux
 

[David Mauldin]

  It's so sick!  When I hear garbage about Viet Nam. "We were just about to win but the liberals ruined it for us."  Which is just the same excuses we will hear for the rest of our lives about Iraq.  People like George Geftakys will never admit to wrong. It is the same with this war.

                   We were lied to about the reasons for going into Iraq. This has been verified over and over and I know it is pointless for me to go over it again and again. What has made me so disgusted about this administartion is the way God was used as propaganda. we were given over and over images and sound bites of Bush praying, "I spoke to my heavenly Father!" "Axis of evil" ""Crusade" "Forces of good will prevail over evil" "Who is not for us is against us!"  it was so sickening like sitting in an assembly meeting and hearing all the baloney again over and over. Yet you guys are still trying your best to justify all of it!!???  Don't you guys notice how YOUR REASONS FOR THE WAR HAVE CHANGED?  READ ABOUT ON THIS THREAD! How can you? Over 1700 U.S. REPORTED killed. Over 1000,000 Iraq citizens killed!  Have you no compassion???  Oh wait the $$$$ waisted! These people have lost their families! For what?  What if it was you???  This argument is over!  Dudes the U.S. lost again!!!  So now you will just blame the democrats?? Dudes where were the librals in WWII?  WWI?  CIVIL WAR? REVOLUTIONARY WAR??  Tom again and again you avoid the issue. if you really believe in-this war why don't you enlist??? Hey if is is good enough for our young men why not you?  Are you just like the politicians who sit on their fat @$$ and talk talk talk?  Get out there bro and start carrying that pack!


                   

[outdeep]

  It's so sick!  When I hear garbage about Viet Nam. "We were just about to win but the liberals ruined it for us."  Which is just the same excuses we will hear for the rest of our lives about Iraq.  People like George Geftakys will never admit to wrong. It is the same with this war.

                   We were lied to about the reasons for going into Iraq. This has been verified over and over and I know it is pointless for me to go over it again and again. What has made me so disgusted about this administartion is the way God was used as propaganda. we were given over and over images and sound bites of Bush praying, "I spoke to my heavenly Father!" "Axis of evil" ""Crusade" "Forces of good will prevail over evil" "Who is not for us is against us!"  it was so sickening like sitting in an assembly meeting and hearing all the baloney again over and over. Yet you guys are still trying your best to justify all of it!!???  Don't you guys notice how YOUR REASONS FOR THE WAR HAVE CHANGED?  READ ABOUT ON THIS THREAD! How can you? Over 1700 U.S. REPORTED killed. Over 1000,000 Iraq citizens killed!  Have you no compassion???  Oh wait the $$$$ waisted! These people have lost their families! For what?  What if it was you???  This argument is over!  Dudes the U.S. lost again!!!  So now you will just blame the democrats?? Dudes where were the librals in WWII?  WWI?  CIVIL WAR? REVOLUTIONARY WAR??  Tom again and again you avoid the issue. if you really believe in-this war why don't you enlist??? Hey if is is good enough for our young men why not you?  Are you just like the politicians who sit on their fat @$$ and talk talk talk?  Get out there bro and start carrying that pack!
                  

Folks,

A while back a professor at are local University wrote a similar vacuous, emotional tyrade where he quoted the 100,000 Iraqi citizens killed number.  (I see from the above post it increased by a factor of 10 in the last few months to reach 1,000,000).  This seems typical of the letter to the editors page where, when answered reasonably, liberals tend to repeat the same diatribe louder and angrier as if the shrillness of their voice will make their claims true and dispell the things they most fear.  The post above is unique in that it displays a higher level disrespect of the elderly (generally liberals at least give lip service to "The Greatest Generation" even though they really don't embrace their values) in that the writer taunts a 60+ year old retired veteran to get off his butt and crawl in the mud.  Of course, this is not too surprising since it is the same self-absorbed individual who wanted to engage 80+ year old George Geftakys in a fist fight.

Following is a letter to the editor that I wrote in response to the University professor bringing context to the 100,000 number (I actually read the study).   It shows how liberals of late tend to use half-facts and favorite sounbytes charged with anger to make their point:

-------------------------------------

Dear Editor,

Mr. Gregory Reck, Chair of ASU’s Anthropology Department wrote a Christmas piece lamenting that, according to a study published in The Lancet, 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the Iraqi invasion.

The reader should be aware that the study “Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey”, was not a body count.  Rather it was a hypothetical model based upon a statistical sampling of 33 random areas that were projected out throughout the whole country.  While the study concludes that they “think about 100,000” excessive deaths occurred since the invasion, due to the difficult conditions under which they were doing research, the broad assumptions being made, and the inability to confirm interview statements in 60% of the violent deaths, the study stated that the number could be as high as 194,000 or as low as 8,000.  Further, there is no data available to certify that all in these numbers were civilians and not actual enemy targets.

Reading Richard Horton’s follow-up commentary in the same publication adds that critics of the study point out that the statistical model was not correlated with where bombings actually took place.  Rather, it was assumed that the sampling site death toll was uniform throughout the country – even in places where no battles took place.  Horton also points out that skepticism increased because of the false conclusion that the majority of deaths were among women and children.  According to a table in the same article, out of the 7,868 people interviewed in the sample, 4 children died of violence, 2 women died of violence while 13 men died of violence since the Iraqi invasion.  The data actually indicates that the vast majority of violent deaths were men.
 
Understanding this information does not imply that there is no problem or that the statistical study was completely groundless.  Rather, the study itself asks the proper question:  If we as Americans believed that the war was taking place with precision weapons so that civilian causalities are “minimized”, why does there seem to be more-than-a-few civilian casualties?  If a war must be fought, is there a way the military could be better equipped to fulfill the Geneva Convention’s mandate to treat civilians humanely and with protection to the best of their abilities?
 
While Mr. Reck is certainly welcome to his personal convictions and opinions on the ongoing debate about the legitimacy of the war, his conclusion that the study demonstrates that the war is illegitimate is a logical non sequitur.  It is akin to observing a police car that sped out of control on an icy patch, killing 20 people, and concluding that the police should never have responded to the call in the first place.  The implied question should be why the police car operated unsafely, not whether or not it should have gone at all.

The Lancet study (available online) brings up good points worthy of thought and discussion and Mr. Reck has done well in bringing it to public attention.  On the other hand, while it cannot be determined whether Mr. Reck merely read the study superficially with an eye to what he wanted to see or if he was being intentionally deceitful, it is unfortunate and shameful that someone in a position to model good research techniques for countless university students succumbed to presenting the information in such a biased, inaccurate and emotional manner.


                  Dave Sable
                  Deep Gap, NC

[David Mauldin]

  Dave I will admit it when I am wrong, I hit too many zeros!  The number is 100,000. The study is mute. 1 life taken as collateral damage is too many. If you read the papers you know that our own generals have admitted at least this many. If you think they died justly then I would love to see you explain it to them face to face. "Your child was incinerated for a just cause...." 


                 a. Evil


                b.  WMD's

                 
                c. The intent to produce WMD'S  (He woulda if he coulda)


                d. To show the world we aren't going to be pushed around!


                e. Over half the insurgents and 9/11 highjacker's are from Saudi Arabia but they are my friends!


                f. Fill in the blank____________


   Nothing is so disgusting to me than a person who uses their supposed authority to manipulate and control others no matter what consequences to that person are incurred. I just received an E-mail detailing the devastation a former worker is experiencing in her life all because of George Geftakys. Because George told this person to "Trust the Lord" for 25 years they now find themselves with no retirement, no career to go back on and wondering 'Where do I find my future."  The same disgust I have for those who started this war based on lies. People were lied to. They are now mourning the loss of their children. The loss of their health, physical abilities etc...  Now they are angry! They will/are speaking out. What will you do?  call them unpatriotic? deserters? Benedict Arnold's? The only way I will have any respect for you is when you get off your cans and enlist!  if you really believe what you say you believe then do it or put a cork in it!!!  As for me?  I am on the streets! See in the papers! see on the internet! Yea I could end up in jail!  I could end up getting my head bashed in!  It's what J.Vernon calls "Where the rubber meets the road"!!!   You need to do the same!


     

[wmathews]

 
               
                       

   Nothing is so disgusting to me than a person who uses their supposed authority to manipulate and control others no matter what consequences to that person are incurred. I just received an E-mail detailing the devastation a former worker is experiencing in her life all because of George Geftakys. Because George told this person to "Trust the Lord" for 25 years they now find themselves with no retirement, no career to go back on and wondering 'Where do I find my future."  The same disgust I have for those who started this war based on lies. People were lied to. They are now mourning the loss of their children. The loss of their health, physical abilities etc...  Now they are angry! They will/are speaking out. What will you do?  call them unpatriotic? deserters? Benedict Arnold's? The only way I will have any respect for you is when you get off your cans and enlist!  if you really believe what you say you believe then do it or put a cork in it!!!  As for me?  I am on the streets! See in the papers! see on the internet! Yea I could end up in jail!  I could end up getting my head bashed in!  It's what J.Vernon calls "Where the rubber meets the road"!!!   You need to do the same!


     

David,
     I think the point has been stated and restated, but several of us have enlisted and served in the military. That does not seem to be the point here, but you continue to use it a method of diversion from the argument. You raise some valid points, as moral clarity is essential to troop morale, but your points go down the toilet when you use this careless tactic.  Take a course in logical reasoning, or better yet, why not enlist in another service organization, ministry, etc. besides the military so you can be part of the solution, not the problem. Finally, I thought this was a dialogue about the war in Iraq, not George's ministry's lack of a retirement program. why not pick on Enron executives, who flushed thousands of folks' retirement programs down the toilet.

Wayne

[David Mauldin]

  I asked the question, "Is it a good idea?" Yet the answers are always "Dave, you don't know what you are talking about!" The war is about......(Take your pick!)  The answers never boil down to anything of substance. That is why I call your bluff. If  it is really as you say then enlist or just be honest "Dave we don't believe this war is worth dyeing for!" (Us that is others O.K.)  I have tried over and over to get a logical truthful answer to the question. Just like George will never admit wrong niether will you guys.  I thought that when the end comes then they will have to admit it. They were wrong. But I realized that this will never happen. You will blame Jane Fonda for the U.S. disgrace in Viet Nam!  You will blame Michael Moore for the shameful behavior of this administration. Shame on you!  Shame on you!  Where are your morals??? This last Thursday I talked with a life long military guy. We chatted. At first I liked him. He knew Bill Mauldin!  As we talked he said, "The only problem in Iraq is these politicians!"  "If these democrats would leave them alone then they could get the job done in a year!"  Then he said, "The problem these men face is when 10 of these arab guys are standing around and one is an insurgent the solution is to just shoot them all!"  I will tell you now that I have seen evil! And it is in this man! This kind of arrogance is what lays behind this administration!  I hope to God that they will stand at a tribunal for their crimes!!!! 


 I challenge you to talk to these people and repeat to them what you have said to me. will they be comforted with your words?


Ken Lay claims to be Christian and is a friend of Bush. He was invited by Bushin 2001 to stay at the White House.  Gee hows that possible???  Maybe he learned the Machiavellian principle, "Use religion as a tool over the people!"


http://www.newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=705

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=4221