Support Our Troops?

Jackie Mason | October 29, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | October 29, 2004
This makes me sick too:

Bush pamphlet.

Jackie Mason | October 29, 2004
[hidden by request]

Erik Bates | October 29, 2004
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | October 29, 2004
Erik? These troops have repeatedly stated that their orders were to move on to Baghdad, not to search for explosives at the site in question. It was all about the military advance.

This is more like your mom demanding that you to stop cleaning and go outside and play because sunshine is good for you, then blaming you later when your dad finds out your room is a mess.

Erik Bates | October 29, 2004
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | October 29, 2004
They aren't. NBC aired a tape today showing the explosives were still there as of April 18, 2003. This would be 8 days AFTER U.S. troops went through the pace on the way to Baghdad.

Jackie Mason | October 30, 2004
[hidden by request]

Todd Brotsch | October 30, 2004
Of course President Bush is the National Command Authority, and yes ultimately the buck stops at the H.M.S. Resolute desk; at what level does the trivialisim stop?

The expressed military goal was to secure Baghdad. While 350, or whatever number they are saying now, tons of munitions is important. Military commanders determinded that it couldn't be moved without a huge convoy of trucks/troops and the whatnot. At that moment the roads were JAM PACKED with Bradley Fighting Vehicles, M1 Abrahms Main Battle Tanks, Troop Carriers, and other millitary vehicles and troops on the move. It was decided that the threat of these arms being moved was slim to none, so they moved on.

Monday morning quarterbacking says this was a bad decision.

You wanna find fault with some 2-4 Star's? They're over in Iraq, or Quatr, or at SOCOM. I'm sure they'd be welcome to hear your suggestions.

So I suggest you sign up and wear The Flag of the United States of America on your right arm. Other wise you're just waisting air.

Kris Weberg | October 30, 2004
380 tons -- 7560,00 punds -- of hard-todetect plastique of the exact type used in numerous bombings, including the 200+ kill of the Lockerbee flight in the 80s.

Nothing to blow off. 380 TONS.

Kris Weberg | October 30, 2004
Don'ty tell me to sign up for a war I don't agree with under a CIC who I can't believe knows how to form complete sentences.

George W. Bush -- the wrong "man" for the wrong administration for ANY time.

Erik Bates | October 30, 2004
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | October 30, 2004
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | October 30, 2004
Todd, by your 'logic," which seems to be along the lines of "only a military professional can criticize a military professional," no one should vote.

I mean, after all, how dare we pass judgement on politicians? We're not politicians, are we? Run for Congress, then you can bitch about Congress fucking up!

And hey, when a drug company lets loose an untested, unsafe drug like THalidomide, whoa re we to complain? I mean, hindsight's 20/20, right? Sure, some people were born horribly deformed and all, but damn, we're no pharmacists or chemists? We have no place to criticize.

Sure, criminals murder people, but damn, you're not int heir shoes? We really can't punish them, can we? Hindsight's 20/20, it's easy to shout "killer" after the fact.

No one need ever be responsible for anything they were in charge of! Happy days are here!

Kris Weberg | October 30, 2004
And I would add that 380 tons of ANYTHING is not trivial.

And all the less trivial when it's 760,000 pounds of something that can and very likely will be used to kill large numbers of people.

Kris Weberg | October 30, 2004
Apologies to Erik -- I had started to reply to him, then deleted it with the intent to reply only to Todd.

Kris Weberg | October 31, 2004
It gets worse -- THEY WERE WARNED ABOUT THIS

This administration is utterly incompetent.

Jackie Mason | October 31, 2004
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | October 31, 2004
It's the Bizarro World, no doubt.

Scott Hardie | November 2, 2004
I don't think Todd was saying you don't have a right to criticize the military unless you're also a soldier. I took his comment to mean that talking about military mistakes is a waste of time; the better solution would be to enlist and serve and make a difference.

Kris Weberg | November 2, 2004
Then it's still nonsensical.

New recruits do NOT "make changes" in the military. 40-year veterans of high rank, sure. But even they answer to the President and the Secretary of Defense (who is appointed by the President).

Changing the military is much easier from the outside, as a politically involved person and an activist, than it is from the inside, where the chain of command and loyalty to the unit are generally inimical to reformist efforts.

The army is under civilian control. The head civilian is the President. Want to chnage the military? Change the President.

Anna Gregoline | November 2, 2004
Whoo-hoo! Here here!