Democrats call for surrenderFollow

You can feel strongly liberal and anti-war without being anti-military.

Believe me, I know.

Our objectives are:
• To train and supply a sustainable Iraqi military force capable of providing self-preservation for their nation’s newfound freedom and protecting it from all enemies both internal and external,
• To provide security and protection for this nation while the new military is being built up especially in the face of continued terrorist attacks.
• To secure a stable and secure freely elected government.
• To create permanent US bases in the crossroads of the world to provide long-term security for the region.

Yeah it's not like they didn't mass murder 10's of thousands of their own populace.

SO???!!? That has WAHT to do with terrorism?


It's not like Saddam ordered a hit on our president, Bush Sr.

So were Americans a "hub of Terror" wehn we ordered a hit on Fidel Castro?


It's not like Saddams top advisors didn't meet with Bin Ladens top men.

Fu[/b]cking LIE

[b]It's not like Clinton didn't say the same thing about Saddam which is why he sent a couple of missles in there to solve the problem.

OH, he said that they are the "Hub of Terrorism"? Didn't think so.

It's not like our best ally, Britain, has said Iraq was attempting to gain the resources to create nukes.

And once again,, how does a country trying to get Nukes make it a "hub of terrorism"?



Get real, Bro. Pulling **** out of your *** doesn't make you right.

OMG the freakin BBC??? Wow, theres a unbiased news agency. Thats like me using a Rush Limbaugh commentary as unbiased truth. Hey heads up for u guys WP is not used for illumination, its used to mark targets and obscure movement, and a great incendiary device. It is covered under the Rules of Engagement on when it is to be used. Have some soldiers lobbed some WP mortars by mistake? Perhaps, or maybe cuz they were out of HE (High Explosive). EIther way, that doesnt prove that we use them on civilians. Ohhhh wait you mean the civilians with the Aks and RPGs? oh well then yes, yes I would WP them to freakin oblivion, but then there is that whole Rules of Engaement thing.

And I dont know why he kept saying illumination except at night i guess then it does burn pretty bright, but I have lume rounds for that... So im not saying u said that, i really dont get why the LTC was saying illumination, maybe as a last resort or for marking a airstrike

And that article doesnt prove we used WP on civilians, just that we didnt sign a treaty restricting its use in combat. Its like they are trying to say since we didnt sign the treaty that we are obviously using it on civilians. As I sadi, BBC def has an agenda here.

I have to disagree on your first point. The determination of winning or losing is not the table of casualties; rather it is whether you are achieving your objectives. The casualties are the cost of achieving those objectives. I believe we are advancing our objectives, and your second point, regarding the Iraqi leaders wanting a timetable as well, is further evidence that these objectives are being achieved; i.e. - a freely elected government exists in Iraq, that continues to be stabile and grow in its ability to govern the country and provide security.

Regarding your second point, I just want to clarify that I am arguing against a timetable based on time alone, rather than on the objective. For example stating we will leave in 6 months regardless of the objectives is wrong imho for the reasons I stated in my prior post. However, stating that the Iraqi security forces will be capable of patrolling the streets and protecting the people in 6 months, enabling us to withdraw troops from that duty is perfectly acceptable. The difference is that the time is qualified on achieving the objective. If events occur that delay the time to achieve the objective by say 3 months then the withdrawal would also be delayed.


Edited, Tue Nov 22 14:14:52 2005 by fhrugby

ok ok lets do this by the numbers. I AM A SOLDIER, I SHOOT PEOPLE AND PEOPLE SHOOT AT ME. I CARRY A GUN, I REPRESENT AMERICAN FORCE AND AUTHORITY AND PEOPLE DONT LIKE THAT. SO THEY SHOOT AT ME. I MAY DIE, BECAUSE I AM A SOLDIER. Get it now?

And that answers Joph's question, how?

Jesus I think Im going to need Mr. Rogers to come in with his hand puppets... Soldiers kill and die, that is war. As long as the mission gets accomplished, then we are winning. Do u understand that? So if ur looking at numbers as a scale of winning/losing, how many insurgents do you think we have killed over there? My battalion alone has probably killed at least 1000 insurgents coming over the border. But its not about numbers moron. Its about accomplishing the mission or task at hand. Do you get it now? DO I need to draw a picture for you?

Ironic,

I'm cleaning up some old equipment and happped upon an old TIME magazine from Feb. 2003, Right Before we went to war... interesting spins.. even then people weren't convinced... But you can really see how thick the fluff was out there at that time... and how much they were reaching for this WAR.




..and you people need to stop blaming the soldiers for doing their jobs.


He admitted that That is waht he is doing, regardless of the politics of it all.



Edited, Tue Nov 22 14:15:32 2005 by Kelvyquayo

Why do you hate freedom?



sarcasm detectors /on I hope

Edited, Tue Nov 22 14:25:35 2005 by Kelvyquayo