PhillyKev 0 #26 September 8, 2004 QuoteBut saying it is Bush's fault helps make it look like the dems should win the election. Bush and his administration pushed for the war in Iraq. Yeah, whoever serves the next four years is stuck with that mess, but here's a clue, it IS Bush's fault. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #27 September 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteBut saying it is Bush's fault helps make it look like the dems should win the election. Bush and his administration pushed for the war in Iraq. Yeah, whoever serves the next four years is stuck with that mess, but here's a clue, it IS Bush's fault. Have you forgotten what tstarted all this? The correct answer, wether you decide to believe it or not, is that it is the Radical Islamists fault for allowing the leadership of some of it's factions to become so warped.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #28 September 8, 2004 Whether you decide to believe it or not, Iraq was the furthest thing from a theocracy that existed in the middle east besides Israel. Hussein was a cruel dictator, but he wasn't a mullah. If anything, we opened the door for radical Islamists to take control. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #29 September 8, 2004 He allowed people that controlled other people to operste within his borders, as long as they were anti-american. The furthest thing - no - not even close to that.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #30 September 8, 2004 but we are running out of troops to rotate.... we might not need more on the ground, as the country stabilzed into 'regions of conflict' and we train up the Iraqis to take over the less critical areas and we move into the zones under dispute, but we certainly had a need for more than we brought initially and we do have a need for more troops PERIOD, if we are going to attempt this kind of nation building in the future.... you DO realize, that all of our 'standing reserve' of equipment is now GONE ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #31 September 8, 2004 >He allowed people that controlled other people to operste within his borders . . . And if he had stopped them you would be whining over another mass grave. "He kills his OWN PEOPLE! Within his OWN BORDERS! He's a lunatic who must be taken out!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #32 September 8, 2004 Quote>He allowed people that controlled other people to operste within his borders . . . And if he had stopped them you would be whining over another mass grave. "He kills his OWN PEOPLE! Within his OWN BORDERS! He's a lunatic who must be taken out!" Now you understand. If he does nothing to fix the problem - then he is a part of the problem. If the police did nothing to catch a murderer and they are supposed to - they are part of a large problem.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #33 September 8, 2004 >If he does nothing to fix the problem - then he is a part of the problem. And if he does - he is a murderer and must be taken out. If he has WMD's, he is a threat to world peace. If he doesn't - then he's a threat to world peace. If he cooperates with UN inspections, he's just doing that to better hide his weapons. If he doesn't cooperate, he's trying to cover up his weapons. I know the conservative talking points; they have a clear goal. I just disagree with them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #34 September 8, 2004 Quotebut we are running out of troops to rotate.... No we aren't. The Army has just messed up their rotation approach to some degree. The AF has it right (what I do) and we cycle people in and out every four months. Is is hard? Yes. Does it suck missing the holiday season, being away from loves ones? Yes. Quote but we certainly had a need for more than we brought initially and we do have a need for more troops PERIOD Well, just because you say it with conviction doesn't make it so. The generals in the field say they have enough. What they need is for congress to get off it's ass and approved the defense appropriates bills so they can replentish the reserve equipment that gets used during harsh operations. Quoteif we are going to attempt this kind of nation building in the future.... Well, if the UN had done it's job we wouldn't have had to do this, now would we? Quoteyou DO realize, that all of our 'standing reserve' of equipment is now GONE Yes, WRM (war readiness material/materiel) has been depleted. And we have contracts out to replentish it. Bottom line, we have been sent kill or deter those who want to strike us in the US. We will do that until the administration (now or future) orders us to do otherwise. If we are low on vehicles, supplies, body armor, ammo, food, water, it matters not. We will still prevail. It's what we do. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #35 September 8, 2004 Quote>If he does nothing to fix the problem - then he is a part of the problem. And if he does - he is a murderer and must be taken out. If he has WMD's, he is a threat to world peace. If he doesn't - then he's a threat to world peace. If he cooperates with UN inspections, he's just doing that to better hide his weapons. If he doesn't cooperate, he's trying to cover up his weapons. I know the conservative talking points; they have a clear goal. I just disagree with them. If Saddam would have interviened and sided with us agianst terrorism as Saudi did and the UK, Austrailia - so on an so on - it would have masde it pretty hard to take ANY action there. They did not - so - in we went. It was a lack of politics that let us in get to that point, as well as an overabundance of it.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #36 September 8, 2004 Quote>1002: Soldiers killed in Iraq >2403: Americans killed at Pearl Harbor Well, look at the positive side. If he's re-elected, he'll have a shot at bumping up US losses past Pearl Harbor! And who knows? If we're really lucky, maybe he'll start a war over faulty intelligence that breaks all sorts of records. May I remind/demonstrate you that Pearl Harbor was a one day event?"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #37 September 8, 2004 And 583 people in the US die every day due to diabeties. More than 200,000 a year. Stem cell research could cure it, if not for Bush. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #38 September 8, 2004 i was there initially, we were WAY short handed and the leadership at the time said so ....at least as high up the chain as politics allowed... We went in with an undersupplied, under manned force for the goals we set and if the initial fight had offered much real resistance to the point they have begun to now.. the shortfalls would have been very obvious to everyone. The proficiency of our soldiers and the lack of initial resistance made it appear we had enough, but we should really really stop letting civilian leaders dictate battle plans and troop requirements… and No, we do not have enough total troops to rotate properly, not without burning them out and neglecting our obligations in other theaters. Which is why we are planning on abandoning a few of those other theaters... there are already reports that support this, both the realignment which has been in the news already and the op-tempo issues for the soldiers in rotation... i expect the news media to be all over it in the near future.. but if we are going to continue on this path our military needs to be ALOT larger than it currently is.... QuoteYes, WRM (war readiness material/materiel) has been depleted. And we have contracts out to replentish it. and how many fronts was that WRM supposed to support?? That mistake we can certainly blame Clinton for, but it doesn’t change the fact that we don’t have what we should have available to insure our continued security. Also, have you seen the timeline on those contracts??? I’ve seen the schedule for the systems i support, and some of them are 8-10 YEARS!! and past the retrofit/end of service dates for the older versions, yet because we have to build to contract, we are going to be manufacturing equipment that will be obsolete before it fields.......hopefully that gets fixed...but I’ve learned never to underestimate the stupidity of the bureaucratic process or the lure of money when it comes to doing what is right for the end user (soldier) ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #39 September 8, 2004 QuoteAnd 583 people in the US die every day due to diabeties. More than 200,000 a year. Stem cell research could cure it, if not for Bush. Offer solid proof and guarantee that on your own life, and put a time limit on it.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #40 September 8, 2004 Yep, and also much more die in the world because they have diarrhea, and that is also Bush's fault. Not finding a known cure...."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #41 September 8, 2004 Quotei was there initially, we were WAY short handed and the leadership at the time said so. Fair enough, but when was that, during the build up? QuoteWe went in with an undersupplied, under manned force for the goals we set and if the initial fight had offered much real resistance to the point they have begun to now.. the shortfalls would have been very obvious to everyone. The proficiency of our soldiers and the lack of initial resistance made it appear we had enough, but we should really really stop letting civilian leaders dictate battle plans and troop requirements… I was in force planning at the time, and they were responding to what the war plans were as stated, and we were getting those numbers from the front. Are you saying the leadership of your service was giving bad info back to the planners? Quote No, we do not have enough total troops to rotate properlyQuote We who, Army, Navy, AF, Marines? Whoe? Quote, not without burning them out and neglecting our obligations in other theaters. What other theaters, Afghanistan? Are there others you are speaking about? I'm getting ready for my third trip. QuoteWhich is why we are planning on abandoning a few of those other theaters... there are already reports that support this, both the realignment which has been in the news already and the op-tempo issues for the soldiers in rotation... i expect the news media to be all over it in the near future.. but if we are going to continue on this path our military needs to be ALOT larger than it currently is.... Too bad the generals in charge of the Army aren't giving that feedback to the boss. Quoteand how many fronts was that WRM supposed to support?? That mistake we can certainly blame Clinton for, but it doesn’t change the fact that we don’t have what we should have available to insure our continued security. Two. QuoteAlso, have you seen the timeline on those contracts??? I’ve seen the schedule for the systems i support, and some of them are 8-10 YEARS!! 8-10 years to get fresh AMMO to the front? Spares for Bradleys and Hummers? Now tanks, I get. Thanks Clinton for that. But if the Army is that hard up, then the Army leadership needs to be sacked. It's up to them to communicate with the boss and make certain he knows the situation is. I've worked in the CAOC, and we aren't hearing any of this stuff (at this magnitude) from anyone, including the Army. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #42 September 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteAnd 583 people in the US die every day due to diabeties. More than 200,000 a year. Stem cell research could cure it, if not for Bush. Offer solid proof and guarantee that on your own life, and put a time limit on it. Do that regarding the war on terror. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #43 September 8, 2004 Asked you first. Nice avoidance though. Eddited to include: Side Note: Also - you gave a direct solution - I have NEVER said that the war on terror can be won. I don't think it can - but it needs to be quelled - what we are doing is the right thing.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #44 September 8, 2004 QuoteYep, and also much more die in the world because they have diarrhea, and that is also Bush's fault. Not finding a known cure.... Nope, it's not Bush's fault that people have diabeties. It's also not his fault that we were attacked on 9/11. The question is, where is he devoting our resources and focus, and which would do the most good to preserve lives and the quality of life for our nation? Hell, all he has to do is NOT ban stem cell research. Wouldn't cost us a dime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #45 September 8, 2004 QuoteAsked you first. Nice avoidance though. The point is the question is moot. But to try to answer you, I'll bet my life that not banning stem cell research would save a whole hell of a lot more people than invading Iraq does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #46 September 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteAsked you first. Nice avoidance though. The point is the question is moot. But to try to answer you, I'll bet my life that not banning stem cell research would save a whole hell of a lot more people than invading Iraq does. Again - misdirection of the question - try it this way - WOULD you bet YOUR life on stem cell research? In what time frame are we talking about? From the start to present date. I'll take that bet - we have been in Iraq for what? say 1.5 years - We'll pull everyone out and let stem cell research run free and see how many die in Iraq v. how many are saved by the research - and in 1.5 years we';ll tally them up. Did you pick a nice casket?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites juanesky 0 #47 September 8, 2004 Hey James, send me your AF email, we could at least try to meet over there, and have a few 's Be safe. Blue skies."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #48 September 8, 2004 QuoteWe'll pull everyone out and let stem cell research run free and see how many die in Iraq v. how many are saved by the research - and in 1.5 years we';ll tally them up. Sounds good, and I'll put my life on the line. Diabeties runs in my family. It killed my father and all 5 of his brothers and sisters. You're asking a question to an unknown, how many people will stem cell research save? But the same holds true for Iraq. How many people will our invasion save? Neither can be answered. But given the choice in picking one or the other, I'd pick the former. And like I said, all he has to do is NOT ban stem cell research so you don't have to pick between the two. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #49 September 8, 2004 Nice fantasy world - won't work that way though.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #50 September 8, 2004 QuoteNice fantasy world - won't work that way though. What the hell are you talking about? It's not fantasy: measles, polio, small pox, etc. were stamped out through research. Banning research is stupid. Encouraging research is smart. It's pretty simple. And again, all he has to do is NOT ban it. Doesn't even take an overt act. But his failure in that regard is destroying the chance of potentially saving hundreds of thousands of lives a year. No, there's no guarantee, and there's no guarantee that invading Iraq made us any safer. But again, which has the POTENTIAL to save more people? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
PhillyKev 0 #42 September 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteAnd 583 people in the US die every day due to diabeties. More than 200,000 a year. Stem cell research could cure it, if not for Bush. Offer solid proof and guarantee that on your own life, and put a time limit on it. Do that regarding the war on terror. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #43 September 8, 2004 Asked you first. Nice avoidance though. Eddited to include: Side Note: Also - you gave a direct solution - I have NEVER said that the war on terror can be won. I don't think it can - but it needs to be quelled - what we are doing is the right thing.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #44 September 8, 2004 QuoteYep, and also much more die in the world because they have diarrhea, and that is also Bush's fault. Not finding a known cure.... Nope, it's not Bush's fault that people have diabeties. It's also not his fault that we were attacked on 9/11. The question is, where is he devoting our resources and focus, and which would do the most good to preserve lives and the quality of life for our nation? Hell, all he has to do is NOT ban stem cell research. Wouldn't cost us a dime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #45 September 8, 2004 QuoteAsked you first. Nice avoidance though. The point is the question is moot. But to try to answer you, I'll bet my life that not banning stem cell research would save a whole hell of a lot more people than invading Iraq does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #46 September 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteAsked you first. Nice avoidance though. The point is the question is moot. But to try to answer you, I'll bet my life that not banning stem cell research would save a whole hell of a lot more people than invading Iraq does. Again - misdirection of the question - try it this way - WOULD you bet YOUR life on stem cell research? In what time frame are we talking about? From the start to present date. I'll take that bet - we have been in Iraq for what? say 1.5 years - We'll pull everyone out and let stem cell research run free and see how many die in Iraq v. how many are saved by the research - and in 1.5 years we';ll tally them up. Did you pick a nice casket?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #47 September 8, 2004 Hey James, send me your AF email, we could at least try to meet over there, and have a few 's Be safe. Blue skies."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #48 September 8, 2004 QuoteWe'll pull everyone out and let stem cell research run free and see how many die in Iraq v. how many are saved by the research - and in 1.5 years we';ll tally them up. Sounds good, and I'll put my life on the line. Diabeties runs in my family. It killed my father and all 5 of his brothers and sisters. You're asking a question to an unknown, how many people will stem cell research save? But the same holds true for Iraq. How many people will our invasion save? Neither can be answered. But given the choice in picking one or the other, I'd pick the former. And like I said, all he has to do is NOT ban stem cell research so you don't have to pick between the two. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #49 September 8, 2004 Nice fantasy world - won't work that way though.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #50 September 8, 2004 QuoteNice fantasy world - won't work that way though. What the hell are you talking about? It's not fantasy: measles, polio, small pox, etc. were stamped out through research. Banning research is stupid. Encouraging research is smart. It's pretty simple. And again, all he has to do is NOT ban it. Doesn't even take an overt act. But his failure in that regard is destroying the chance of potentially saving hundreds of thousands of lives a year. No, there's no guarantee, and there's no guarantee that invading Iraq made us any safer. But again, which has the POTENTIAL to save more people? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
