Civil Reserve Corps

[Rico]

Those people disgust me.


"Mercenaries. They're everywhere.. They wanna save the earth, but all they do is shoot people and smell bad." - Juan Valdez

I'm with you Senor....

This whole thing is starting to smell like napalm on a burnt piece of toast...

[rwarn17588]

<guido wrote:

One more thing RW, I take it you are a firm NO to even serving your country as a civilian, which was the purpose of my original posting. You, like AOX, are content with sitting back, relaxing in front of your computer, while other's with real courage protect our freedoms.

<end clip>

So what U.S. freedoms were threatened by Iraq? What freedoms are threatened now? Are you telling me these a pissant country like that actually posed a threat to the United States' existence?

That's delusional.

So forgive me if I don't feel like joining a ill-advised, poorly planned, damaging war that's made things in that region worse, not better. Nor it is protecting any freedoms.

And those who say the Democrats didn't have another plan are lying. Democrats AND a good many Republicans begged President Bush for three years to add many more troops to Iraq to stabilize the country, or else it was going to descend into anarchy. Kerry (who I didn't like all that much) made adding 50,000 troops as party of the platform.

Now that Bush finally is doing something that somewhat approaches that strategy, Iraq is almost certainly nonsalvagable. Bush snoozes, he loses.

The president has done more to squander good will than any president I've ever seen, even worse than his dad. If he stayed in Afghanistan and continued to hunt bin Laden, instead of embarking on this horrible folly that is Iraq, he'd still have an 80 percent approval rating. Plenty of people, including Reagan aide Brent Scowcroft, warned the administration about the considerable dangers of invading Iraq. But Bush, as usual, didn't listen. Now he -- and a helluva lot of soldiers caught in the middle -- are paying for it.

One more thing, Guido: I find it ironic that someone who supposedly joined the military to "protect our freedoms" is so disdainful when citizens exercise those freedoms. The Constitution is for *everyone* in the United States, not just for people who don't offend you.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

That's monday morning quarterbacking if I've ever seen it.  I guess it makes it easier for more Democrats to say they voted for it...before they voted against it.

There is no corroborating evidence to justify that the military thinks the reasons for the war were a mistake...waged poorly, sure, but extrapolating that to say that they think the war was a mistake is unfounded.

And that is an Oregon referee call. That's odd that a person like yourself who knows the value of words would turn them against me. I said what I said. Was and is have two different connotations. There is also no evidence to justify that "much" of the military does not think the reasons (never used that word, why do you keep using it?)for the war were a mistake.

[iplaw]

Let's revisit your words...never used that word...


"This is wide spread disagreement by a country, including much of its military, that this war is a mistake.

Maybe you misspoke, but the implications of that statement are that the war "is" a mistake. Nowhere can I find any evidence that the military thinks it was a mistake...don't care for the way it has been fought, but that does not equate to thinking it was a mistake.

[guido911]

No RW. I do not have disdain for persons exercising their freedoms. I do have disdain for those protesting our government and soldiers like the 60s rejects from this past weekend:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9iodh1HNIQ

I also have disdain for bed-wetting,Monday morning quarterbacks who DO NOTHING and have never DONE ANYTHING to serve this country. Apparently, given the opportunity to serve this country (and perhaps earn some of your freedoms rather than having it given to you) even as a civilian is just too distasteful to you.  

One other thing, in your latest Bush bashing rant, I see you have conveniently overlooked the fact that Iraq regime change was the U.S. policy established by Clinton.  

Waterboy. As for the "bully behavior" comment...You may be right that I get fired up on the war on terror. Not only do I have small children that I want to have a chance to live long lives, I have a very deep appreciation for our soldiers. I am fed up with the neverending attack on our government and the lack of appreciation for the hard work by our soldiers by persons on this board who have never done anything. I am also fed up with those who have forgotten 9/11 and who have forgotten that Saddam Hussein was evil personified.  

IP: Nice to hear from you again...

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Let's revisit your words...never used that word...


"This is wide spread disagreement by a country, including much of its military, that this war is a mistake.

Maybe you misspoke, but the implications of that statement are that the war "is" a mistake. Nowhere can I find any evidence that the military thinks it was a mistake...don't care for the way it has been fought, but that does not equate to thinking it was a mistake.

This is a bit too tedious. Let me just say it as clearly as I can. Regardless of why the war was started it is unpopular now. It is widely perceived, judging by polls and the press on both ends of the political spectrum, that the war was prosecuted badly and is currently a mess. Soldiers, ex-soldiers and military generals have expressed dismay and disagreement with the reasons for and prosecution of this war. Polls exist across all categories of Americans showing these feelings. These are observations of mine made from exposing myself to as much input from media and government that I can stand (I watch Fox, CNN, Networks, blogs, newspapers, magazines) and corroborated by leadership of both houses of Congress being changed. Is everyone wrong? Its not finger pointing time. Reality is the American people disagree with the war. Some from the start, others as it progressed.

Guido we have discussed this before. Everyone serves in different ways. Everyone pays a price in different ways. This isn't Sparta. We aren't all warrior citizens. Appreciation for our soldiers is not conditional with approval of the mission. For instance, I don't like the fact that a local cop can make a judgement that I'm guilty of public intoxication without giving me a breathelyzer test. He can just smell my breath and watch my behaviour. But I don't hate the cop for doing it. He was given that abusive power by the government. He still has my respect for his authority while the legislator gets my wrath.

[iplaw]

quote:
This is a bit too tedious. Let me just say it as clearly as I can. Regardless of why the war was started it is unpopular now. It is widely perceived, judging by polls and the press on both ends of the political spectrum, that the war was prosecuted badly and is currently a mess.

Agreed.

[rwarn17588]

<guido wrote:

One other thing, in your latest Bush bashing rant, I see you have conveniently overlooked the fact that Iraq regime change was the U.S. policy established by Clinton.

<end clip>

Sure, Clinton wanted a regime change in Iraq. He wasn't stupid enough to try the extremely risky move of invading the country and then hoping the Iraqis would create a stable democracy. Clinton wanted the Iraqis to do a regime change ON THEIR OWN, which is an important difference and certainly carries less risk to America.

I'm sure a few people in the Bush administration thought we could impose our will on Iraq like we did with Japan after World War II. But the important difference is that Japan is a highly homogenous society that works together. Iraq has been a thicket of religious sects that's been at each other's throats for centuries. That's a huge difference.

Whether I *earned* my freedoms is highly debatable, guido. In case you missed that bit in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I'm born with 'em, and so are you. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Thomas Jefferson.

Another interesting thing: No one in my Midwestern family after the Civil War served in the military. You know why? It's not because they didn't offer. It's because my ancestors (including me to age 20 or so) were farmers. The government said we were more valuable to war efforts as farmers than as soldiers. You gotta feed 'em, you know.

[aoxamaxoa]

Gwee doe the comandoe!

go get em tiger......

btw, what is going to happen with Iran?

[iplaw]

quote:
He wasn't stupid enough to try the extremely risky move of invading the country and then hoping the Iraqis would create a stable democracy. Clinton wanted the Iraqis to do a regime change ON THEIR OWN, which is an important difference and certainly carries less risk to America.

Really?  I don't remember him actually giving a reason behind his policy stance on Iraq and not moving in immediately after 17 violations of the Gulf War cease fire agreement.  Sounds like you're making things up with convenient help of hindsight.

How would you have proposed that Iraqis effect regime change on their own?  I think half a million in the grave who died trying were deterrant enough to any who wished to try.  Internal regime change doesn't work with dictators who use scorched earth policies for political enemies.

[MichaelC]

Iran:

35% chance of invasion within the next year.  Rising to a 55% chance of invasion in 2008.  Snow showers likely in higher elevations, Ahmadinejad  ousted in 2009, assuming he's not toppled directly by US intervention.  And the Caspian Sea reaching record lows in 2007, followed by new record lows in 2008.

[iplaw]

Iran is being squeezed on two fronts.  First by Saudi Arabia is driving down the price of gas to kill off Iran's only means of cash flow. Second, the companies that supply their equipment (Canada, US, Japan) to repair their oil platforms have conveniently stopped providing supplies, so their main source of income is shrinking.  Low output + low prices = economic disaster for Iran.

Guess who put this all together?  You guessed it, our boy Cheney when he met the Crown Prince earlier this year...

[rwarn17588]

<iplaw wrote:

How would you have proposed that Iraqis effect regime change on their own? I think half a million in the grave who died trying were deterrant enough to any who wished to try. Internal regime change doesn't work with dictators who use scorched earth policies for political enemies.

<end clip>

Assassination, I guess. What would you have done?

It's apparent the current way of doing things isn't working well. There were plenty of people, including Brent Scowcroft with Bush I, who knew that the risks of an outright invasion were outweighed by the expense and trouble brought on by the religious sects.

Here's a distasteful way of looking at things. Do you want a ruthless strongman in power who kills enemies but keeps the country stable? Or do you want a nation that's descending into anarchy, sectarian cleansing and threatening to destabilize the entire region?

What's the lesser of two evils here? Is a third option even possible? I'm not sure I have an answer.

[guido911]

Yep RW, you are born with your rights, but leave the dyin' for you to keep them rights to someone else. Whatever gets you to sleep at night.
Whether you or Waterboy or AOX choose to believe it, our soldiers are RIGHT NOW fighting and dying in a war and they need our support. I happen to believe they are fighting to preserve freedom and protect this nation (which apparently is working since no attacks have occurred since 9/11).    

IP:  I heard what you are saying about Iran/Saudi/Cheney on Boortz this a.m. My sense is that there is more to it than Cheney. I just bet Halliburton is behind the economic pressure on Iran.

[aoxamaxoa]

There you go again Gwee doe.... we support our brave men and women who are being forced into a very dangerous situation by some fools in DC. OK! Get it?
And they are fighting to protect the Military Industrial Complex....not me directly as a patriot.
As far as Iran, I have been posting links on another political thread here first titled "It's Come Down To This" because, as we can all agree, the war in Iraq is just a predecessor to more maneuvering for oil. Certainly you can't believe this is being done to thwart terrorism.
Meanwhile, the Israeli's have a finger on the trigger and after Lebanon explodes in a few months they could very possibly pounce in Persia.