Democrats to Bush: No more troops to Iraq

[InfiniteNow]

It's frustrating how consistently he changes positions and refuses to accept alternatives. I listen to my genrills... that is, of course, until they push back against my ideas. :)

 

Funny how the issue of flip flopping helped him beat Kerry... How many more people have to die before we decide it's time to change our position?

 

At what point does the captain of the ship realize it's not a mutany, and the crew members are actually correct?

 

Pass the short ad, and you will see how our fair leader even disagrees with himself. :)

 

Comedy Central: Daily Show: Bush V Bush

 

:)

[Michaelangelica]

Australia has just sent more troops to Iraq.

Prime Minister Howard is known here as bonsai ( little Bush)

 

Since WW2 when has there been a war that the US has won?

(I don't count the Cold War as USSR just changed/gave up.)

 

Can this Iraq war ever be "won"

 

What is "winning"?

 

It seems to me Iraq is now a Civil War.

 

Is Bush going to be Impeached?

[Queso]

I don't think he will.

Presidential candidates are already campaigning. The american people, as a whole, probably have the mentality of:

"We'll just vote somebody better in..."

 

The war in Iraq, which begun as the war on Terrorism, which begun in Afghanistan, will only be won by peace.

 

We need to stop fueling their fire,

and let them die off and the others realize their own inner peace.

 

They're obviously a bit behind when it comes to evolution, but blessed

be the internet.

 

There is hope.

[Michaelangelica]

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of the U.S. involvement in

 

Iraq, here's a sobering statistic.

 

 

 

There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre

 

of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,867 deaths.

 

That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

 

 

 

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons

 

for the same period. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be

 

shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq.

 

 

 

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington.:hihi::(

[IMAMONKEY!]

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of the U.S. involvement in

 

Iraq, here's a sobering statistic.

 

 

 

There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre

 

of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,867 deaths.

 

That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

 

 

 

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons

 

for the same period. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be

 

shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq.

 

 

 

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington.:):(

 

:( Funny.

 

However I personally do NOT want us to pull out of Iraq :hihi: ... call me crazy but that would put me out of a job! :(

 

Probably crazy, but if we're not at war I'm going to have less of a chance to be accepted in ROTC or the Academy (Air Force) and I don't want that. I do appreciate what they do for me over ther but I also envy them. I wish I could go over there right now with a Jet and help them bomb the heck out of those insurgents. :( It's not the idea of killing America's enemies that appeals to me but rather the thrill of flying.

[TheBigDog]

:( Funny.

 

However I personally do NOT want us to pull out of Iraq :hihi: ... call me crazy but that would put me out of a job! :)

 

Probably crazy, but if we're not at war I'm going to have less of a chance to be accepted in ROTC or the Academy (Air Force) and I don't want that. I do appreciate what they do for me over ther but I also envy them. I wish I could go over there right now with a Jet and help them bomb the heck out of those insurgents. :( It's not the idea of killing America's enemies that appeals to me but rather the thrill of flying.

You are crazy. The class sizes for the Academies are preset. They do not fluctuate in times of war. ROTC does not have caps that I am aware of, and the size of the military has not been changed specifically for fighting the war. The military has a fixed number of jobs and works to maintain its operational readiness by keeping those jobs filled with qualified people. If the war ended today there would be the same amount of officers and enlisted men tomorrow.

 

Bill

[IMAMONKEY!]

I know they're preset. You think I don't do my own research on such topics?:)

 

Regardless of whether they are preset or not, during a war there are two kinds of people, the "crazy nuts" that want to get into the fight such as myself and the pacifists that thought going into the military would give them a nice desk job until the war started. If there is war do you think pacifists are as likely to join? No.

 

The nuts are going to join either way so obviously there's not much I can do about that, but I believe that during war-time less people will enlist/apply to save their own skins. Me? I don't care about my skin I just want to get up in the air and shoot at something.

 

If the war gives me a better chance of making it into the AF as a pilot then I honestly don't give a damn. I will be blunt with you, flying a jet would give meaning to my life and if a war is neccesary to my meaning of being I want that war to last as long as I can put my hands on a control stick.

 

Harsh? Yes, but reality always is. I grieve for the lives we lose so I'm not insensitive to death, but I am insensitive to those things that get in the way of my life goals. Call it cruel, cold, stark-raving mad, or whatever else you want to call it, but it is who I am and will not change. Let the war go on because I am a selfish jerk deep down and I admit it. :)

 

Oh well,

 

IMAMONKEY!

[TheBigDog]

I know they're preset. You think I don't do my own research on such topics?:(

 

Regardless of whether they are preset or not, during a war there are two kinds of people, the "crazy nuts" that want to get into the fight such as myself and the pacifists that thought going into the military would give them a nice desk job until the war started. If there is war do you think pacifists are as likely to join? No.

 

The nuts are going to join either way so obviously there's not much I can do about that, but I believe that during war-time less people will enlist/apply to save their own skins. Me? I don't care about my skin I just want to get up in the air and shoot at something. :doh:

 

If the war gives me a better chance of making it into the AF as a pilot then I honestly don't give a damn. I will be blunt with you, flying a jet would give meaning to my life and if a war is neccesary to my meaning of being I want that war to last as long as I can put my hands on a control stick. :cup:

 

Harsh? Yes, but reality always is. I grieve for the lives we lose so I'm not insensitive to death, but I am insensitive to those things that get in the way of my life goals. Call it cruel, cold, stark-raving mad, or whatever else you want to call it, but it is who I am and will not change. Let the war go on because I am a selfish jerk deep down and I admit it.

 

Oh well,

 

IMAMONKEY!

I don't doubt your research, I doubt your understanding. There is a set number of jobs, regardless of the war. One of the most competitive is for pilots, regardless of the war. There is a waiting list just to enlist in the Air Force.

 

The war will have no bearing on your ability to become a pilot. Your grades, your physical conditioning, your mental state, your psychological balance, your natural ability to fly, your eyesight, your resistance to motion sickness, your desire to out perform others striving for the same position; all of those will have the greatest impact on your becoming a military pilot (any branch).

 

I wish you luck, I never achieved that dream.

 

(Class B flight physicals suck)

 

Bill

[Edella]

If the war gives me a better chance of making it into the AF as a pilot then I honestly don't give a damn. I will be blunt with you, flying a jet would give meaning to my life and if a war is neccesary to my meaning of being I want that war to last as long as I can put my hands on a control stick.

Me? I don't care about my skin I just want to get up in the air and shoot at something.

 

As I'm sure you know, one must be an officer to be an Air Force pilot. An admissions team evaluates applicants based on academic achievement, character , athletic ability and leadership. You then need to take the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test, and a host of other exams to see if you have what it takes to be a leader. In the quotes above you have shown yourself to be unfit to be an officer in the U.S. Air Force, much less be responsible enough to pilot a multi-million dollar aircraft. Like it or not, being an officer in the Air Force requires a high level of responsibility, accountability and professionalism.

 

I want to assure you: If you display the level of maturity and integrity you have shown here to an officer evaluation team you will be instantly disqualified.

I guarantee it.

[PetsTheCatfish]

This war seems lost. And that D.C. statistic is trash. That did not factor in Iraqi casualties which happened to be around 1,800 last month. That is not a shy 25% over Washington D.C.'s 80;Furthermore, you cannot force democracy on people. They have to want it and they have to take it for themselves. We are the invading army and we must vanquish the enemy or give them no reason to rebel. They have to only persevere, the very same tactic our founding fathers used. This war has been mis-managed from the beginning. In the great push to sack Baghdad we left munition depots unsecured for people to walk in and take what they'd like. Then we have the cultural aspects to overcome. We do not speak their language and our very way of life is somewhat sinful to them. Then on top of that, things are worse now than before. I justify this with there being less hours of electricity, running water, and civil order. Before we came, Saddam kept the place in order, kept the anarchists and terrorists out. Now they are there and are still coming in from over the borders. As it has been said before,this is not the job of a military but a police force, something we are not prepared to do. To do what is needed would take a lot more than what we are willing to commit. We would not institute a draft, we would not keep our troops among the civilians overnight, we patrol, in and out. The old Search n' Destroy tactic that worked so wonderfully in Vietnam... Machiavelli spoke of these circumstances and paraphrased he said that when you take-over you stomp on toes(the killing of innocents, bombs are precise but accidents happen...), so you must treat them well/better than before(not happening by the criteria of basic amenities and civil order) or completely crush them(we are not going to vaporize cities along with their people for moral and legal reasons). The problems have not been overcome and we are not committed enough to do so therefore we will ultimately lose. When I say lose I mean pullout and watch the country collapse in on itself which will most likely result in a terrorist state that we will have to face the consequences of at a later time. But this time they will have a genuine reason for hating us. We broke it by removing Saddam and his cronies but we are not going to fix it by placing an effective government in its stead. That is why this war is lost.

 

Something of a rant, with a degree of logic, I hope.

[Fatstep]

The one thing I cannot comprehend is how ir own anyone can risk the livelihood of their own country in order to better another, especially when the country they are "helping" was taken over by force.

[jackson33]

the war in Iraq was won a long time ago. Saddam overthrown and WMD, if there are no longer a viable threat to any one. the UN mandates have now been complied with.

 

any problems have come from a formation of a government which can protect its people, from outside forces. this is ongoing and with some success, however the notion the issue could be resolved in a short time, never considered the volatility of the population or the potential that the Islamic Radical faction, existed prior to Saddam's overthrow and given new life.

 

as to the War on Terror; no one has suggested this would end over night or in a decade. this tip toe attitude of being politically correct is taking a toll on the public in general, but that same public has lost interest. governments job, is to protect the people from external attacks, to some degree even w/o the publics approval. if a few war ships start taking shots at the US mainland, no one is going to take a quick poll or wait for congress to decide if the bombs are real.

[jackson33]

The one thing I cannot comprehend is how ir own anyone can risk the livelihood of their own country in order to better another, especially when the country they are "helping" was taken over by force.

 

since the early 1900's, we have lived in a world which nations enter into treaties with others for there protection. the second attempt to form some world organization to help in this control, the United Nations, came about after WWII. myself and many have problems with the UN, but if the world is to continue on some orderly path to the future, it should be from this entity.

 

Iraq, was invaded for non-compliance of UN mandates, admittedly to stabilize an oil rich area and put an end to a ruthless dictator, although i still feel his 2 boys were the worst. that is the "force" was required to comply with obligations well laid out.

 

as for the livelihood of the US or for that matter any other industrialized nation, the economies of all have not been hurt one percent. in fact they and the US are all in record territory as we speak...IMO, this is because we had the right person and his choice for advisor's to do the job, which has and is being done...

[Fatstep]

How can you say it hasn't hurt the economy when the national debt went from 5.7 trillion in May 2000 to 8.8 trillion today?

[Queso]

that's a lot of trillion.

how will it ever be earned back?

bankruptcy?

[jackson33]

How can you say it hasn't hurt the economy when the national debt went from 5.7 trillion in May 2000 to 8.8 trillion today?

 

simply put, all economical statistics show a vibrant and sustainable economy, all at historical highs.

 

the war on terror is a costly program, which if held off for any reason could be substantially more.

 

the debt, however is a very small percentage of the value of property including equities in the US or the 14+ trillion dollars yearly GDP.

 

i admit, President Bush has not been a practicing conservative and for unknown reason has allowed pork spending by congress, his and the democrats to go unchecked. welfare spending alone since 1965 or the money spend on another war *poverty* is also 8.8 trillion, rising even faster than the debt...

[jackson33]

that's a lot of trillion.

how will it ever be earned back?

bankruptcy?

 

to compare to an average household the debt is about the total of three years income. if your total debt, for house, car, credit cards and all is

100,000 dollars, you doing fine with a 34,000 income by comparison.

 

near 50% of the debt is held by government and the rest owned by some public entity. under the very worst scenario, the government could simply print money and pay off the debt in total, Monday morning. the value of the US dollar would drop 10-15% Monday afternoon, but the world would continue.

 

governments in general do not make money. to make it back is called raising taxes, which would effect the economy. this is a complicated formula however the end results of raising taxes has always hurt the over all economy and tax revenues...