Senator Kerry said...wrong war...wrong place...wrong time

Way to go perry mason, you are a gimp

You twit. You think our soldiers don't realize this was the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time? Kerry would give them a much needed boost regardless of what you or Bush would like to think.

Should he lie and tell everyone everything is wonderful? The war is great? Do you want him to say that it's the best war ever?

Would you prefer Kerry was more like this guy?

The war shouldn't have been started, at least not the way it was. Why don't you volunteer to go over there? Want to die because the Bush administration put pressure on their intelligence agencies to come up with "proof" that Iraq was a threat?

Don't you, like all the troops there, already KNOW it's a fucked-up situation? And Bush was standing there going, "Sshhhhhhhhh!! We can't admit it because the troops don't know we fucked up yet!"

No...no war has ever been wonderful...foolish question. No...no war has ever been great...foolish question. No...there has not been a best war ever...foolish question.

The questions are more than ridiculous...thus equals pig shit.

Announcing the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, Mr. Bush said, ?Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.?

Two months into the war, on May 29, 2003, Mr. Bush said weapons of mass destruction had been found.

?We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories,? Mr. Bush told Polish television. ?For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

On Sept. 9, 2004, in Pennsylvania, Mr. Bush said: ?I recognize we didn't find the stockpiles [of weapons] we all thought were there

Kerry is stating what most are already thinking. Bush is holding his stance because he doesn't want to admit to his fuck-ups.

Kerry said with his plan that he hopes to begin moving troops out in about 6 months.

I think troop morale would increase if they knew that a new president was making plans to get the job done right.

they have to remain there for a little while longer to insure that the country will be stable when they leave.

since we started this we need to finish it.

if we pull out too earl and the country collapses we will have created a terrorist state. a place that will rapidly breed anti american sentiment. even faster than it already is.

that is why it is essential to make sure things are put right before we cut n run.

Yes, I'm pig shit, you're pig shit, everything is pig shit.

FYI...I have been over there...and would be there now...but my military career was ended in the 1st Gulf war.

You are speaking out of your ass...when you say that the "Bush administration put pressure on their intelligence agencies to come up with "proof" that Iraq was a threat". Every commission that has investigated the matter...Congressional...and civilian...thus far has proven just the opposite.

I have engaged in three separate combat operations in '81...'89...and '91 and all of them were fucked up situations...combat is a fucked up situation...period. When an operation is completed then it is determined...mission achieved...or not.

I did not say that you are pig shit. I said your questions were ridiculous thus equals pig shit. You usually present opinions...conclusions...and questions that have substance and thought behind them. This time...with the questions...you did not.

All major intelligence agencies...domestic and otherwise...British...French...German...Russian... Egypt...Jordan...Israel...and probably others (it was during the investigations of the Commissions that we learned about Russia Egypt and Jordan)...or at the least I did...were in concurrence.

He made these statements....based upon intitial reports...and later tests and reports proved them to be otherwise.

Thus he was truthful at every point...based upon the mistaken information of others.

Actually if kerry gets elected I'm pretty sure the leaders of a lot of nations will go and help him out ... instead of the stupid Bush admin

based on your argument, if a presidential candidate has anything against the war or the way the war was started, he shouldn't become a president until its over?

Yes, but he acted on that information. Others wanted more proof. He was looking for even the slightest excuse to pull the trigger, and once he had something that he could hold up and use as an excuse, he ran with it. To hell with the consequences, all he wanted was one iota of proof and he was ready to go.

Bush was eager for regime change, and he acted more like a cowboy than a statesman.

The proof is in the pudding. During the Vietnam Conflict when Nixon ordered his "Vietnamzation" of the war and began to withdraw troops...morale dropped to low levels and discipline began to go to hell...which means combat effectivness decreases. No one wants to be the last to die in an unpopular war...thus when you have a would be Commander in Chief telling the troops...wrong war...wrong place...wrong time...and begin to withdraw them piece meal over a minimum four year period...it is exactly a wrong thing to do.

In Vietnam it was during the extended withdrawal of troops that most of the more than 900 reported "fraggings" took place. That is how bad discipline and fighting effectiveness became.

No...he has to be careful what he says about it...if he is serious about being a Commander in Chief and expects to command an effective fighting force...and in fact tonight Senator Kerry did say that he may have made a mistake about how he has talked about the war...but then stated the President made a mistake about initiating it.

now that you think about it, this guy was pretty funny.

theking: you're a fucking retard if you fell for that nonsense.

THIS IS WHAT I THINK ABOUT YOUR POST

















































































[IMG]http://www.redcoat.net/pics/*******.jpg[/IMG]

This is a very weak comparison. Two totally different wars. When over 50,000 US troops have died of course you don't want to be the last one there in a losing war.

You are entitled to your opinion. I favor the policy of pre-emption and I favor the take down of Saddam and the Baathist party and have since within the first year of the '91 cease fire. I have never viewed the war as being primarily about WMD's (to me it was part of a list of reasons and was not on the top of the list). I believe it to be a forward thinking extention of the war on terrorism...for multiple reasons which I have stated multiple times...and stated them pre-invasion.

What's the point of this thread???

Another load of bullshit from a total imbecile with a mouth bigger than his head.

I've never viewed the Iraq war as being primarily about WMDs either. In my opinion, the WMD issue was just an excuse to justify regime change in Iraq.

Also, I think that if Bush was going to use the concept of WMDs and a country that is a threat to America, either Iran or North Korea would have been better choices than Iraq. But comparing Iran, Iraq, and N. Korea....Iraq is the bitch of the bunch, so maybe he was thinking he could kick some serious Iraqi ass and that would scare the other "Axis of Evil" countries into being less evil for fear that the same might happen to them?

Either way, I think Bush is too much of a reckless cowboy, and his actions have actually made America less safe.

Even though I'm not a fan of Bush's foreign policy, I think there are even worse things about him, like his conservative Christian views.

No shit..if there isn't a war going on somewhere, kingie can't get a hardon. Oh wait..that's a prosthetic anyhow isn't it?

Never mind.

ESPECIALLY if they knew it would bring them home sooner!

And the difference between your example and what it is today (and probably for decades) is.....??

And I'll bet you were a damn good cook in all 3 of those operations!

and god forbid as an American citizen you dare criticize it either.

news flash! Troop morale was ALREADY sagging badly before Nixon even became President!

Where do you come up with this PIG SHIT?

There is not, to the best of my knowledge, a single example of successful social engineering via military force such as is being attempted in Iraq. That is my first reason for distrusting not only the optimistic forecasts we are hearing from Bush, but also his claim that one reason for the invasion was to liberate the Iraqi people.

The second reason is that the majority of Iraqis are Shi'ite moslems who therefore have a natural affinity with Iran. No US administration would permit free and fair elections in Iraq, knowing that the near inevitable outcome would be to bring Iran and Iraq closer together. That would fly in the face of everything the US has been doing in the region for the past 80 years and such an alliance would hasten the demise of the regimes in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. What US politician in his right mind would encourage the scenario that within 5-10 years the countries that are home to the world's four largest oil reserves, would all be strongly anti-American?

US intervention in Iraq as a de-stabilising move is far more consistent with past foreign policy in the region. That has been the thrust of all American activity in the Middle East since the 1920's. Whatever else they may be, the people in the White House are not stupid, so I don't believe for one moment they have any expectation of a peaceful Iraq. Either after a decent interval they will leave Iraq to descend into chaos, or they intend a permanent US military presence there.

The other thing which makes a farce of most discussion about Iraq as part of the "War on Terrorism", is that we talk of terrorists as if they exist purely out of sheer perversity or because they are evil people. There is close to zero recognition of the reality that US foreign policy is responsible for arab terrorism and for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.

We put the CIA into Iran to train the Shah's secret police. We used and abandoned the Kurds. We set Iran and Iraq at each other's throats and helped prolong the war. We support Israel. We support the highly unpopular regimes in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. And much more. In short, we handed the imams and others all the arguments they needed to convince new recruits.

We have actually managed to make enemies of the people in a region which, as the crossroads for trade between Europe and the Far East, had been hospitable to foreigners for centuries. The ties were so close that it wasn't until the 1960's that some of these countries claimed independence from Britain. Wealthy Arabs were often educated in Britain and their officers attended Sandhurst. Through the 70's and 80's in particular, thousands of Arabs vacationed in Europe or sought medical care there. Lebanon, now in ruins, was once known as the Riviera of the eastern Mediterranean and it was a popular destination for French holidaymakers.

Arab terrorism is the price we are paying for cheap oil. Now we are losing our freedoms and our soldiers are losing their lives and there isn't a damned thing we can do about it, because we have backed ourselves into a cul-de-sac. We depend on Arab oil and we are still doing very little to reduce that dependence. We are in a so-called war that we cannot win, but the option of talking to the "terrorists" passed perhaps 20 years ago. There might be no more bombs or suicide attacks if we dropped all our activities in the Middle East, but imagine the impact on our economy if unfriendly countries started raising oil prices or cutting supplies. In short, we are screwed whatever we do...

This is an important topic that doesn't get discussed enough.