Iraq and it has come down to this. Amazing.

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustyShackleford Wow, even George W Bush repudiated the character assassinations of those "swift boat veterans for truth" scum. I think the military was supposed to be all about "honor". Do these guys even have a clue what that concept is, when they tell lies about someone who served bravely because they don't like their politics ? What a joke.

So.....you were enthralled with Dan Rather's "tintillating commentary" on George W. Bush's reserve record, even though Kerry refused to open his record? I find that interesting that an incumbent President has to open his war records, and the guy that questions them (Kerry) doesn't have to do likewise...........what does he have to hide??

[FlogBlogger]

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the irony in yellow ribbon decals used to express "support" for our troops...on gas-guzzling SUVs?

[dumpster56]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlogBlogger Is it just me, or does anyone else see the irony in yellow ribbon decals used to express "support" for our troops...on gas-guzzling SUVs?

When did americans get so darn stupid?

When I hear a person tell me they NEED the suv because they have 3 kids and a dog I get a laugh. I mean come on these people never sat on a gasoline line back in the 70s. It stunk. It was stupid, we decided back then to never be in a big gasoline waste vehicle again. even when the price was low after I never wasted gas.

Now I keep listening to our useless politicians, Bottom line an awful lot of oil is underground in places that hate us. what we are doing is making these idiots rich and able to put the screws to us. Sorry but americans must get out of the SUV out of the big wasteful habits, OR we will need a draft and a 5 million man army to TAKE the oil fields in that part of the world.

How bout Nuclear energy? How about mass transit, like fix the railroads in america? a new manhattan project to get off middle eastern oil?

[LeatherneckPA]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 I think what retiredbop comments were meant to infer was not that we should do what the troops want just because they fight the war, but, that they may have a better hand on what is going on in Iraq than those of us that depend on the sound bites of a bias press.

BINGO!! Give that man a cee-gah!! (Bubble gum, of course, since smoking is bad for your health)

I was starting to think that perhaps I was not clear in what I was saying. The people THERE know a lot more about the action and the results than WE do. And I don't have ANY faith in the self-serving, bleeding-heart liberal media. They will take whatever stand appears will give them the best ratings or sell the most papers. There is no such thing as integrity in reporting.

[dumpster56]

Quote:

Originally Posted by retiredbop BINGO!! Give that man a cee-gah!! (Bubble gum, of course, since smoking is bad for your health) I was starting to think that perhaps I was not clear in what I was saying. The people THERE know a lot more about the action and the results than WE do. And I don't have ANY faith in the self-serving, bleeding-heart liberal media. They will take whatever stand appears will give them the best ratings or sell the most papers. There is no such thing as integrity in reporting.

Liberal media sure, BUT there are dead american soldiers everyday. Uh things are not going well in Iraq. Please do not drink the Kool Aid from either side. Look at the israeli and palistinian situation. they have been killing each other for 50 + years and still are. As long as we stay in iraq the same thing will happen.

It was a mistake to go to Iraq. Bin laden is still free.

The saudis? Iran? look these people hate what we are, look at their societies and look at ours they want nothing of our decadence.

That said if we could stop buying their oil we could leave the entire area.

Think about it.

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy888 That said if we could stop buying their oil we could leave the entire area. Think about it.

But we can't stop buying their oil until we find a way to fuel all the vehicles and semis in the US.

I have read it is STILL cheaper to buy oil in the Middle East and supertanker it here than for us to drill it out of our own ground or the Gulf of Mexico..........why would that be?

Also, the Alaskan Pipeline is only operating at 50-60% capacity, and MUCH of that oil is sold to other countries like Canada............ :P :P :P

There is no answer, until they can mass poduce a fuel cell car that goes 300-400 miles before you have to plug it in.............

[Rustic23]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy888 Liberal media sure, BUT there are dead american soldiers everyday. Uh things are not going well in Iraq.

First, if the dead American or Iraqi is someone you know, then it is a tragedy. But there is something occurring in the American Media that is not healthy. That is the conditioning of the American people not to accept casualties. In war people are going to be injured and they are going to die. It is a cold hard fact. From a Military point of view, I would think most Generals would consider the casualty rate for a War of this duration, to be far less than expected.

This web page will give you some idea of previous wars. http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm

WW II over 400,000, Korean War over 33,000, Viet Nam over 57,000, and that is only those killed. The unusual low casualty rate of the Gulf war, 300 has led us to believe that the casualty rate in the current war is unacceptable.
There is no acceptable casualty rate in war if they can be avoided. Having said that, however, the casualty rate of this war is far below what would be expected on the modern battlefield. The very fact the enemy can not inflect more casualties than it does is a sign of things going well not things getting worse.

My purpose in writing this was not to voice support or oppose the current conflict, but, to try and put the current casualty rate in perspective. If oppose President Bush, which many do, my guess you believe the casualty rate unacceptable. If you support the President, than you may think otherwise. The truth is the casualty rate of the current war is being hyped for political gain and it should not be. If it is excessive than so be it no matter what side you are on. I believe that when placed in historical context, it is not.


By the way just for information purposes, Russia lost between 19,000,000 and 20,000,000 people in WW II.

[dumpster56]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 First, if the dead American or Iraqi is someone you know, then it is a tragedy. But there is something occurring in the American Media that is not healthy. That is the conditioning of the American people not to accept casualties. In war people are going to be injured and they are going to die. It is a cold hard fact. From a Military point of view, I would think most Generals would consider the casualty rate for a War of this duration, to be far less than expected. This web page will give you some idea of previous wars. http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm WW II over 400,000, Korean War over 33,000, Viet Nam over 57,000, and that is only those killed. The unusual low casualty rate of the Gulf war, 300 has led us to believe that the casualty rate in the current war is unacceptable. There is no acceptable casualty rate in war if they can be avoided. Having said that, however, the casualty rate of this war is far below what would be expected on the modern battlefield. The very fact the enemy can not inflect more casualties than it does is a sign of things going well not things getting worse. My purpose in writing this was not to voice support or oppose the current conflict, but, to try and put the current casualty rate in perspective. If oppose President Bush, which many do, my guess you believe the casualty rate unacceptable. If you support the President, than you may think otherwise. The truth is the casualty rate of the current war is being hyped for political gain and it should not be. If it is excessive than so be it no matter what side you are on. I believe that when placed in historical context, it is not. By the way just for information purposes, Russia lost between 19,000,000 and 20,000,000 people in WW II.

Do you call this a war? think about it, if we really are at war you destroy the enemy. Did we not do that in WWII?

Sorry we ran into Iraq and let the guys go home with their guns and bombs. we never secured the ammo depots. Why are we still accepting the game here?

Bin Laden is free. We are still sending billions of petro dollars to people who dislike us and that is speaking nice.

where is the draft? where is the 5 million man army? We are going to extend the tours of duty now. Please something really does stink in washington.

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy888 So we now have a simmering civil war, and we keep hearing look at the big picture what would happen if we leave. If we leave there will be a lot of killing. We are gonna leave someday. Or are we going to stay 50 years?

It looks like you call it a war too. : The draft is something liberals started throwing around to try to have Bush defeated. Obviously it didn't work. Obviously it is not as needed as some would suggest.

I do agree that we need to become energy independent.