Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
426
Sport climber
Nada (yeah. it is), KY
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2005 - 12:43am PT
|
Islamic radicals want to retake Israel, Spain, France and spread their religion.
Ah, so now the Caliphate™ wants France as well. Thanks for the update, can you show me some cites?
Funny how, when you shoot something, then call it a target, it's the "Texas sharpshooter™" fallacy.
Giving the Xians a "free pass™" on spreadin' theirs? Is that 'cuz Jeebus™ said so? Or does this have to do with f'in cartographers and 'map lines'?
~Y'know, from another angle, invading Iraq might be a kind of a 'Gush Emunim™' in and of itself, eh, Fatty?
|
|
Spinmaster K-Rove
Trad climber
Stuck Under the Kor Roof
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2005 - 12:57am PT
|
Fatty you are nuts! Whatever price they want to? We have been manipulating governments voer there for 40+ years. Iran democratically elected a President and we had him assassinated and put in a pro-wester dictator. We helped prop up Saddam once Iran turned against us and help the Saudi's and Kuwaiti's stay in power, even with horrendous human rights records and a whole pile of other issues that SHOULD have been important to us but weren't. Why? In large part so they would give access to our oil-men...who, thanks to you and Lois now actually DO run the country instead of running the country from the sidelines like we used to complain about.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2005 - 03:25am PT
|
"we are waging war bceause Islamic radicals want to retake Israel, Spain, France and spread their religion." I think this is a laughable load of crap. How are they going to do that Fatty? The Muslims are probably less guilty than of this than the Christians. Who has the most missionaries in the most countries? Who is exerting worldwide military power and economic might?
The Syria thing is a load of crap too. Why should the world believe anything these liars care to concoct. Cried wolf too many times now. (Wolf=Weapons of laughable fiction)
Sorry about the rhetoric but I'm so tired of having spin regurgitated over and over long after it's been debunked, refuted, and disproved.
Here's some background on the Syria Situation
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/HAS503A.html
Peace
Karl
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2005 - 08:48am PT
|
fattrad: I lobbied to go after Syria first.
Oh. So you think we should take out the only other secular government in the middle east and turn it over to those fanatic Islamic clerics, also?
This strategy makes perfect sense to me!
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2005 - 05:00pm PT
|
Did you also suggest replacing Saddam with hardline Shiite mullahs?
Seriously, how does putting Iran friendly clerics in charge of Iraq further your goals in the middle east?
|
|
Forest
Trad climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 24, 2005 - 05:33pm PT
|
Obvioulsy you don't know that Persian and Arab Shiites often have different perspectives on any issue, but we will have to maintain troops in Iraq for thirty years to monitor events.
Perhaps the biggest problem with the logic of invading Iraq. Maybe we will have to do so. But we won't do so. Name one other country where we've maintained a force under constant attack for even 1/3 that amount of time. You and I both know that the US citizenry will not stand to have our soldiers there for that long. And so down will fall the house of cards...
|
|
Forest
Trad climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 24, 2005 - 06:15pm PT
|
You should my question more carefully. I said "under constant attack." None of those qualify.
Of course nobody minds much if our troops are deployed in a relatively safe place. But when they're getting killed on a daily or weekly basis and we're spending hundred of billions of dollars a year on it, then the willingness to keep them there for a long period of time diminishes rapidly.
|
|
Forest
Trad climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 24, 2005 - 06:24pm PT
|
My name's not Gary, but let's have a little bet then, shall we? I'll bet you that we'll have the vast majority of our troops (say no more than 5k troops left) out of Iraq by 10/24/2010. Loser buys the other one a #5 BD camelot (or the equivalent size at that time.)
Not part of the bet, but the way in which we leave won't be pretty. And Iraq will become even more of a disaster than it ever was (a la Iran) once we leave. We've got a pretty well-established pattern of doing this.
|
|
Spinmaster K-Rove
Trad climber
Stuck Under the Kor Roof
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2005 - 07:03pm PT
|
"The only thing holding the US back is finding an adequate replacement for the Assad family."
Oh right..the only thing. Cause, you know, we have plenty of cash, military, international credibility and Presidential influence to throw at something like that. Man if we could just find someone to fill the ol' Assad family shoes we'd be on the ground in Syria in a New York minute.
Fatty, I'm just gonna tell it like it is for a quick sec here. You are arrogant and delusional and it scares me no small amount that anyone with any influence in Washington or Sacremento actually listens to you if you truly do espouse your real opinions on this board, which I'm kind of doubtful of.
|
|
Hootervillian
climber
Ascuagas, Jacks Valley
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2005 - 08:00pm PT
|
Dude "...China, ... would likely not object..." Seriously.
http://english.people.com.cn/200406/16/eng20040616_146446.html
"After all, China and Syria are on the U.N. Human Rights Commission and we're not,"
Maybe 'we' are the problem.
And how come SMasterK can call you names and gets a response and your shuttin out my love?
Ed. Sino-Syrian™, sounds like excellent cuisine.
|
|
Spinmaster K-Rove
Trad climber
Stuck Under the Kor Roof
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2005 - 08:09pm PT
|
Fatty-
"And many of my republican associates agree with my point of view. "
Again...it scares me to no end, that people with influence listen to that point of view.
"200,000 in Iraq out of 850,000 in the military. Idle tanks and planes sitting in Germany. There are enough resources for Syria."
There are something like 8 to 10 support staff for every combat trooper. We undercommitted ourselves in Iraq and have paid the price for it. Where are those combat troops going to come from when we have already tapped the Reserve for far more than it was intended without a WWII level event?
"Presidential influence - Got me there, Bush seems unable to explain to the American people the big picture in the middle east. "
Yeah, I mean its not like he has had to lie or anything to get as far as he has now, right? Maybe it's cause your 'big picture' realy isn't? Unless you have a big investment in oil futures anyway...
"Cash - Fiscal year defecit has been going down. Our national debt to GDP is the lowest of the G7. No civilian has been asked to ration gasoline or food yet. We have enough cash if necessary."
No of course not. That would make people leary of tax cuts for the uber-rich and a LOT more interested in the 'details' instead of your 'big picture.' Our national debt is lowest compared to GDP, but so is our personal savings. The nation is running on credit cards and home equity loans. There won't be rationing because the vast majority of the American public doesn't have NEARLY that kind of commitment to your grand scheme.
$200 billion so far on he war in Iraq. Another $60 billion for Katrina plus probably at LEAST $100 billion more for rebulding, much of which will be disproportionately spent making rich people richer. The hurricane season isn't even over yet.
The reality is that you'd rather spend the money on Syria because it makes things like prescription drug benefits and education starve. Can't spend 'frivilously' when there's a war on, right? Hope you are enjoying your tax cut.
|
|
Hootervillian
climber
Ascuagas, Jacks Valley
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2005 - 08:56pm PT
|
By the look of all the schwag around my house, and the 'peoples news' it looks as if they have both? was that a trick question?
ANd...Yeah... well...as...for...theee...- 5,000 year ol civilization, dominating demographically, whopping militarilly and kickin grub...china-looking for an "identity", relationship, 'I'm just not sure about that right now'.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2005 - 10:09pm PT
|
Fatty, Sorry to see they shafted you on the fed job. Don't worry. Let the other guy go down with the ship.
Speaking of the economy, do you mean total debt to GDP or annual deficit to GDP? How about general account to GDP to include trade deficit?
Kinda scary that we think we can just pick and choose who runs a country. I thought we were spreading democracy.
Peace
Karl
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2005 - 12:48pm PT
|
Please tell me fattrad who "are" my friends and enemies?
Can you honestly do so ..........
|
|
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2005 - 01:09pm PT
|
Jeff, you seem to be taking the brunt of it here, and dear I say, you are probably enjoying it, at least the attention. But seriously are you a masochist.
I won't feel sorry for you because you bring in on yourself. Sieg Heil.
That aside, you have a pretty funny notion of 'under constant threat'.
Germany 1945 - current - where was the constant threat? (Oh yeah, the Ruskies)
Japan (Okinawa) 1945 - current - again, where? (Ruskies, North Korea?)
Phillapines 1898 - 1986? - a handful of incidences over at least a decade or more
Panama 1902 - 1992? - constant threat? (Oh yeah, helping to supply Noriega with lots of coke so he could help the other cartels of Colombia and Mexico counterfight the 'war on drugs')
Diego Garcia 1898? - current - are you kidding me? Threat. I've never heard of one and if there is/was...constant?
Fattrad, I think you picked the wrong examples. But you won't admit it.
|
|
Hootervillian
climber
South of Duck Creek, Scott Co., IA
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2005 - 01:30pm PT
|
"Friends and enemies change over time,..."
Coincidently so does your 'rationale'.
Still no thoughts on why everyone was clumsy enough to out a fellow american?
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2005 - 01:57pm PT
|
"The Path Forward" Senator John Kerry Georgetown University
October 26, 2005
A few weeks ago I departed Iraq from Mosul. Three Senators and staff were gathered in the forward part of a C-130. In the middle of the cavernous cargo hold was a simple, aluminum coffin with a small American flag draped over it. We were bringing another American soldier, just killed, home to his family and final resting place.
The starkness of his coffin in the center of the hold, the silence except for the din of the engines, was a real time cold reminder of the consequences of decisions for which we Senators share responsibility. As we arrived in Kuwait, a larger flag was transferred to fully cover his coffin and we joined graves registration personnel in giving him an honor guard as he was ceremoniously carried from the plane to a waiting truck. When the doors clunked shut, I wondered why all of America would not be allowed to see him arrive at Dover Air Force Base instead of hiding him from a nation that deserves to mourn together in truth and in the light of day. His lonely journey compels all of us to come to grips with our choices in Iraq.
Now more than 2,000 brave Americans have given their lives, and several hundred thousand more have done everything in their power to wade through the ongoing internal civil strife in Iraq. An Iraq which increasingly is what it was not before the war -- a breeding ground for homegrown terrorists and a magnet for foreign terrorists. We are entering a make or break six month period, and I want to talk about the steps we must take if we hope to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that's not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict.
It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it to those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do.
In fact, while some say we can't ask tough questions because we are at war, I say no - in a time of war we must ask the hardest questions of all. It's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again. No matter what the President says, asking tough questions isn't pessimism, it's patriotism.
Our troops have served with stunning bravery and resolve. The nobility of their service to country can never be diminished by the mistakes of politicians. American families who have lost, or who fear the loss, of their loved ones deserve to know the truth about what we have asked them to do, what we are doing to complete the mission, and what we are doing to prevent our forces from being trapped in an endless quagmire.
Some people would rather not have that discussion. They'd rather revise and rewrite the story of our involvement in Iraq for the history books. Tragically, that's become standard fare from an administration that doesn't acknowledge facts generally, whether they are provided by scientists, whistle-blowers, journalists, military leaders, or the common sense of every citizen. At a time when many worry that we have become a society of moral relativists, too few worry that we have a government of factual relativists.
Let's be straight about Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not the reason America went to war.
The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration's duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not. The truth is, if the Bush Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged there was no "slam dunk case" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force -- just as there's no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of regimes we rightfully despise.
I understand that as much as we might wish it, we can't rewind the tape of history. There is, as Robert Kennedy once said, 'enough blame to go around,' and I accept my share of the responsibility. But the mistakes of the past, no matter who made them, are no justification for marching ahead into a future of miscalculations and misjudgments and the loss of American lives with no end in sight. We each have a responsibility, to our country and our conscience, to be honest about where we should go from here. It is time for those of us who believe in a better course to say so plainly and unequivocally.
We are where we are. The President's flippant "bring it on" taunt to the insurgents has found a meaning beyond his wildest expectations, a painful reality for troops who went for too long without protective armor. We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure, and the mission the President once declared accomplished remains perilously incomplete.
To set a new course, we must be strong, smart, and honest. As we learned painfully during the Vietnam War, no president can sustain a war without the support of the American people. In the case of Iraq, their patience is frayed and nearly to the breaking point because Americans will not tolerate our troops giving their lives without a clear strategy, and will not tolerate vague platitudes or rosy scenarios when real answers are urgently needed.
It's time for leaders to be honest that if we do not change course, there is the prospect of indefinite, even endless conflict - a fate untenable for our troops, and a future unacceptable to the American people and the Iraqis who pray for the day when a stable Iraq will belong to Iraqis alone.
The path forward will not be easy. The administration's incompetence and unwillingness to listen has made the task that much harder, and reduced what we can expect to accomplish. But there is a way forward that gives us the best chance both to salvage a difficult situation in Iraq, and to save American and Iraqi lives. With so much at stake, we must follow it.
We must begin by acknowledging that our options in Iraq today are not what they should be, or could have been.
The reason is simple. This Administration hitched their wagon to ideologues, excluding those who dared to tell the truth, even leaders of their own party and the uniformed military.
When after September 11th, flags flew from porches across America and foreign newspaper headlines proclaimed "We're all Americans now," the Administration could have kept the world united, but they chose not to. And they were wrong. Instead, they pushed allies away, isolated America, and lost leverage we desperately need today.
When they could have demanded and relied on accurate instead of manipulated intelligence, they chose not to. They were wrong - and instead they sacrificed our credibility at home and abroad.
When they could have given the inspectors time to discover whether Saddam Hussein actually had weapons of mass destruction, when they could have paid attention to Ambassador Wilson's report, they chose not to. And they were wrong. Instead they attacked him, and they attacked his wife to justify attacking Iraq. We don't know yet whether this will prove to be an indictable offense in a court of law, but for it, and for misleading a nation into war, they will be indicted in the high court of history. History will judge the invasion of Iraq one of the greatest foreign policy misadventures of all time.
But the mistakes were not limited to the decision to invade. They mounted, one upon another.
When they could have listened to General Shinseki and put in enough troops to maintain order, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have learned from George Herbert Walker Bush and built a genuine global coalition, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have implemented a detailed State Department plan for reconstructing post-Saddam Iraq, they chose not to. And they were wrong again. When they could have protected American forces by guarding Saddam Hussein's ammo dumps where there were weapons of individual destruction, they exposed our young men and women to the ammo that now maims and kills them because they chose not to act. And they were wrong. When they could have imposed immediate order and structure in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam, Rumsfeld shrugged his shoulders, said Baghdad was safer than Washington, D.C. and chose not to act. He was wrong. When the Administration could have kept an Iraqi army selectively intact, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have kept an entire civil structure functioning to deliver basic services to Iraqi citizens, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have accepted the offers of the United Nations and individual countries to provide on the ground peacekeepers and reconstruction assistance, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they should have leveled with the American people that the insurgency had grown, they chose not to. Vice President Cheney even absurdly claimed that the "insurgency was in its last throes." He was wrong.
Now after all these mistakes, the Administration accuses anyone who proposes a better course of wanting to cut and run. But we are in trouble today precisely because of a policy of cut and run. This administration made the wrong choice to cut and run from sound intelligence and good diplomacy; to cut and run from the best military advice; to cut and run from sensible war time planning; to cut and run from their responsibility to properly arm and protect our troops; to cut and run from history's lessons about the Middle East; to cut and run from common sense.
And still today they cut and run from the truth.
This difficult road traveled demands the unvarnished truth about the road ahead.
To those who suggest we should withdraw all troops immediately - I say No. A precipitous withdrawal would invite civil and regional chaos and endanger our own security. But to those who rely on the overly simplistic phrase "we will stay as long as it takes," who pretend this is primarily a war against Al Qaeda, and who offer halting, sporadic, diplomatic engagement, I also say - No, that will only lead us into a quagmire.
The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay "as long as it takes." To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays.
The Administration must immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn. No more shell games, no more false reports of progress, but specific and measurable goals. It is true that our soldiers increasingly fight side by side with Iraqis willing to put their lives on the line for a better future. But history shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency. The real struggle in Iraq - Sunni versus Shiia - will only be settled by a political solution, and no political solution can be achieved when the antagonists can rely on the indefinite large scale presence of occupying American combat troops.
In fact, because we failed to take advantage of the momentum of our military victory, because we failed to deliver services and let Iraqis choose their leaders early on, our military presence in vast and visible numbers has become part of the problem, not the solution. And our generals understand this. General George Casey, our top military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence "feeds the notion of occupation" and "extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant." And Richard Nixon's Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, writes, ''Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency." No wonder the Sovereignty Committee of the Iraqi Parliament is already asking for a timetable for withdrawal of our troops; without this, Iraqis believe Iraq will never be its own country.
We must move aggressively to reduce popular support for the insurgency fed by the perception of American occupation. An open-ended declaration to stay 'as long as it takes' lets Iraqi factions maneuver for their own political advantage by making us stay as long as they want, and it becomes an excuse for billions of American tax dollars to be sent to Iraq and siphoned off into the coffers of cronyism and corruption. It will be hard for this Administration, but it is essential to acknowledge that the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down, starting immediately after successful elections in December. The draw down of troops should be tied not to an arbitrary timetable, but to a specific timetable for transfer of political and security responsibility to Iraqis and realignment of our troop deployment. That timetable must be real and strict. The goal should be to withdraw the bulk of American combat forces by the end of next year.
If the Administration does its work correctly, that is achievable. Our strategy must achieve a political solution that deprives the Sunni-dominated insurgency of support by giving the Sunnis a stake in the future of their country. The Constitution, opposed by more than two thirds of Sunnis, has postponed and even exacerbated the fundamental crisis of Iraq. The Sunnis want a strong secular national government that fairly distributes oil revenues. Shiites want to control their own region and resources in a loosely united Islamic state. And Kurds simply want to be left alone. Until sufficient compromise is hammered out, a Sunni base can not be created that isolates the hard core Baathists and jihaadists and defuses the insurgency.
The Administration must use all of the leverage in America's arsenal - our diplomacy, the presence of our troops, and our reconstruction money -- to convince Shiites and Kurds to address legitimate Sunni concerns and to make Sunnis accept the reality that they will no longer dominate Iraq. We cannot and should not do this alone.
The Administration must bring to the table the full weight of all of Iraq's Sunni neighbors. They also have a large stake in a stable Iraq. Instead of just telling us that Iraq is falling apart, as the Saudi foreign minister did recently, they must do their part to put it back together. We've proven ourselves to be a strong ally to many nations in the region. Now it's their turn to do their part.
The administration must immediately call a conference of Iraq's neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia. All of these countries have influence and ties to various parties in Iraq. Together, we must implement a collective strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise. This must include obtaining mutual security guarantees among Iraqis themselves. Shiite and Kurdish leaders need to make a commitment not to perpetrate a bloodbath against Sunnis in the post-election period. In turn, Sunni leaders must end support for the insurgents, including those who are targeting Shiites. And the Kurds must explicitly commit themselves not to declare independence.
To enlist the support of Iraq's Sunni neighbors, we should commit to a new regional security structure that strengthens the security of the countries in the region and the wider community of nations. This requires a phased process including improved security assistance programs, joint exercises, and participation by countries both outside and within the Middle East.
Ambassador Khalilzad is doing a terrific job trying broker a better deal between the Iraqi parties. But he can't do it alone. The President should immediately appoint a high level envoy to maximize our diplomacy in Iraq and the region.
Showing Sunnis the benefits that await them if they continue to participate in the process of building Iraq can go a long way toward achieving stability. We should press these countries to set up a reconstruction fund specifically for the majority Sunni areas. It's time for them to deliver on their commitments to provide funds to Iraq. Even short-term improvements, like providing electricity and supplying diesel fuel - an offer that the Saudis have made but have yet to fulfill - can make a real difference.
We need to jump start our own lagging reconstruction efforts by providing the necessary civilian personnel to do the job, standing up civil-military reconstruction teams throughout the country, streamlining the disbursement of funds to the provinces so they can deliver services, expanding job creation programs, and strengthening the capacity of government ministries.
We must make it clear now that we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq, or a large combat force on Iraqi soil indefinitely. And as we withdraw our combat troops, we should be prepared to keep a substantially reduced level of American forces in Iraq, at the request of the Iraqi government, for the purpose of training their security forces. Some combat ready American troops will still be needed to safeguard the Americans engaged in that training, but they should be there to do that and to provide a back stop to Iraqi efforts, not to do the fighting for Iraqis.
Simultaneously, the President needs to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them. The Administration must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.
This week, long standing suspicions of Syrian complicity in destabilizing Lebanon were laid bare by the community of nations. And we know Syria has failed to take the aggressive steps necessary to stop former Baathists and foreign fighters from using its territory as a transit route into Iraq. The Administration must prod the new Iraqi government to ask for a multinational force to help protect Iraq's borders until a capable national army is formed. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India and would be a critical step in stemming the tide of insurgents and money into Iraq.
Finally, and without delay, we must fundamentally alter the deployment of American troops. While Special Operations must continue to pursue specific intelligence leads, the vast majority of our own troops should be in rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup. We do not need to send young Americans on search and destroy missions that invite alienation and deepen the risks they face. Iraqis should police Iraqis. Iraqis should search Iraqi homes. Iraqis should stand up for Iraq. We will never be as safe as we should be if Iraq continues to distract us from the most important war we must win - the war on Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the terrorists that are resurfacing even in Afghanistan.
These are the make or break months for Iraq. The President must take a new course, and hold Iraqis accountable. If the President still refuses, Congress must insist on a change in policy. If we do take these steps, there is no reason this difficult process can not be completed in 12-15 months. There is no reason Iraq cannot be sufficiently stable, no reason the majority of our combat troops can't soon be on their way home, and no reason we can't take on a new role in Iraq, as an ally not an occupier, training Iraqis to defend themselves. Only then will we have provided leadership equal to our soldiers' sacrifice - and that is what they deserve.
|
|
Hootervillian
climber
South of Duck Creek, Scott Co., IA
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2005 - 02:11pm PT
|
Your point?
...alot of muslims in the middle-east want those that covet their land and resources, subvert their sacred beliefs, and slaughter their people, to die for their efforts?
How close am I?
Ed. I really want to know how close I am because that's the point you seem to me to be driving for a 'threads Age'.
Support Your Troops! what a "loser"...
a Silver Star, a Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts
|
|
Hootervillian
climber
South of Duck Creek, Scott Co., IA
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2005 - 02:25pm PT
|
I'm sure "their" glad to have such excellent agent/broker service. I assume "we're" getting the standard 6 percent?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!