LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

Who is he kidding? I am being dead serious.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/29/ ... index.html

You can hear the collective sound of conservative hands against foreheads, everytime Bush speaks to the public.

Liberal trolls on Lacrosse forums, this weeks sign of the apocalypse.

You're west coast trash quoting a wildly liberal news source.

And you don't like Bush.

WOWZA!!!!!!!11!1!

last week.

This week's sign of the apocalypse:

http://forums.uslia.com/viewtopic.php?t=6117

'west coast trash'???
impressive. then again, i guess i would be unnecessarily abrasive these days if i was in the republican legion as well...

"quoting a wildly liberal news source"? actually, he is referencing a story that is about 60% direct quotes from Bush. Not a whole lot of spinning going on when you are recapping a speech.

from the article: "You do not create terrorism by fighting terrorism"
you sure dont. you create terrorism by being hideously over-extended and insanely narrow-minded.

You're west coast trash quoting a wildly liberal news source.

I feel sorry for you. I was unaware that using somebody's words against them was "spinning." I guess they REALLY ARE letting anybody join the military these days.

Fellas,

Lets not make things personal! OK?

Actually Flock of Sea Gulls, You sure can spin anything by using there own words.


Flock of Sea Gulls while responding to Landon, "You create terrorism"

Now I don't think LandonMLudlow creates terrorism. But that is a direct quote from you.

Don't tell me you can't spin quotes.

BB he is referring to GW, not Landon. You know, "over-extending our troops..."

I agree, though, that any one that has studied any middle east history, or islamic history would understand that us being in Iraq was the culmination of the perfect 3 offenses against the islamic religion.

The islamic religion has historically 3 holy areas.

1. Mecca ane Medina are the birthplace of Mohammed and where he started the church.

2. Jerusalem is holy land for all 3 major monotheistic religions.

3. The original capital of the Caliphate (what Al Quieda seeks to restore) is Baghdad.

By invading Iraq from Arabia we've extended past just #2 and dishonored their sacred lands.

I'm not saying whether or not we should be in place X, Y, or Z.

What I am saying is that I've read about 4 books on the subject, and I could have told you that we would piss off the Islamic/Arabic worlds by invading Iraq.

The fact that the Bush administration doesn't have someone that knows that much about the area, or WORSE ignored what that person would have HAD to say was a reality is really sad.

We invaded (justly or not) a sovereign nation. Of COURSE we are going to aggravate people.

I would think then the phrase should be "he creates terrorism" Just playing around. But phrases can be taken out of context relatively easy.

Also, we won't know the success of Iraq for years, I mean at the time after WWII there was an 8 year long insurgency set up by Pro Nazi folks that killed 1,000's.

Would you consider that a failure?

It is too hard to justify or quantify what is happening right now. Everyone see's soldiers being killed. And they want it to stop.

Everyone has the right to express their opinion but we won't know for years. Do I think the strategy is faulty. Yes. Do I think the war was a bad idea yes... Have you ever heard of a war that went off without a hitch?

Is our death total over the years high? Yes. Is it high compared to most wars in the history of history? No. It is actually very low.

Have we been attacked since 9/11? No.

Has the war in Iraq been a part of this by focusing Militant anger outside of the US? I don't know, but I would guess yes?

War isn't fun. Never was never will be. But sometimes neccesary.

Militant/Fascist Islam will try and kill us no matter where we are or who is in power. They hated Bill as much as Bush.

So in the end, we won't know until History plays out, I just believe that if you don't agree with what is going on, then offer an opinion on what should be done. don't just criticize, it gets nothing accomplished.

Throughout all of history depressed and impoverished nations, and populations have always looked to the powerful, wealthier nations as the source of their misfortune, rather than at themselves.

Thanks for the little rant, just needed that. F the right and F the left. Show me the middle.

BB wrote:War isn't fun. Never was never will be. But sometimes neccesary.

We haven't had a necessary war in quite a long time.

Beta wrote:

BB wrote:War isn't fun. Never was never will be. But sometimes neccesary.

We haven't had a necessary war in quite a long time.

I'll put the invasion of Afghanistan in the category of necessary war after 9/11. I'd also put the first Gulf war in that slot, since Saddam had invaded Kuwait and was threatening our oil resources. (I just noticed how I called them "our" resources - such hubris!)
Our intervention as part of a multinational effort in the Balkans - OK with that too.
It's the complete mishandling of the trumped up invasion of Iraq that is at the forefront of unnecessary wars. Some say that they history hasn't been written there yet. When it is, and the full truth comes out, it will be even worse than we imagine.
Bush likes to claim that the Congress as well as the UN supported his push for war. That is only because they were stampeded to do so under false pretenses. (i.e. Colin Powell at the UN with his pictures of WMD stockpiles. George Tenet with the "slam dunk". Condi with the "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, etc, etc.) Anyone who dared speak out against the invasion might as well have put the Al Qaeda patch on his sleeve. Rumsfeld's complete incompetence in post-war planning - "the next person that brings up the need for a post-war plan will be fired!" The stocking of the CPA with political hacks, Bremer's mishandling of the postwar effort... Let's see, they did such a great job that we should give Tenet and Bremer the Presidential Medal of Freedom!
Good job boys. Mission Accomplished.
Now the point is - "yeah, well don't criticize, what would you do about it?" as this pile of dung is presented to you. George McGovern just presented a semblance of a plan for a phased withdrawal over the coming year.

Former senator George McGovern and William R. Polk, a leading authority on the Middle East, offer a detailed plan for a speedy troop withdrawal from Iraq.

During the phased withdrawal, to begin on December 31, 2006, and to be completed by June 30, 2007, they recommend that the Iraq government engage the temporary services of an international stabilization force to police the country. Other elements in the withdrawal plan include an independent accounting of American expenditures of Iraqi funds, reparations to Iraqi civilians for lives lost and property destroyed, immediate release of all prisoners of war, the closing of American detention centers, and offering to void all contracts for petroleum exploration, development, and marketing made during the American occupation.

The first thing we have to admit is that whether we stay or go, Iraq is in a civil war, and there is really nothing we can do to stop it. So this one can be classified as an unnecessary war, and one we lost.

BB wrote:Is our death total over the years high? Yes. Is it high compared to most wars in the history of history? No. It is actually very low.

Last month, 776 U.S. troops were wounded in action in Iraq, the highest number since the military assault to retake the insurgent-held city of Fallujah in November 2004, according to Defense Department data. The sharp increase in American wounded — with nearly 300 more in the first week of October — is a grim measure of the degree to which the U.S. military has been thrust into the lead of the effort to stave off full-scale civil war in Iraq, military officials and experts say.
More than 20,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in combat in the Iraq war, and about half have returned to duty. While much media reporting has focused on the more than 2,700 killed, military experts say the number of wounded is a more accurate gauge of the fierceness of fighting because advances in armor and medical care today allow many service members to survive who would have perished in past wars. The ratio of wounded to killed among U.S. forces in Iraq is about 8 to 1, compared with 3 to 1 in Vietnam.

So part of your answer is the vastly improved medical care that is saving the lives of many casualties, but leaving them facing many daunting challenges when they return stateside. If you were to use the ratio of wounded to killed from Vietnam, you'd be looking at almost 8,000 killed. I guess you could call that progress - on the medical side - not on the wisdom side.

the death toll for civilians in the last report I saw has the number over 120,000. I've seen some reports as high as 130,000. Also, the casualty numbers for the huge numbers of "private" security forces is rarely talked about.