Disgruntled troops complain to Rumsfeld...

[jmcc]

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/10365882.htm

I got that link to bypass the registration process exactly once. In case it doesn't here's the article text:

ROBERT BURNS

Associated Press

CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait - In a rare public airing of grievances, disgruntled soldiers complained to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Wednesday about long deployments and a lack of armored vehicles and other equipment.

"You go to war with the Army you have," Rumsfeld replied, "not the Army you might want or wish to have."

Spc. Thomas Wilson had asked the defense secretary, "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?" Shouts of approval and applause arose from the estimated 2,300 soldiers who had assembled to see Rumsfeld.

The defense secretary hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

"We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north," Wilson concluded after asking again.

Wilson, whose unit, the 278th Regimental Combat Team of the Tennessee Army National Guard, is about to drive north into Iraq for a one-year tour of duty, put his finger on a problem that has bedeviled the Pentagon for more than a year. Rarely, though, is it put so bluntly in a public forum.

Rumsfeld said the Army was sparing no expense or effort to acquire as many Humvees and other vehicles with extra armor as it can. What's more, he said, armor is not the savior some think it is.

"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can (still) be blown up," he said. The same applies to the much smaller Humvee utility vehicles that, without extra armor, are highly vulnerable to the insurgents' weapon of choice in Iraq, the improvised explosive device that is a roadside threat to Army convoys and patrols.

U.S. soldiers and Marines in Iraq are killed or maimed by roadside bombs almost daily. Adding armor protection to Humvees and other vehicles that normally are not used in direct combat has been a priority for the Army, but manufacturers have not been able to keep up with the demand.

Rumsfeld dropped in to Camp Buehring - named for Lt. Col. Chris Buehring, who was killed in a rocket attack on a downtown Baghdad hotel while Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was staying there in November 2003 - to thank the troops for their service and to give them a pep talk. Later he flew to New Delhi for meetings Thursday with Indian government officials.

In his prepared remarks in Kuwait, Rumsfeld urged the troops - mostly National Guard and Reserve soldiers - to discount critics of the war and to help "win the test of wills" with the insurgents.

Wilson and others, however, had criticisms of their own - not of the war itself but of how it is being fought.

During the question-and-answer session, another soldier complained that active-duty Army units seem to get priority over National Guard and Reserve units for the best equipment used in Iraq.

"There's no way I can prove it, but I am told the Army is breaking its neck to see that there is not" discrimination of that kind, Rumsfeld said.

Yet another soldier asked, without putting it to Rumsfeld as a direct criticism, how much longer the Army will continue using its "stop loss" power to prevent soldiers from leaving the service who are otherwise eligible to retire or return to civilian life at the end of their enlistment.

Rumsfeld said this condition was simply a fact of life for soldiers in times of war. Critics, including some in Congress, say it's proof the Army has been stretched too thin by war.

"It's basically a sound principle, it's nothing new, it's been well understood" by soldiers, he said. "My guess is it will continue to be used as little as possible, but that it will continue to be used."

On a lighter note, an Army chaplain said he had been persuaded by his unit to ask the defense secretary if he would "put us on your aircraft and take us to Disneyland."

"The answer is, 'Sorry, we've got more important things for you to do,'" Rumsfeld replied with a grin.

Asked later about Wilson's complaint, the deputy commanding general of U.S. forces in Kuwait, Maj. Gen. Gary Speer, said in an interview at Camp Buehring that as far as he knows, every vehicle deploying to Iraq from Kuwait has at least "Level 3" armor protection. That means it has locally fabricated armor for its side panels, but not bulletproof windows or reinforced floorboards.

Speer said he was unaware that soldiers were searching landfills for scrap metal and discarded glass.

In his opening remarks, Rumsfeld stressed that soldiers heading to Iraq should not believe those who say the insurgents cannot be defeated or who otherwise doubt the will of the U.S. military.

"They say we can't prevail. I see that violence and say we must win," Rumsfeld said.

[Quackzilla]

Allow me to write a summary of Rumsfelds response:

"Support our troops, just don't give them funding and supplies."

[David85]

I would be bitchy too when he never ever tells them a date when they are going to go home, then when they do give a date a week before hand change it to two months later.

[camoor]

Four more years! Four more years!

Guess these guys should have thought for a second before pulling the "Bush" lever.

[David85]

Didn't they know that "Four more years!" was that they will be staying there four more years?

[Drocket]

Didn't they know that "Four more years!" was that they will be staying there four more years?

Only four more years? Heck, that would be GOOD news...

[David85]

Well in 4 more years they will need to bring in new people because all the people over there will be dead.

So I guess it should be Up to four more years!

[Dead of Knight]

From CNN.com's article on it http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/08/rumsfeld.troops/index.html

"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want," Rumsfeld said.

He added, "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank, and it can [still] be blown up."

WTF?!?!?! Thanks for the "support," Darth Rumsfeld (bushgame.com).

[SwiftyLeZar]

One of the guys in that regiment (the 278th) is a principal in my school district - no shit. In fact, it might have been Wilson, I think his name started with a W.

A little hometown pride.

[Ikohn4ever]

Rumsfeld was extremely disrespectful to does troops in his answers. Especially since they are the ones dyin pointlessly

[CTLesq]

Allow me to write a summary of Rumsfelds response:

"Support our troops, just don't give them funding and supplies."

Really? Is that why I have four duffel bags of crap that I got from the CRC and I am a reservist?

I have more garbage than I know what to do with.

As for armor on vehicles every convoy I have been on has been armored, including the SUVs I have ridden in.

But what do I know, you are sitting back in the US and I am in Iraq.

Keep on pontificating people, you have all the answers. Which conviently all happen to oppose the war in Iraq.

And don't try the intellectual strawman of you support the troops but not the war.

Thats a load of crap.

CTL

[SwiftyLeZar]

Your anecdotal evidence isn't sufficient to disprove the comment.

However, I think the 2,000+ who cheered the troop's question does prove at least something the contrary.

[CTLesq]

Your anecdotal evidence isn't sufficient to disprove the comment.

However, I think the 2,000+ who cheered the troop's question does prove at least something the contrary.

Ah yes my antecdotal evidence that I am experiencing in Iraq now compared to those who are on their way.

No one is saying every humvee in Iraq is armored. But the way certain people would illustrate the situation you would be lead to believe there are a total of 3 armored humvees in Iraq.

Not the case.

CTL

[jmcc]

Your anecdotal evidence isn't sufficient to disprove the comment.

However, I think the 2,000+ who cheered the troop's question does prove at least something the contrary.

Ah yes my antecdotal evidence that I am experiencing in Iraq now compared to those who are on their way.

No one is saying every humvee in Iraq is armored. But the way certain people would illustrate the situation you would be lead to believe there are a total of 3 armored humvees in Iraq.

Not the case.

CTL

So there's 4?

[camoor]

And don't try the intellectual strawman of you support the troops but not the war.

Thats a load of crap.

CTL

Yeah people, heaven forbid you disagree with the decisions of the curently elected official, and yet you still support the brave men and women who signed up to implement those decisions (not knowing what they would be).

It's thinking like CTL's that led to Vietnam war protesters taking out their frustration on the troops. I am proud that most American citizens who are anti-war direct their protests where they belong - at the chicken-hawk in the oval office.

[CTLesq]

And don't try the intellectual strawman of you support the troops but not the war.

Thats a load of crap.

CTL

Yeah people, heaven forbid you disagree with the decisions of the curently elected official, and yet you still support the brave men and women who signed up to implement those decisions (not knowing what they would be).

It's thinking like CTL's that led to Vietnam war protesters taking out their frustration on the troops. I am proud that most American citizens who are anti-war direct their protests where they belong - at the chicken-hawk in the oval office.

Actually it is thinking like yours that leads to the death of American servicemen.

You allow yourself to believe that you are supporting the troops by opposing the war, when instead you give hope to the insurgents in Iraq that the war they can't win in the field they can win in Washington.

You may delude yourself into thinking you are supporting the troops but you are in fact giving aid and comfort to the very people we are fighting and giving them hope that if they just wait it out long enough this nation will lose its political will.

CTL

[Quackzilla]

Actually it is thinking like yours that leads to the death of American servicemen.

You allow yourself to believe that you are supporting the troops by opposing the war, when instead you give hope to the insurgents in Iraq that the war they can't win in the field they can win in Washington.

You may delude yourself into thinking you are supporting the troops but you are in fact giving aid and comfort to the very people we are fighting and giving them hope that if they just wait it out long enough this nation will lose its political will.

CTL

And that's a red neck war manger strawman.

[CTLesq]

Actually it is thinking like yours that leads to the death of American servicemen.

You allow yourself to believe that you are supporting the troops by opposing the war, when instead you give hope to the insurgents in Iraq that the war they can't win in the field they can win in Washington.

You may delude yourself into thinking you are supporting the troops but you are in fact giving aid and comfort to the very people we are fighting and giving them hope that if they just wait it out long enough this nation will lose its political will.

CTL

And that's a red neck war manger strawman.

Redneck who lives on the upper west side of Manahattan?

I don't think so.

[Quackzilla]

Your kind infects the whole globe.

And I thought you made a topic a while back saying you were going to be going to Iraq.

[DCriminal]

Actually it is thinking like yours that leads to the death of American servicemen.

What a load of crap. War (any war) is not a black or white issue. LIFE is not black or white. By your logic, anyone speaking out against the war in any way is giving aid to the enemy. Thus, you equate people like myself to Terrorists (which is fucking insulting, btw).

It must be nice to boil all political discourse to "He bad" and "He good." I wish I could be so close-minded. Life would be much simpler.

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." - Voltaire

[CTLesq]

Your kind infects the whole globe.

And I thought you made a topic a while back saying you were going to be going to Iraq.

I am there right now. Have the IP checked.

[jmcc]

And don't try the intellectual strawman of you support the troops but not the war.

Thats a load of crap.

CTL

Yeah people, heaven forbid you disagree with the decisions of the curently elected official, and yet you still support the brave men and women who signed up to implement those decisions (not knowing what they would be).

It's thinking like CTL's that led to Vietnam war protesters taking out their frustration on the troops. I am proud that most American citizens who are anti-war direct their protests where they belong - at the chicken-hawk in the oval office.

Actually it is thinking like yours that leads to the death of American servicemen.

You allow yourself to believe that you are supporting the troops by opposing the war, when instead you give hope to the insurgents in Iraq that the war they can't win in the field they can win in Washington.

You may delude yourself into thinking you are supporting the troops but you are in fact giving aid and comfort to the very people we are fighting and giving them hope that if they just wait it out long enough this nation will lose its political will.

CTL

1. What kills US servicemen is being somewhere they shouldn't be in the first place. People back home pointing that out doesn't matter. What's giving the insurgents hope is that we are in the wrong here. They should have hope that Washington will stop the invasion of their country.

and

2. We are going to lose our political will as casualties rack up and the fact that there's no reason for us to be there sinks in to more and more Americans. Even if that didn't happen, do you really think there's some magic plan to win this war when all the enemy has to do is keep fighting? This is exactly the same situation that was faced in Vietnam. The military can take all the points on the map they want, but it's still the enemy's country. Short of killing everyone in it there's no way to prevail in this war.

But, I digress, good luck to the soldiers on not getting blown up or shot. You say you have enough equipment. I hope that's true everywhere, despite stories to the contrary that have been popping up for pretty much the entire length of this war so far.

[CTLesq]

Actually it is thinking like yours that leads to the death of American servicemen.

What a load of crap. War (any war) is not a black or white issue. LIFE is not black or white. By your logic, anyone speaking out against the war in any way is giving aid to the enemy. Thus, you equate people like myself to Terrorists (which is shaq-fuing insulting, btw).

It must be nice to boil all political discourse to "He bad" and "He good." I wish I could be so close-minded. Life would be much simpler.

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." - Voltaire

Nice pithy quote to end your comment with.

I don't recall claiming this was a black or white issue. My point is simple: people who claim to "support the troops, but oppose the war" need to understand the ramifications of their position. Much as I support abortion rights, I understand I am ending a life in the process.

Now some people do legitimately support the troops and oppose the war.

A far greater number of people use the claim of support to hide their true goal: the undermining of the Bush Presidency (not a presidency I think is a very good one). I would suggest that those that post every negative news article or (see QZilla) find something wrong in everything the US Military does or the Bush administration tries as such people.

And if you are offended - good. I am offended that people who "support the troops, but oppose the war" are either so naive as to not understand the ramifications of their position or stake out this supposed middle ground to provide cover for their true intentions.

CTL

[jmcc]

Actually it is thinking like yours that leads to the death of American servicemen.

What a load of crap. War (any war) is not a black or white issue. LIFE is not black or white. By your logic, anyone speaking out against the war in any way is giving aid to the enemy. Thus, you equate people like myself to Terrorists (which is shaq-fuing insulting, btw).

It must be nice to boil all political discourse to "He bad" and "He good." I wish I could be so close-minded. Life would be much simpler.

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." - Voltaire

Nice pithy quote to end your comment with.

I don't recall claiming this was a black or white issue. My point is simple: people who claim to "support the troops, but oppose the war" need to understand the ramifications of their position. Much as I support abortion rights, I understand I am ending a life in the process.

Now some people do legitimately support the troops and oppose the war.

A far greater number of people use the claim of support to hide their true goal: the undermining of the Bush Presidency (not a presidency I think is a very good one). I would suggest that those that post every negative news article or (see QZilla) find something wrong in everything the US Military does or the Bush administration tries as such people.

And if you are offended - good. I am offended that people who "support the troops, but oppose the war" are either so naive as to not understand the ramifications of their position or stake out this supposed middle ground to provide cover for their true intentions.

CTL

You know what supporting the troops but opposing the war means to me? It means, I don't want to see any of you get killed and the best possible way to ensure that is to get you out of a needless situation where it's a good possibility. I don't care who the president is. If a dem had got us in this I'd be just as upset, if not moreso.

[CTLesq]

You know what supporting the troops but opposing the war means to me? It means, I don't want to see any of you get killed and the best possible way to ensure that is to get you out of a needless situation where it's a good possibility. I don't care who the president is. If a dem had got us in this I'd be just as upset, if not moreso.

Which means you want this resolved in Washington. Which means you will only have more fuel to your fire with more dead soldiers, which only encourages the insurgents to try to kill more Americans so people such as yourself will attempt to undermine the Bush administration.

Which is different from how I characterized the vast majority of the people who "support the troops but oppose the war how"?

Do I file you under the naive catagory or the deceitful one as to intent?

Have fun I am going to dinner.

CTL

[Quackzilla]

Your kind infects the whole globe.

And I thought you made a topic a while back saying you were going to be going to Iraq.

I am there right now. Have the IP checked.

Hey, bitch, don't send an email to quackzilla@lycos.com!

If you do I will be mad at you!

[camoor]

The goal is not to undermine the Bush Presidency. He's in there for 4 years, that's the deal you sign up for in America.

The goal is to voice your opinion about the decisions that Bush has made, especially when they involve such life-or-death issues. This is still a democracy, and the will of the people should still be the ultimate basis of policy decision making. I'm just expressing my will, if the representative in office disagrees, so be it. I still support my fellow Americans.

[jmcc]

You know what supporting the troops but opposing the war means to me? It means, I don't want to see any of you get killed and the best possible way to ensure that is to get you out of a needless situation where it's a good possibility. I don't care who the president is. If a dem had got us in this I'd be just as upset, if not moreso.

Which means you want this resolved in Washington. Which means you will only have more fuel to your fire with more dead soldiers, which only encourages the insurgents to try to kill more Americans so people such as yourself will attempt to undermine the Bush administration.

Which is different from how I characterized the vast majority of the people who "support the troops but oppose the war how"?

Do I file you under the naive catagory or the deceitful one as to intent?

Have fun I am going to dinner.

CTL

Do you not see that it can't be resolved anywhere other than Washington? Are you operating under the assumption that you can win this ground war? You can't. That's the reality of the situation.

Now as for casualties fueling the anti-war sentiment, that's exactly right. That's how guerilla wars are fought. The Iraqis just have to keep hurting us until we figure out that the cost is outweighing the benefit. There's no party line issue there, like you want to imply. Both political parties will eventually come to the same conclusion about it. A line comes in between those people who realize that any deaths over there are too many and those that think we can somehow hold out for a win. So between "get our people out, there's no reason to stay there" and "just a few more people need to die" which is really pushing for more deaths?

[DCriminal]

Actually it is thinking like yours that leads to the death of American servicemen.

What a load of crap. War (any war) is not a black or white issue. LIFE is not black or white. By your logic, anyone speaking out against the war in any way is giving aid to the enemy. Thus, you equate people like myself to Terrorists (which is shaq-fuing insulting, btw).

It must be nice to boil all political discourse to "He bad" and "He good." I wish I could be so close-minded. Life would be much simpler.

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." - Voltaire

Nice pithy quote to end your comment with.

I don't recall claiming this was a black or white issue. My point is simple: people who claim to "support the troops, but oppose the war" need to understand the ramifications of their position. Much as I support abortion rights, I understand I am ending a life in the process.

Now some people do legitimately support the troops and oppose the war.

A far greater number of people use the claim of support to hide their true goal: the undermining of the Bush Presidency (not a presidency I think is a very good one). I would suggest that those that post every negative news article or (see QZilla) find something wrong in everything the US Military does or the Bush administration tries as such people.

And if you are offended - good. I am offended that people who "support the troops, but oppose the war" are either so naive as to not understand the ramifications of their position or stake out this supposed middle ground to provide cover for their true intentions.

CTL

I thought the quote was pretty good, not "pithy" mind you, but pretty good. I was going to throw out the typical Voltaire quote ("I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.") but decided to go with the other one. In retrospect, I should have gone with the first one.

I was going to respond with a long message explaining by beliefs and why they dont fit into your "world view," but the damn messageboard timed out on me and I lost the message before it was posted. Probably for the best.

Lets just say that I dissagree with you and leave it at that.

[Scrubking]

I would suggest that those that post every negative news article or (see QZilla) find something wrong in everything the US Military does or the Bush administration tries as such people.

That is 99% of the people who post in here. So much so that I have considered asking for a name change of this forum to Conservative bashing forum or something similar because that is the only thing that goes on here.

Anyways, it has been proven today that the soldier was set up by a liberal reporter to try and embarrass Rumsfeld. The reality is that the troops have what they NEED for their current situation. Troops who aren't in the heat of battle don't need to be complaining about a supposed lack armored vehicles.

[jmcc]

Follow-up to the original story: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=1&u=/nm/20041209/ts_nm/iraq_usa_rumsfeld_dc_11

[camoor]

Anyways, it has been proven today that the soldier was set up by a liberal reporter to try and embarrass Rumsfeld. The reality is that the troops have what they NEED for their current situation. Troops who aren't in the heat of battle don't need to be complaining about a supposed lack armored vehicles.


"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked.
The question prompted cheers from some of the approximately 2,300 troops assembled in a hangar to hear Rumsfeld.
...
"It's essentially a matter of physics, not a matter of money," Rumsfeld said. "It's a matter of production and the capability of doing it.
"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want."

Link (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/09/rumsfeld.reporter/)

Why is Rummy making excuses if there is no problem? Scrub, do you have any evidence that the 2300+ soldiers who were cheering in the background are not in live combat situations? I read the article above, the guy asking Rummy a question worked with the reporter - he wanted to do this (he wasn't "set up")

That is 99% of the people who post in here. So much so that I have considered asking for a name change of this forum to Conservative bashing forum or something similar because that is the only thing that goes on here.

Yeah, it must really suck when all the CAGs here challenge you over the "facts" you are constantly pulling out of your ass.

[ZarathosNY]

I would suggest that those that post every negative news article or (see QZilla) find something wrong in everything the US Military does or the Bush administration tries as such people.

That is 99% of the people who post in here. So much so that I have considered asking for a name change of this forum to Conservative bashing forum or something similar because that is the only thing that goes on here.

Anyways, it has been proven today that the soldier was set up by a liberal reporter to try and embarrass Rumsfeld. The reality is that the troops have what they NEED for their current situation. Troops who aren't in the heat of battle don't need to be complaining about a supposed lack armored vehicles.

Actually, it hasn't been proven that it was a set-up. That is the talking point put out by conservatives. I don't see conservatives getting bashed here, as much as getting called on their false info that they post, and then they shut up when they are proven wrong.
If you look at the reports of who is getting killed over there, a lot of it is in underarmored vehicles. If the lack of armored vehicles are "supposed", then why is Rumsfield saying we are getting them there as fast as we can, and yet, the company making them can produce more, but the Pentagon hasn't asked them to step up production.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aMGdbQCSwiRg&refer=home

[DCriminal]

Anyways, it has been proven today that the soldier was set up by a liberal reporter to try and embarrass Rumsfeld. The reality is that the troops have what they NEED for their current situation. Troops who aren't in the heat of battle don't need to be complaining about a supposed lack armored vehicles.

You need to read a bit more about this before throwing around terms like "set up by a liberal reporter." First, the soldier wanted to ask the question, he just wanted the reporter help him with the phrasing. Second, how do you explain the fact that the question was cheered by the other soldiers in attendance? I guess this has something to do with their percieved need for better equipment? Finally, I would like to see the "proof" that you referanced in your message. I am particularly interested in reading about the soldier being "set up by a liberal reporter to try and embarrass Rumsfeld."

[evilmax17]

Anyways, it has been proven today that the soldier was set up by a liberal reporter to try and embarrass Rumsfeld. The reality is that the troops have what they NEED for their current situation. Troops who aren't in the heat of battle don't need to be complaining about a supposed lack armored vehicles.

It's starting to sound like you don't support the troops!

[gamefreak]

1. What kills US servicemen is being somewhere they shouldn't be in the first place.

So what kills civilians is being in big buildings? Or is it the terrorists fault?

People back home pointing that out doesn't matter. What's giving the insurgents hope is that we are in the wrong here.

Nothing is black and white, nothing is certain, unless you think you are right. That's the way it is with alot of people....


2. We are going to lose our political will as casualties rack up and the fact that there's no reason for us to be there sinks in to more and more Americans. Even if that didn't happen, do you really think there's some magic plan to win this war when all the enemy has to do is keep fighting?

There was really no reason for us to be in World War 2. Sure I mean Hitler did kill alot of people but then, does that justify our actons? Look at all the people we lost in that war! Maybe we should have just respected the culture of Nazi Germany and let them do their own thing, eh?

[jmcc]

1. What kills US servicemen is being somewhere they shouldn't be in the first place.

So what kills civilians is being in big buildings? Or is it the terrorists fault?

Iraq = 9/11 now? You've sure bought into the propaganda whole hog.

2. We are going to lose our political will as casualties rack up and the fact that there's no reason for us to be there sinks in to more and more Americans. Even if that didn't happen, do you really think there's some magic plan to win this war when all the enemy has to do is keep fighting?

There was really no reason for us to be in World War 2. Sure I mean Hitler did kill alot of people but then, does that justify our actons? Look at all the people we lost in that war! Maybe we should have just respected the culture of Nazi Germany and let them do their own thing, eh?

Except, if you're going to try to compare this to WW2, you need to note that we're analogous to Germany here. We're the ones invading and trying to subjugate a nation, not the other way around.

In any case, you know what? There's FAR worse genocide going on in Africa than in Iraq and N. Korea (among others) developing nuclear weaponry is a FAR greater threat to world security than anything Iraq has. If you're going to try to pretend this is some mission to make the world better at least admit that we've picked a really really poor starting point.

[gamefreak]

Are we responsible for the worlds security? No. That's the UNs job, that's why it is there in the first place. Why can't they use the troops that aren't helping us to fix humanitarian problems around the world? Edit: I mean come on, it's not like the US and Poland account for 90% of the worlds armies is it?

Iraq is mainly a selfish war. We're going in there to help make our country safer. Sure it is also making the world safer and helping alot of poorly treated folks out.

[jmcc]

Are we responsible for the worlds security? No. That's the UNs job, that's why it is there in the first place. Why can't they use the troops that aren't helping us to fix humanitarian problems around the world? Edit: I mean come on, it's not like the US and Poland account for 90% of the worlds armies is it?

Iraq is mainly a selfish war. We're going in there to help make our country safer. Sure it is also making the world safer and helping alot of poorly treated folks out.

How is it making our country safer? How many times in the last, say, 30 years has Iraq attacked our nation? If anything, they're more dangerous now because we're likely inspiring anti-US sentiment in the people there. If it doesn't end up as a new breeding ground for anti-US terrorism I'll be real surprised.

[David85]

Are we responsible for the worlds security? No. That's the UNs job, that's why it is there in the first place. Why can't they use the troops that aren't helping us to fix humanitarian problems around the world? Edit: I mean come on, it's not like the US and Poland account for 90% of the worlds armies is it?

Iraq is mainly a selfish war. We're going in there to help make our country safer. Sure it is also making the world safer and helping alot of poorly treated folks out.


Shouldn't you know by now that the UN is a complete joke and the only reason why we had to go into Iraq alone is because of the joke the UN is.

EVERYONE thought Iraq had weapons, even France and Russia, they didn't want to go in because of THEIR oil deals.

The UN didn't want to do anything, because they never want to do anything, plus why would they want to stop what Iraq was doing? The were getting billions from Suddam for the Oil for Food program.

I Iraq was a right war, bad time, and terrible planning by a dumbass president, but I do not see how it was a "selfish war".

[camoor]

Iraq is mainly a selfish war. We're going in there to help make our country safer. Sure it is also making the world safer and helping alot of poorly treated folks out.

How are we making our country safer again? I just can't see how stretching our army to the breaking point in the middle of a desert full of arabs who hate us is making anything safer.

One of my conservative friends made the arguement that we're really just keeping the terrorism in Iraq instead of having it come to the USA, while at the same time protecting our oil interests. I have to think that this is the real reason that the USA is fighting this war.

I don't like it one bit. There must be better ways to supress and/or combat terrorism. The US is not seriously looking for alternate vehicle fuel sources (it took Japan's marketing prowess to start offering the first hybrid cars, American car makers are betting big on Pickups and SUVs that are subsidized by the Federal government).

The game that's being played by the US government is just a spin on the roulette wheel, one day that wheel is going to stop and I'm afraid it's gonna come up 00.

[elprincipe]

One of my conservative friends made the arguement that we're really just keeping the terrorism in Iraq instead of having it come to the USA, while at the same time protecting our oil interests. I have to think that this is the real reason that the USA is fighting this war.

I think that's a fairly accurate depiction, with us hoping that eventually we will kill/capture all the terrorists fighting there and then the loftier and rather dreamier goal that Iraq's new democracy will help promote political change in the broader Middle East.

[Sarang01]

One of my conservative friends made the arguement that we're really just keeping the terrorism in Iraq instead of having it come to the USA, while at the same time protecting our oil interests. I have to think that this is the real reason that the USA is fighting this war.

I think that's a fairly accurate depiction, with us hoping that eventually we will kill/capture all the terrorists fighting there and then the loftier and rather dreamier goal that Iraq's new democracy will help promote political change in the broader Middle East.

Don't forget their oil and Israel.

Btw CTL, I'm truly disgusted with you right now. I thought you were fairly Liberal or Moderate and now I see I'm wrong, at least in one aspect.
Scrubking don't play that game. Just because you're a Conservative doesn't make you a matryr here.
And CTL I support the troops but I'm not gonna mindlessly support an occupation I don't agree with. We should've kept our eye on the ball, which was Osama.

[CTLesq]

And what aspect would that be? Because I am not going to allow people the staw man sanctuary of "I support the troops but oppose the war", when in fact the vast majority of people who make that claim either don't understand the ramifications of their position or know far to well the precise ramifications of that position?

The problem with the vast majority of the poster on this forum is their arguments are zero sum games. Its all or nothing. I am critical where appropriate.

[jmcc]

And what aspect would that be? Because I am not going to allow people the staw man sanctuary of "I support the troops but oppose the war", when in fact the vast majority of people who make that claim either don't understand the ramifications of their position or know far to well the precise ramifications of that position?

The problem with the vast majority of the poster on this forum is their arguments are zero sum games. Its all or nothing. I am critical where appropriate.

You do realize that right after you complain about the straw man fallacy (which I don't recall actually being used, if you could point it out that would be nice) you go and [continue to] use another one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_nauseam), right?

[CTLesq]

And what aspect would that be? Because I am not going to allow people the staw man sanctuary of "I support the troops but oppose the war", when in fact the vast majority of people who make that claim either don't understand the ramifications of their position or know far to well the precise ramifications of that position?

The problem with the vast majority of the poster on this forum is their arguments are zero sum games. Its all or nothing. I am critical where appropriate.

You do realize that right after you complain about the straw man fallacy (which I don't recall actually being used, if you could point it out that would be nice) you go and [continue to] use another one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_nauseam), right?

The strawman fallacy is that you CAN support the troops by opposing the war.

I think I have made that and my reasoning very clear in numerous posts.

And the reason being is because people who make that claim either niavely don't realize the rammifications of their position or they realize the rammifications all too well.

As for making my point ad nauseam, when those of you who post lies, half truths and distortions to which I respond stop posting such comments I fell no longer feel compelled to respond.

CTL

[Quackzilla]

Hey, CTLesq, I don't believe you are in Iraq. Why don't you prove it by sending an email to quackzilla@lycos.com

That is a major claim to make, and if you are lying you will have stooped to a level I didn't believe you could stoop to.

[Inmate #10943]

But what do I know, you are sitting back in the US and I am in Iraq.

Thank you sir for your service to our country.
Be safe! Best wishes for the best possible holiday!

And for those of you who say you support our troops -
I hope when you see someone in uniform you go up to them and say "Thanks!"

[jmcc]

And what aspect would that be? Because I am not going to allow people the staw man sanctuary of "I support the troops but oppose the war", when in fact the vast majority of people who make that claim either don't understand the ramifications of their position or know far to well the precise ramifications of that position?

The problem with the vast majority of the poster on this forum is their arguments are zero sum games. Its all or nothing. I am critical where appropriate.

You do realize that right after you complain about the straw man fallacy (which I don't recall actually being used, if you could point it out that would be nice) you go and [continue to] use another one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_nauseam), right?

The strawman fallacy is that you CAN support the troops by opposing the war.

I think I have made that and my reasoning very clear in numerous posts.

And the reason being is because people who make that claim either niavely don't realize the rammifications of their position or they realize the rammifications all too well.

As for making my point ad nauseam, when those of you who post lies, half truths and distortions to which I respond stop posting such comments I fell no longer feel compelled to respond.

CTL

A strawman fallacy is when you take someone's argument, then make up a weaker version of it that you can refute and pretend you refuted the original. For example [from Wikipedia again]

Fred: "Poverty is one factor that causes crime".
Alice: "You're wrong to claim that all poor people are criminals. My friend Jack is poor, but he is not a criminal!".

Opposing the war but supporting troops doesn't qualify.

What you're saying , however, is "you can't oppose the war because that means you want the troops to die" which IS itself a strawman fallacy.

[CTLesq]

Hey, CTLesq, I don't believe you are in Iraq. Why don't you prove it by sending an email to quackzilla@lycos.com

That is a major claim to make, and if you are lying you will have stooped to a level I didn't believe you could stoop to.

Done.

[CTLesq]

A strawman fallacy is when you take someone's argument, then make up a weaker version of it that you can refute and pretend you refuted the original. For example [from Wikipedia again]

Fred: "Poverty is one factor that causes crime".
Alice: "You're wrong to claim that all poor people are criminals. My friend Jack is poor, but he is not a criminal!".

Opposing the war but supporting troops doesn't qualify.

What you're saying , however, is "you can't oppose the war because that means you want the troops to die" which IS itself a strawman fallacy.

My mistake for using fallacy in conjuction with stawman. I meant it to mean strawman as though a man made of straw from a distance appears to be real yet upon closer inspection has no real substabance.

As I don't deal in coloquialisms my mistake.

And no, what you attributed to me is not what I mean. You know what I mean, don't distort it.

Or were you making a strawman fallacy out of my argument?

[jmcc]

A strawman fallacy is when you take someone's argument, then make up a weaker version of it that you can refute and pretend you refuted the original. For example [from Wikipedia again]

Fred: "Poverty is one factor that causes crime".
Alice: "You're wrong to claim that all poor people are criminals. My friend Jack is poor, but he is not a criminal!".

Opposing the war but supporting troops doesn't qualify.

What you're saying , however, is "you can't oppose the war because that means you want the troops to die" which IS itself a strawman fallacy.

My mistake for using fallacy in conjuction with stawman. I meant it to mean strawman as though a man made of straw from a distance appears to be real yet upon closer inspection has no real substabance.

As I don't deal in coloquialisms my mistake.

And no, what you attributed to me is not what I mean. You know what I mean, don't distort it.

Or were you making a strawman fallacy out of my argument?

No, that's what you meant. That was the end result of your argument. If you oppose the war, then more troops die. You were implying that opposing the war means you want troops to die. I'm well aware it's a pathetic argument, so I just assumed you were aware also. I guess it looks worse when you see it boiled down and realize what you're saying.

[CTLesq]

No, that's what you meant. That was the end result of your argument. If you oppose the war, then more troops die. You were implying that opposing the war means you want troops to die. I'm well aware it's a pathetic argument, so I just assumed you were aware also. I guess it looks worse when you see it boiled down and realize what you're saying.

No what I meant is that people who rely on that statement need to undestand the ramifications of their position. Refer to my abortion analogy.

Some naively believe that position helps the troops by getting us out, whereas others in an attempt to discredit the current administration could care less, deaths of America troops are a mere by-product.

As for calling my argument pathetic, I think it shows you are just up against a wall and have no where to go. I have been consistent. You found a combination of words I was using that is some coloqial comment you are aware of.

Bravo.

CTL

[Quackzilla]

Hey, CTLesq, I don't believe you are in Iraq. Why don't you prove it by sending an email to quackzilla@lycos.com

That is a major claim to make, and if you are lying you will have stooped to a level I didn't believe you could stoop to.

Done.

It passed through an IP associated with the DoD, so I believe you.

Not really, but that sounds cool.

It didn't come from America, though.

[Lawmachine]

So do you, CTL, classify people like Iraq Veterans Against War http://www.ivaw.net/ “naïve” or “the deceitful one as to intent”?

[MrBadExample]

Would it be okay if I supported the war but not the troops - just like Dubya?

[David85]

Hey, CTLesq, I don't believe you are in Iraq. Why don't you prove it by sending an email to quackzilla@lycos.com

That is a major claim to make, and if you are lying you will have stooped to a level I didn't believe you could stoop to.

Done.


Why don't you go kill some bad guys then in stead of always agrueing on this board?

[ZarathosNY]

By the way, this was not the first time Rumsfield was asked about armor on the humvees. He was also asked back in May. This is the transcript:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040513-secdef0747.html

About halfway down the page is the relevant part:

Question. Here's a mike, and anyone who has a question, why don't you wander towards one of the fellows with mikes? There's one right here. Good.



Q How you doing, sir? (Inaudible.) I have force protection questions, sir.



SEC. RUMSFELD: You have what?



Q Force protection.



SEC. RUMSFELD: General Myers. (Laughter.)



Q Sir, my unit, the 2nd Brigade -- (inaudible) -- Cav, we have five out of the six red zones in this country. And with the up- armored humvees, the new -- (off mike) -- humvees they're bringing over with the -- (inaudible) -- those doors are not as good as the ones on the up-armored humvees -- (inaudible). We even lost quite -- we lost some soldiers due to them, and we're trying to make a change -- (inaudible). The question is, are we going to get more up-armored humvees?



And the second question I wanted to ask is, they have the new -- (inaudible) -- vests out that covers your -- (inaudible). We need those because we have taken some casualties due to the shrapnel from IEDs going through the side. The front parts are good, but the sides are not.



Thank you.

[Admiral Ackbar]

This may be slightly off topic but I didn't think it was worth its own post.

It is absolutely self serving and biased of certain writers who are crucifying Donald Rumsfeld in print, on video, and on radio yet never mention the responsibility of the president as Commander in Chief.

These are individuals, like Will Cristol, who are finally coming around to the fact that this war has been handled incompetently. Any, ANY reasonable individual, has to recognize that fact. Yet they say nothing during the election. But as soon as the election is over, wham, they do a 180 and call for Rumsfeld head. Never, ever mentioning the responsibility of the president.

It's is blatantly self serving.

[CTLesq]

Hey, CTLesq, I don't believe you are in Iraq. Why don't you prove it by sending an email to quackzilla@lycos.com

That is a major claim to make, and if you are lying you will have stooped to a level I didn't believe you could stoop to.

Done.


Why don't you go kill some bad guys then in stead of always agrueing on this board?

I can do two things at once.

[elprincipe]

Hey, CTLesq, I don't believe you are in Iraq. Why don't you prove it by sending an email to quackzilla@lycos.com

That is a major claim to make, and if you are lying you will have stooped to a level I didn't believe you could stoop to.

Done.


Why don't you go kill some bad guys then in stead of always agrueing on this board?

I can do two things at once.

Typing of the Dead, anyone? :lol:

[camoor]

Hey, CTLesq, I don't believe you are in Iraq. Why don't you prove it by sending an email to quackzilla@lycos.com

That is a major claim to make, and if you are lying you will have stooped to a level I didn't believe you could stoop to.

Done.


Why don't you go kill some bad guys then in stead of always agrueing on this board?

I can do two things at once.

Typing of the Dead, anyone? :lol:

Hey man, I don't think that's a cool thing to say. I may disagree with CTL on alot of issues but I respect that he's fighting a tough war for America.

[elprincipe]

Hey, CTLesq, I don't believe you are in Iraq. Why don't you prove it by sending an email to quackzilla@lycos.com

That is a major claim to make, and if you are lying you will have stooped to a level I didn't believe you could stoop to.

Done.


Why don't you go kill some bad guys then in stead of always agrueing on this board?

I can do two things at once.

Typing of the Dead, anyone? :lol:

Hey man, I don't think that's a cool thing to say. I may disagree with CTL on alot of issues but I respect that he's fighting a tough war for America.

What are you talking about? I think you completely misinterpreted my meaning there. I meant in Typing of the Dead you type while killing zombies, and CTL was saying he could fight bad guys while arguing on this board (typing messages). I'm sorry if anyone misunderstood that.

[camoor]

Hey, CTLesq, I don't believe you are in Iraq. Why don't you prove it by sending an email to quackzilla@lycos.com

That is a major claim to make, and if you are lying you will have stooped to a level I didn't believe you could stoop to.

Done.


Why don't you go kill some bad guys then in stead of always agrueing on this board?

I can do two things at once.

Typing of the Dead, anyone? :lol:

Hey man, I don't think that's a cool thing to say. I may disagree with CTL on alot of issues but I respect that he's fighting a tough war for America.

What are you talking about? I think you completely misinterpreted my meaning there. I meant in Typing of the Dead you type while killing zombies, and CTL was saying he could fight bad guys while arguing on this board (typing messages). I'm sorry if anyone misunderstood that.

ok I guess I don't get the joke.

[ZarathosNY]

Hey, CTLesq, I don't believe you are in Iraq. Why don't you prove it by sending an email to quackzilla@lycos.com

That is a major claim to make, and if you are lying you will have stooped to a level I didn't believe you could stoop to.

Done.


Why don't you go kill some bad guys then in stead of always agrueing on this board?

I can do two things at once.

Does that mean you are typing with one hand? :)

[CTLesq]

Does that mean you are typing with one hand? :)

Its the only way to survive in this shit hole of a country. I still maintain Kuwait was worse. It smelled like total shit. At least here it doesn't smell and if it did they at least would have a reason.

And I didn't take elprincipe's comment as I should go die for the record. I didn't understand it, but I didn't think he meant that.

[ZarathosNY]

Does that mean you are typing with one hand? :)

Its the only way to survive in this shit hole of a country. I still maintain Kuwait was worse. It smelled like total shit. At least here it doesn't smell and if it did they at least would have a reason.

And I didn't take elprincipe's comment as I should go die for the record. I didn't understand it, but I didn't think he meant that.

When you were in Kuwait, was that when the oil wells were still burning? That would explain the smell.