I was curious as to why any nation would field a regular army anymore? especially if they are worried about us attacking them. All they need to do is let us take over then blow up a few cars every week and we will take off with our tails between our legs. Think of how much money they could save!

I was curious as to why any nation would field a regular army anymore? especially if they are worried about us attacking them. All they need to do is let us take over then blow up a few cars every week and we will take off with our tails between our legs. Think of how much money they could save!

So you equate a 5-year insurgency involving tens of thousands of casualties and 2 trillion dollars in costs to "blow[ing] up a few cars every week?"

That's just idiotic.

So you equate a 5-year insurgency involving tens of thousands of casualties and 2 trillion dollars in costs to "blow[ing] up a few cars every week?"

On average. sometimes more then a few cars, sometimes less.

On average. sometimes more then a few cars, sometimes less.

Currently we're spending $12 billion/month in Iraq to stop a few vandals? You're not serious.

I don't see any uniformed military we are fighting, do you?

Currently we're spending $12 billion/month in Iraq to stop a few vandals? You're not serious.


Its extreme vandalism, but yes. That and sectarian hit squads. With a very few dollars tossed in for graft and fraud. That pretty much sums up the situation.

and the democrats want to surrender to them. sad isn't it?

I was curious as to why any nation would field a regular army anymore? especially if they are worried about us attacking them. All they need to do is let us take over then blow up a few cars every week and we will take off with our tails between our legs. Think of how much money they could save!

Yup,that's basically in a nutshell the theory most Terrorist Groups
assume under.Go places to unravel the populace,knowing that extreme prejudice of Violence will over Shock & Awe any capable regular army
from engaging on the battlefield.
Plus The battlefield has changed from Foxholes to Marketplace
to mere roadside.
Just like in Vietnam,where a gook in the bush,was stronger than
most Platoon,based soley on ability to wait-out and endure their own
habitat.

plus tehy know the media in this country plays up every death and alleged attrocity while NEVER acknowledging the bravery of our men or recounting any acts of heroism. I have heard exactly one story of bravery by our troops (Sgt Smith who recieved the CMH) I have heard daily on the attrocites they allegedly commited. And then we have scum like Murtha crucifying them before the evidence is even out, and when the evidence comes back they are innocent that shitbag Murtha pretends he didnt throw em under the bus.

and the democrats want to surrender to them. sad isn't it?

I'm afraid I'm going to have to see documentation of an actual quote by one of these Democrats, saying "We should surrender to the Iraqi insurgents."

Otherwise, I'll rightly assume that you're blowing yet more Republican smoke out of your puckered little asshole.

:rolleyes:

And then we have scum like Murtha crucifying them before the evidence is even out, and when the evidence comes back they are innocent that shitbag Murtha pretends he didnt throw em under the bus.

You never did produce quotes by Murtha calling our soldiers "murderers and rapists." So how 'bout you shut the fuck up about it, eh?

LOL, so I guess yo think leaving Iraq by the end of summer, as murtha and the others want to do, will look a victory in the eyes of our ememies? use your fucking head

Currently we're spending $12 billion/month in Iraq to stop a few vandals? You're not serious.

Say...Thar Brutus,why not give the back yer computer a break.?
Since when DO Vandals Kill,Maim,Wound,Blow-up,rape,Pilfer,
Exterminate,Annihilate,Devastate,Eliminate,entirel y
knock-down,scatter-to-pieces,and otherwise discombobulate,
w/o even as mush a Song.?
Don't,like Vandals,usually traipse round with some kinda Music player,also ?.
Man Oh Boy...are you Surreal.
No wonder yer Computer don't care ta lick yer boots.
Please don't be a juvenile and give a cutesy little one sentence
reply LIKE.... -- Since Bush took over as Pres.

Its extreme vandalism, but yes. That and sectarian hit squads. With a very few dollars tossed in for graft and fraud. That pretty much sums up the situation.

Uh huh, and dropping an atomic bomb is "extreme vandalism" too.

If Travh were in charge of Japan, the Japanese would still be fighting WWII and Travh would deride his opposition by saying "You want peace because they dropped two bombs on you!?"

Thank goodness reasonable minds prevailed instead.

LOL, so I guess yo think leaving Iraq by the end of summer, as murtha and the others want to do, will look a victory in the eyes of our ememies? use your fucking head

I'm not sure the only two options are "victory" or "surrender". I'm also not sure I want to let the enemy dictate the terms of our disengagement. We can't stay there forever, and I don't want the time line decided by what our enemies perceive as "victory".

Uh huh, and dropping an atomic bomb is "extreme vandalism" too.

If Travh were in charge of Japan, the Japanese would still be fighting WWII and Travh would deride his opposition by saying "You want peace because they dropped two bombs on you!?"

Thank goodness reasonable minds prevailed instead.

That doesnt make any sense. Your saying Hirohito was a reasonable mind? You must have missed the rest of the war :rolleyes:

it doesnt take two atomic bombs to change a "reasonable mind"

"victory"?
We already won the war.
The question is when and how do we end the occupation.

On average. sometimes more then a few cars, sometimes less.

Currently we're spending $12 billion/month in Iraq to stop a few vandals? You're not serious.

Oh yes.

He's quite serious.

Of that there can be no doubt.

It's just that he is a clueless Rightwing buffoon.

plus tehy know the media in this country plays up every death and alleged attrocity while NEVER acknowledging the bravery of our men or recounting any acts of heroism. I have heard exactly one story of bravery by our troops (Sgt Smith who recieved the CMH) Cpl. Jason Dunham, USMC, CMH, Iraq. There are plenty of stories of individual service of an outstanding nature in theater. That's not the problem. The US military is not designed to be a big police-force/peace-keeper/baby-sitter. And the longer we stay, the worse we look.

where are these storys of heroism from American fighting men? not on the nightly news I can tell you that. all we see is big fat murtha calling our troops blood thirsty killers (in a supportive way of course)

where are these storys of heroism from American fighting men? not on the nightly news I can tell you that. all we see is big fat murtha calling our troops blood thirsty killers (in a supportive way of course)
I saw the SFC Smith and Cpl Duhnam stories on network and cable news. They were also covered in various on-line news services. This may be something of a pre-expectant bias on the part of the viewer, at times.

The negative stories do get a lot of press, and rightly so. As General Clark pointed out, these allegations must come to the front if we are to ever to ferret out the truth and fix the problems. And, in terms of our world position, the negative is far more impacting than the positive. An individual may be a really great guy, but then commit one murder and, well, his reputation is sorta tarnished. Same thing for orginizations.

maybe in the era of 24 hour news and the internet it is just not possible to run an effective war anymore.

This so-called war could not be won by foreign arms in any era. All our combined forced could reasonable expected to do was to oust the Baathists. That war, a real war, was won. Beyond that, it is the responsibility of the people in that nation to win the peace.

so maybe we should recall the troops and send in the peace corp?

How would that lead to the people in the region working out their own solutions, which are the only ones likely to have any meaning?

(Actually, I presume you were just being flippant. The matter is serious, though. And all the wasted resources and American lives lost and deaths do to US mistakes are things that should bother all Americans.)

plus they know the media in this country plays up every death and alleged attrocity while NEVER acknowledging the bravery of our men or recounting any acts of heroism.

:rolleyes:

You are so far off the mark here as to be laughable.

The actual news stories that are, day in and day out, being reported give the lie to your claim.

I just seached Google for "nightly news heroism Iraq".

I went to the first link listed that seemed to be a recap of the stories appearing on the nightly news on television in the U.S.

I found the website Daily Nightly (http://dailynightly.msnbc.com/) ........and that is exactly what it is; a recap of the stories appearing on nightly news in the U.S.


The website is one which was created to "provide a narrative of the NBC broadcast day and a window into the editorial process at NBC Nightly News".

There is a box on the website entitled *RECENT STORIES FROM NIGHTLY NEWS*. http://dailynightly.msnbc.com/2007/02/this_weeks_seri.html

It has the past five recent news stories listed.

First is a story with the explicit mesage "Saddam was evil, Saddam was hollow (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17524022) and insubstantial, jut like his palaces"

Second is a news story with the by-line -- **"U.S., Iraqi forces live and patrol together, claiming small successes""*. A story praising the efforts of the US military and marked by a hopeful view of the Iraq war effort.

Third is a news story with the by-line *""Troops at Camp Victory have some perks, but that doesn’t make it home""*. A story aimed at portraying the US troops in a very sympathetic light. The first thing reported that one of the soldeirs said was --"""I think we should stay here until the job is done," says Lt. Quammie Semper. "You feel you have an investment? We do. I see that every day when we roll out of this gate."" The story is dripping with support for the troops and with repeated mentions of how the soldiers there want to "stay and do the job".

Is that a bad thing to have such a story on the NBC nightly news? NO! Not at all.

I applaud the story. But it just shows how incredibly backward your nonsensical claim is that -- "Aww, all they report is how evil the troops are. They never say anything good about them"

But let's continue.

Fourth is a story with the by-line --""Gen. Ray Odierno focuses on building social ties (in Iraq) to win hearts and minds"". It is a story solidly supportive of this US General and of "staying the course" in the war in Iraq.

Fifth, and last, is a story with the by-line -- ""It's not just a soldier who goes to war — it's a shared family experience"". It is a story that is extremely sympathetic to and supportive of the soldier on the ground in Iraq.

Five out of five news stories-- five out of five that present a positive attitude and view toward the war, the troops and the military.

STFU freethinker, anything you say or post is worthless to me you are so far gone.

It's ok.

I understand.

You're something of a dimwit, you made a far-fetched, insupportable claim, and I exposed you. In spades.

That had to be painful. But you shouldn't go around making insupportable statements like -- ""the media in this country plays up every death and alleged attrocity while NEVER acknowledging the bravery of our men or recounting any acts of heroism"" -- and not expect to get embarrassed by having someone point out just how wrong you are.

you still here?

"Answer not a fool in his folly, lest he think himself wise," huh?

all we see is big fat murtha calling our troops blood thirsty killers

Produce the quote or DROP IT. :mad:

Produce the quote or DROP IT.

You might as well be talking to a wall. Or a donkey.

He wants to spew repeated falsehoods about how the Media is so incredibly biased against the troops and the war, (iow, ""the media in this country plays up every death"" ... ""the media in this country NEVER acknowledges the bravery of our men or recounts any acts of heroism"" ... ""big fat murtha called our troops blood thirsty killers"") yet when that absurd claim is exposed for what it is, (with a detailed post listing the five past stories on NBC Nightly News, pointing out how all five are positive toward/sympathetic to/supportive of the troops and the war) he has NO response except one of --"STFU! I refuse to listen!! lalalalalalalalala I can't hear you! lalalalalalalalaaaaaaaa!!

He's hopeless when it comes to standing up like a man and admitting that what he has claimed has been demonstrated to be untrue.

But then, I guess I should have taken a cue from a truism I once read somewhere about answering a fool in his folly, and ignored his childish, insupportable claims............

But then, I guess I should have taken a cue from a truism I once read somewhere about answering a fool in his folly, and ignored his childish, insupportable claims............
Relying on other's ignorance is exactly how those in power came to be there.

There is a reason FT is to be ignored, the guy is so biased he shits out anti-bush posters.

I think it's wrong to ignore an opposing point of view, but when a certain person repeatedly displays a lack of fairness, intelligence, and is 100% anti-america in his postings... you just call it what it is and ignore. It's interesting because the very things he claims about other people is what I would claim about him.

Produce the quote or DROP IT. :mad:

"Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood,"

speaking on the Haiditha incident, which has since been pretty much put to rest as having not happened how it was alleged. He said this BEFORE any investigation was made.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200707/NAT20070713b.html

I was curious as to why any nation would field a regular army anymore? especially if they are worried about us attacking them. All they need to do is let us take over then blow up a few cars every week and we will take off with our tails between our legs. Think of how much money they could save!

For starters, the U.S. doesn't have the army to attack anyone these days. AWOL Bush and his chickenhawks made sure of that.

Second, this isn't 1918 where 2 coutries are gonna dig ditches and face off man-to-man, rifle-to-rifle. It's 2007 and wars of today and the future will be fought with technology, not (wo)man-power.

There are many countries in the world that would make quick work of an attack by foot (tank) soldier. Apparently you have never seen what good missile systems can do.

And you have seen armys stopped by missles before dop?

And you have seen armys stopped by missles before dop?

I'm talking about right now -- today.

Regardless of what is right and what is wrong, we will not be out of Iraq until every Democrat and Republican office holder, that is able, has squeezed out every dollar for his/her-self and cronies that they are able to.

Money....money...power....:woohoo:

anybody see the documentary "why we fight"?

And do not forget the lobby money and favors available to those politicians that "appear" to be against the war.

Regardless of what is right and what is wrong, we will not be out of Iraq until every Democrat and Republican office holder, that is able, has squeezed out every dollar for his/her-self and cronies that they are able to.

Money....money...power....:woohoo:

Tell those same democrats and republicans they have to send their children to do the fighting and watch how fast we're outta there.

And the same for the warmongers here on all forums ... tell them they have to go and watch how quickly they'll want to end it.

again, parents can not send thier children off to war. I think one of the biggest falsehoods perpatrated by the left agaisnt the war is that somehow the men and women over there got "Sent there". They volunteered, no one is being forced to volunteer, if you dont want to go just dont volunteer, its that easy.

again, parents can not send thier children off to war. I think one of the biggest falsehoods perpatrated by the left agaisnt the war is that somehow the men and women over there got "Sent there". They volunteered, no one is being forced to volunteer, if you dont want to go just dont volunteer, its that easy.

True, the National Guard is volunteer, although those that were first sent to the Middle East had joined a Guard that, before that date, had mainly been week-end warriors occasionally assisting in times of national disasters.
These first people had little choice in being thrust into war.
Plus, many of these people's discharge dates appear to have been postponed without their consent. Therefore, I must conclude that some of the first people killed there were not there by choice.

I often wonder if the present Guard could get as many volunteers if all the cards were on the table, and all facts concerning our presence there were made public by the higher-ups.

again, parents can not send thier children off to war. I think one of the biggest falsehoods perpatrated by the left agaisnt the war is that somehow the men and women over there got "Sent there". They volunteered, no one is being forced to volunteer, if you dont want to go just dont volunteer, its that easy.

There is a huge difference between those that volunteered to go there once and those that are still there for their 4th tour due to stop-loss.

Ask them now how they feel about being there. Providing they're one of the lucky ones that are still with us.

again, parents can not send thier children off to war. I think one of the biggest falsehoods perpatrated by the left agaisnt the war is that somehow the men and women over there got "Sent there". They volunteered, no one is being forced to volunteer, if you dont want to go just dont volunteer, its that easy.
Yes they volunteered. But they don't do it in a vacuum. All the social pressure, all the grand words handed to them by the recruiter, all the glorification of war by the mass media... Sure there's a choice, but we still send them there.

Also, once you join the military, there's no way to refuse orders to go to Iraq. They get sent there, no questions allowed.

FWIW -- a trend I've noticed.

When returning troops are asked what they dislike most about being involved in Iraq, the same answer seems to come up all the time ...

They hate the killing of innocent people -- the women and children.

anybody see the documentary "why we fight"?

Saw it. Was as slanted as a Michael Moore film.

"Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood" speaking on the Haiditha incident, which has since been pretty much put to rest as having not happened how it was alleged. He said this BEFORE any investigation was made.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200707/NAT20070713b.html

Trav, I hate to have to point it out to you, given how married you are to making Murtha out to be a hater of our troops, but there's an enormous difference between saying a person was "killed in cold blood," and saying a person is "a blood-thirsty killer."

There's also a vast difference between pointing out that an innocent was killed in cold blood, and saying the person who did the shooting is "a rapist and a murderer."

:rolleyes:

Think about it.

Trav, I hate to have to point it out to you, given how married you are to making Murtha out to be a hater of our troops, but there's an enormous difference between saying a person was "killed in cold blood," and saying a person is "a blood-thirsty killer."

Not to mention the fact -- which certain people are willfully blind to-- that Murtha prefaced the remark by saying --

""Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.""

That is very, very different than the allegations that have been made here as to the words Murtha used. He never used the term --"blood-thirsty killers" in describing the American troops.

I believe that the nations of the world (the nations that do not have the wealth to be wasted on guns) have learned the tactics of "a kid", when he needs to face the neighborhood BULLY, "hit 'im with a baseball bat when he less expects to be hitm and then run"... There is no point in fighting the BULLY in the open since he would win, he is the "BULLYMAN", so "hit 'im again and again until he gets tired and leaves for good"...

did you know that the country of costa rica has no military?


no country should have a standing military. even the original "founding fathers" felt the same way. after the revolution was over the military was disolved. that's why we have the "right to bear arms" as a right.

no country should have a standing military. even the original "founding fathers" felt the same way. after the revolution was over the military was disolved. that's why we have the "right to bear arms" as a right.

Thats right.

Did you know that the first draft of the Second Amendment outright banned a standing army?

There is a huge difference between those that volunteered to go there once and those that are still there for their 4th tour due to stop-loss.Nobody gets stop-lossed long enough for three extra tours.

did you know that the country of costa rica has no military? True, true. One of their national holidays is the Abolition of the Military Day.

did you know that the country of costa rica has no military?


no country should have a standing military. even the original "founding fathers" felt the same way. after the revolution was over the military was disolved. that's why we have the "right to bear arms" as a right.
I used to live in Costa Rica... I think that their lack of an army has protected them from the military coups and dictatorships plaguing many other Latin American countries.

fact:

briadier general smedley butler, a u.s. marine hero, told the american people via public broadcasting service:" i helped to make honduras right for the american fruit companies in 1903. i helped to make mexico and especially tampico safe for american oil interests in 1914. i helped make haiti and cuba a decent place for the national city bank boys to collect revenues in. i brought life to the dominican republic for american sugar in 1916. in china, in 1937, i helped to see to it that standard oil went its way unmolested. i was rewarded with honors, medals, and promotions. looking back on it, i feel i might have given al capone a few hints. the best he could do was operate his racket in three city districts. we marines operated on three continents."

I think we need to define what "cold blooded" means...

It means "with malice" or "intentionally"...

To kill someone in cold blood is to walk up to the person you want dead, cock the gun, and blowing their brains all over the pavement. I know for a fact that our soldiers are not trained to covertly and stealthly sneak up behind innocent civilians and kill them. So drop the "cold blooded" moniker.

A better term to use would be "ignorant"... innocent people die in bombings. The bombings DO kill terrorists and complete mission agendas.. but they also kill civilians. The AIM of the missile is NOT to kill civilians, but to kill whoever we are trying to kill. Unfortunately far too often that civilians do get caught in the crossfire, so to say.

I guess it comes down to this... is the mission more important or is saving lives more important. Asked like that the answer is obvious, saving lives. However, If the particular mission is NOT accomplished, chances are the guy or group that we didn't kill will end up killing innocent people anyway. It's impossible to say which way is the right way. It is bittersweet.

FWIW ...

Today is the 62nd anniversary of the sinking of the USS Indianapolis (CA-35).

A moment of silence please.

Thank You

It is really a shame the best Americans die while the haters keep living. That is the way of things I guess.

FWIW ...

Today is the 62nd anniversary of the sinking of the USS Indianapolis (CA-35).

A moment of silence please.

Thank YouTerrible experience.

ya, ask Dharma, he was probably there

Five out of five news stories-- five out of five that present a positive attitude and view toward the war, the troops and the military.
Now google "Iraq war" and see how many "praise" our war effort. Nice strawman.

Jesus, that was weak....

I used to live in Costa Rica... I think that their lack of an army has protected them from the military coups and dictatorships plaguing many other Latin American countries.
That and the fact that we're their army.

and how do you know this?

Oh, puuuulheeze - if they were "attacked" in any way, whatsoever (not that there's a high likelihood of that ever happening), then who do you think would come to their rescue? It's a nice little catch22 for us either way with you bozos, for if they're attacked and we don't do anything, then we're the bad guys. And if not to add insult to injury - if they're NOT attacked, then obviously, we've got a thing or two to learn from our "peaceful" and "important" neighbors to the south: namely, their Gandhi-esque, peaceful, adherence to nonviolent resistance MUST mean that we should (in some people's minds) abandon our military.

Oh, puuuulheeze - if they were "attacked" in any way, whatsoever (not that there's a high likelihood of that ever happening), then who do you think would come to their rescue? It's a nice little catch22 for us either way with you bozos, for if they're attacked and we don't do anything, then we're the bad guys. And if not to add insult to injury - if they're NOT attacked, then obviously, we've got a thing or two to learn from our "peaceful" and "important" neighbors to the south: namely, their Gandhi-esque, peaceful, adherence to nonviolent resistance MUST mean that we should (in some people's minds) abandon our military.
Wow. Yes, Costa Rica is under the protection of the U.S. But there are reasons for that, mostly economic. The U.S. by far Costa Rica's biggest partner in trade, comprising almost half of its imports and exports. More than two-thirds of Costa Rica's foreign investment, which is considerable. We also have a Maritime Cooperation agreement with Costa Rica, and the Costa Rican law enforcement has been exemplary in helping the U.S. catch all sorts of criminals who travel through Costa Rica and its waters, especially narcotics traffickers. Costa Rica supports the U.S. in international fora, and has been especially vocal as a follower of our policies in the U.N. If Costa Rica were attacked and taken over by, for example, Nicaragua, the U.S. would lose an international supporter and a huge number of U.S. businesses would be affected. Not to mention the fact that there are almost 100,000 Americans residing in Costa Rica, mostly retirees and businessmen who have started companies there.

Wow. Yes, Costa Rica is under the protection of the U.S. But there are reasons for that, mostly economic. The U.S. by far Costa Rica's biggest partner in trade, comprising almost half of its imports and exports. More than two-thirds of Costa Rica's foreign investment, which is considerable. We also have a Maritime Cooperation agreement with Costa Rica, and the Costa Rican law enforcement has been exemplary in helping the U.S. catch all sorts of criminals who travel through Costa Rica and its waters, especially narcotics traffickers. Costa Rica supports the U.S. in international fora, and has been especially vocal as a follower of our policies in the U.N. If Costa Rica were attacked and taken over by, for example, Nicaragua, the U.S. would lose an international supporter and a huge number of U.S. businesses would be affected. Not to mention the fact that there are almost 100,000 Americans residing in Costa Rica, mostly retirees and businessmen who have started companies there.
Thanks for the info, DF - (and no, I'm not being sarcastic...) :)

Thanks for the info, DF - (and no, I'm not being sarcastic...) :)
No problem. I did know some of that because I lived in Costa Rica, and I'm actually almost finished writing a paper for geography class about the economic development of Costa Rica over its history. I was surprised by how different it is from all the other countries in the area, for so many reasons. For example, Costa Rica is one of only two countries in Central America & the Caribbean that have a majority population of basically pure European ancestry (the other is Cuba). There weren't a lot of natives in the area when Columbus got there.