Pass The Ammo

“terrorism awareness day”? what’s terrorism? you mean there are terrorists trying to kill us? wow, news to me! i have a better idea: how about we have a “the many other important things we’ve completely forgotten flipping our collective sh*t over terrorism” awareness day?

anyway, i’ve been meaning to ask: what do ya’ll think about the paul wolfowitz situation?

guav. thats a lie from the pit of hell. please apologize.

This war wouldve been over and done with if we didnt have to coddle the enemy. not to mention we have the politicans fighting the war instead of the generals. we’ve essentially tied the hands behind our soldiers backs.

Liz, the control of our military forces is purposely a civilian—it’s a prerequisite for stable democracy.

The point of civilian control is to make security subordinate to the larger purposes of a nation, rather than the other way around. An elected civilian commander still ultimately answers to the people, an appointed military commander does not.

Like it or not, civilians making decisions for the military is what keeps us a free republic instead of a military dictatorship.

Look our Government is behind The Jihad Rats, read Alex Jones open your eyes to what Bush and the rats are doing here, look at the borders look at the laws open your eyes, don’t be the new Jew inside a death camp, it can happen here.

Ok so what would you like to see changed/done?

Liz, at the outset of this war, General Shinseki warned against the consequences of the war plan that was being pushed, warning that we needed two to three times as many troops as the President wanted to send. He was ridiculed, demeaned, and pressured to leave his post early.

Now that the administration didn’t send enough troops to maintain security and the entire situation is completely out of control, the administration now wants to send more troops—except it’s too late. And the generals oppose the surge. After the Baker-Hamilton report was released the Joint Chiefs of Staff met with the President and they unanimously advised against the surge. It’s a total waste.

If you want to support the generals then you must oppose the President.

P.S. As far as I can tell, the only US soldiers who have been court martialed are those who either murdered civilians in cold blood, raped girls, or refused to fight—none of which describe a soldier’s dang job.

Liz, feel free to be specific as to just what exactly I said that you think are “MSM lies.”

I’m curious to hear what “unbiased” sources you get your “facts” from. This should be good.

i’m not about to be dragged into a political spat, guav, with you or simon. my comment is my opinon based on concrete facts (and since chad hasnt swooped in and deleted it) my comment stands. I know what constitues as a undisputable fact and what is someones opinon. and i know how to separate the two from each other. there is no magical one source for facts you simply have to use your brain.

for those who are curious, the examples i cited above:
soldiers being courtmartials for doing their job: I was referencing the big to-do during the battle for falluja in which a group of soldiers came under fire, returned fire, took possession of a enemy building and when entering the building one of the soldiers shot an enemy combantant (who was already on the floor) dead because he believed the man was reaching to either denonate a bomb on his person or was reaching for his weapon. that soldier went under a formal investagation by the army and was court martialed (rightfuly-so found not guilty btw but thats my opinion, i’m sure there are people who think that soldier should have been tarred and feathered for brazenly killing someone simply because they wanted to kill him or his commrades). this soldier had not two days prior watched his best friend get blown to bits by an insurgent who was ‘cleared’ only to denonate a bomb strapped to his chest. (my apologies, these i believe were marines not soldiers)
this is fact. this soldier (or marine), doing his job, was put under investagation and courtmartialed.

and the departure date for the enemy. the bill is being passed along now. bush has promised to veto of course but that doesnt stop the democrats from putting it in. these are all facts.they are concrete and undesputable. if you dont believe it check the facts yourself. they’re easy enough to find. now, whether these are the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ decisions is simply a matter of opinion

i will not sit here and bash my husbands commander in chief. i may not like all of what he does, but it is my opinion that he is trying to do what is best for this country.

Liz, from time to time soldiers do things of questionable legality. In those cases, there is going to be an investigation because we are a nation of laws.

Unless your contention is that no soldier should ever be courtmartialed for anything ever, you need to accept that there are going to be times that soldiers are going to be investigated for doing things they were justified in doing. This is not evidence of anything other than that we as a country hold our military to higher moral standards than those of say, Vietnam (that being said, I believe the decision finding him not guilty was the correct verdict).

In regards to Congress’ Iraq withdrawal legislation, you said you won’t “bash” (in other words, oppose) your husbands Commander In Chief, but you previously complained that “we have the politicans fighting the war instead of the generals.” President Bush is a politician, not a General. Several Generals have endorsed the legislation:

“The argument that this bill aides the enemy is simply not mature—nobody on the earth underestimates the United States’ capacity for unpredictability. It may further create some sense of urgency in the rest of our government, beginning with the State Department.”
—Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton

“The bill gives the president a chance to pull back from a disastrous course, re-orient US strategy to achieve regional stability, and win help from many other countries—the only way peace will eventually be achieved.”
—Lt. Gen. William. E. Odom

“Supporting the Iraq Supplemental Bill not only reflects the thinking of the Iraq Study Group but puts teeth to the phrase “Supporting the Troops”. By establishing timelines it returns the responsibility of self preservation and regional sovereignty to the people of Iraq and their government.”
—Maj. Gen. Mel Montano

“This important legislation sets a new direction for Iraq. It acknowledges that America went to war without mobilizing the nation, that our strategy in Iraq has been tragically flawed since the invasion in March 2003, that our Army and Marine Corps are at the breaking point with little to show for it, and that our military alone will never establish representative government in Iraq. The administration got it terribly wrong and I applaud our Congress for stepping up to their constitutional responsibilities.”
—Maj. Gen. John Batiste

“We must commence a coordinated phased withdrawal of U.S. combat troops and condition our continuing support of the Iraqi government on its fulfilling the political commitments it has made to facilitate reconciliation of the contending secular factions. Otherwise, we will continue to be entwined in a hopeless quagmire, with continuing American casualties, which will render our ground forces ineffective.”
—Lt. Gen. Robert Gard

It’s fine that you feel the president “is trying to do what is best for this country,” but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You should be more concerned with whether or not what he is doing is good for the country, not whether he thinks it is.

And if it’s not what’s best for the country and you support it anyway out of some blind loyalty to the office he holds, what kind of patriot can you claim to be?

Any discrepancy between what you mean by the things you say and how I interpret them is due to either a misunderstanding on my part, a lack of clarification on your part, or both—not an intentional “twisting” on my part.

I don’t see how your words could ever “suit my agenda” no matter how much they were twisted in any case. Nothing you say backs up what I say, so what do you even mean by that?

You said we should listen to generals, not politicians. Is that not what you meant?

Guav is a man of many talents. You should see his Vanilla Ice impersonation… magical.

thanks chad

Sums what up?

and we’re glad to not have you mael