So I guess this means...

[philippio]

More troops will be sent to die in Iraq?

[poccnr]

Originally Posted by philippio

More troops will be sent to die in Iraq?

No, it doesn't... It means more will be sent to secure the health and welfare of those that live there... did you serve?

[ghhhhhost]

this poccnr guy is hysterical....yes yes...we're defending the safety and liberty of people who hate us..

if you served and still believe this shit you're a simple minded moron

[poccnr]

Originally Posted by ghhhhhost

this poccnr guy is hysterical....yes yes...we're defending the safety and liberty of people who hate us..

if you served and still believe this shit you're a simple minded moron

Spoken like a person who never even made an attempt at sacrifice for something than own personal gain. Good job! This country, and it's constituents, owes you a debt of gratitude.

[ghhhhhost]

so how do you feel about more of your friends being sent over to Iraq to be walking targets for people who hate you?

tell me ..im REALLLLLLLLLLLLY interested ...


who are you to "secure the health and welfare" of a sovereign people?

[stymie]

every single one of those troops over there volunteered to be in the military

[ghhhhhost]

the majority are victims of a system which gives them the option of flippin burgers or shooting arabs ...but im not getting into it

[imike]

I salute and respect those troops in Iraq for their bravery and courage to continue to persevere even when situation are tough. They have done a great job!
__________________
devices exercises patches pills skincare

[poccnr]

QUOTE=ghhhhhost;3067192]so how do you feel about more of your friends being sent over to Iraq to be walking targets for people who hate you?

tell me ..im REALLLLLLLLLLLLY interested ...


who are you to "secure the health and welfare" of a sovereign people?[/quote]


I am sorry you're subjective opinions override the objectivity of the situation. This act is extremely suprising of a CPA. You see, most of us have had 1, if not 2 or more trips to the dirt, and can actually speak by experience. We have talked and lived amongst the Iraqi's. Some of us were even there in 1990 when the first wave went over, and can share the knowledge to the younger troops. Those that have spanned a decade with service remember how it was then, and how it is now.

As for the society that gives them no choice... Sorry, we aren't some third world country.... we don't recruit at gunpoint. However, I have been to countries that do. I am sure you wouldn't like to experience how that society is ran. In closing, It is not the Iraqi society that shuns us, it is our own people. People like you! You are no better than those indivduals that appear at funerals for service members holding signs that say "God hates Sodiers" and "Thanks God for IED's".

For those supporters like imike and stymie, thank you for your empowerment. and may I have the chance to thank you for your support of us.

http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2003/story.html

[ghhhhhost]

youre sorely mistaken. i support the boys over in Iraq...and the main reason i take issue with sending more of them over there is because thats what they are..BOYS.

yes...the US doesn't recruit @ gun point..but it recruits @ price point. These new recruits may not be physically forced into combat like in the countries you allude to but the system that the US has created leaves them with nothing more but the choice to enlist or spend the rest of their lives working in a wal-mart for min wage. Do you think this is by accident? due to the system we live in, there will always be a fresh well for recruiters to tap . Ask yourself how many rich kids go to war...how many rich/educated kids fought in Vietnam? Shit...even our past 2 presidents were war dodgers...and why were they able to do this? because they were rich/educated (dubya and bill respectively). Correct me if im mistaken , but the majority of the soldiers who see actual combat are not highly educated ,evidenced by the requirement of a college education in order to become an officer. What is the ratio of officers to regular soldiers? i'm pretty sure that it is skewed towards one side.

as for Iraqi society, do you honestly believe it is the same 100-200 people who are causing all the trouble in iraq? or do you honestly believe that the insurgents are all made up of foreigners?

i am from a country which was "saved" by a coalition of foreign forces..and speaking from personal experience it was all fine and dandy at first..but after a while the mentality of the majority of people became "get the fuck out and let us lead our lives". as much as those cuddly Iraqi's tell you that they are happy you are there...they go home and speak how they wish you'd get the fuck out as well . FACT-no one likes to live under foreign dominance...this is what sparked revolutions and development of nations thru history including the USA.

face it..democracy isnt for everyone...and you can't force it on certain people as evidenced by the situation in Iraq. As bad as Saddam was, with his tolitarian ways he managed to quell Shiite-Sunni violence and create a stable Iraq, an Iraq the US supported.


for you to say that I am the type who would go and desecrate the graves/funerals of US soldiers leads me to believe that you are even moreso out of touch with reality due to your brainwashing by your service time than i originally thought. My complaint stems from more soldiers being sent to die in a land the US has obviously lost....how is this wrong? tell me...what parent of a soldier would disagree with me if i told them I dont want their kid to die?

[poccnr]

Wow, this verbal rebuttal is all over the place... I'll do my best to try and answer your points with a more focused debate.... here goes.

Originally Posted by ghhhhhost

youre sorely mistaken. i support the boys over in Iraq...and the main reason i take issue with sending more of them over there is because thats what they are..BOYS.

Link listed below gives actual ages, marital status and sexes of military members by branch

yes...the US doesn't recruit @ gun point..but it recruits @ price point. These new recruits may not be physically forced into combat like in the countries you allude to but the system that the US has created leaves them with nothing more but the choice to enlist or spend the rest of their lives working in a wal-mart for min wage. Do you think this is by accident? due to the system we live in, there will always be a fresh well for recruiters to tap . Ask yourself how many rich kids go to war...how many rich/educated kids fought in Vietnam? Shit...even our past 2 presidents were war dodgers...and why were they able to do this? because they were rich/educated (dubya and bill respectively). Correct me if im mistaken , but the majority of the soldiers who see actual combat are not highly educated ,evidenced by the requirement of a college education in order to become an officer. What is the ratio of officers to regular soldiers? i'm pretty sure that it is skewed towards one side.

I cannot speak for other generations. Do we have a probelm with people that don't want to even try and volunteer, yes... that's why there was a draft in Vietnam and WW2. As for the officer/ enlisted ratio... the only way I can clarify this is by simplicity. You see, ghhhost, there are only so many levels of supervision one company can acquire. Not everyone can be the manager/ supervisor/ CEO. You have to have worker bees....You, being a CPA, and all should realize the ethical dilema this would accrue. Or was Intro to Business not part or your curirculum? To paraphrase one of your last posts....tell me if it was..... "I'm realllllly interested"

as for Iraqi society, do you honestly believe it is the same 100-200 people who are causing all the trouble in iraq? or do you honestly believe that the insurgents are all made up of foreigners?

No, it has happened in Iraq before, have you ever heard of the "Bathist Party"

i am from a country which was "saved" by a coalition of foreign forces..and speaking from personal experience it was all fine and dandy at first..but after a while the mentality of the majority of people became "get the fuck out and let us lead our lives". as much as those cuddly Iraqi's tell you that they are happy you are there...they go home and speak how they wish you'd get the fuck out as well . FACT-no one likes to live under foreign dominance...this is what sparked revolutions and development of nations thru history including the USA.

I realize completely, am and glad that you're country was liberated. Now you understand that we are just scratching the surface, we've been in Iraq 4-5 yers.... The British have been in Northern Ireland 5-600 years. Don't think terrorism just stops after a few battles.

face it..democracy isnt for everyone...and you can't force it on certain people as evidenced by the situation in Iraq. As bad as Saddam was, with his tolitarian ways he managed to quell Shiite-Sunni violence and create a stable Iraq, an Iraq the US supported.

Tell the 100's of 1000's murdered by 3-4 day gas attacks in Northern Iraq what a swell guy Saddam was to hold the peace. Be sure to back that up with how Hitller held the peace with Juden, Gypsy's Homosexual's. Just to throw in an addition name, make sure you quote Slobadan Milosevic and how he kept the peace within his region. I'm sure you'll really drum up support of the oppresed that way.


for you to say that I am the type who would go and desecrate the graves/funerals of US soldiers leads me to believe that you are even moreso out of touch with reality due to your brainwashing by your service time than i originally thought. My complaint stems from more soldiers being sent to die in a land the US has obviously lost....how is this wrong? tell me...what parent of a soldier would disagree with me if i told them I dont want their kid to die?

Nobody has asked you to become vociferous on our behalf. If you want to make a stand, stand in front of the flag, not behind it. On that point, let me tell leave you with this thought I was told by my drill sergeant at the end of infantry training....

"No one prays harder for peace than the soldier that has to fight....Not a mother, not a father, not a husband or wife...."

Drill Sergeant name with held
Ft. Benning, GA

Source- Time Magazine Person of the Year 2003 (URL: http://www.time.com/time/personofthe...003/story.html )

"It is worth remembering that our pilots and sailors and soldiers are, for starters, all volunteers, in contrast to most nations, which conscript those who serve in their armed forces. Ours are serving in 146 countries, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. The 1.4 million men and women on active duty make up the most diverse military in our history, and yet it is not exactly a mirror of the country it defends. It is better educated than the general population and overweighted with working-class kids and minorities. About 40% of the troops are Southern, 60% are white, 22% are black, and a disproportionate number come from empty states like Montana and Wyoming. When they arrive at the recruiter's door, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told TIME, "they have purple hair and an earring, and they've never walked with another person in step in their life. And suddenly they get this training, in a matter of weeks, and they become part of a unit, a team. They're all sizes and shapes, and they're different ages, and they're different races, and you cannot help when you work with them but come away feeling that that is really a special thing that this country has."

Soaring Regards,
Poccnr

[chris817]

Originally Posted by poccnr

No, it doesn't... It means more will be sent to secure the health and welfare of those that live there... did you serve?

We really should not be there to police a civil war. Either this administration lets the troops do what they can or pull them out..
No more stabilazing an area then pulling out only to have the insurgents come back and occupy the same territory.. I have been for this war since the beg but this administration has lost me.. 1st is was WMD's, then lets get sadam and his sons, then its when they vote, then its stay the course.. now who knows what the catch phrase of the day is.. Why are we the only country in this so called alliance adding more troops and other countries are pulling out?
We underestimated the cost, ground war and many other things this administration has done.. I just dont understand after so many f up's the military are still behind bush.. Well at least only active ones..
how do you ask a solider to be the last one killed in Iraq?

[poccnr]

Originally Posted by chris817

We really should not be there to police a civil war. Either this administration lets the troops do what they can or pull them out..
No more stabilazing an area then pulling out only to have the insurgents come back and occupy the same territory.. I have been for this war since the beg but this administration has lost me.. 1st is was WMD's, then lets get sadam and his sons, then its when they vote, then its stay the course.. now who knows what the catch phrase of the day is.. Why are we the only country in this so called alliance adding more troops and other countries are pulling out?
We underestimated the cost, ground war and many other things this administration has done.. I just dont understand after so many f up's the military are still behind bush.. Well at least only active ones..
how do you ask a solider to be the last one killed in Iraq?

I respect your comments, Chris. I just hope the powers that be remember comments like yours when they ask for help in places like Darfur. If they don't want us there until the operation is over. Don't put us there. As far as asking a soldier to be the last one killed. No one has to ask them to do that. We understand clearly that this might be a risk we might have to encounter in the process of doing our jobs. Just as a policeman understands that s/he might be killed kicking in the door of a drug dealer.

[philippio]

Originally Posted by chris817

We really should not be there to police a civil war.

Who said anything about policing a civil war, son? We're there to spend taxpayer dollars rebuilding the country we bombed the fuck out of.























































And in return, we'll take some oil so that GM and Ford can build gas guzzlers for another ten years (it's all they know how to do).

[chris817]

Originally Posted by poccnr

I respect your comments, Chris. I just hope the powers that be remember comments like yours when they ask for help in places like Darfur. If they don't want us there until the operation is over. Don't put us there. As far as asking a soldier to be the last one killed. No one has to ask them to do that. We understand clearly that this might be a risk we might have to encounter in the process of doing our jobs. Just as a policeman understands that s/he might be killed kicking in the door of a drug dealer.

I respect your comments also.. But who wants to lose their life over something that we have no control over anymore? thats a lot to ask someone fighting for someone elses freedom. They are asking for help in Darfur but no one cares.. except george clooney..
i just dont see how 20k more troops is going to solve anything? with the same policies..
Here is an interesting article i found in the WSJ..
http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009521
Two Alliances
President Bush has managed to divide and conquer the Middle East.

BY EDWARD N. LUTTWAK
Sunday, January 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

It was the hugely ambitious project of the Bush administration to transform the entire Middle East by remaking Iraq into an irresistible model of prosperous democracy. Having failed in that worthy purpose, another, more prosaic result has inadvertently been achieved: divide and rule, the classic formula for imperial power on the cheap. The ancient antipathy between Sunni and Shiite has become a dynamic conflict, not just within Iraq but across the Middle East, and key protagonists on each side seek the support of American power. Once the Bush administration realizes what it has wrought, it will cease to scramble for more troops that can be sent to Iraq, because it has become pointless to patrol and outpost a civil war, while a mere quarter or less of the troops already there are quite enough to control the outcome. And that is just the start of what can now be achieved across the region with very little force, and some competent diplomacy.

On Dec. 4, 2006, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, head of Iraq's largest political party, went to the White House to plead his case with President Bush. The son of an ayatollah, and himself a lifelong militant cleric, Mr. Hakim is hardly a natural partner for the U.S.--while living in Iran for 23 years he must have declaimed "death to America" on many an occasion. But as the chief leader of Iraq's Arab Shiite population, he has no choice. Each day brings deadly Sunni attacks, and just as the Sunnis are strengthened by volunteers and money from outside Iraq, the Shiites, too, need all the help they can get, especially American military training for the Shiite-dominated army and police. For President Bush, the visiting Mr. Hakim brought welcome promises of cooperation against his aggressive Shiite rival Moqtada al-Sadr as well as the Sunni insurgents. It no longer even seems strange that the best ally of the U.S. in Iraq is Mr. Hakim's party, the Sciri: the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, whose very title evokes the Iranian model of radically anti-Western theocracy.

Just as the Sunni threat to majority rule in Iraq is forcing Sciri to cooperate with the U.S., the prospect of a Shiite-dominated Iraq is forcing Sunni Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Jordan, to seek American help against the rising power of the Shiites. Some Sunnis viewed Iran with suspicion even when it was still under the conservative rule of the shah, in part because its very existence as the only Shiite state could inspire unrest among the oppressed Shiite populations of Arabia. More recently, the nearby Sunni Arab states have been increasingly worried by the military alliance between Iran, Syria and the Hezbollah of Lebanon. But now that a Shiite-ruled Iraq could add territorial contiguity to the alliance, forming a "Shiite crescent" extending all the way from Pakistan to the Mediterranean, it is not only the Sunnis of nearby Arabia that feel very seriously threatened. The entire order of Muslim orthodoxy is challenged by the expansion of heterodox Shiite rule.





Although it was the U.S. that was responsible for ending Sunni supremacy in Iraq along with Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, it remains the only possible patron for the Sunni Arab states resisting the Shiite alliance. Americans have no interest in the secular-sectarian quarrel, but there is a very real convergence of interests with the Sunni Arab states because Iran is the main enemy for both.
At this moment, it is in Lebanon that the new Sunni-U.S. alliance has become active. With continuing mass demonstrations and threatening speeches, the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is trying to force the government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora to give way to a new coalition which he can dominate. Syria and Iran are supporting Mr. Nasrallah, while the U.S. is backing Mr. Siniora. He has the support of the Druze and of most Christians as well, but it is also very much as a Sunni leader that Mr. Siniora is firmly resisting so far. That has gained him the financial backing of Saudi Arabia, which is funding Sunni counterdemonstrations and has even tried to co-opt Hezbollah, among other things. It was in their Arab identity that Hezbollah claimed heroic status because they were not routed by the Israelis in the recent fighting, but evidently many Sunni Arabs in and out of Lebanon view them instead as Shiite sectarians, far too obedient to non-Arab Iran. That suits the U.S., for Iran and Hezbollah are its enemies, too.

The Sunni-U.S. alignment in Lebanon, which interestingly coexists with the U.S.-Shiite alliance in Iraq, may yet achieve results of strategic importance if Syria is successfully detached from its alliance with Iran. Originally it was a necessary alliance for both countries because Saddam's Iraq was waging war on Iran, and periodically tried to overthrow the Assad regime of Syria. Now that Iraq is no longer a threat to either country, Iran still needs Syria as a bridge to Hezbollah, but for Syria the alliance is strategically obsolete, as well as inconsistent with the country's Arab identity. True, Syria is ruled primarily by members of the Alawite sect that is usually classified as a Shiite offshoot. But that extremely heterodox faith (it has Christmas and the transmigration of souls) is far different from the Shiism of Iraq, Lebanon or Iran--where it would be persecuted; and besides, at least 70% of Syrians are Sunnis. That may explain why the Syrian regime has not used its full influence to overthrow Mr. Siniora: His stand against the Shiite Hezbollah resonates with his fellow Sunnis of Syria. But another reason may be the promise of substantial aid and investment from Saudi Arabia and the Emirates for Syria's needy economy, if the regime diminishes its alliance with Iran and Hezbollah, or better, ends it altogether. The U.S., for its part, is no longer actively driving Syria into the arms of the Iranians by threatening a march on Damascus, while even the unofficial suggestions of negotiations by the Iraq Study Group made an impression, judging by some conciliatory Syrian statements.

The U.S.-Sunni alliance, which is a plain fact in Lebanon, is still only tentative over Syria; but it would be greatly energized if Iran were successfully deprived of its only Arab ally. At the same time, the U.S.-Shiite alliance in Iraq has been strengthened in the wake of Mr. Hakim's visit. The Sunni insurgency is undiminished, but at least other Shiite groups are jointly weakening the only actively anti-American Shiite faction headed by Mr. Sadr.





When the Bush administration came into office, only Egypt and Jordan were functioning allies of the U.S. Iran and Iraq were already declared enemies, Syria was hostile, and even its supposed friends in the Arabian peninsula were so disinclined to help that none did anything to oppose al Qaeda. Some actively helped it, while others knowingly allowed private funds to reach the terrorists whose declared aim was to kill Americans.
The Iraq war has indeed brought into existence a New Middle East, in which Arab Sunnis can no longer gleefully disregard American interests because they need help against the looming threat of Shiite supremacy, while in Iraq at the core of the Arab world, the Shia are allied with the U.S. What past imperial statesmen strove to achieve with much cunning and cynicism, the Bush administration has brought about accidentally. But the result is exactly the same.

Mr. Luttwak, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is the author of "Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace" (Belknap, 2002).