Missions might change in battle, but…no, wait: they don’t. how did the mission change during Korea, …
I will only address Korea because I don’t have time to do all the others.
The overall mission changed multiple times in Korea.
The first mission was to stop the communists.
The second mission waa to push them outof South Korea.
The third mission was to push them into China.
The fourth mission was to retreat from the Chinese and find a place to stop the Chinese advance.
Books have been written about how the mission changed and how MacArthur and Truman disagreed over what the mission should be.
MacArthur got fired over these disagreements.
So the original missions changed because they failed to accomplish their intent? Which is why people should be pissed; but in our case with Iraq the original intent was incorrect, so…the mission had to be changed. I fail to see this as a good thing.
What are you talking about?
The original mission was to remove Saddam Hussien and to prevent him from acquiring/stockpiling WMDs. That mission was accomplished.
Funny how you guys always leave out the Al-Queda 9/11 ties. Because I remember that being one of those reasons we were there…punishing him for terrorism that he never pulled off.[/quote]
The ties to al Qaeda are well documented but Iraq was not in on 9/11.
[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It was the best and worst time of my life and I am glad to not be fighting in a lame conflict (it’s not a real war) whose number one mission is to keep oil profits up. Yep, I said it!
Return in one peice and with peace.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if America wanted the oil, we would have taken it. Point blank. [/quote]
Not true. The public would never go for the real reasons as to why this and other wars were started. That is why there is a well-oiled propaganda machine in the U.S.
[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
I hope the troops come home tomorrow so that they can be back here with their families instead of being over in Iraq fighting this unjust war.
Most have been fed propaganda by this administration and therefore believe they are fighting to protect America instead of securing more power for the elite of this country.
This is a story that has been told countless times.
You are the one believing the liberal propaganda, and buying into the same old story. The troops are defending America, they are defending you and I. They are defending your rights, and liberties. The only way to bring them home is to help them do their jobs. [/quote]
There is no liberal propaganda. Only that which fulfills the aims of the elite. Conservative or liberal viewpoints - whatever they be - are kept within a narrow framework.Yes there is dissention among the ranks but not of the common man.
Read foreign and non-corporate news sources for a real alternative to corporate mass media.
If you think I’ve been “humiliated,” then fine. I’m fairly sure that has happened in the slightest.
(You haven’t been here long, but Headhunter and Jeffy aren’t exactly respected authorities.)
But perhaps that’s what happened. Maybe the new way to humiliate someone is to call them a pussy without any backup or facts about said person while screaming, “WAR IS GOOD! I BELIEVE WHAT I"M TOLD!”
And then some nonsense about pirates.
But to answer your serious question: there are a number of people I would like to see become president. I will be volunteering for Dennis Kucinich, but am not laboring under the delusion he could actually get the nomination, let alone win.
Here are his stances on the issues:
If agreeing with this man that these ideas would make the country better makes me a liberal, then, fine: I’m a liberal.
I would like a president that pays attention to his Daily Briefings.
I would like a president who hasn’t gleefully presided over hundreds of executions, some of them of underage or retarded men.
I would like a president that knew better than to cut taxes in the middle of a war.
I would like a president who knew better than to cut taxes on the wealthy and pretend the middle class was on his mind.
I would like a president who didn’t start a war based on–at best–faulty information cherrypicked to provide him with the conclusion he wanted in the first place.
I would like a president who didn’t hold hands with the leader of the nation who truly funds terror.
I would like a president who, after being informed that the worst attack upon our shores since Pearl Harbor had occurred, didn’t sit there for seven fucking minutes reading “My Pet Fucking Goat.”
There’s more, but it’s too depressing.
[/quote]
Harris,
Its role-reversal time: “Dumbest post ever!” or “With each post, you show more stupidity!”
And since I said those things, that absolutely refutes everything you said above.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Read foreign and non-corporate news sources for a real alternative to corporate mass media.
[/quote]
You must be out of your mind? Foreign or non-corporate news are better than the American Media? You just lost any benefit of the doubt you may have had.
[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Read foreign and non-corporate news sources for a real alternative to corporate mass media.
You must be out of your mind? Foreign or non-corporate news are better than the American Media? You just lost any benefit of the doubt you may have had. [/quote]
Your statement is testimony to level in which the propaganda is so successful. You will never know unless you look outside the corporate establishment media.
Are foreign and non-corporate news sources better than corporate U.S. mass media? Yes, if we are talking in terms of objectivity and unmasking the truth. Please look for yourself. All the evidence is there but YOU have to search a little for it. You’ll be surprised at what you find.
A young marine just back from Iraq came and spoke at our high school. I will paraphrase part of what he said:
“I now know the difference between good and evil. I also now know that THERE ARE NO GREYS. There is only right and wrong…and what we are doing is right.”
[quote]
Really? Because as I recall I thought they had ties to 9/11. Or maybe I was just listening to carefully to the President.
Again, so many lies, so many inconsistencies, and so much truth yet to be found.[/quote]
I’m interested to know when Bush claimed that saddam was involved with 9/11.
All I can recall is that there was suspicion that atta met with Iraqi Intelligence. I believe Cheney stated that “we just don’t know” when referring to the possibility of the meeting. I believe it was subsequently determined by the CIA that atta was in Florida at the time.
I do not remember Bush explicitly making that connection.
If I’m wrong, please educate me. If you are wrong, please indicate that.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
PGJ wrote:
TrainerinDC wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Why? Because they might not be slanted like FoxNews?
Try the BBC. Its a lot better quality.
CNN is slanted. FoxNews is objective. You guys have been slanted one way in news for so long that objective seems slanted.
AMEN, Brother!
Ever try to watch the BBC? What a bunch of crap.
I believe the proper term in “bollocks”.
CNN, FoxNews, BBC are all slanted.
[/quote]
I agree that the major news sources are somewhat “influenced”. I do find that Fox seems to present a more positive view of things and are generally more supportive of the government, but even they get caught up in the sensationalism at times. The major networks (NBC, CBS, ABC) are obsessed with criticizing President Bush. CNN and BBC are just rediculous. I don’t know anyone in the military that watches CNN anymore (Ted Turner-Fonda screwed that up). They shot their wad in 92 with Desert Storm. Now the troops watch Fox.
I get my “war news” from the guys who are actually there right now and those who have already been. Plus I read a lot of books written by the fighters themselves (not some anti-government liberal “war reporter”) Many of the deployed units post their own newspapers on the internet. Check it out if you are interested in “alternate” news sources.
Here’s the news from the front. This is the 1MEF (FWD), as in forward deployed, website. MEF is the Marine Expeditionary Force, the promary Marine Corps fighting force. They are located in Falluja right now.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
little irish wrote:
Really? Because as I recall I thought they had ties to 9/11. Or maybe I was just listening to carefully to the President.
Again, so many lies, so many inconsistencies, and so much truth yet to be found.
I’m interested to know when Bush claimed that saddam was involved with 9/11.
All I can recall is that there was suspicion that atta met with Iraqi Intelligence. I believe Cheney stated that “we just don’t know” when referring to the possibility of the meeting. I believe it was subsequently determined by the CIA that atta was in Florida at the time.
I do not remember Bush explicitly making that connection.
If I’m wrong, please educate me. If you are wrong, please indicate that.
Thanks,
JeffR
[/quote]
JeffR,
I am going to forgo my normal sarcasm, insults and wise-ass remarks I would normally would give to you and attempt to be civil and answer this question.
It is remarks like these:
“I mean, there was a serious international effort to say to Saddam Hussein, you’re a threat. And the 9/11 attacks extenuated that threat, as far as I-concerned.” - George W. Bush, Philadelphia, Dec. 12, 2005 (*Note - This is a direct quote, by the way, grammatical errors and all.)
that leads people to think that he is trying to make people believe that Saddam was linked to 9/11. Notice that he doesn’t directly say that Saddam was involved in 9/11. He and his handlers are much too smart for that. However, what is done is that Saddam’s name gets mentioned and then he mentions 9/11 right behind it. Never saying it, but letting the American people imply it for themselves. It is a very clever marketing strategy to get the American people to think 9/11 whenever Saddam’s name is mentioned, while still being able to deny that he claimed that Saddam is linked to 9/11.
I am going to forgo my normal sarcasm, insults and wise-ass remarks I would normally would give to you and attempt to be civil and answer this question.[/quote]
No. Be yourself.
[quote]It is remarks like these:
“I mean, there was a serious international effort to say to Saddam Hussein, you’re a threat. And the 9/11 attacks extenuated that threat, as far as I-concerned.” - George W. Bush, Philadelphia, Dec. 12, 2005 (*Note - This is a direct quote, by the way, grammatical errors and all.)
that leads people to think that he is trying to make people believe that Saddam was linked to 9/11. Notice that he doesn’t directly say that Saddam was involved in 9/11. He and his handlers are much too smart for that.[/quote]
That’s how you do it!!! That’s how you convince yourself that George Bush is both ignorant and effective: It’s his handlers.
I trully wish he could run again. Seriously, how many elections does he have to win before you begin to give THE MAN (aka not Cheney/Rove) credit?
Now. What the man has said (and what he was saying there) was that terrorists need to be combatted. saddam was in league with the people who attacked the Twin Towers. We know that he funded them (see tapes). We know that he even did an anti-Saudi press release AT THE REQUEST OF oSAMA bIN lADEN.
What W. says, over and over and over, is that both al qaeda and saddam are equally cruel, repressive, and dangerous.
I know that I’m talking to a wall here. If you allow yourself to believe some of those things, you would have to support the removal of saddam.
al, do you trust the American people?
Or, are you demonstrating an unfounded elitism?
[quote]It is a very clever marketing strategy to get the American people to think 9/11 whenever Saddam’s name is mentioned, while still being able to deny that he claimed that Saddam is linked to 9/11.
I hope that this helps explain things.
[/quote]
I appreciate your viewpoint. I have given it thought. But, I disagree with your assessment wholeheartedly.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
JeffR wrote:
little irish wrote:
Really? Because as I recall I thought they had ties to 9/11. Or maybe I was just listening to carefully to the President.
Again, so many lies, so many inconsistencies, and so much truth yet to be found.
I’m interested to know when Bush claimed that saddam was involved with 9/11.
All I can recall is that there was suspicion that atta met with Iraqi Intelligence. I believe Cheney stated that “we just don’t know” when referring to the possibility of the meeting. I believe it was subsequently determined by the CIA that atta was in Florida at the time.
I do not remember Bush explicitly making that connection.
If I’m wrong, please educate me. If you are wrong, please indicate that.
Thanks,
JeffR
JeffR,
I am going to forgo my normal sarcasm, insults and wise-ass remarks I would normally would give to you and attempt to be civil and answer this question.
It is remarks like these:
“I mean, there was a serious international effort to say to Saddam Hussein, you’re a threat. And the 9/11 attacks extenuated that threat, as far as I-concerned.” - George W. Bush, Philadelphia, Dec. 12, 2005 (*Note - This is a direct quote, by the way, grammatical errors and all.)
that leads people to think that he is trying to make people believe that Saddam was linked to 9/11. Notice that he doesn’t directly say that Saddam was involved in 9/11. He and his handlers are much too smart for that. However, what is done is that Saddam’s name gets mentioned and then he mentions 9/11 right behind it. Never saying it, but letting the American people imply it for themselves. It is a very clever marketing strategy to get the American people to think 9/11 whenever Saddam’s name is mentioned, while still being able to deny that he claimed that Saddam is linked to 9/11.
I hope that this helps explain things.
9/11 were mentioned in the same sentences in every state of the union before the war, and ties were absolutely alluded to. AlDurr is right, and it was impressed into the American people far too much.
Of course, I don’t respect Jeffry enough to go find the quotes for him. He’ll have to do this on his own.[/quote]
Translation: I can’t find the quotes. Therefore, Jeff, you were right.
[quote]JeffyGirl spewed the following garbage as usual:
ALDurr wrote:
JeffR,
I am going to forgo my normal sarcasm, insults and wise-ass remarks I would normally would give to you and attempt to be civil and answer this question.
No. Be yourself.
[/quote]
Extend and olive branch to you to actually discuss a topic and what do I get right off the bat? More of your sarcasm. Just goes to show that you aren’t interested in doing anything but being a troll.
See what happens when you try to be civil and explain things? I didn’t convince myself of anything other than to see the verbal manipulation for what it was and try to explain it to you. You, on the other hand, refuse to see it and decided to pick and choose to see what you wanted to see. The statement read “HE AND his handlers are much too smart for that.” I didn’t take any credit from him at all, you did.
However, do you really believe that he writes his own speeches? He has speech writers, just like EVERY president in the last 40-50 years! He has consultants and a handling team, JUST LIKE EVERY PRESIDENT FOR THE LAST 40-50 YEARS! Are you too dense to realize that? As much as he would like to, he doesn’t work alone!
The president doesn’t do everything by himself (with the exception of trying to circumvent the system of checks and balances by writing 750 signing statements to try to get around our system of democracy and get things done his way). No president in history has done everything by themselves. If he did, then why does he have all these other people around him (Cheney, Rove, etc.)? If he did everything by himself, he would be a monarch, not a president. But again, you don’t understand that.
I will give him credit for doing things when he takes the equal amount of blame for the things he screwed up. Not some half-assed attempt of trying to APPEAR to take the blame, but does the verbal manipulation game that he is famous for to not really accept the blame.
I have NEVER said that Saddam was not an evil and dangerous man. Nor have I EVER said that the world would not be a better place without him. All I tried to do is point out to YOU how people have made these links from the speeches given by Bush. Obviously, you don’t work in the corporate world. I do, and I see these word manipulation tatics done on a regular basis. But you don’t want to hear that because it defames your hero. Talk about talking to a wall!
What does my trust in the American people have to do with this? Nothing, that’s what. You are just playing games once again. However, I’ll answer the question. I trust most Americans, but not all. Case in point. Based on your posts on here, I don’t trust YOU to make a sane, rational decision because you can’t divorce your blind loyalty to George Bush to see how some of these games are played. However, if the situation was reversed, shortsighted idiots such as yourself would expect others to see these games with people that you don’t like in office. It just goes to show that you can’t have a civil discussion without being a sarcastic, antagonistic jerkoff.
BTW, the whole use of the elitist card in your arsenal of sound bytes, talking points and overall idiocy was not only misplayed, but tired, ridiculous, unfounded, inaccurate and just plain stupid!
[quote]I appreciate your viewpoint.[/quote] No you don’t.[quote] I have given it thought.[/quote] No you didn’t.[quote] But, I disagree with your assessment wholeheartedly.[/quote] Gee, what a surprise.
I expected you to disagree because you see only what you WANT to see. I tried to be civil and discuss this, but you are incapable of doing so. Not that I was surprised by that at all.
If you feel a need to reply, go right ahead. However, I won’t be reading it nor responding to it, but if it makes you feel better, feel free.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
One of the older guys at my church was a Master Chief (Navy) and a Swifty. He could never say, ‘Kerry’ — he always said, “That son-of-a-bitch…”. He honestly couldn’t say Kerry! It was hilarious!
Being a ‘swifty’ is not a positive trait.
Are you disparaging all the fine men that served on Swift Boats? If not you should try to be more precise.[/quote]
The single quotes should show you something.
If it does not than heaven help you.
FYI - 2 members of my immediate family served as swift boat sailors in Vietnam.
So if you want to believe I am being negative…be my guest.