Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (176450)	11/30/2005 5:24:38 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If you're in the war, you should be a soldier. You should not be a war profiteer. If the President of the US of A cannot get a sufficiently large force to prosecute an illegal war of choice based on his pack of lies, then he should not be in that war. That's his choice and it was a very bad one. Oh yeah, when did Bush ask for 500,000 troops on the ground? I don't know why you are so against the peace dividend. Are you such a war monger that you want to maintain a force when the primary opposition of that time, the Soviet Union, was no longer as large a threat? Why would you wish to tax the American Public for such an inefficient purpose? Why? The Selective Service says it can be up and running with a draft in 6 weeks. This war has been going on for over 2 and a half years. That was plenty of time to up the force numbers. If you think we cannot equip a much larger force than the 150,000 we have on the ground in Iraq, then are you saying Bush is lying when he says we have 200,000+ Iraqis (or whatever his latest made up numbers are) up and running and able to take our place in the near future? Now that recruitment for the Army is such a problem, homophobics should watch out since the Army isn't asking or telling anything any longer. So this is your serious agenda? Homosexuals in the Military? Jeepers. Build them for our own troops? What about ditching room internet access and big screen TVs for UNIFORMS AND PLUMBING AND VEHICLES AND RADIOS for the Iraqi security forces? Do they even have bullets? One of the men who disarms bombs in Baghdad was interviewed going on the job armed with nothing but a leatherman. He has a fancy US purchased bomb suit but it's too hot for the climate. He also has a fancy bomb removal robot but the truck to haul it around in doesn't have working brakes and he can't get the government to give him $600 to repair them. Considering that bombs are such an enormous problem, you'd think this would be a bigger issue than a wide screen TV. Frankly, given the state of the Constitution, the level of corruption, the level of violence and the level of fundamentalist claptrap, I don't know what can make Iraq better. There was a small window of opportunity but the looting and general smarminess of the administration's attitude toward security in Iraq slamed that shut. The lack of concrete bunker buildings isn't a planning problem, it's a problem of sheer mystical dreaming and gross incompetence. Why would this administration plan for such facilities when it expected that Iraqis would great us with flags and flowers? Did we go and occupy Iraq in Desert Storm? No? Why not? What did Bush 41 say about that? So you think that it makes sense for the military to say: hmmm, we've been here before and the Humvees were ok so we'll ignore the IEDs and keep them unarmored? A civilian who works for the DOD is a government employee in the chain of command of the government. Therefore that person is not a mercenary but a government employee. If that person picked up a gun and went into war then that person would be a soldier. Why, do civilian DOD workers pick up guns and go shoot things in Iraq? Bush is a liar and is not credible. He did not rely on anyone other than God who whispers in his ear with a voice that sounds suspiciously like Dick's and Wolfowitz's. He, along with gross incompetent Rumsfeld, ignored the professional military's admonition about troop numbers. Remember, Rumsfeld was darn sure about the existence and location (LOL) of megatons of WMDs and was sure about the quick draw down to 30,000 troops. You know, people don't get chance after chance after chance to get it right. American public opinion has turned. Iraqi public opinion has turned. I think the military's opinion has turned as well but that's just speculation since no one ever seems to be able to poll them.