Pat Tillman killed by Americans

[Sonart]

Quote by: dilligras Pat Tillman's status as a hero is not depedent upon his view of the very brief war in Iraq,

I was looking at this wondering momentarily, "What very brief war in Iraq?", then it promptly struck me, "Oh, another one who thinks we won the war when Boy George, all dressed up in his little flight suit, declared 'Mission Accomplished', and since then we've simply been having a few bumps mopping up."

What your Dear Leader was too incompetent to figure out was that the war isn't over until the enemy stops fighting it, which, for another 8 months included Saddam Hussein. By the time we captured him, Saddam had become irrelevent to the war. We won a battle, that's all.

And for the record, I always thought Pat Tillman was a hero. I think all our boys and girls over there are heroes, but Tillman in particular for the reasons you mention, dilligras. And, yes, even more so now... not only did he place his obligation to fight for his country when we needed fighters before his career, he placed it before his personal politics.

Quote by: Patrick Henry He was more thoughtful and aware than I had assumed. RIP Pat Tillman...

Quote by: dilligras If he supports the decisions of President Bush, he is stupid and ignorant and only worthy of your contempt.......but if it turns out that he agreed with your idealogical bent, well, then suddenly his loss is something to be mourned among the ranks of traitors.

He has a point, Patrick. You did, in fact, call Tillman a "clueless loser."

Quote by: dilligras ...the ranks of traitors.

Traitors??? We're not the ones who supported a foolish war, advised against by Dear Leaders own intelligence and senior military, launched by mistake against a sovereign nation that was threatening no one, pinning the prime of our military down occupying the heart of Jihad central, a guaranteed quagmire, for the sake of some Machiavelian adventure, and which we warned repeatedly would cause great harm to the country we deeply love, the United States. If this be sedition, let us make the most of it.

.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Sonart I was looking at this wondering momentarily, "What very brief war in Iraq?", then it promptly struck me, "Oh, another one who thinks we won the war when Boy George, all dressed up in his little flight suit, declared 'Mission Accomplished', and since then we've simply been having a few bumps mopping up." What your Dear Leader was too incompetent to figure out was that the war isn't over until the enemy stops fighting it, which, for another 8 months included Saddam Hussein. By the time we captured him, Saddam had become irrelevent to the war. We won a battle, that's all.

A battle? Are you joking? Fallujah was a battle. Tikrit was a battle.
Basra was a battle.

Name me one war throughout recorded history in which one side captured the enemy's capital city and leader, and ousted the entire governing body........ but the war was not considered "over", despite the inevitable period of insurgency and unrest during reconstruction.

Go ahead......I'm sure its right on the tip of your tongue, as they say.

The Iraq war has been over for quite a long time, but that doesn't suit the Bush Haters agenda, does it?

Oh no. Not when there is an opportunity to use the dead soldiers as proof of the callous, insensitive nature of their political opposition.

The proof that the left's "Anti-War" movement is nothing more than political partisanship lies in the very selective nature of their complaint......they complain about and mischaracterize the insurgency in Iraq and ignore the insurgency in Afghanistan.

Notice how much of this thread deals with Bush and Iraq, when Tillman was killed in Afghanistan? Notice how Patty Cakes comes running back to post his discovery of Tillman's view of Iraq, as though Tillman was objecting to the conflict (and thus the President) that got him killed?

Notice how you haven't heard much about Afghanistan in the MSM for the last two years? Are there no burning Humvees there to videotape?
Have the Taliban stopped fighting? IS THAT WAR OVER?

Somehow we are expected to believe that the very nature of war and conflict is to be suspended when such are conducted during a Republican presidency, resulting in the kind of petty carping and lack of resolve that led to our premature evacuation of Vietnam,

And for the record, I always thought Pat Tillman was a hero. I think all our boys and girls over there are heroes, but Tillman in particular for the reasons you mention, dilligras. And, yes, even more so now... not only did he place his obligation to fight for his country when we needed fighters before his career, he placed it before his personal politics.

Good point, Sonart........there are many heros in our military who serve despite conflicting views.......irregardless of which party holds their bbq's at the White House.

Traitors??? We're not the ones who supported a foolish war, advised against by Dear Leaders own intelligence and senior military, launched by mistake against a sovereign nation that was threatening no one, pinning the prime of our military down occupying the heart of Jihad central, a guaranteed quagmire, for the sake of some Machiavelian adventure, and which we warned repeatedly would cause great harm to the country we deeply love, the United States. If this be sedition, let us make the most of it..

Traitor:One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.

Treason: the act of levying war against the United States or adhering to or giving aid and comfort to its enemies by one who owes it allegiance

Any questions?

As for the rest of your statement, I consider it little more than the kind of revisionist history that unfortunately mirrors the predominantly leftist media drivel. To be fair, you appear slightly less blinded by ideology than some others posting here, and even they may claim ignorance due to media brainwashing..........if that is indeed a defense.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dilligras As for the truth, clearly you would not recognize it if it fell on you. The proof is in your next statement: The truth about a lie is that it requires conscious deception, proving that your statement is either redundant or evidence of a most pathetic ignorance of what constitutes a lie, and by inference, what embodies truth.

Dilligras, in addition to throwing around your silly insults, you seem to be downright proud of being misinformed. The outright deception and active cover up engaged in by the DOD is well documented.
Army Withheld Details About Tillman's Death

The first Army investigator who looked into the death of former NFL player Pat Tillman in Afghanistan last year found within days that he was killed by his fellow Rangers in an act of "gross negligence," but Army officials decided not to inform Tillman's family or the public until weeks after a nationally televised memorial service. Soldiers on the scene said they were immediately sure Tillman was killed by a barrage of American bullets as he took shelter behind a large boulder during a twilight firefight along a narrow canyon road near the Pakistani border, according to nearly 2,000 pages of interview transcripts and investigative reports obtained by The Washington Post. The documents also show that officers made erroneous initial reports that Tillman was killed by enemy fire, destroyed critical evidence and initially concealed the truth from Tillman's brother, also an Army Ranger, who was near the attack on April 22, 2004, but did not witness it.

It was an active cover-up from the beginning. And you claim that I wouldn't recognize truth.

[Sonart]

Quote by: dilligras Name me one war throughout recorded history in which one side captured the enemy's capital city and leader, and ousted the entire governing body........ but the war was not considered "over", despite the inevitable period of insurgency and unrest during reconstruction.

Sure, with one correction: we did not capture Iraq's leaders. They fled, and by the time of their capture months later, the insurgency they had started was well under way, and they had become irrelevent when a more competent resistance took over.

And my best example? Hitler conquering Poland, France, etc. and Operation Barbarosa. We came in, made a war which was still in progress ours, and won. Like Hitler taking Europe, we had taken most of Iraq. But the fighting continued until, like the U.S. and our allies in WWII, the Iraqi insurgents and al-Qaeda took over, made the war theirs, and, if not winning, are currently keeping us from winning, which, after all, is the goal of any insurgency... to tie up the occupiers in a war of attrition until their public support on the other side of the world grows weary of the sacrifice.

Quote by: dilligras The Iraq war has been over for quite a long time, but that doesn't suit the Bush Haters agenda, does it?

After eight solid years of non-stop scandal-mongering in your vile campaign to oust Bill Clinton, don't you DARE utter the words "Bush Hater".

I never accused Bush of being 'stupid' during the election... no one who gains his party's nomination for President can be considered stupid. Nor did I ever fault Bush - or Al Gore - for fighting with every weapon at their disposal over the Florida vote count. In fact I'd have expected nothing less from someone running for President of the United States. I was comforted by Bush's seeming leadership after 9/11 and supported his invasion of Afghanistan, if with some concerns... after all, neither Britain nor the Soviet Empire had succeeded where we were seeking to venture.

But from the moment it was first whispered that Bush intended to invade Iraq, I knew in my bones that it was a really bad idea, and I mean bad militarily. And since then his policies have proven to be one massive screwup after another, from the failure to find the very things he had justified the entire war on, to the never ending policy miscalulations, misjudgnements and screwups in conducting the war... on into Katrina, his abandoning of the American scientific community to pander to his religious and oil industry bases, his supervision of a Republican Congress that has spent more money than Johnson, to....... to everything the man's touched.

Hate Bush??!!?? The man is the Peter Principle personified, an incompetent political dilettante who's quilty of nothing less than gross criminal negligence in the conduct of his Presidency. But like I keep saying, we only impeach our Presidents for really serious offenses... like lying under oath about an affair.

Quote by: dilligras irregardless of which party holds their bbq's at the White House.

'Irregardless' is not a word. You've already annoyed my enough with your accusations, don't compound it with atrocious grammar.

Quote by: dilligras Traitor: One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.

The only person who's truly screwed our country these past few years is sitting in the White House.

Quote by: dilligras Treason: the act of levying war against the United States or adhering to or giving aid and comfort to its enemies by one who owes it allegiance

That's some catch that Catch-22. Here we Americans have the right to speak and write freely and to petition our government for redress of grievances, including, I assume, the grievance of getting our country into stupid, unwinnable wars. Yet by expressing those grievances in the time of the very war we feel is harming our country, we are aiding our enemy and therefore committing treason. So therefore, no matter how bad, how mishandled, how ill-conceived, ill-planned and ill conducted, we aren't actually free to complain to our government about that bad war until it's over, lest we committ treason.

Yep, that's some catch that Catch-22.

Quote by: dilligras As for the rest of your statement, I consider it little more than the kind of revisionist history that unfortunately mirrors the predominantly leftist media drivel.

All evidence currently being to the contrary.

.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Sonart He has a point, Patrick. You did, in fact, call Tillman a "clueless loser."

I stand by it too. Unlike you, ol' buddy, I was NOT in favor of a US invasion of Afghanistan, but instead e-mailed the President urging restraint. The US military is a sledgehammer, not useful for swatting flies like OBL. Tillman's decision to go military and abandon a lucrative sports carreer was a Greek tragedy, predictable and pathetic. That he died in fratricide makes this remarkable, and now the coverup and the ensuing revelations that he was cognizant of what a crock Iraq is.

Sonart, you aren't cynical enough.

My research has revealed that the 9/11 events are not what we have been told, but are instead a pretext for unending warfare, militarization and global domination by US based elites who will curtail freedoms and force the underclass into slavery. An incremental process which requires periodic "events" to accelerate it from time to time. I understand that you don't subscribe to this view, and even ridicule me for holding such a position, yet it explains current events better than anything else I have encountered.

Thus I don't support US warfare in the midEast or indeed anywhere else than the defense of our nation against invaders. Everything else can be accomplished by diplomacy and economic means.

Back to Tillman: He was taken in by the prevailing view that the US leadership is honorable and honest. He would have done better by his family and his own life to have played football than to become a Ranger. The US military is an enforcement arm of global tyranny...

I think maybe Tillman was waking up to a few things before he was killed.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Patrick Henry I stand by it too. Unlike you, ol' buddy, I was NOT in favor of a US invasion of Afghanistan, but instead e-mailed the President urging restraint. The US military is a sledgehammer, not useful for swatting flies like OBL.

Then we agree to disagree on Afghanistan, although I'll certainly back you on one point...

I've never felt that the military was the way to wage a War on Terror. Like you say, it's a sledgehammer. Specifically, it's a hammer for beating other armies. Al-Qaeda and other non-state terrorist organizations are essentially criminal gangs, and you defeat criminal gangs with cooperative POLICE action. I fact, I submit that, internationally and at home, we've achieved vastly more success in combating terror with police action than with all our military operations.

Quote by: Patrick Henry My research has revealed that the 9/11 events are not what we have been told, but are instead a pretext for unending warfare, militarization and global domination by US based elites who will curtail freedoms and force the underclass into slavery.

Don't disagree much there, either. I believe it's uncontestable that the Neo-Cons, blessed with the election of their affable stooge as a figurehead, were intent on war with Iraq from the day they took office, were hoping for a pretext to launch it and found one far beyond their dreams on 9/11. And like you, I believe the Neo-Cons saw America's new position as the world's sole remaining superpower as a means to global hegemony, with the indiscriminate use of military superpower as their tool.

But slavery? I'm sure the Neo-Cons see it as benevolent stewardship. :rolleyes:

Quote by: Patrick Henry Back to Tillman: He was taken in by the prevailing view that the US leadership is honorable and honest. He would have done better by his family and his own life to have played football than to become a Ranger. The US military is an enforcement arm of global tyranny...

I'm a bit more generous. I genuinely love my country, if not the cabals that occasionally try to run it, and I believe Tillman did too. He, however, saw his role clearly defined. Patrick, if we're lucky in life, we find a calling. I was lucky to discover my calling, if somewhat belatedly, as an artist. It's what I was meant to do, what I was designed by God to do, you might say. I believe Tillman discovered early on that his calling was to be a warrior. First on the football field, then the battlefield. It's what he was meant to do and every society needs warriors, whether they like to admit it or not. And the fact is, I too could have heard that calling. I have two brothers with such callings, both serving as policement, and in the hindsight to my 50-odd years, I recognize that with a turn of fate, I too could easily have found a calling in military service. I don't begrudge Tillman for his misfortune to have answered the call in the service of a fool. His was never to reason why, but to do and die, and only when it was too late did it apparently dawn on him that in the hour of America's need, a spoiled, misguided dilletante was at the nation's helm. And even then, I doubt that it occurred to him for a second not to continue serving. I find a definite nobility in that.

.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Sonart Then we agree to disagree on Afghanistan, although I'll certainly back you on one point... I've never felt that the military was the way to wage a War on Terror. Like you say, it's a sledgehammer. Specifically, it's a hammer for beating other armies. Al-Qaeda and other non-state terrorist organizations are essentially criminal gangs, and you defeat criminal gangs with cooperative POLICE action. I fact, I submit that, internationally and at home, we've achieved vastly more success in combating terror with police action than with all our military operations.

The very reason terrorism exists at all is because most countries can't fight anyone with a half decent military.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Sonart Sure, with one correction: we did not capture Iraq's leaders. They fled, and by the time of their capture months later, the insurgency they had started was well under way, and they had become irrelevent when a more competent resistance took over.

Oh.

Saddam ran away before we captured him........well, then that just changes everything doesn't it? He must still be putting women in rape rooms and chopping off hands and gassing Kurds and filling mass graves and tying people up before throwing them off 5 story buildings and feeding them alive into chippers and vats of acid and commanding his army and everything, eh?

And my best example? Hitler conquering Poland, France, etc. and Operation Barbarosa.[

Sorry, no pass. If you want to compare apples to apples, you would have to view Hitler's war on Poland as over when he conquered their army, murdered its officers and occupied the country......a matter of weeks. Same with France........when they surrendered, their war was over and their country became nothing more than a battleground for the other warring armies.

Sure, there are many battlefields in France and, in fact, I played in some of the foxholes and trenches there as a child.........but France and Poland did not field any of the armies that eventually drove the Germans out.

Like Hitler taking Europe, we had taken most of Iraq. But the fighting continued until, like the U.S. and our allies in WWII, the Iraqi insurgents and al-Qaeda took over, made the war theirs, and, if not winning, are currently keeping us from winning,....

What a total crock of crap!

First of all, we "took" all of Iraq, not most of it.......Saddam was no longer in power there after the first 2 weeks.

Second, the Ba'aath Party Iraqis and the Jihadi fuckwads of Al-Quaeda haven't "taken over" a damn thing from Saddam's army, except the desire to have the Iraqi population's neck under their boot.

If it weren't for the daily misrepresentation of the insurgent mosquito bites as a "war", along with carefully crafted video to paint the conditions there in the worst possible light, perhaps our people might see past the lefty agenda driven "journalists" predilection for hand-wringing defeatism.

which, after all, is the goal of any insurgency... to tie up the occupiers in a war of attrition until their public support on the other side of the world grows weary of the sacrifice.

You mean until the commie pinkos in the so-called "peace movement" and the MS media sway public opinion with lies of omission and distortions of fact and reality, just as they did during 'Nam.

Sedition. my great aunt Matilda's hairy tits!

You want to write your congressman or President and share your "anti-war" bullshit, great!!! Have at it! They can do something about it. But when a person tries to practice their freedom of speech at the obvious expense of those in harm's way, and in direct opposition to our country's interests, then I'll be damned if I will have any title for them but TRAITOR.

After eight solid years of non-stop scandal-mongering in your vile campaign to oust Bill Clinton, don't you DARE utter the words "Bush Hater".

Huh?

Did I miss something here? MY vile campaign?

I was not aware that I waged any campaign during the Clinton admin......maybe it was my evil twin, my doppleganger, 'cause I was nothing politically before 9/11, and in fact voted against Nixon, Reagan, and George the first. I am happy to report now, however, that I never voted for that lefty crook Clinton, and I certainly will not vote for his "wife" in '98.

So perhaps I am better qualified to recognize the ideologue who will sell their soul for any chance bring down the accursed object of their hatred..........those who will spew their bile in any public forum whatsoever, IRREGARDLESS of the safety of the soldier who may next face the bombs and bullets of the chickenshit thugs who take heart and gain resolve from such words.

"Loose lips sink ships" was a caution to the casual conversationalist who might inadvertently give the enemy something to use against our soldiers and sailors during WWII..........I think we need a few more slogans like that and a few less like, "Bush Lied, Men Died" if we are to persevere against the head-chopping doucebags of Islam.

I never accused Bush of being 'stupid' during the election... no one who gains his party's nomination for President can be considered stupid. Nor did I ever fault Bush - or Al Gore - for fighting with every weapon at their disposal over the Florida vote count. In fact I'd have expected nothing less from someone running for President of the United States. I was comforted by Bush's seeming leadership after 9/11 and supported his invasion of Afghanistan, if with some concerns... after all, neither Britain nor the Soviet Empire had succeeded where we were seeking to venture.

You and me both.......but where we diverged, I suspect, was in the trusting the Pres. when he stated that we were not there to make an empire, but rather to accomplish a very distinct goal, and then leave.

He did NOT say that it would be short and easy.......unlike Clinton who, when going into Bosnia, claimed that we would be there for a year or less and "be out by Christmas".......or are you afflicted with the same selective memory as the BUSH HATERS?

But from the moment it was first whispered that Bush intended to invade Iraq, I knew in my bones that it was a really bad idea, and I mean bad militarily.

And from whence comes this ominous foreboding?

Have you the same background in modern military operations as those in the MSM who swore that the Taliban or the mujahadeen of OBL would kick our asses in short order?

And the left wonders why reasonable men take their wailing with a HUGEMUNGOUS grain of sodium chloride?

And since then his policies have proven to be one massive screwup after another.....

Well, at least we agree on this part.....but I'm afraid our lists are quite different in several important respects.

from the failure to find the very things he had justified the entire war on, to the never ending policy miscalulations, misjudgnements and screwups in conducting the war

"the war"?

See.......there you go again.

I assume you speak of WMD's, when you mention "failure to find" things...........are you able to find everything YOU ever looked for? When you didn't find something for awhile (the car keys for example) that you knew once existed, did you finally throw your hands up in despair, and suddenly decide that you must have been lied to about that thing's very existence?

Of course not.......that would be patently stupid.

Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence........we may yet discover what happened to them, because Saddam refused to account for them.

As for the "phony intel" claim.......more crap. More than a few of the duplicitous Democrats on the Senate Intel Committee saw the same intel and all stated that Saddam had the WMD's and posed a serious threat, due to his support of terrorists.

In fact, I was rather shocked by Clinton's admission on Larry King's birthday show for Sen. Dole. I happened to be watching when Larry took Clinton's phone call to congratulate Dole, and he stated clearly that there was no doubt that Saddam had the WMD's and was a threat.

Given all the other Dem's disengenuous claims to the contrary just before we invaded, (this was '03) I nearly fell out of the 'ol Lazy Boy.

As to the "never ending policy miscalulations, misjudgnements and screwups in conducting the war...", I'm not sure what you're talking about........could you give a bit more detail?

Unlike Johnson and Nixon, Pres. Bush does not appear to me to be micro-managing things and seems wise to let the generals and Rummy run things, despite all the efforts of the lefty media to castigate him at every turn.

If you read the Nasty York Times, I can understand why you might consider Bush a total failure........those traitors sure do.

... on into Katrina, his abandoning of the American scientific community to pander to his religious and oil industry bases, his supervision of a Republican Congress that has spent more money than Johnson, to....... to everything the man's touched.

Now you're talkin'....at least on the spending part. The "pandering" part is normal politics.....they all do it and you damn well know it, if you've lived in this country more than 2 days.

As for the "scientific community", they were fucked long before Bush was Gov. of Texas

'Irregardless' is not a word. You've already annoyed my enough with your accusations, don't compound it with atrocious grammar.

It is a common usage word. Besides, I'm not writing in my "academic" mode. Whaddayalookinfor.....ajobasaproofreaderorwhat?

[dilligras]

Ran out of room before I could get to this part.

Quote by: Sonart That's some catch that Catch-22. Here we Americans have the right to speak and write freely and to petition our government for redress of grievances, including, I assume, the grievance of getting our country into stupid, unwinnable wars. Yet by expressing those grievances in the time of the very war we feel is harming our country, we are aiding our enemy and therefore committing treason. So therefore, no matter how bad, how mishandled, how ill-conceived, ill-planned and ill conducted, we aren't actually free to complain to our government about that bad war until it's over, lest we committ treason. Yep, that's some catch that Catch-22.

Look to history for the answer......watch a few war movies from the 50's to see how people used their freedom of speech in time of war......more importantly, compare the movies and print media's approach to the question with those of today.......THEN tell me about using those freedoms responsibly, with the good of the country in mind......as opposed to the kind of self-serving phony righteousness of our so-called "free press" today.

Freedom is not only not free, neither is it free of obligations of responsible use........much like your driver's license.

In fact, I am just now reminded of a post in the blog, IRAQ THE MODEL
that I read a few months after Saddam's regime was toppled, in which Ali recounted a conversation with some idiot who was driving down the wrong side of the road into oncoming traffic. When he was asked what the hell he was doing, he replied, "We are free now......we can do what we want."

Likewise, I would suggest that our freedom of speech does not include a right to say whatever we want, nor wherever we want to say it......there are rules that attend that freedom, as well.

As an example, here is a partial list of the complaints I have with President Bush:
Open borders
$2.5 trillion budget
Campaign Finance Reform
Expanded Dept of Education Bill written by Teddy Kennedy
Bloated farm bill
Bloated transportation bill
$15 BILLION in aids money to Africa
No vetoes in five years
Medicare Prescription Drug giveaway
$200+ billion pledged for reconstruction of New Orleans
Rehabilitating President Clinton time and time again
Islam is a Religion of Peace!
Wishy washy support for Israel
Calling Minutemen "vigilantes"

If I were disposed to disagree with any particular military action that was ongoing and that included our men being endangered, (as I happen to be in at least one case), I would not discuss my opinion in any public venue, lest one of two things occur as a result:
1. The troops feel a lack of support for their mission

2. The enemy decides that if he can just hold out a little longer, public opinion will sway our government to fail in that support.

It cannot be denied that these things happened in Korea, Vietnam and Somalia, and swear I will remarry my bitch of an ex-wife before I will ever betray--by word or deed--the trust of a single soldier overseas.

I trust that such an oath as this will be evidence enough of my sincerity.

Thank you and good night.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: dilligras You want to write your congressman or President and share your "anti-war" bullshit, great!!! Have at it! They can do something about it. But when a person tries to practice their freedom of speech at the obvious expense of those in harm's way, and in direct opposition to our country's interests, then I'll be damned if I will have any title for them but TRAITOR.

Now that's a real "total crock of crap!". I served on active duty from 1966 to 1975, during another period of war and protests, and it bothered me not at all that citizens were exercising their constitutional right to protest while I was serving. Why? Simple, it was pointed out to me by someone who understood what was happening that that was exactly what we were fighting for, to protect and defend our free way of life. If you, or our GI's really believe in this war, and yet are so easily swayed from your beliefs by a few protests, then I really don't think your convictions amount to much. I've paid my dues, I'll use my constitutional rights any way I want, so you can take your "traitor" title and shove it.

As for the MSM being so hard on Bush, that's also a crock. This administration took full media advantage of Tillman's press status, and even embellished and invented the circumstances of his death, yet at the same time won't allow any photo's of returning maimed and dead ordinary GI's in order to "protect their privacy". While we had nightly news and pictures of the casualties in Vietnam, the loss of 6 GI's yesterday hardly even made the news. If anything, the MSM is giving Bush a pass, he's been allowed to fight a pretty much sterile war.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Scribbler The very reason terrorism exists at all is because most countries can't fight anyone with a half decent military.

Bingo!!

Quote by: dilligras He must still be putting women in rape rooms and chopping off hands and gassing Kurds and filling mass graves and tying people up before throwing them off 5 story buildings and feeding them alive into chippers and vats of acid and commanding his army and everything, eh?

So? What does that have to do with anything? Did Saddam have to be doing all those things to still be at war with us? So because the British Army was initially chasing Washington all over the countryside and we were no longer dumping tea in Boston harbor, does that mean the British won the Revolutionary War?

Quote by: dilligras Sorry, no pass. If you want to compare apples to apples, you would have to view Hitler's war on Poland as over when he conquered their army, murdered its officers and occupied the country......a matter of weeks. Same with France........when they surrendered, their war was over and their country became nothing more than a battleground for the other warring armies.

Ahhh, I see... you not only get to ask for examples, you get to decide which examples I can use. Glad you cleared that up, but I'll stand by my example, thanks all the same.

Quote by: dilligras First of all, we "took" all of Iraq, not most of it.......Saddam was no longer in power there after the first 2 weeks.

Now who's inventing history? We may have "Claimed" to have taken all of Iraq, but what was the battle of Faluhjah all about? Why are we even now constantly retaking places we've already taken and given up half a dozen times.

It was former commander in chief, U.S. Central Command, and Bush's former special envoy to the Middle East, General Anthony Zinni who asked, "It might be interesting to wonder why all the generals see it the same way and all those who never fired a shot in anger and are really hell-bent to go to war see it a different way."

We never had enough troops in Iraq to "take it all". Generals like Army Chief of Staff David Shinseki said so, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of State, Colin Powell said so. That's what happens when the politicians like LBDubya and Rumsnamara run wars.

Quote by: dilligras Second, the Ba'aath Party Iraqis and the Jihadi fuckwads of Al-Quaeda haven't "taken over" a damn thing from Saddam's army, except the desire to have the Iraqi population's neck under their boot.

You're absolutely right, dilly. Saddam's in jail and we haven't been fighting anyone in Iraq for the last 2½ years and Iraq is not descending into civil war because of the insurgents and 2,000 American troops aren't dead. So glad you cleared that up too. :rolleyes:

Quote by: dilligras You mean until the commie pinkos in the so-called "peace movement" and the MS media sway public opinion with lies of omission and distortions of fact and reality, just as they did during 'Nam.

LOLOL!! Ahhh, the commie pinkos are back. So, eight years in Vietnam - twice as long as our involvement in WWII - wasn't sufficient for you? What would have worked for you? 10 years? 20 years of fighting an endless guerilla war of attrition?

It wasn't the commie pinkos or the peace movement that did anything, dilly. They were a vocal minority that was always there. It was the hundreds of thousands of the "Silent Majority" that finally had enough and joined the marches that made the difference.

Same today. The peaceniks and activists you saw at the recent peace rallies were always there from the beginning. And were ignored from the beginning. It's the 65% of the American public who have now turned against the war and joined them that's filling up the protests.

Quote by: dilligras I assume you speak of WMD's, when you mention "failure to find" things...........are you able to find everything YOU ever looked for? When you didn't find something for awhile (the car keys for example) that you knew once existed, did you finally throw your hands up in despair, and suddenly decide that you must have been lied to about that thing's very existence?

This discussion is descending into absolute surrealism. Dilly, this is absolutely NOT the same thing as misplacing my car keys. The presence of vast stores of WMD and WMD programs was the reason Bush stood before this country and the world and declared we had to invade, overthrow and occupy a sovereign nation that was threatening no one, RIGHT NOW!! We've 'owned' Iraq for 2½ years now. Half the former government is in our custody and the other half is working for us, and yet we haven't managed to find the 'car keys' YET??? Get a grip, dood!

Quote by: dilligras I am happy to report now, however, that I never voted for that lefty crook Clinton, and I certainly will not vote for his "wife" in '98.

Lefty "crook"?? Exactly which of the unending string of "scandals" that were never found to have any merit are you claiming to declare Clinton a "crook" for? Or is it sufficient for you that there were simply lots of accusations?

Quote by: dilligras As for the "phony intel" claim.......more crap. More than a few of the duplicitous Democrats on the Senate Intel Committee saw the same intel and all stated that Saddam had the WMD's and posed a serious threat, due to his support of terrorists.

{{YAWN}} Here, dilly. This is really old news to most of us, and you can read it or not, I really don't care any more. You've obviously buried yourself so deep in denial that no amount of facts is going to dent your bunker mentality.

The Stovepipe, Seymour Hersh, New Yorker Magazine, Oct. 27, 2003

Weapons of Mass Disappearance, Michael Duffy, TIME Magazine, Jun. 01, 2003

Where are Iraq's WMDs? Evan Thomas, Richard Wolffe and Michael Isikoff, NEWSWEEK June 9, 2003

.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: dilligras Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence........we may yet discover what happened to them, because Saddam refused to account for them.

You really have no way of knowing what saddam accounted for, do you? Have you seen the report Iraq released?

"On 7 December 2002, Iraq released a 12,000-page, multi-CD-ROM report on its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. Naturally, we mere mortals aren't allowed to see such an important document. In fact, almost no one is. The US spirited away the UN's copy, taking it to Washington, where it will make copies for the other Security Council members. The five permanent members of the Council (US, UK, China, France, and the Russian Federation) will get full copies of the report, while the other ten members (which rotate every two years) will get censored versions."

Who know what was done to it before it was sent to those limited to seeing the "uneditied" version.

"....anonymous sources have confirmed speculation that the dossier names those parties who supplied Iraq with the materials it needed, and those suppliers include companies in and the governments of at least some of the permanent Security Council members."

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraq-statement-toc.htm

"You can think of us as having performed a technical service on behalf of the Council" -
John Negroponte

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2567139.stm

[dilligras]

Quote by: Zeebadee Now that's a real "total crock of crap!". I served on active duty from 1966 to 1975, during another period of war and protests, and it bothered me not at all that citizens were exercising their constitutional right to protest while I was serving. Why? Simple, it was pointed out to me by someone who understood what was happening that that was exactly what we were fighting for, to protect and defend our free way of life.

Looks like you and I served during the same period, give or take a few years.........and held similar views regarding so-called "peace" protestors. Obviously, my position has been revised, for I no longer feel that my service exempts me from considering the morale and safety of others who currently risk their necks in hostile territory--just because I might disagree with the reasons for their deployment.

I cannont compare my risk of a temporarily "lost" freedom on one issue among many to the potential loss of even one soldier's life due to my strengthening the resolve of his enemy by my unrestricted, selfish carping and partisan blathering while safe here at home. There will be time enough for that when the fightin's done.

I feel it is my duty as a citizen to always put our servicemen's and our country's interests above my own, just as my service in the military was a civic duty, though it cost me dearly.

If you, or our GI's really believe in this war, and yet are so easily swayed from your beliefs by a few protests, then I really don't think your convictions amount to much.

Who said anything about MY being swayed? I'm talking about the ENEMY taking "comfort" and the troops losing morale from a seeming lack of resolve on the part of our population as a whole.......which is exactly what the commie pinko's (scroll down to "who is behind all of this") are seeking........they want us to view Iraq and Afghanistan as Vietnam redux.

If you doubt the enemy is listening, then scroll two thirds of the way down this article. (bold mine)

Quote:
"Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda chief in Iraq, sent a thank you note to the Dick Durbins and Ted Kennedys of Congress in a message to his followers and sympathizers on July 5. According to an unreleased translation read to me by a Defense Department source, Zarqawi's message exhorted his terrorists to greater effort, because, Zarqawi said, it is very clear that America was being defeated in Iraq. Zarqawi's proof? His message said that the proof that America is losing is that some American congressmen are saying just that."

I've paid my dues, I'll use my constitutional rights any way I want, so you can take your "traitor" title and shove it.

Someday you may come to regret that selfish position, as I have my own past indiscretion.........as for the "shove it"---bite me, brother.

As for the MSM being so hard on Bush, that's also a crock. This administration took full media advantage of Tillman's press status, and even embellished and invented the circumstances of his death, yet at the same time won't allow any photo's of returning maimed and dead ordinary GI's in order to "protect their privacy". While we had nightly news and pictures of the casualties in Vietnam, the loss of 6 GI's yesterday hardly even made the news. If anything, the MSM is giving Bush a pass, he's been allowed to fight a pretty much sterile war.

WTF is a "sterile" war? Is that some more lefty bullshit terminology, like "pro-choice" and "progressive"?
Just like the bullshit that the MSM is giving Bush a pass.
Your claim is all the more agregious, given that the only party/candidate apparently worthy of a "pass" by the MSM, are the Dems, specifically Sen. Clinton.
To whit:
With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

Saturday, Aug. 13, 2005 12:44 p.m. EDT
Media Doing Hillary's Dirty Work

Meetings with 9/11 families: According to liberal media mogul and one-time Clinton defender Steve Brill, Hillary Clinton personally lied to him about meeting with dozens of 9/11 victim families. In a 2003 radio interview, Brill said Mrs. Clinton had her office supply him with documentation to prove the meetings took place. After checking with the families themselves, however, "None of it turned out to be true," Brill said. "They gave me documents and phone calls and things like that which just plain never happened." Media coverage of Hillary's outrageous 9/11 lie? A single mention on the New York Post's gossip page. **** SNIP **** Hillary forced to apologize to police: Next May will mark the sixth anniversary of the only instance in U.S. history where a sitting first lady was compelled to issue a written apology to an entire police department. But if you don't remember the story, don't worry. Not a single mainstream outlet covered it. Press coverage of Hillary's historic police apology? Zilch [except for NewsMax]. Imagine Mrs. Pirro getting a pass after acknowledging responsibility for supporters who spit on cops. **** SNIP **** Bashing Bush in the Arab press: The unwritten rule of American politics used to be that foreign policy differences ended at the water's edge. But in May 2004, Hillary Clinton buried that venerable tradition once and for all when she gave an interview to an Arab press outlet charging that President Bush's incompetent prosecution of the Iraq War was endangering both U.S. soldiers and innocent Iraqis. Here's how the Iranian newspaper Mehr covered her comments: "Referring to the Bush Administration policies as arrogant and insolent, the wife of the former U.S. president further added that Bush is not willing to admit his mistakes in Iraq, the grave mistakes that have endangered the lives of both the Iraqi people and the U.S. servicemen alike." Bush's mistakes, she added, "have also threatened peace and stability in the region." Clinton's outburst was ballyhooed by news outlets from Islamabad to Cairo. But the American press decided it wasn't newsworthy that the remarks of a future presidential candidate criticizing the commander in chief during a time of war were being heralded in enemy capitals. They reported not a word. Goon squads: Longtime Clinton advance man Patrick Halley recently revealed that he had an unorthodox way of handling protesters who turned up at Hillary's events: He hired "goon squads" to intimidate and harass hecklers - and beat them up, if necessary. "Less genteel souls sometimes referred to them as goon squads," wrote Halley in his 2003 memoir, "On the Road with Hillary." "But I objected to that term. I was proud of the fact that not one of them had ever been arrested." Press interest in the fact that a sitting first lady relied upon "goon squads" to keep a lid on her critics? Absolutely zero - beyond a single mention on the New York Post's gossip page.

Carry on.