NationStates Jolt Archive

Donald Rumsfeld, that caring leader of the guardians of American Freedom (t.m.) apparently is a busy guy.

Well, after all, worrying about not properly arming the "army you have rather than the army you might like" is a full time job. He just can't take the time to devote to a lot of the detail-work. Besides, soldiers are, after all only "fungible resources".

But he's working hard. Surely everyone must see that. So it's only natural that he takes the odd shortcut here and there to save himself some time. And one of those things that has really been eating up his hours lately is signing all of those pesky condolence letters that need to go out.

But Donald IS a resourceful man. He has the solution to this inconveniece.

"What is it?" you might ask?

Simple.

He doesn't sign condolence letters to the widows and parents of those who have died under his command.

Nope - Donny went out and got a nice little rubber stamp made up to do the job for him. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/20/wrum20.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/12/20/ixportal.html)



Donald Rumsfeld, the American defence secretary, has been using a machine to sign letters of condolence to the relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq, it emerged yesterday.
In a statement to the Stars and Stripes, the military newspaper, he conceded that he had not "individually" signed letters to the families of more than 1,300 war dead. He said it had been his wish to speed up the process. He added: "I have directed that in the future I sign each letter."

His statement follows a flood of complaints to the paper from bereaved families, accusing 72-year-old Mr Rumsfeld of high-handedness and disdain for their loss.

Army Specialist Ivan Medina, whose twin brother was killed in a roadside bomb attack in Iraq this summer, said: "To me it is an insult, not only as someone who lost a loved one but as someone who served in Iraq. This does not show our families the respect they deserve."

The issue was exposed by David Hackworth, a retired colonel. He incurred Mr Rumsfeld's ridicule during the invasion of Iraq when he said, only days before Baghdad fell, that the mission had become a quagmire. But 20 months later, as American forces struggle to control the rebellion by guerrilla fighters, he and other Rumsfeld critics are finding their voice again.

He said: "One father bitterly commented that it was a pity that Mr Rumsfeld could keep his squash schedule but could not find the time to sign his dead son's letter."





"Here's todays stack Don"

*thwack*thwack*thwack*thwack*

"Woohoo! 15 letter in three seconds! A new record!"

Yes, of all the places one needs to "speed up the proccess", telling people of the deaths of their loved ones should be right at the top of the list....

Even how he talks about it is disingenuous: "I have directed that in the future I sign each letter." Right. You sent out a memo to yourself to take note of this detail because clearly yourself didn't have the brains to figure that out on it's own the first time.

Gosh Donny, we all hope that you remember to read this new executive "direction", because otherwise you might have to give yourself a spanking....

Donald Rumsfeld, that caring leader of the guardians of American Freedom (t.m.) apparently is a busy guy.

Well, after all, worrying about not properly arming the "army you have rather than the army you might like" is a full time job. He just can't take the time to devote to a lot of the detail-work. Besides, soldiers are, after all only "fungible resources".

But he's working hard. Surely everyone must see that. So it's only natural that he takes the odd shortcut here and there to save himself some time. And one of those things that has really been eating up his hours lately is signing all of those pesky condolence letters that need to go out.

But Donald IS a resourceful man. He has the solution to this inconveniece.

"What is it?" you might ask?

Simple.

He doesn't sign condolence letters to the widows and parents of those who have died under his command.

Nope - Donny went out and got a nice little rubber stamp made up to do the job for him. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/20/wrum20.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/12/20/ixportal.html)

"Here's todays stack Don"

*thwack*thwack*thwack*thwack*

"Woohoo! 15 letter in three seconds! A new record!"

Yes, of all the places one needs to "speed up the proccess", telling people of the deaths of their loved ones should be right at the top of the list....

Even how he talks about it is disingenuous: "I have directed that in the future I sign each letter." Right. You sent out a memo to yourself to take note of this detail because clearly yourself didn't have the brains to figure that out on it's own the first time.

Gosh Donny, we all hope that you remember to read this new executive "direction", because otherwise you might have to give yourself a spanking....

It's called an AutoPen. It's been in use in the US Military since WW II.
For signing nearly ALL correspondence of any kind.
Also, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for you to find any Secretary of Defense (or War) who personally signed condolence letters (any more than a few) since the adoption of the device.

It's called an AutoPen. It's been in use in the US Military since WW II.
For signing nearly ALL correspondence of any kind.
Also, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for you to find any Secretary of Defense (or War) who personally signed condolence letters (any more than a few) since the adoption of the device.

Yes, heaven forbid Rummy should actually sign the actual letters. I mean there have been too many deaths for him to possibly keep up with. It might of made sense when you had 5,000 dead a day. It is just unbelievable for him to be doing it with just over 1000 deaths over the course of two years.

I wonder if he also has a fake hand to shake the almost 10,000 wounded soldiers that have come back from Iraq, many times less a few arms or legs!

I can't believe any one would even dare attempt to make excuses for that piece of slime!

Yes, heaven forbid Rummy should actually sign the actual letters. I mean there have been too many deaths for him to possibly keep up with. It might of made sense when you had 5,000 dead a day. It is just unbelievable for him to be doing it with just over 1000 deaths over the course of two years.

I wonder if he also has a fake hand to shake the almost 10,000 wounded soldiers that have come back from Iraq, many times less a few arms or legs!

I can't believe any one would even dare attempt to make excuses for that piece of slime!

I can't argue with the man. He came and ate dinner with us in the middle of nowhere. Where were you?

I've been down to Walter Reed when I make it home, and met the wounded there. Where were you?

It's called an AutoPen. It's been in use in the US Military since WW II.
For signing nearly ALL correspondence of any kind.
Also, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for you to find any Secretary of Defense (or War) who personally signed condolence letters (any more than a few) since the adoption of the device.


But yet the President CAN find the time to hand-sign them.

Go figure.

Oh, gosh, did I see a thread like this before?

I can't argue with the man. He came and ate dinner with us in the middle of nowhere. Where were you?

I've been down to Walter Reed when I make it home, and met the wounded there. Where were you?


Oh gosh, well as long as Donny dropped in for dinner.... once ... I guess he can do no wrong.



Silly me.

And old king george
Sent mother a note
When he heard that father was gone.
It was, I recall,
In the form of a scroll,
With gold leaf and all.
And I found it one day
In a drawer of old photographs, hidden away.
And my eyes still grow damp to remember
His majesty signed
With his own rubber stamp.

- Pink Floyd "When the Tigers Broke Free"

Oh gosh, well as long as Donny dropped in for dinner.... once ... I guess he can do no wrong.

Silly me.

He's in Iraq and Afghanistan on a monthly basis. I suppose that you've been here more often? Showing your concern for the troops? Sent them any care packages lately? Visited any wounded?

Where were you?

I've been busy trying to help activist stop the war, trying to help people see this was a war of choice. That it didn't need to be fought. Trying to help save the young men & women who have been sent to this war of choice by the very same people who dodged the draft so they didn't have to fight when they were young men. I do more than my fair share of trying to help! That's where I have been and am!

I've been busy trying to help activist stop the war, trying to help people see this was a war of choice. That it didn't need to be fought. Trying to help save the young men & women who have been sent to this war of choice by the very same people who dodged the draft so they didn't have to fight when they were young men. I do more than my fair share of trying to help! That's where I have been and am!

Congratulations! At least you were somewhere doing something. Which is more than can be said of some people who merely criticize things and do nothing.

Congratulations! At least you were somewhere doing something. Which is more than can be said of some people who merely criticize things and do nothing.

My husband in real life as many know here is Zeppistan, he's been doing the same thing. ;)

Hmm. I've killed Iraqis (but mostly Syrians) who were shooting at my friends. So I've saved my friends' lives.

Visited the wounded when I'm at home. Given about 2/3 of my salary to their children.

I sincerely doubt that you'll be able to stop the war. And if the Islamic types do anything again in the US, the backlash will be far, far worse than you can possibly imagine. It will make current US policy look like the coming of the Red Cross.

Hmm. I've killed Iraqis (but mostly Syrians) who were shooting at my friends.

What, did you card them?

What, did you card them?

After I blew their brains out, yes.

Hmm. I've killed Iraqis (but mostly Syrians) who were shooting at my friends. So I've saved my friends' lives.

Visited the wounded when I'm at home. Given about 2/3 of my salary to their children.

I sincerely doubt that you'll be able to stop the war. And if the Islamic types do anything again in the US, the backlash will be far, far worse than you can possibly imagine. It will make current US policy look like the coming of the Red Cross.

Every one does what they have to do. I, nor does Zep blame any of you. You had no choice. No one can blame you for trying to stay alive and for trying to save the lives of your brothers in arms.

However that doesn't mean we should blindly support the administration that sent these kids there to die for their interests.

Yes, the Afghan war was more then justified. How the hell Iraq came to be still boggles the mind. If Bush really wanted to take out the largest supporters of terror, then why didn't he invade Iran or Saudi Arabia? You know it in your heart and so does the majority of the world.

But that is not the army's fault. They go where they are sent. You don't blame the men & women following orders. You put the blame where it belongs, with the people who sent them there. It really is that simple.

i'm glad we didn't have a lot of people like stephisan or whatever back in WWII. you people would have turned iwo jima into a quagmire. do you agree with us invading hitler? because you know, that was a war of choice, he never did anything to us personally. the only people who attacked us in WWII was japan. of course you might say well, japs and germans were allies, but then again, saddam was the man who said 'i didn't attack america, but i wish i know who did so i couldve helped' or something like that. (sorry, it's too early and i just woke up to try and find the exact quote)

Every one does what they have to do. I, nor does Zep blame any of you. You had no choice. No one can blame you for trying to stay alive and for trying to save the lives of your brothers in arms.

However that doesn't mean we should blindly support the administration that sent these kids there to die for their interests.

Yes, the Afghan war was more then justified. How the hell Iraq came to be still boggles the mind. If Bush really wanted to take out the largest supporters of terror, then why didn't he invade Iran or Saudi Arabia? You know it in your heart and so does the majority of the world.

But that is not the army's fault. They go where they are sent. You don't blame the men & women following orders. You put the blame where it belongs, with the people who sent them there. It really is that simple.

I had plenty of choice. I never had to enlist in the Army. And after the first War, I came back as a contractor.

I don't do it for the money, or for the politics (although I have some beliefs there). I do it because I like doing it.

i'm glad we didn't have a lot of people like stephisan or whatever back in WWII. you people would have turned iwo jima into a quagmire. do you agree with us invading hitler? because you know, that was a war of choice, he never did anything to us personally. the only people who attacked us in WWII was japan. of course you might say well, japs and germans were allies, but then again, saddam was the man who said 'i didn't attack america, but i wish i know who did so i couldve helped' or something like that. (sorry, it's too early and i just woke up to try and find the exact quote)


To bad you forgot that Hitler also declared war on you right after Pearl Harbour, and at that point also freed his u-boat fleets to attack on your shipping....


Or are you being so obtuse as to compare Saddam to Hitler?

i'm glad we didn't have a lot of people like stephisan or whatever back in WWII. you people would have turned iwo jima into a quagmire. do you agree with us invading hitler?

You didn't invade Hitler.. Hitler declared war on the US on Dec 11/41.. Hitler did the invading.. he was the aggressor and the rest of the allies were fighting that war from 1939.. the US only showed up when they no longer had a choice and thankfully they did (finally) they really helped!

However lets not confuse a war of choice with WWII please!

You didn't invade Hitler.. Hitler declared war on the US on Dec 11/41.. Hitler did the invading.. he was the aggressor and the rest of the allies were fighting that war from 1939.. the US only showed up when they no longer had a choice and thankfully they did (finally) they really helped!

However lets not confuse a war of choice with WWII please!

Hmm. So invading Afghanistan was OK, then, in your book?

Hmm. So invading Afghanistan was OK, then, in your book?

Yes, it was. You went after the people who attacked you on 9/11. The Taliban was in bed with Al Qaeda.. Saddam wasn't!

It's been fun, however I must now go feed my daughter lunch! :)

Hmm. So invading Afghanistan was OK, then, in your book?

I think invading Afghanistan to liberate people from the Taliban shoiuld have happened years before it did - the fact that the US waited 'til after Al-Qaeda struck has always left me cold.

They were very, very bad people, those Taliban types. Killed a lot of people, made life unbearable for many more - destroyed archeological sites - but you guys had no interest whatsoever in giving the people of Afghanistan a chance for democracy until it (barely) became of interest to you. Even then, you pretty much abandoned the place after you'd shot or rounded up some of the troublemakers.

The US went to Afghanistan to seek revenge, kick butt, etc. Removing the Taliban/installing democracy was a happy coincidence, but not a role they've been keen to stick around and work at. After all, there's more butts to kick in other countries, am I right?

Hmm. So invading Afghanistan was OK, then, in your book?

Yes. Absolutely. We are not pacifists and the actions of 9-11 required a response. Going after Al Qaeda was the needed course of action. It should STILL be the primary focus of this Administration, and I am very proud of my cousin who is currently on his second tour in Afghanistan. Were Canada also involved in Iraq I would, of course, remain proud of him even as I would still disagree with the reasons for why he was there.



Going after Iraq was a circus sideshow that took away from focusing on the most immediate threat. The worst possible outcome is that this could eventually sap public support for much of what should be being done to go after al qaeda as it will all get lumped together in their minds as part of a failed War on Terror..

i'm glad we didn't have a lot of people like stephisan or whatever back in WWII. you people would have turned iwo jima into a quagmire. do you agree with us invading hitler? because you know, that was a war of choice, he never did anything to us personally. the only people who attacked us in WWII was japan. of course you might say well, japs and germans were allies, but then again, saddam was the man who said 'i didn't attack america, but i wish i know who did so i couldve helped' or something like that. (sorry, it's too early and i just woke up to try and find the exact quote)

Wow, are people really this ignorant, or is it just the internet that brings it out.

Hitler:

1. Invaded allied nations in 3 continents.
2. Declared war on us, and sent submarines to destroy Civilian vessels of ours.
3. Was actually (meaning, we didn't just say he was) develloping weapons of mass destruction for the use of aiding in invasion of our nation.
4. Ultimately holds responsibility (in all or in part) of the deaths of ~60 million people.

Saddam Hussein:

1. Looked at us funny and said he 'wished he attacked us'.

Quit using stupid comparisons.

Having seen quite a few dead fellows who carry the baggage and imprimature of Al-Q here, I think the "sideshow" as you put it is a deliberate ruse designed to pull in anyone who gets emotional about being an Islamic militant.

While it may not pull in the head honchos, it sure acts like a meatgrinder for anyone who wants to play terrorist.

Please try to remember that the man you are calling "a piece of slime" is the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America. He is due the honor and respect that that position affords him as a representative of the greatest country in the world. I'm sure that that kind of rhetoric is very popular up there in Canada, but I suspect that it would get you an entirely different response in most of the US.

As for Secretary Rumsfeld (I doubt that he has given you permission to call him Donny), not signing all of the condolence letters...the man has successfully waged two campaigns. He has maintained hands-on management and an active role in the war zones. He is responsible for over 250,000 deployed troops. His frequent time spent actually with our troops is well documented if you would care to check. He is a 35 year man in the Navy and Navy Reserve. From the career military types I have met, Miss Manners is not on their required reading list. At the most, he has committed an infraction of etiquette in this case.

You also seem to like to infer that Secretary Rumsfeld sets a low worth on the American GI. His frequent mingling and speaking one-on-one with them proves the lie of that. When he spoke of fungible resources (a military term per my husband) he was speaking of the swift mobility and adaptability of our troops. Not in anyway an insult, but a compliment to their professional capabilities. Secretary Rumsfeld has also made it clear that his remark about not having the military you want was an attempt to say that you take what you have and improve it as needs arise and are identified. For example, our people went to Iraq with gas masks and chemical protection suits expecting chemical and biological attacks. Instead they eventually came up to gunfire and bombs.

Sometimes you need to step back and see the broader picture beyond your own agenda.

Sometimes you need to step back and see the broader picture beyond your own agenda.

And sometimes you have to look past your own nose, Zooke. Agenda or not. Donny is 'The Man' for all the wrong reasons, and it shows in his public performance, over...and over...and over again.

Blindly supporting a fool isn't a point of pride in ANY nation - no matter how messed up that country may be.

Please try to remember that the man you are calling "a piece of slime" is the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America. He is due the honor and respect that that position affords him as a representative of the greatest country in the world. I'm sure that that kind of rhetoric is very popular up there in Canada, but I suspect that it would get you an entirely different response in most of the US.

Yeah ... in the US you get, "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom to Dissent" and "We're not going to cow to someone just cuz they have a title". Last I checked, Donny wasn't an elected official, but rather a good-buddy appointee.

As for Secretary Rumsfeld (I doubt that he has given you permission to call him Donny), not signing all of the condolence letters...the man has successfully waged two campaigns.

Which two? From what I can tell, the two that started under him are still going on. How can you claim success without completion?

He has maintained hands-on management and an active role in the war zones. He is responsible for over 250,000 deployed troops.

Not to mention hundreds of brutally tortured Iraqis and several violations of the Geneva Convention.

You also seem to like to infer that Secretary Rumsfeld sets a low worth on the American GI.

Yeah ... and let's not forget the popularity of the Stop-Loss backdoor draft!

Sometimes you need to step back and see the broader picture beyond your own agenda.

I couldn't agree more.

Yeah ... and let's not forget the popularity of the Stop-Loss backdoor draft!


Well, the backdoor was left open in 1994, when the massive drawdown of active duty troops reduced the size of the military by six-fold during the Clinton administration. It took a long, long time to complete, but it was finished before Clinton left office.

If the drawdown had not occurred, it is unlikely that a deployment of National Guard and Reserves (at today's current levels) would have ever occurred.

Also, if you're fighting a traditional Western civilization, they acknowledge being beaten long before the country is turned into a complete wasteland. So it's possible to get someone to sign a surrender, and have everyone go along with it. These things are not possible with our current enemies, who have no interest in surrendering, no matter how few are left, or how much real estate they no longer control. In their dogma, they really leave us no choice but to stay and kill.

But yet the President CAN find the time to hand-sign them.

Go figure.
when did the president learn to sign his own name? >_>
but seriously, he has no time in the day to sign 50 extra papers a day at most? signing doesnt take that long

Please try to remember that the man you are calling "a piece of slime" is the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America. He is due the honor and respect that that position affords him as a representative of the greatest country in the world. I'm sure that that kind of rhetoric is very popular up there in Canada, but I suspect that it would get you an entirely different response in most of the US.

As for Secretary Rumsfeld (I doubt that he has given you permission to call him Donny), not signing all of the condolence letters...the man has successfully waged two campaigns. He has maintained hands-on management and an active role in the war zones. He is responsible for over 250,000 deployed troops. His frequent time spent actually with our troops is well documented if you would care to check. He is a 35 year man in the Navy and Navy Reserve. From the career military types I have met, Miss Manners is not on their required reading list. At the most, he has committed an infraction of etiquette in this case.

You also seem to like to infer that Secretary Rumsfeld sets a low worth on the American GI. His frequent mingling and speaking one-on-one with them proves the lie of that. When he spoke of fungible resources (a military term per my husband) he was speaking of the swift mobility and adaptability of our troops. Not in anyway an insult, but a compliment to their professional capabilities. Secretary Rumsfeld has also made it clear that his remark about not having the military you want was an attempt to say that you take what you have and improve it as needs arise and are identified. For example, our people went to Iraq with gas masks and chemical protection suits expecting chemical and biological attacks. Instead they eventually came up to gunfire and bombs.

Sometimes you need to step back and see the broader picture beyond your own agenda.

I always find it odd how a country that defined itself as being of the people and totally apart from the BS of royalty turned around and then conveyed the same trappings of deference upon their elected officials. You make it sound like people in office automatically inherit infallibility and become immune to questioning.

What winds up being hypocritical of course, is that this almost always is done partisanly. Not saying that this applies to you, but other people here who have cried out about the sanctity of the office regarding Bush have been amongst the most viscious slanderers of Bill Clinton. Me, I just call themas I see them, without favouratism and without any false sucking up.

So if you would prefer that I phrase things as polite criticism with respect along the lines of "Brutus is an honourable man", well tough. I could care less about getting Donald's "permission" to call him Donny and I could care less about your delicate sensitivity to his position - especially as he is not an elected official and so has no personal mandate.

This has been my opinion freely spoken as your own Constitution guarantees, as does mine.

You don't like it?

Too bad.

Please try to remember that the man you are calling "a piece of slime" is the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America. He is due the honor and respect that that position affords him as a representative of the greatest country in the world.

I owe him nothing. Nor do the American people. They didn't elect him.

As for the US being the greatest country in the world, that is a matter of opinion. I suppose it would depend on what is important to people. Not every one thinks stabbing as many people in the back as they can to climb the ladder is great or important.. nor does every one in the world think that just because you have the most bombs that leads to any type of greatness at all.

I don't fault you for loving your country, just keep in mind the majority of the world disagrees with you at the moment. I would rather be a Canadian than an American any day of the week, even before the patriot act. I also love my country and there is no shame in that.

I don't fault you for loving your country, or opposing the war.
I just feel that hoping that you can somehow immediately stop the war when we have four more years of Bush is like pissing into a strong wind.

And complaining about Bush winning the election, or complaining about how you think he's stupid, is more of the same. Useless, witless activity.

It changes absolutely nothing.

Also, if you're fighting a traditional Western civilization, they acknowledge being beaten long before the country is turned into a complete wasteland.

Such as - ?

So it's possible to get someone to sign a surrender, and have everyone go along with it.

Who's the 'someone' you're talking about? If by invading another nation, you succeed in shattering the governing bodies, just 'who' signs the surrender, how does the invaded populace get informed of this, and does the invaded populace hold this individual in enough esteem that they go along with it?

These things are not possible with our current enemies, who have no interest in surrendering, no matter how few are left, or how much real estate they no longer control.

Yes, pesky foreign nationals. It's not like fighting those...what, Germans? Yeah. Germany had a hard time convincing Britons to surrender, even though they kept bombing and bombing and bombing them. Just made the British resolve that much stronger to never capitulate. How inconvenient. How unwestern. How like the modern Iraqis...


In their dogma, they really leave us no choice but to stay and kill.

Yet oddly enough, theirs ample room in your dogma for going home and leaving before REALLY messing things up...pity you refuse to coinsider that option. Kill! Kill! Kill!

I'll now cut and paste the timeless Fugs ditty, 'Kill For Peace' -

Kill, kill, kill for peace
Kill, kill, kill for peace
Near or middle or very far east
Far or near or very middle east
Kill, kill, kill for peace
Kill, kill, kill for peace

If you don't like the people
or the way that they talk
If you don't like their manners
or they way that they walk,
Kill, kill, kill for peace
Kill, kill, kill for peace

If you don't kill them
then the Chinese will
If you don't want America
to play second fiddle,
Kill, kill, kill for peace
Kill, kill, kill for peace

If you let them live
they might support the Russians
If you let them live
they might love the Russians
Kill, kill, kill for peace
Kill, kill, kill for peace

(spoken) Kill 'em, kill 'em, strafe those gook creeps!

The only gook an
American can trust
Is a gook that's got
his yellow head bust.
Kill, kill, kill for peace
Kill, kill, kill for peace

Kill, kill, it'll
feel so good,
like my captain
said it should

Kill, kill, kill for peace
Kill, kill, kill for peace
Kill it will give
you a mental ease
kill it will give
you a big release

Kill, kill, kill for peace
Kill, kill, kill for peace
Kill, kill, kill for peace
Kill, kill, kill for peace


-Ta for now.

"Going to war for peace is like having sex for virginity"

I'm talking about Afghanistan, for example. We've invaded, the governing folks ran (or were killed).

And we'll have to stay forever, or until we can educate several generations of their children.

Who would surrender? And even if Mullah Omar had said he surrendered, would all of his followers? Nope.

Even if OBL offered surrender, his followers would never stop.

I'm sure that if you were confronted with an angry jihadi who was about to shoot you, you would want to sit and talk with him. I'm really sure that would work.

I don't fault you for loving your country, or opposing the war.
I just feel that hoping that you can somehow immediately stop the war when we have four more years of Bush is like pissing into a strong wind.

And complaining about Bush winning the election, or complaining about how you think he's stupid, is more of the same. Useless, witless activity.

It changes absolutely nothing.

For the record, I don't support immediately stoping the war. You broke it - you bought it. Frankly though, I have little faith that this administration is going to be able to complete the sale. You arrived to remove one dictatorship and shortly after you leave there will be another, only this time sitting atop an even more ruined country than the one you went into. It will also be a country that hates the US with a passion that will be providing canon-fodder to Al Qaeda for a decade.


However, my belief that Iraq needs to be stabilized in no way precludes me from pointing out what I feel are errors in policy when I see them either. I'm not "complaining" that Bush won. I am expressing opinions on policy. And were Kerry to have won I'd be doing the same to him if it were on a matter that I felt strongly enough.

Will my words do anything? Nope, not a damn thing. But then again neither will yours and you seem equally prone to taking the time to present and defend your own views on the issues, so it's not as if you feel that discourse is a waste either.

Next time around it might be me agreeing with a policy and you opposing it. Rest assured that my response to you at such a time will not be "don't bother, it doesn't matter, you can't change things".

Because if people ever do truly come to feel that way then we'll have a funeral to plan because democracy will be dead.

we'll have to stay forever, or until we can educate several generations of their children.


How, uhh...'white' of you...just remember, familiarity breeds contempt. The British learned that lesson. I guess it'll take you at least as long.

Good luck.

Oh, and I wouldn't be confronted by an angry jihadist, as we WOULD talk, and we'd agree what meddling, self-important, condescending racist bastards (and oil thieves) the Americans and British are, were, and lost likely will continue to be.

How, uhh...'white' of you...just remember, familiarity breeds contempt. The British learned that lesson. I guess it'll take you at least as long.

Good luck.

Oh, and I wouldn't be confronted by an angry jihadist, as we WOULD talk, and we'd agree what meddling, self-important, condescending racist bastards (and oil thieves) the Americans and British are, were, and lost likely will continue to be.

Yes, that's what Margaret Hassan thought. Until they put a bullet through her head on TV.

For the record, I don't support immediately stoping the war. You broke it - you bought it. Frankly though, I have little faith that this administration is going to be able to complete the sale. You arrived to remove one dictatorship and shortly after you leave there will be another, only this time sitting atop an even more ruined country than the one you went into. It will also be a country that hates the US with a passion that will be providing canon-fodder to Al Qaeda for a decade.


However, my belief that Iraq needs to be stabilized in no way precludes me from pointing out what I feel are errors in policy when I see them either. I'm not "complaining" that Bush won. I am expressing opinions on policy. And were Kerry to have won I'd be doing the same to him if it were on a matter that I felt strongly enough.

Will my words do anything? Nope, not a damn thing. But then again neither will yours and you seem equally prone to taking the time to present and defend your own views on the issues, so it's not as if you feel that discourse is a waste either.

Next time around it might be me agreeing with a policy and you opposing it. Rest assured that my response to you at such a time will not be "don't bother, it doesn't matter, you can't change things".

Because if people ever do truly come to feel that way then we'll have a funeral to plan because democracy will be dead.

Well said my love :fluffle:

I only fight where I think I can change things. I can save my friends by killing. Much more effective in my case than anything else I can do.

I only fight where I think I can change things. I can save my friends by killing. Much more effective in my case than anything else I can do.

I think he more meant that you are hear debating the issue. If you feel it's pointless, then why do you do it? Don't get us wrong, we don't think it's pointless.

I think he more meant that you are hear debating the issue. If you feel it's pointless, then why do you do it? Don't get us wrong, we don't think it's pointless.

I don't think it's pointless at all. I'm just of the opinion that the common person may never know the real reason behind anything.

We weren't told the Tonkin Gulf incident was faked by our own government (and the Democratic Party) until 20 years later.

So I don't tend to do things because I feel I can change the world. The world continues to spin regardless of what I do.

I kill for friends and for the thrill of being in dangerous situations.

And old king george
Sent mother a note
When he heard that father was gone.
It was, I recall,
In the form of a scroll,
With gold leaf and all.
And I found it one day
In a drawer of old photographs, hidden away.
And my eyes still grow damp to remember
His majesty signed
With his own rubber stamp.

- Pink Floyd "When the Tigers Broke Free"

"Here's forty shillings on the drum

For those who'll volunteer to come

To 'list and fight the foe today

Over the hills and far away.

O'er the hills and o'er the main

Through Flanders, Portugal and Spain

King George commands and we obey

Over the hills and far away



When duty calls me I must go,

to stand and face another foe

But part of me will always stray

Over the hills and far away.

O'er the hills and o'er the main

Through Flanders, Portugal and Spain

King George commands and we obey

Over the hills and far away



If I should fall to rise no more

As many comrades did before

Then ask the fifes and drums to play

Over the hills and far away.

O'er the hills and o'er the main

Through Flanders, Portugal and Spain

King George commands and we obey

Over the hills and far away



Then fall in lads behind the drum

With Colours blazing like the sun

Along the road to come-what-may

Over the hills and far away.

O'er the hills and o'er the main

Through Flanders, Portugal and Spain

King George commands and we obey

Over the hills and far away"


The song of the 95th Regiment of Foot (the Rifles)

"Here's forty shillings on the drum

For those who'll volunteer to come

To 'list and fight the foe today

Over the hills and far away.

O'er the hills and o'er the main

Through Flanders, Portugal and Spain

King George commands and we obey

Over the hills and far away



When duty calls me I must go,

to stand and face another foe

But part of me will always stray

Over the hills and far away.

O'er the hills and o'er the main

Through Flanders, Portugal and Spain

King George commands and we obey

Over the hills and far away



If I should fall to rise no more

As many comrades did before

Then ask the fifes and drums to play

Over the hills and far away.

O'er the hills and o'er the main

Through Flanders, Portugal and Spain

King George commands and we obey

Over the hills and far away



Then fall in lads behind the drum

With Colours blazing like the sun

Along the road to come-what-may

Over the hills and far away.

O'er the hills and o'er the main

Through Flanders, Portugal and Spain

King George commands and we obey

Over the hills and far away"
The song of the 95th Regiment of Foot (the Rifles)



It's as good a reason as any. But Kipling came closer, especially concerning Afghanistan.

BTW, if you want a good laugh, get a copy of Moby Dick, and in the first part of the book, is reference to a newspaper headling concerning Afghanistan and a US election...

You guys are all stupid, Donald Rumsfeld rules, hes a real American not one of those pussy Democrats who thinks that the soldiers need all their armor, whats next, fluffy pillows? As long as good people like Rumsfeld are in office the US has nothing to worry about. So just shut up! Bush is doing an excellent job handleing the war in Iraq, which was a great decision, out of all of our presidents Bush has been our best I have to say, hes the only one who has tried to communicate with the common man.



















Today is opposite day right?

You guys are all stupid, Donald Rumsfeld rules, hes a real American not one of those pussy Democrats who thinks that the soldiers need all their armor, whats next, fluffy pillows? As long as good people like Rumsfeld are in office the US has nothing to worry about. So just shut up! Bush is doing an excellent job handleing the war in Iraq, which was a great decision, out of all of our presidents Bush has been our best I have to say, hes the only one who has tried to communicate with the common man.
Today is opposite day right?

Well, I have to say that Kerry is way ahead of me. I haven't lit a village on fire that never shot at me, and I never shot an unarmed wounded boy in the back. And, even if I had done those things, I'm sure I wouldn't get a Silver Star and an early trip home.

Well, the backdoor was left open in 1994, when the massive drawdown of active duty troops reduced the size of the military by six-fold during the Clinton administration. It took a long, long time to complete, but it was finished before Clinton left office.

If the drawdown had not occurred, it is unlikely that a deployment of National Guard and Reserves (at today's current levels) would have ever occurred.

Also, if you're fighting a traditional Western civilization, they acknowledge being beaten long before the country is turned into a complete wasteland. So it's possible to get someone to sign a surrender, and have everyone go along with it. These things are not possible with our current enemies, who have no interest in surrendering, no matter how few are left, or how much real estate they no longer control. In their dogma, they really leave us no choice but to stay and kill.

We could have not gone in the first place. Its called fighting to protect your home, you Bushies call yourselves patriots, and call all the insurgents terrorists, if Iraq invaded and you tried to protect your home would you be a terrorist?

Well, I have to say that Kerry is way ahead of me. I haven't lit a village on fire that never shot at me, and I never shot an unarmed wounded boy in the back. And, even if I had done those things, I'm sure I wouldn't get a Silver Star and an early trip home.

Noone is focusing on Kerry anymore and it is very likely that we will never hear from him again. The elections were over a month ago, and by electing Bush you have given us a target thats the price you pay for winning so stop attacking Kerry because nobody cares anymore.

We could have not gone in the first place. Its called fighting to protect your home, you Bushies call yourselves patriots, and call all the insurgents terrorists, if Iraq invaded and you tried to protect your home would you be a terrorist?

Well, although I voted for Bush, I'm not a Bushie. I suppose that instead of doing anything about anyone who is overseas, we should wait until they hijack more airliners and just shoot them down over US soil.

Until then, just wait. And wait.

The ones I met weren't fighting to protect their home. Their home was in Syria, and they were hundreds of miles away from home. With guns that weren't from Iraq, but from Syria. And they were carrying Al-Q reading material, not "free Iraq" stuff. In fact, nowhere in there literature is there mention of freeing Iraq...

Funny, that. Of course, they didn't want to discuss it, so they died. The last few like dogs, because they obstinately refused to come out and fight, and refused to give up and put down their weapons. So we put some C4 down in the basement with them to keep them company.

Well, although I voted for Bush, I'm not a Bushie. I suppose that instead of doing anything about anyone who is overseas, we should wait until they hijack more airliners and just shoot them down over US soil.

Until then, just wait. And wait.

The ones I met weren't fighting to protect their home. Their home was in Syria, and they were hundreds of miles away from home. With guns that weren't from Iraq, but from Syria. And they were carrying Al-Q reading material, not "free Iraq" stuff. In fact, nowhere in there literature is there mention of freeing Iraq...

Funny, that. Of course, they didn't want to discuss it, so they died. The last few like dogs, because they obstinately refused to come out and fight, and refused to give up and put down their weapons. So we put some C4 down in the basement with them to keep them company.

Iraq never hijacked any American planes so bugger off that line of thinking.

If you meant Afganistan...surprising no one has come out against that war. So why Iraq instead of Syria or Suadi Arabia who had men who hijacked our planes?

He's in Iraq and Afghanistan on a monthly basis. I suppose that you've been here more often? Showing your concern for the troops? Sent them any care packages lately? Visited any wounded?

Shouldnt he be focusing on his job? The real question is would you have cared if we visited you, if you really did fight over there? Unlike the secretary of Offence we cant afford to fly on down to the middle east half way across the world to share some food with the soldiers. According to Rumsfeld a care package will just fluff them up, he didnt say it but he has refused to give you guys armor, how many people did you see killed, injured where the situation could have been avoided?

Iraq never hijacked any American planes so bugger off that line of thinking.

If you meant Afganistan...surprising no one has come out against that war. So why Iraq instead of Syria or Suadi Arabia who had men who hijacked our planes?

*lifts glass*

Iraq never hijacked any American planes so bugger off that line of thinking.

If you meant Afganistan...surprising no one has come out against that war. So why Iraq instead of Syria or Suadi Arabia who had men who hijacked our planes?
i think we should praise my gun not yours for one thing: the ability to differentiate between syrians, iraqis, iranians, afghanis. and etc all during the heat of battle. because i know i sure couldnt do it in a normal line up, much less a shoot out

(read that how you like it)

ps: i think he has delusions of grandeur

Iraq never hijacked any American planes so bugger off that line of thinking.

If you meant Afganistan...surprising no one has come out against that war. So why Iraq instead of Syria or Suadi Arabia who had men who hijacked our planes?

No, they just had an airliner at Salman Pak which was used to train terrorists on how to take a plane without firing a shot. They loaned it out to anyone who wanted.

But, about the Syrians, they are Al-Q, and they came after we invaded (everyone loves a party!). I think that's the whole point of invading Iraq - it attracts jihadis like flies to s**t.

So I'm not thinking what you thought.

i think we should praise my gun not yours for one thing: the ability to differentiate between syrians, iraqis, iranians, afghanis. and etc all during the heat of battle. because i know i sure couldnt do it in a normal line up, much less a shoot out

(read that how you like it)

ps: i think he has delusions of grandeur


No, I can read a passport. In Arabic. After they're dead.

Shouldnt he be focusing on his job? The real question is would you have cared if we visited you, if you really did fight over there? Unlike the secretary of Offence we cant afford to fly on down to the middle east half way across the world to share some food with the soldiers. According to Rumsfeld a care package will just fluff them up, he didnt say it but he has refused to give you guys armor, how many people did you see killed, injured where the situation could have been avoided?

If you read the transcript of the question and answer session, he said nothing of the sort. He hasn't "refused" to give us armor.

Body armor is mandatory for all personnel since April, and is Not An Issue.

As for armoring vehicles, EOD personnel indicate that since we've been uparmoring trucks, the insurgents have upscaled the IEDs they put IN the road (not next to it). Now they are at an average size that could not be stopped by any armor, including a tank.

Having seen quite a few dead fellows who carry the baggage and imprimature of Al-Q here, I think the "sideshow" as you put it is a deliberate ruse designed to pull in anyone who gets emotional about being an Islamic militant.

While it may not pull in the head honchos, it sure acts like a meatgrinder for anyone who wants to play terrorist.

Hey stupid Al-Quida attacked us, the terrorist organization that the Taliban supported, the Taliban you know the rulers of Afghan, NOT IRAQ! No terrorists who attacked us came from Iraq, most from Saudi, but why would Bush attack his good buds who obviously dont care about the terrorists. Go open a book, the 9/11 commission report at that.

im glad everyone is carrying passports so you know who you are gleefully killing without conscience

im glad everyone is carrying passports so you know who you are gleefully killing without conscience

Most of them do. Pictures of their friends and relatives. Letters from home.

It's fairly easy, since most of them have far, far more spirit than ability. And killing anyone who shoots at me, no matter what their reasons may be, is something that is not only easy, but exciting.

No, they just had an airliner at Salman Pak which was used to train terrorists on how to take a plane without firing a shot. They loaned it out to anyone who wanted.

But, about the Syrians, they are Al-Q, and they came after we invaded (everyone loves a party!). I think that's the whole point of invading Iraq - it attracts jihadis like flies to s**t.

So I'm not thinking what you thought.

So why not attack a country that already has terrorists do you like to watch them run or something? Attacking a place like Afghan AND STAYING THERE would be much more affective. Or Egypt, or Iran, or Saudi, or Jordan, or Syria, as you so often say. ANYWHERE BUT IRAQ! I hate to say but they were probably the richest and most well off nation out there, until your best friend Rummy decided to go oil shopping there.

shit, why the fuck are we locking up murders and rapists? apparently the workings of their inner mind are a requirement for a good serviceman, assuming my gun is actually in the forces and not delusional

If you read the transcript of the question and answer session, he said nothing of the sort. He hasn't "refused" to give us armor.

Body armor is mandatory for all personnel since April, and is Not An Issue.

As for armoring vehicles, EOD personnel indicate that since we've been uparmoring trucks, the insurgents have upscaled the IEDs they put IN the road (not next to it). Now they are at an average size that could not be stopped by any armor, including a tank.

Why are you defending the Iraq decision by talking about Syria?

Just pointing that out from past posts.

So why not attack a country that already has terrorists do you like to watch them run or something? Attacking a place like Afghan AND STAYING THERE would be much more affective. Or Egypt, or Iran, or Saudi, or Jordan, or Syria, as you so often say. ANYWHERE BUT IRAQ! I hate to say but they were probably the richest and most well off nation out there, until your best friend Rummy decided to go oil shopping there.

Hmm. So the French weren't oil shopping by guaranteeing exclusive oil contracts in exchange for modern anti-aircraft weapons and radar (which proved to be worthless, even though they are the best the French can build).

And I guess that's why we're just loading all that oil into tankers and taking it straight here for free (nope, I guess we aren't).

Syria seems to be next. There seems to be an idea that you can negotiate with Shiites, which is good for Iran. A radical Sunni, on the other hand, is likely to be a Wahhabi, and someone you can't negotiate with.

Maybe you should be more well read. Read any of the two books by Naipaul on the subject of Islam and its effect on culture and civilization. Written by a Third World author, not an American.

Not saying it will make you want to shoot anyone.

I guess you could say there have been three American civil wars, one when we were fighting the English (because some Americans were attacking Americans) the Civil War that bears the name Civil War, and the Civil War in Iraq, we might as well call it America it will be a colony in the next 10 years.

Hmm. So the French weren't oil shopping by guaranteeing exclusive oil contracts in exchange for modern anti-aircraft weapons and radar (which proved to be worthless, even though they are the best the French can build).

And I guess that's why we're just loading all that oil into tankers and taking it straight here for free (nope, I guess we aren't).

Syria seems to be next. There seems to be an idea that you can negotiate with Shiites, which is good for Iran. A radical Sunni, on the other hand, is likely to be a Wahhabi, and someone you can't negotiate with.

Maybe you should be more well read. Read any of the two books by Naipaul on the subject of Islam and its effect on culture and civilization. Written by a Third World author, not an American.

Not saying it will make you want to shoot anyone.

France? And yes we are getting oil from there, but not as much as we could because most of it is on fire right now.

Why are you defending the Iraq decision by talking about Syria?

Just pointing that out from past posts.

I'll try this again:

1. Right after the successful invasion of Afghanistan, it was determined that there were over 100,000 trained members of Al-Q scattered all over the world.
2. Independent of their leadership, this is a lucrative target, since it took a secure base of operations to train these men as well as they were trained.
3. There isn't an Al-Q phonebook. So how to get them together so you can kill them?
4. They were attracted to Chechnya, and some to Afghanistan, but not the majority of them.
5. Stay with the idea here - you already believe the war in Iraq was a ruse. It very probably was, but not for the reasons you believe.
6. We invade, and then deliberately let an insurgency start (whoa! what idiots!).
7. But no, it's a plan. Maybe not a good plan, or a nice plan, but the majority of people killed in Fallujah were not local residents. They were foreigners who by and large had Al-Q membership.
8. It's not 100,000 Al-Q members, but it is a couple thousand. Better than none.

If that logic is correct, then Bush is sacrificing someone else's country to intentionally form a battleground against anyone who wants to fight America. Unethical? Immoral? Effective? Only history will tell the tale.

No, they just had an airliner at Salman Pak which was used to train terrorists on how to take a plane without firing a shot. They loaned it out to anyone who wanted.

But, about the Syrians, they are Al-Q, and they came after we invaded (everyone loves a party!). I think that's the whole point of invading Iraq - it attracts jihadis like flies to s**t.

So I'm not thinking what you thought.

BTW, the terrorists came to Iraq after we invaded, once the heartless rule of Saddam was down the terrorists had nothing to worry about and came to a new nation with its arms open to Al-Q terrorists, I bet you didnt know that there are more terrorists now than there were when Bush took office.

BTW, the terrorists came to Iraq after we invaded, once the heartless rule of Saddam was down the terrorists had nothing to worry about and came to a new nation with its arms open to Al-Q terrorists, I bet you didnt know that there are more terrorists now than there were when Bush took office.

Yes, I did. I think that's the plan. Invite them all here like a huge fecal pinata made just for flies (terrorists).

I'll try this again:

1. Right after the successful invasion of Afghanistan, it was determined that there were over 100,000 trained members of Al-Q scattered all over the world.
2. Independent of their leadership, this is a lucrative target, since it took a secure base of operations to train these men as well as they were trained.
3. There isn't an Al-Q phonebook. So how to get them together so you can kill them?
4. They were attracted to Chechnya, and some to Afghanistan, but not the majority of them.
5. Stay with the idea here - you already believe the war in Iraq was a ruse. It very probably was, but not for the reasons you believe.
6. We invade, and then deliberately let an insurgency start (whoa! what idiots!).
7. But no, it's a plan. Maybe not a good plan, or a nice plan, but the majority of people killed in Fallujah were not local residents. They were foreigners who by and large had Al-Q membership.
8. It's not 100,000 Al-Q members, but it is a couple thousand. Better than none.

If that logic is correct, then Bush is sacrificing someone else's country to intentionally form a battleground against anyone who wants to fight America. Unethical? Immoral? Effective? Only history will tell the tale.

If you attacked Saudi probably all the terrorists would have come because we would have invaded there fucking holy shrine.

Yes, I did. I think that's the plan. Invite them all here like a huge fecal pinata made just for flies (terrorists).

No I mean more terrorists in general, not just in Iraq. Terrorists are now united to fight against America, so in 2000 when Bush said "I will be a Uniter not a divider" he was correct.

If you attacked Saudi probably all the terrorists would have come because we would have invaded there fucking holy shrine.

No, that would have been completely stupid. We're only after certain Islamic radicals, not all of Islam.

It seems to be working. At least they aren't over in the US doing their thing.

No, that would have been completely stupid. We're only after certain Islamic radicals, not all of Islam.

It seems to be working. At least they aren't over in the US doing their thing.
But 9/11 and the 1st World Trade Tower attack before that were years apart. So that doesn't mean a thing.

But 9/11 and the 1st World Trade Tower attack before that were years apart. So that doesn't mean a thing.

It means something now. They're all over there, all up about how we're in Iraq (just like some of you), and they're so angry that they leave their homes and move to Iraq just to be in the fight.

And we kill them.

You'll notice that they aren't over in the US right now.

Either it's working, and is a fairly insane plan, or it's just luck, and there's absolutely no plan at all.

Considering that they pull insane plans out of their a** all the time at the Pentagon, I wouldn't be surprised if that were the plan.

It means something now. They're all over there, all up about how we're in Iraq (just like some of you), and they're so angry that they leave their homes and move to Iraq just to be in the fight.

And we kill them.

You'll notice that they aren't over in the US right now.

Either it's working, and is a fairly insane plan, or it's just luck, and there's absolutely no plan at all.

Considering that they pull insane plans out of their a** all the time at the Pentagon, I wouldn't be surprised if that were the plan.

You have an open field, you flace honey and sugar and manuer and all kinds of other things there to attract flies, when you could have started at the manuer fields.

Your logic is so dumb, why not just start at China then? Or Malaysia? Noone has ever heard of attacking an innocent country so the countrys neighbors come over to see whats going on.

Next ex.

There are these people that you hate, they live in three seperate houses, than there are these people that you dont know, to make it easier for yourself, you murder the family in the house of the people that you dont know, than the people you hate come over to see whats going on, you kill them. Instead of taking a slightly more challanging route you take the easy way out, and now tens of thousands of innocent people are dead.

Regardless. he will probably be gone by summer.

Dont worry, Rummy will stay as long as the Iraq election is won by the US puppet. I mean Pro US candidate. Who will be bought out and only care about himself, I mean as willing and loving of his people as they guy who gets the most, I mean next most votes.... ;)

No, they just had an airliner at Salman Pak which was used to train terrorists on how to take a plane without firing a shot. They loaned it out to anyone who wanted.


The pilots who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks were trained right here in the good ol' USofA ... should be declare war on ourselves?

The pilots who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks were trained right here in the good ol' USofA ... should be declare war on ourselves?
florida, a retirement home in florida

florida, a retirement home in florida

I knew it!

I think we scared MGNY away! Congrats!

I think we scared MGNY away! Congrats!
Yes congratulations!! Now you don't have to try to defend your position with someone who is actually there and most likely knows more than all the rest of us put together.

Yes congratulations!! Now you don't have to try to defend your position with someone who is actually there and most likely knows more than all the rest of us put together.
lacky.

Yes congratulations!! Now you don't have to try to defend your position with someone who is actually there and most likely knows more than all the rest of us put together.

It's not our side that needs to be defended. We have the facts and the truth on our side. I would suspect it would be the Bush-Bots that would or should be doing the defending of their illegal and immoral acts in Iraq!

It's not our side that needs to be defended. We have the facts and the truth on our side. I would suspect it would be the Bush-Bots that would or should be doing the defending of their illegal and immoral acts in Iraq!

Call names and have fun patting each other on the back. Just keep forgetting that there are two sides to every issue and the other side on this one thinks you are short-sighted and basically ignorant of facts and you can continue your little party. Carry on.....

If Dummy could go any lower, no one would be able to beat him at limbo. No one.

Seriously though, he is one low bastard. Quite possibly our second-worst Secretary of Offense of all time.

Call names and have fun patting each other on the back. Just keep forgetting that there are two sides to every issue and the other side on this one thinks you are short-sighted and basically ignorant of facts and you can continue your little party. Carry on.....

Both sides do the exact same thing.

Ahem...

Donald Rumsfeld gives phonecalls to the families of dead soldiers. He is the first defense secretary to write condolence letter to each family. In Vietnam, all the families got was a telegram.

So shut up and leave the poor guy alone.

Hey Bush bots! Over here!

No, I see both sides to the arguement. Saddam was a threat, he was evil, but we know that that aside the war was a hoax.

The official reasons were becuase of WMD's that never existed, or to free the people, even though the election winner will be pro US, despite everyone in Iraq hating the US (and you guys wonder why the rest of the world was so passionate about your elections, Rummy and Bush and his friends have declared the world incapable of managing itself and you wonder why we care about your government/problem).

But yet the oil was secured first.

The whole US government should be hanging its head in shame, infact so should the UK government. But at least with the UK no one supports them because they tell us to.

One woman said that even though it had been proved that there were never any WMDs or even any evidence, when Cheney declared there was "He must have really beleived in them". No he didnt, and if he did he shouldnt be in power because there was no proof.

Rummy is serving with Cheney and Bush, thats somehing to be ashamed of in itself.

Ahem...

Donald Rumsfeld gives phonecalls to the families of dead soldiers. He is the first defense secretary to write condolence letter to each family. In Vietnam, all the families got was a telegram.

So shut up and leave the poor guy alone.

I've heard Donald Rumsfeld described any number of ways, but never have I heard him described as a 'poor guy' until today.

Stuff I've gained from this thread:

Everyone who supports a side other than that of people who call for Rumsfeld's resignation is a "Bush Bot". They are also stupid, immoral, criminal and wrong.

Us liberals have the facts, god and the church on our side.

My Gun Not Yours is at fault for defending his life and serving his country in Iraq. Instead, he should get shot. (see pages 5-6)

Personally, I'm against the war, and disturbed that Rumsfeld can't take the time to sign some letters. I'm also disturbed, however, that some of the people in this thread find fault with a person doing his/her job and protecting his/her life as a serviceman in Iraq.

Just my two cents.

My Gun Not Yours is at fault for defending his life and serving his country in Iraq. Instead, he should get shot.
Here is a quote I think you missed
And killing anyone who shoots at me, no matter what their reasons may be, is something that is not only easy, but exciting.
Now I'm only taking this quote here but there seems to be a little blood lust there that just begs for a bullet between the eyes. Kind of like a rabid dog. This also added to the fact he has mentioned that women and children were among the unfortunate to cross his path. He also goes on to say these people all shot at him first. Can this be, someone who has been shot at first so many times and has not been killed yet? That is amazing. What a real American hero he is. But wait, he's a contractor making $300,000 a year so don't feel too sorry for him. On top of that he gives 2/3 of it to kids in the US, what a guy. You really believe all this? He is the feel good story all America is waiting to hear. So where is it? You know why you don't hear this story? Cause it's all in his head. He spends like a good part of his time here talking to you guys. When does he have time to do this amazing killing he does so well.

Also, The master plan you laid out Gun would be perfect, if it wasn't for the fact that the situation in Iraq has turned into one great terrorist recruitment poster. How is the US ever going to feel safe when so many countries hate us? But we don't care, up yours world, we do what we want cause we're America.

Please try to remember that the man you are calling "a piece of slime" is the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America. He is due the honor and respect that that position affords him as a representative of the greatest country in the world. I'm sure that that kind of rhetoric is very popular up there in Canada, but I suspect that it would get you an entirely different response in most of the US.

As for Secretary Rumsfeld (I doubt that he has given you permission to call him Donny), not signing all of the condolence letters...the man has successfully waged two campaigns. He has maintained hands-on management and an active role in the war zones. He is responsible for over 250,000 deployed troops. His frequent time spent actually with our troops is well documented if you would care to check. He is a 35 year man in the Navy and Navy Reserve. From the career military types I have met, Miss Manners is not on their required reading list. At the most, he has committed an infraction of etiquette in this case.

You also seem to like to infer that Secretary Rumsfeld sets a low worth on the American GI. His frequent mingling and speaking one-on-one with them proves the lie of that. When he spoke of fungible resources (a military term per my husband) he was speaking of the swift mobility and adaptability of our troops. Not in anyway an insult, but a compliment to their professional capabilities. Secretary Rumsfeld has also made it clear that his remark about not having the military you want was an attempt to say that you take what you have and improve it as needs arise and are identified. For example, our people went to Iraq with gas masks and chemical protection suits expecting chemical and biological attacks. Instead they eventually came up to gunfire and bombs.

Sometimes you need to step back and see the broader picture beyond your own agenda.

I salute the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld and all troops serving at home and abroad. And I'm a Canadian :eek:

Please try to remember that the man you are calling "a piece of slime" is the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America. He is due the honor and respect that that position affords him as a representative of the greatest country in the world. I'm sure that that kind of rhetoric is very popular up there in Canada, but I suspect that it would get you an entirely different response in most of the US.

As for Secretary Rumsfeld (I doubt that he has given you permission to call him Donny), not signing all of the condolence letters...the man has successfully waged two campaigns. He has maintained hands-on management and an active role in the war zones. He is responsible for over 250,000 deployed troops. His frequent time spent actually with our troops is well documented if you would care to check. He is a 35 year man in the Navy and Navy Reserve. From the career military types I have met, Miss Manners is not on their required reading list. At the most, he has committed an infraction of etiquette in this case.

You also seem to like to infer that Secretary Rumsfeld sets a low worth on the American GI. His frequent mingling and speaking one-on-one with them proves the lie of that. When he spoke of fungible resources (a military term per my husband) he was speaking of the swift mobility and adaptability of our troops. Not in anyway an insult, but a compliment to their professional capabilities. Secretary Rumsfeld has also made it clear that his remark about not having the military you want was an attempt to say that you take what you have and improve it as needs arise and are identified. For example, our people went to Iraq with gas masks and chemical protection suits expecting chemical and biological attacks. Instead they eventually came up to gunfire and bombs.

Sometimes you need to step back and see the broader picture beyond your own agenda.In all fucking seriousness, do you really think that him being busy playing war compares to the feeling of the families of the people who are dead?

when did the president learn to sign his own name? >_>
but seriously, he has no time in the day to sign 50 extra papers a day at most? signing doesnt take that long
50 a day? Its more like 3, tops.

If Dummy could go any lower, no one would be able to beat him at limbo. No one.

Seriously though, he is one low bastard. Quite possibly our second-worst Secretary of Offense of all time.
The first being?

Ahem...

Donald Rumsfeld gives phonecalls to the families of dead soldiers. He is the first defense secretary to write condolence letter to each family. In Vietnam, all the families got was a telegram.

So shut up and leave the poor guy alone.
Wow, I'm impressed. Rumsfeld manages to take more time and effort than any SoD before him to make an empty gesture. Quick, lets throw him a parade. :rolleyes:



He fucking well should make a phonecall. He's the fucking reason why they were out there. If he did nothing all day but make phonecalls to greiving parents and sign letters til his hand bleeds, he still wouldn't be approaching the level of suffering that even one of these guys has experienced, so I'll be buggered if I'm gonna leave him alone.

Hmm. So the French weren't oil shopping by guaranteeing exclusive oil contracts in exchange for modern anti-aircraft weapons and radar (which proved to be worthless, even though they are the best the French can build).

And I guess that's why we're just loading all that oil into tankers and taking it straight here for free (nope, I guess we aren't).

Syria seems to be next. There seems to be an idea that you can negotiate with Shiites, which is good for Iran. A radical Sunni, on the other hand, is likely to be a Wahhabi, and someone you can't negotiate with.

Maybe you should be more well read. Read any of the two books by Naipaul on the subject of Islam and its effect on culture and civilization. Written by a Third World author, not an American.

Not saying it will make you want to shoot anyone.


Interesting theory on Muslims. And although Syria IS predominantly Sunni - it is run by an Alawite, which is to say a Twelver Shiite... rather the reverse of the situation in Iraq where it was a minority Suni running a country of predominently Shi'ites.


I hope that you aren't being confused to thinking this by the fact that al-Assad is a Ba'athist. The fact that Ba'athism is associated with the Sunnis in Iraq in no way makes it a strictly Sunni political movement. It originated as a pan-arabic movement, and it's ideological founder (Michel Aflaq) was in fact a Greek Orthodox Christian. His ideals included promoting free speech and other human rights and aid for the lower classes, ideals that were never put in place by the regimes that used his ideology. Indeed, Ba'athism was never intended to be a Muslim movement at all, but rather an inclusive movement for all of middle eastern descent.

Which is to say that Ba'athism became a political entity far removed from it's ideological roots - as has happened in the past with many other movements.

And the fact that the Ba'athists in Iraq - espeicially Saddam - were antithetically opposed to the notions wrapped up in Wahabism might be another clue that you are making some leaps in your connections. Indeed, the countries most associated with the Wahabis are the two main supposed allies of the US in the War on Terror: Pakistan and the Saudis.


But maybe you're right. Clearly what I need to be is more well read.... .

Interesting theory on Muslims. And although Syria IS predominantly Sunni - it is run by an Alawite, which is to say a Twelver Shiite... rather the reverse of the situation in Iraq where it was a minority Suni running a country of predominently Shi'ites.


I hope that you aren't being confused to thinking this by the fact that al-Assad is a Ba'athist. The fact that Ba'athism is associated with the Sunnis in Iraq in no way makes it a strictly Sunni political movement. It originated as a pan-arabic movement, and it's ideological founder (Michel Aflaq) was in fact a Greek Orthodox Christian. His ideals included promoting free speech and other human rights and aid for the lower classes, ideals that were never put in place by the regimes that used his ideology. Indeed, Ba'athism was never intended to be a Muslim movement at all, but rather an inclusive movement for all of middle eastern descent.

Which is to say that Ba'athism became a political entity far removed from it's ideological roots - as has happened in the past with many other movements.

And the fact that the Ba'athists in Iraq - espeicially Saddam - were antithetically opposed to the notions wrapped up in Wahabism might be another clue that you are making some leaps in your connections. Indeed, the countries most associated with the Wahabis are the two main supposed allies of the US in the War on Terror: Pakistan and the Saudis.


But maybe you're right. Clearly what I need to be is more well read.... .
That's gonna leave a mark...

It means something now. They're all over there, all up about how we're in Iraq (just like some of you), and they're so angry that they leave their homes and move to Iraq just to be in the fight.

And we kill them.

You'll notice that they aren't over in the US right now.

Either it's working, and is a fairly insane plan, or it's just luck, and there's absolutely no plan at all.

Considering that they pull insane plans out of their a** all the time at the Pentagon, I wouldn't be surprised if that were the plan.


Such an interesting concept. At the same time as the US asks for the help of the world because you (correctly) identify this as a global terrorism problem, you base your definition of success only on whether YOU are attacked.

9-11 was a message sent and delivered. And the message got through. Clearly they are not so naiive as to think that they are going to conquer the US through such means, and equally clearly the message is still fresh enough that it doesn't need a refresher quite yet. Also, any followup wouldhave to be spectacular to top the last one - so why risk it? If you get caught it plays into the US plans. If you succeed but it is a lesser event then the government will play it up as though they have pulled al qaeda's fangs. They would either have to top 9-11 (a scary thought), or they are better off letting you swell their ranks with new recruits while your country looses stomache for the war over time.

And in the meantime, other messages have been sent. Spain, Bali, Saudi, etc.


Al qaeda IS a global problem. It also has global targets which aren't always you. Sorry - hope that that isn't a blow to your ego....

And in the meantime the war against al qaeda got sidetracked into a war against a country that was an enemy of al qaeda.



Good job.

[Rumsfeld] ...fucking well should make a phonecall. He's the fucking reason why they were out there. If it's responsibility we're talking about, every family ought to receive a call from Halliburton's David Lesar.

Clearly they are not so naiive as to think that they are going to conquer the US through such means,
Not sure about this one. I have no special reason to belive that these people are any smarter than us in the West, and we seem to think that a war waged against an abstract noun is winnable. They may well think that blowing up tall buildings will bring victory.

If it's responsibility we're talking about, every family ought to receive a call from Halliburton's David Lesar.
I think that the compensation to the family should be directly paid out of Hal's profits, just like they would if a contractually employed worker died digging a pipeline.

Stuff I've gained from this thread:

Everyone who supports a side other than that of people who call for Rumsfeld's resignation is a "Bush Bot". They are also stupid, immoral, criminal and wrong.

Us liberals have the facts, god and the church on our side.

My Gun Not Yours is at fault for defending his life and serving his country in Iraq. Instead, he should get shot. (see pages 5-6)

Personally, I'm against the war, and disturbed that Rumsfeld can't take the time to sign some letters. I'm also disturbed, however, that some of the people in this thread find fault with a person doing his/her job and protecting his/her life as a serviceman in Iraq.

Just my two cents.

Speaking as someone who has debated My Gun rather extensively - let me be the first to second the notion that anyone calling down a serviceman who performing their duties honourably simply because they are a serviceman is lower than pond scum. My family has strong ties to the military, including one member on active duty in Afghanistan right now.

Which is not to say, however, that soldiers political opinions neccessarily deserve any more weight than that of a civilian. Getting shot at is sure to colour your mindset after all, and being a soldier does not automatically impart more complete knowledge of all facets of issues than does non-participation.


My Gun and I clearly differ in opinion on these issues, however nothing is gained by sinking to the petty tactics of ad hominem attacks.

I think that the compensation to the family should be directly paid out of Hal's profits, just like they would if a contractually employed worker died digging a pipeline.I think that would be fair and just. Not that Halliburton would do it... unless at the point of a gun^H^H^H lawsuit.

Speaking as someone who has debated My Gun rather extensively - let me be the first to second the notion that anyone calling down a serviceman who performing their duties honourably simply because they are a serviceman is lower than pond scum. My family has strong ties to the military, including one member on active duty in Afghanistan right now.
Since you missed it the first time. My Gun is not a soldier but a hired gun to the tune of $300,000 a year. Admitted by him. As far as honorable, maybe you should have a few more conversations with him. Get a taste of that blood lust he lets out every once in a while. To think that someone like him is out there representing our country is disgusting to me. To hear him talk so flippant about killing is disturbing and I hope, for his mental state, is just a morbid sense of humor.

Since you missed it the first time. My Gun is not a soldier but a hired gun to the tune of $300,000 a year. Admitted by him. As far as honorable, maybe you should have a few more conversations with him. Get a taste of that blood lust he lets out every once in a while. To think that someone like him is out there representing our country is disgusting to me. To hear him talk so flippant about killing is disturbing and I hope, for his mental state, is just a morbid sense of humor.

Was a low paid soldier first. And although I get paid plenty, I'm not in it for the money.

If that was all it took to get Americans over here, there would be a big line.

As it is, maybe you should see some of what I get to see here.

Go to: http://softlyrant.blogspot.com

and take a look at the dead jihadi in the street.

my gun not yours deserves no respect, he DESERVES to be locked in a padded room and put on meds so he is no longer a threat to any other human being.

my gun not yours deserves no respect, he DESERVES to be locked in a padded room and put on meds so he is no longer a threat to any other human being.

I think what upsets you is that the typical left-leaning protester isn't paid nearly as much. I mean, I remember back in the day, in Germany, when anti-war protesters were paid 40 marks a day to stand outside American bases. And nowadays, they don't get paid anything at all, since the former Soviet Union isn't there to foot the bill.

When I'm done here, I'll be going to the Cayman Islands to enjoy myself.

what im pissed about is your high horse attitude when you are a sick bastard who takes joy in the pain, suffering and death of another human being. save the sadomasochism for your own home and turn yourself in for therapy

what im pissed about is your high horse attitude when you are a sick bastard who takes joy in the pain, suffering and death of another human being. save the sadomasochism for your own home and turn yourself in for therapy

At least I'm honest.

Originally Posted by Zooke
Please try to remember that the man you are calling "a piece of slime" is the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America. He is due the honor and respect that that position affords him as a representative of the greatest country in the world. I'm sure that that kind of rhetoric is very popular up there in Canada, but I suspect that it would get you an entirely different response in most of the US.

As for Secretary Rumsfeld (I doubt that he has given you permission to call him Donny), not signing all of the condolence letters...the man has successfully waged two campaigns. He has maintained hands-on management and an active role in the war zones. He is responsible for over 250,000 deployed troops. His frequent time spent actually with our troops is well documented if you would care to check. He is a 35 year man in the Navy and Navy Reserve. From the career military types I have met, Miss Manners is not on their required reading list. At the most, he has committed an infraction of etiquette in this case.

You also seem to like to infer that Secretary Rumsfeld sets a low worth on the American GI. His frequent mingling and speaking one-on-one with them proves the lie of that. When he spoke of fungible resources (a military term per my husband) he was speaking of the swift mobility and adaptability of our troops. Not in anyway an insult, but a compliment to their professional capabilities. Secretary Rumsfeld has also made it clear that his remark about not having the military you want was an attempt to say that you take what you have and improve it as needs arise and are identified. For example, our people went to Iraq with gas masks and chemical protection suits expecting chemical and biological attacks. Instead they eventually came up to gunfire and bombs.

Sometimes you need to step back and see the broader picture beyond your own agenda.
Are you serious? Your mentality would have fit right into that nazi Germany era. Berating people for not giving hitler his props and asking random Jews for their papers. You need to remember this is America and the right to call the SOD an SOB is everyone's right. You speak of DONNY as though he has single handedly deployed this war. Like the military never had a plan for deployment till DONNY came around. Successfully waged two campaigns? Are you daft? Where is Bin Laden? How come Iraq sees more violence every day than when Saddam was in power? Have you picked up a paper, watched a news story? Or maybe you're one of those supporting spouses that stays away from such things in fear of knowing what's going on. Visits war-zones? I've escorted political figures through "War Zones". The security that goes into making sure they stay alive in these "War Zones" is not worth the petty 2 second handshake you get. To have all that security set up just so he can give that less than motivating speech is outrageous. Everyone in the military knows how big NBC training has been since the last Iraqi conflict. But to say you're going into a war not expecting to be shot at is not very smart. My unit used to train under the assumption we'd be shot at.
The powers that be (DONNY) just failed to take into account the lack of equipment the military had as battle ready (a report that goes out every Monday unless your unit is not doing what it's suppose to). Why don't you take your own advice and step back and look at the big picture. I think you will see that no one argues the great job our military is doing with the training and equipment they do have. It's about time our political leaders did their job. To be more diplomatic so our soldiers won't have to work so hard. The lack of diplomacy in this administration is what has been putting our soldiers in harms way and it's time to put these slime balls under the fire.

As the French, Germans, and Russians so aptly pointed out in the last few weeks of the recent US election when Kerry said he would enlist their help in solving the Iraq crisis, they said unanimously that there would never have been any justification that they would have accepted as a reason for the US to invade Iraq - not even if WMD had been found by the UN, if it had been admitted by Saddam - and not for any other reason either. And that they would not help any US President, not even Kerry, in Iraq, ever.

So it's not possible and was not possible to get their help.

Do you honestly believe you know the real reason that we're in Iraq? Do you believe it's WMD, or oil, or some grudge that Bush had?

Or is it remotely possible that like the major intelligence agencies of the world, you can't find your own ass with both hands, and have no real idea of what's really going on here.

I remember laughing during the last Gulf War about the news stories about how it was going to go, and how it was going, and how it went. And how far off the news was about what was really going down. And they are even further off now, and your ranting, to someone on the ground here, seems patently absurd in the extreme.

Or is it remotely possible that like the major intelligence agencies of the world, you can't find your own ass with both hands, and have no real idea of what's really going on here..
oh OF COURSE, how stupid of me. i assumd that the intelligence agencies of every country were smarter than the man who butchers the english language like it was a fat pig

oh OF COURSE, how stupid of me. i assumd that the intelligence agencies of every country were smarter than the man who butchers the english language like it was a fat pig

I'm not saying they're smart, if you noticed. I'm saying that the news you read elsewhere in the world is usually so wrong about what goes on in a war zone as to be essentially useless.

You should try walking around Nasiriyah. Very educational, especially if you talk to the locals. They know what's going on in their town, and you don't.

At least I'm honest.
I don't think you are. I think you're some balless individual who wishes they were in Iraq. You feel so guilty about not being there for whatever reason (maybe you're too fat?) that this "shoot from the hip" persona is how you compensate for it.

And the link. Nice touch. What are they? Pics from someone else who is actually there? Anyway, seems to be just a bad as my trip to Kosovo, Mogadishu (we call it the Mog), a couple of stints in South America and oh ya, Iraq the first time. Sorry, thought we were comparing atrocities. The point is, these experiences taught me the true cost of war and how it's not worth the cost of 1 human life. What happen to you?

I don't think you are. I think you're some balless individual who wishes they were in Iraq. You feel so guilty about not being there for whatever reason (maybe you're too fat?) that this "shoot from the hip" persona is how you compensate for it.

And the link. Nice touch. What are they? Pics from someone else who is actually there? Anyway, seems to be just a bad as my trip to Kosovo, Mogadishu (we call it the Mog), a couple of stints in South America and oh ya, Iraq the first time. Sorry, thought we were comparing atrocities. The point is, these experiences taught me the true cost of war and how it's not worth the cost of 1 human life. What happen to you?

No, I'm actually in Nasiriyah. And I came back as a contractor because I realized I missed it. The top pic is mine, and the bottom pic is from a friend of mine.

I didn't start the war. I don't have to justify it, and I don't believe that anything I've done here is an atrocity.

Additionally, I've also been in Mosul, where the most recent attack on US forces occurred. Not something in the news or on the web, but the dining facility that was hit used to be used by 326 ENG, 2/44 ADA, and later parts of the 187th and 502nd (my old unit). The mess hall was directly across from the airfield on a hill, and it's very visible from the highway and from the small traffic circle to the south. Probably only a matter of time before someone hit it, because it's very visible, everyone knows who's in there, and you can do a hit and run from several locations. We used to get mortar fire there often enough to interrupt mealtimes.

No, I'm actually in Nasiriyah. And I came back as a contractor because I realized I missed it. The top pic is mine, and the bottom pic is from a friend of mine.

I didn't start the war. I don't have to justify it, and I don't believe that anything I've done here is an atrocity.


Interesting.

I wonder how it is that a person in Iraq posts consistently during north american daylight hours.

I wonder if these forums log IPs.

I wonder if the forum administrators have access to those IPs.

And I wonder what an IP might resolve back to.

Gosh.... if only someone here knew a moderator or member of that team....

Interesting.

I wonder how it is that a person in Iraq posts consistently during north american daylight hours.

I wonder if these forums log IPs.

I wonder if the forum administrators have access to those IPs.

And I wonder what an IP might resolve back to.

Gosh.... if only someone here knew a moderator or member of that team....

Gosh, I wonder if the military only works during daylight hours in its place of assignment.

No, I'm actually in Nasiriyah. And I came back as a contractor because I realized I missed it. The top pic is mine, and the bottom pic is from a friend of mine.

I didn't start the war. I don't have to justify it, and I don't believe that anything I've done here is an atrocity.

Zeppistan has this one, but I'm curious, Gun - a week ago you were saying you were back in the US, just itching to go back to Iraq. Now you're somewhere else, although there hasn't seemed to be any sort of lag in your posts, i.e. you're here on NS as usual.

Maybe I've been letting you feed me a colossal line all this time. I'd be very interested to hear what an IP might resolve back to as well...

Zeppistan has this one, but I'm curious, Gun - a week ago you were saying you were back in the US, just itching to go back to Iraq. Now you're somewhere else, although there hasn't seemed to be any sort of lag in your posts, i.e. you're here on NS as usual.

Maybe I've been letting you feed me a colossal line all this time. I'd be very interested to hear what an IP might resolve back to as well...

I go back and forth between here and DC almost every other week.

Perhaps in addition to your IP quest, you should actually come here. And see if the location in Mosul is not exactly as I described.

Or, you might even have a friend here that I can meet.

I think what's upsetting you is that you know that you have no real way of knowing what Iraqis here think. All you have is the news and what you surmise.

Perhaps in addition to your IP quest, you should actually come here. And see if the location in Mosul is not exactly as I described.

Or, you might even have a friend here that I can meet.

I think what's upsetting you is that you know that you have no real way of knowing what Iraqis here think. All you have is the news and what you surmise.

What upsets me is knowing that you - you, Gun - have no real way of knowing what Iraqis think, either. You're part of the invasive presence in their land - no-one's going to go out of their way to let you, Gun, know just what's on their mind, else they find themselves locked up or worse.

Yet you claim to know their minds?

How telling.

Massah Gun.

Or, you might even have a friend here that I can meet.

???

I go back and forth between here and DC almost every other week.
The seed of doubt is set, it's too late.
I think what's upsetting you is that you know that you have no real way of knowing what Iraqis here think. All you have is the news and what you surmise.
Why would this upset anyone? From the sound of it you don't know either since you're too busy shooting anyone that comes near you. I know, why don't you take a picture with a live Iraqi holding up a sign saying I am gun. Then we may believe you (not really but I want to see if he can talk someone go through with it). I think you're upset we doubt you now.

The seed of doubt is set, it's too late.

Why would this upset anyone? From the sound of it you don't know either since you're too busy shooting anyone that comes near you. I know, why don't you take a picture with a live Iraqi holding up a sign saying I am gun. Then we may believe you (not really but I want to see if he can talk someone go through with it). I think you're upset we doubt you now.

Not upset at all. Working on getting you that pic now. It's too easy to get Iraqis to hold up signs they can't read.

Not upset at all. Working on getting you that pic now. It's too easy to get Iraqis to hold up signs they can't read.
I know this, just do the jump monkey.

Ahem...

Donald Rumsfeld gives phonecalls to the families of dead soldiers. He is the first defense secretary to write condolence letter to each family. In Vietnam, all the families got was a telegram.

So shut up and leave the poor guy alone.

Oh yeah that poor guy, let alone the fact that he sent out all those men to die in the first place to an unwinnable, pointless, diversioness, and overall of the topic war, its ok, because the letter makes it all worthwhile.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6727646/

he sent out all those men to die in the first place to an unwinnable, pointless, diversioness, and overall of the topic war, its ok, because the letter makes it all worthwhile.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6727646/

That's one opinion....

Interesting.

I wonder if these forums log IPs.

I wonder if the forum administrators have access to those IPs.

And I wonder what an IP might resolve back to.

Gosh.... if only someone here knew a moderator or member of that team....

Indeed interesting my love.

The forum does most certainly log all IP numbers as does the mod-center.

As for mods.... I might know one or two.. *GASP* ;)

Working on getting you that pic now. It's too easy to get Iraqis to hold up signs they can't read.

You mean like this one I made before the election?

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/kerry04.jpg

You mean like this one I made before the election?

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/kerry04.jpg
Isn't that double posting? :P

But great sign Steph.

You mean like this one I made before the election?

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/kerry04.jpg

Exactly my point. I think that you all really need a guided tour around here.

Exactly my point. I think that you all really need a guided tour around here.

I think you're missing the point here... I will know by the end of this evening if you're lying about your location or not. Just FYI. ;)

Gosh, I wonder if the military only works during daylight hours in its place of assignment.
Iraq daylight hours are the same as American daylight hours?! That's some fucked-up shit.

I don't fault you for loving your country, or opposing the war.
I just feel that hoping that you can somehow immediately stop the war when we have four more years of Bush is like pissing into a strong wind.

And complaining about Bush winning the election, or complaining about how you think he's stupid, is more of the same. Useless, witless activity.

It changes absolutely nothing.

If the founding fathers of the USA had the same opinion about the governing policies of the colonies, where would this country be?

If the founding fathers of the USA had the same opinion about the governing policies of the colonies, where would this country be?
Same place it is now, but under England's rule.

Originally Posted by BastardSword
Same place it is now, but under England's rule.
Blair begged us to go to war with Iraq (like Bush really needed a reason). Thatcher begged us to go the first time. WE ARE UNDER ENGLISH RULE, AAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I think you're missing the point here... I will know by the end of this evening if you're lying about your location or not. Just FYI. ;)
So, is he?

So, is he?

I dunno, ask Little Minds. It's 'My Gun' by any other name...

My husaband is currently in Iraq and probably would disagree with about 100% of what MyGuns has to say.

So, is he?

Yes, he is lying. When he said he was posting from Iraq he was actually posting from an ISP out of Georgia (USA), now it did resolve back to Virginia (USA) which could back up his D.C. story, however the IP he used to state he was posting from Iraq is a lie! ... nuff said. ;)

Yes, he is lying. When he said he was posting from Iraq he was actually posting from an ISP out of Georgia (USA), now it did resolve back to Virginia (USA) which could back up his D.C. story, however the IP he used to state he was posting from Iraq is a lie! ... nuff said. ;)

Ft. Benning and DC.

When I'm in Iraq, I'm on SIPRNET, and it doesn't come out onto the Internet in Iraq.

There's no way you can track an address on SIPRNET.

Ft. Benning and DC.

When I'm in Iraq, I'm on SIPRNET, and it doesn't come out onto the Internet in Iraq.

There's no way you can track an address on SIPRNET.

Actually, you should learn more about the Internet..You see Zeppistan is a programmer.. and I work in IT with him, we own the business..you are in fact listed using "ARIN" there is NO WAY you were posting from Iraq.. but nice try "My Gun" or is that "Little Minds" ? :)