Troops are targets
The Republican administration would like our troops to remain as targets in Iraq. So far we have lost more than 3,700 U.S. troops in Iraq. Are the Republicans waiting for the “killed in action” tally to reach 58,000 as in Vietnam before deciding that Iraq is a lost cause?
Where were Bush, Cheney, Rove, O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck during the Vietnam War? Where are the militarily qualified Republican family members now? Why do the Bush girls and the Romney boys refuse to enlist?
Leon Rodriguez, Denver
Hey Leon,
Where were you during VietNam? Why don't you enlist now? Or is chick your middle name.
Posted by not here on September 6, 2007 02:33 AMOne thing these liberals always seem to leave out of thier arguments is the fact that we have a 100% VOLUNTEER MILITARY.
They always question the service of anyone who does not support thier pullout and run ideas. Yet when questioned on thier own record they say "how dare you ask this"
Not Here asks a great question ... Where were you Leon during Viet Nam? I was a few years to myoung myself to serve in it, however I did serve in other conflicts afterwards. From Lebannon to Somalia. No one twisted my arm or brainwashed me.
To say that the republicans only want the military used as targets is not only a lie, it is unqualified in its basis. Those who promote sich ideas are ignorant of the military and its purpose.
The military is designed to kill and destroy as well as be a target instead of the citizenry of the country it serves.
Posted by on September 6, 2007 06:04 AMleon you and the other libs need to learn something about the military of today as to what it was during vietnam. today's military is an all voluntary group of fine young men and women. vietnam was filled with young men who were drafted in to the service and didnt want to be there. now if you go talk to your liberal buddy charlie rangle in new york he wants the draft back to make it fair.
where are all the dems kids at in the military?
what did clinton do in nam? how about edwards. we do know that kerry and his girl friend hanoi jane went to paris and showed what tratiors they were by aiding the enemy with compassion over there.
Leon, we need to simply cull the herd of GOP felons and perverts. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter, dubbed "irrelevant" by GOP draft-dodgers, pardoned (amnesty) NAM draftdodgers like like J-Loop, Rove, Cheney, Salazar (priesthood), Lott (Ole Miss cheerleader), Card, Chips Barry (VISTA), Allard (communist-sider), Delay, Hastert, Billie Mae Owens (Bush family congressional page deferred), Boehner, Cronnyn, "nuke'em till they glow" Tancredo, etc.
President Carter didn't pardon UCMJ-felons (40+ years AWOL, deserters, and guilty of illegal separation and discharge) Bush and USSC Judge Alito. These bozos falsified, perjured, and forged their service records, so they could cut and run. HIG CRIMES and MISDEAMEANORS: Cong. Bush and "W" violated Presidnt Truman's executive order (Civil Rights Act of 1964 too), which desegregated all of our military units. They resegregated all of our military units, when they carved out a NAM sanctuary for "W" in the racially segregated Texas Air National Guard. Perlmutter, Salazar-clan, and Udall, ducked NAM. They owe it to NAM vets to investigate the Bush KLAN and Alito.
While this band of brothers were hiding out from NAM, I was served in 3 deployments there. My younger brother (USMC machine gunner) was shot in the face durig a NAM fire fight. Today he is blind, Agent Orange infected, PTSD, diabetic, and need his legs amputated. Also 55% of the "soldier-draftees" killed in Vietnam (in-country) were black like me, and we only comprised 12% of the nations' population. By the way, in 1977, Carter commissioned me to the rank of ENSIGN.
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandNAMvetbennies on September 6, 2007 06:37 AM40acres, you lying sack of shit. How can we believe anything you say when you just make up phony facts to gain sympathy. How many times have you been corrected, called a liar for the following statistic:
"Also 55% of the "soldier-draftees" killed in Vietnam (in-country) were black like me, and we only comprised 12% of the nations' population"
ACTUAL FACTS you FOOL:
• 88.4% of the men who actually served in Vietnam were Caucasian; 10.6% (275,000) were black; 1% belonged to other races.
• 86.3% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasian (includes Hispanics); 12.5% (7,241) were black; 1.2% belonged to other races.
• 170,000 Hispanics served in Vietnam; 3,070 (5.2% of total) died there.
• 86.8% of the men who were killed as a result of hostile action were Caucasian; 12.1% (5,711) were black; 1.1% belonged to other races.
• 14.6% (1,530) of non-combat deaths were among blacks.
• 34% of blacks who enlisted volunteered for the combat arms.
************************************************
• Overall, blacks suffered 12.5% of the deaths in Vietnam at a time when the percentage of blacks of military age was 13.5% of the total population.
******************************************************
Please note these FACTS 40acres, so you can refer to them in the future. The URL link for your reference (please tattoo on your arm for ready reference) is:
http://www.ptsdsupport.net/vietnam_warriors.html
They also have statistics on those with emotional and mental problems as a result of the Viet Nam conflict. Perhaps you can figure out where you fit in these categories.
In 1973, NIXON chose to discontinue the draft (the Viet Nam War didn't officially end until April 30, 1975), perhaps because it had already been so castrated by exemptions which benefitted the upper classes (think Cheney's 5 - yes FIVE - exemptions - it were real health issues, one would have been enough). Since the GOP (especially the current administration) loves to tout how critical the war on terror is for the "US way of life", we need to reinstitute the draft, so that we are not sending young men & women into the war zones for their 3rd, 4th & 5th tours of duty - then when they come back with PTSD, saying they must have had "pre-existing mental problems" - or when they come back missing limbs, making them wait 2 years or more for prosthetics.
As far as this being an "all volunteer military" - that is partly true. Many of the folks whose Guard units have been called up more than once have thought that they could get out when their enlistment is up - but they hadn't read the fine print. The military can retain them UP TO 8 YEARS depending on military need! And a wild-assed guess on my part is that when these folks start trying to collect retirement benefits or use the broken VA hospital system, the same chicken hawks that got us into that mess will whine about "entitlement payments" (as they have under most administrations over the past 50 years - NOT just Dem or GOP). If the war on terror is as important to the US as W claims, shouldn't EVERYONE bear some of the cost, both in being in the military & in taxes?
Posted by Mary on September 6, 2007 07:58 AMleon,You total idiot.For the last time we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq.The troops know it,the dems politicians know it but lie to the liberal media saying we are not fighting Al Qaeda over there.So Quit watching,reading the liberal media and find out the facts you idiot.
Posted by Keith on September 6, 2007 08:01 AMleon,You total idiot.For the last time we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq.The troops know it,the dems politicians know it but lie to the liberal media saying we are not fighting Al Qaeda over there.So Quit watching,reading the liberal media and find out the facts you idiot.
Posted by Keith on September 6, 2007 08:01 AMleon,You total idiot.For the last time we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq.The troops know it,the dems politicians know it but lie to the liberal media saying we are not fighting Al Qaeda over there.So Quit watching,reading the liberal media and find out the facts you idiot.
Posted by Keith on September 6, 2007 08:01 AM40acres
I see you're still being corrected on your false "statistics". One would think an an objective person attempting to make a political point would use verifiable facts in an effort to make their entire presentation and character at least appear honest, and therefore, their argument worthy of serious consideration.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In general, I haven't been back in country long enough to provide an in depth commentary on this subject presented by the writer. I've only had a couple of brief conversations with US Military personnel. However, my host (I'm staying with a tribal sheik while we finish my quarters) is very pleased with the way things in general are progressing and optimistic about the future.
From my conversations with him to date it appears the US forces are doing routine patrols and assisting the local police and unofficial militia in their efforts to root out and stop terrorist activity. (I use the term terrorist intentionally as that is the term used by Akbar). According to him random violence has slowed almost to a stand still in his "neck of the woods."
I've just been informed that the dinner meeting among the local sheiks is about to begin, so I have stop now. I'm to be briefed by the council on how the project I'm here to finish is progressing in their view; and discuss other potential projects they would like to see undertaken.
I'll try to "drop in" occasionally as time (the work days will get back to 12 to 16 hours real soon) and satellite internet connection permits. Since we have a 10 hour time difference (it's 1755 Thursday afternoon here) I don't know how effective I can be in either depth of observation or interaction. We'll have to play it by ear.
Trinity Posted from al Ramadi, Iraq
Posted by Trinity on September 6, 2007 08:02 AMTrinity:
'I'm looking forward to your posts, but would ask that you contextualize any reports of progress (or lack thereof). As in: Progress relative to what?
Posted by Charles B on September 6, 2007 09:09 AMcharles b.,There you go again trying to denied facts.See I read real newspapers and that news has been out there for a month.I only come to rmn after I'm done reading.
Posted by Keith on September 6, 2007 09:19 AMTrinity,
It’s great to get info directly from those who have actually been or are currently in Iraq. Thanks for you input. Please continue to report the truth to us. Many of us are craving credible testimony and conclusions here in the States. We’ve heard plenty from the pessimists about the big lie that we are losing the war. It is so bazaar how many people in America are promoting our failure just because they hate George Bush or because they don’t like having America as the police of the world. Their ideology and hatred has blinded them to certain realities. They have less displeasure over the fact that there is terrorism in the world than they have displeasure over that fact that Bush is doing something about it. It’s as if they have more hatred for a cancer cure than they do for the cancer itself.
Mary,
Judging from your tone and distaste of Bush and the war in Iraq, I highly doubt that you seriously want the draft. By saying things like, “If the war on terror is as important to the US as W claims…” it’s obvious that you must think Bush is just playing a serious game with the military and if he were to institute the draft you would be among many clambering to have him strung up for forcing people into combat. You are intellectually dishonest with your argument.
To those who ask the utterly stupid question about why Bush’s girls or Romney’s boy didn’t sign up: IT IS AN ALL VOLUNTEER ARMY AND PEOPLE ARE PERFECTLY WITHIN THEIR RIGHT TO VOLUNTEER NOT TO JOIN. Bush’s girls and Romney’s son are ADULTS and if Bush or Romney told them to join the military as adults they are not obligated to do anything their parents tell them to do. The very same could be said if they were NOT adults. Just because their parents are government officials they are under no obligation to join the military.
Furthermore, when Clinton sent our military to Bosnia were you asking why Chelsea didn’t go too? Did you ask why she didn’t go to Somalia, or Haiti, or Yugoslavia? How about when Clinton used the military in Operation Vigilant Warrior in 1994 when he placed 29,000 into the Persian Gulf theater, or Operation Safe Border in Ecuador and Peru from 1995 to 1998, or Operation Desert Strike in September 1996 for an air attack over Southern Iraq, Operation Balkan Calm in 1998 in Kosovo? Did Chelsea join to go on the deployment for Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 or for the air campaign over Kosovo and Serbia in 1999? During Operation Joint Guardian, June 1999 when Clinton deployed 5,400 soldiers and Marines to Kosovo where was Chelsea? How about during Desert Spring in Kuwait, October 2000 when Clinton sent 2,300 US troops and an aircraft carrier battle group?
Letter writer Leon Rodriguez is just another liberal Democrat trying to give aid and comfort to the terrorists.He probably hates the US and has found a way to help our enemy.If our troops are targets it is because he is giving the terrorist the ammo to shoot at them.If it were not for people like Leon our troops would have won the war by now.Leon would say"My enemy's enemy is my friend".This is the battle cry of the NEW Dmocrat party and their media friends.
Posted by An American on September 6, 2007 10:12 AMLeon, I assume you only have a green card cuz you don't sound like a real American. You, sir are the target....3,000 Americans in the WTC were the targets...workers at JFK Airport and Ft. Dix are the targets...Americans at Ramstein Air Base in Germany are the targets....liberals don't take this war against Islamic terrorists seriously....they will get is killed.
Posted by Buff Driver on September 6, 2007 10:21 AMCA,You can't believe anything the liberal Democrats write or say because if they ever told the truth they would have nothing to say.Their whole party is built on hate for this country and they want the terrorist to help them destroy the big Satan.The US.That is the bottom line!!!
Posted by An American on September 6, 2007 10:21 AMI wonder if our Republican supporters notice how difficult it is getting to maintain this 'volunteer' army? Huge bonuses do not see to be working, there is a shortage of enlistments. Mountain Cat, An American, Keith, not here and the rest are you ready to help 'em out over there? An American, with your love of guns I would think you'd be first in line at te recruiter, whats up?
Posted by Shortage on September 6, 2007 10:22 AMRemember when liberal Democrats like Leon ask questions like why aren't the Republicans who believe in this war fighting it they are trying to destroy the morale of our soldiers.Leon and the rest of the Democrats know that we have a volunteer military and these are men and women who join knowing they will probably go to war.What the Democrats want to do is tell our brave soldiers that some people are not in the battle so why should you fight.The Democrats are like Tokyo Rose was in WW II.
Posted by An American on September 6, 2007 10:35 AMto "An American" and the other neo-con right wingers, your assessment of the Democrats is so self-righteous and insulting that I had to write. Democrats hating America? Snap out of it! You're anger is misdirected, it should be aimed at the Republican admisnistration, who seriously has the corner on lies, especially when our highest ranking "leaders" have no qualms at all to bold face lie to the American public, and you are part of the problem, because you are sucking all of their B.S. up and believing that there is a "liberal" plot. All of you 27% 'rs will find out the truth about your heroes, sadly, someday, hopefully soon!
Posted by Roland on September 6, 2007 11:15 AMSo now that we are winning and the SURGE is working, let's cut-n-run--the cowardly and treasonous, Benedict Arnold solution!
How about a pre-emptive surrender engineered by the Surrendercrats?
Posted by Hank on September 6, 2007 11:15 AM
No I was for cut and run from day one, we never should have gone there. Cut and ruin, sure, better late than never. How come Bush cut and ran from Afghanistan? He cut and ran from there to wage war on Iraq. Yep the escalation ( not surge) is working, all they need is maybe another 2-3 years to train their army, and another 4 or 5 years to make sure everything is OK. Ive heard military men say at least 10 years are needed. What a waste oflives and money. That is Bush's legacy
Posted by GI Joe on September 6, 2007 12:27 PMHank:
You really think the surge is working eh?
How do you know?
Based on what authority?
Posted by Charles B on September 6, 2007 12:58 PMgood ole mary wants the draft again so she can then complain that people who dont want to be in the military are forced into it.
as for guard units I seem to remember that they signed up for that also. if they dont have the mental ability to read what they sign then it is their fault and nobody else's.
when you get your draft back in line mary I do hope you will be the first to go.
Trinity-
Thank you for your invaluable insights ,I feel you will honestly describe the situation faithfully,good and bad. First hand accounts are much needed and appreciated .
Charles B. 12:58-
Trinitys post for starters.
I could provide links where the top U.S. commander in Iraq, General Petraeus , and Iraqis themselves sites evidence but you would just dismiss it as being biased.
So how about someone "progressives" revere and admire?
How about an individual who has been a strident war critic?
How about Katie Couric?
http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2007-09-03/tv/3
Or how about the 3 dem pres hopefuls? Even they acknowledge success thus far with the surge.
Posted by KW on September 6, 2007 03:12 PMKW:
Democrats are as spineless as Republicans, yes.
Posted by Charles B on September 6, 2007 06:12 PMAn American
The message from Trinity above says he getting resettled in Ramadi, Since you called him, among others a coward, are you going to be joining him soon do demonstrate your bravery? Or, are you one of those who stays behind to watch out for the women and children?
Posted by mongoose on September 6, 2007 06:13 PMGet Real:
If you think Couric is revered by progressives, you're even more out of touch than you have previously shown.
How about the NIE:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/nie_dni_20070823_release.pdf?hpid=topnews
The government is falling apart. There's a few incremental security improvements wherever we're playing whack-a-mole, but political reconciliation was supposed to be the end-game, and it's non existent
Posted by Charles B on September 6, 2007 06:18 PMThe US is cooking the books regarding the violence in Iraq, by doing things like not counting deaths as sectarian violence if the victim is shot in the front of the head.
Even with the bogus stats, the violence has only shifted, rather than abated:
http://www.kansascity.com/news/world/story/247449.html
Posted by Charles B on September 6, 2007 06:31 PMg.i.betty,How do you morans get so stupid.
Posted by Keith on September 6, 2007 06:52 PMCharles 6:18-
Here are just a few examples of Courics political leanings
http://www.mediaresearch.org/projects/couric/welcome.asp
Please point out where she strays from the "progressive" point of view.
In fact, could you define the difference between a progressive and democrat?
Is it progress on the road to Socialism at a faster pace then your garden variety Dem?
Get Real:
You can wax on ad infinitum regarding Couric's "political leanings".
I don't own anyone's views but mine.
Progressive doesn't mean "group-think", which I take it is your ditto-headed modus-operandi.
Posted by Charles B on September 6, 2007 11:35 PMsumbody hep me, my medication aint working today and I pooped me pants ...again...could you please change me diaper..please...I am soooo confused
Posted by keith on September 7, 2007 07:22 AMcharles,you didnt answer get reals questions,why?
Posted by on September 7, 2007 09:26 AMShortage,
You are absolutely incorrect. There is not a shortage of enlistments. New recruits enter the military all the time and reenlistments are extremely high.
Read all the postings by the liberal Democrats.To sum them all up you would have to say they give aid and comfort to the terrorists and attack our troops efforts.This is what the Democrats want and that is to get our troops killed and aid the enemy.Why would the Democrats want to do this to our troops?It is because the Democrat party is now made up of people that hate the US.Remember "my enemy's enemy is my friend".That is the battle cry of the Democrat party.
Posted by An American on September 7, 2007 10:25 AMHere is one question to ask yourself,"If you were a terrorist would you like the postings of the Republicans or the Democrats on this page." Without a doubt the terrorist would LOVE the postings by the Democrats.What does that tell you as a US citizen?
Posted by An American on September 7, 2007 10:38 AMMountain cat, if there is no shortage, why is the military extending tour of duties? Why are there thousands of dollars of enticements?
Kids joined in the frenzy after 9/11 thinking they would get the terrorist who attacked us, instead Bush has sent them to invade another country..who didnt attack us.
And somebody please change Keith's diaper.
Shortage,
Tour extensions are taking place because we don’t have nearly as many military units and installations as we did about 15 years ago. You can thank the Clinton administration for that. The Navy, for instance, has exactly half the number of carrier groups it had before Clinton got into office.
On the other hand, while there are fewer National Guard units due to the cutbacks enacted in the 1990’s the ones we have are running at or above 100% capacity. Where I work we have three different units and each of them are at around 105% troop strength.
I honestly don’t have an answer to your question about "enticements." But given the fact that those with rank below the noncommissioned level make wages below the poverty level, it’s about time someone gave them thousands of dollars in enticements.
The argument that we invaded Iraq when they didn’t attack us sounds like a strong one, but is very weak when you consider that the United States is not at war with al Qaeda alone, but all of those who have attacked our interests or who support those which have attacked our interests. Iraq fitted both categories.
Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agreed that Saddam Hussein was a threat to peace and supported terrorism. I assume you have heard and then forgot that Saddam wanted to encourage terror attacks upon Israel by providing $25,000 to the family of any Palestinian suicide/homicide bomber who wanted to kill Israelis. He provided a safe place to live for members of the Abu Nidal Organization and the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF). The PLF was headed by Abu Abbas. He lead the group of thugs who hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro in 1985 and murdered a wheel-chair bound man, Leon Klinghoffer, simply because he was Jewish and a U.S. citizen.
There is no dispute at all that Saddam possessed and used weapons of mass destruction in the form of chemical weapons against Iranians – on at least six separate occasions, he used mustard gas against Kurds in his own country, and the Iraqi foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, openly announced that poison gas was part of Iraqi war policy.
With help from France, Saddam built the Osirik nuclear reactor which would have given him access to materials needed to make a nuclear weapon. Luckily, Israel destroyed it with a bombing raid in 1981.
This is just a short list of reasons why we went into Iraq. After just a little more digging I could find several more reasons, such as numerous violations of U.N resolutions, and that Saddam tried to have former U.S. President George H. W. Bush assassinated.
Germany did not attack us at Pearl Harbor in 1942. So, Shortage, by your logic during WWII we should not have been fighting in Germany, North Africa, France, Belgium, the Philippines, Iwo Jima, etc., etc. When Bill Clinton sent our military to Yugoslavia, liberals didn’t voice any objections by saying that Yugoslavia posed no threat to the U.S. Its leader, Slobodan Milosevic, had never engaged in near the level of violence, murder, and mayhem perpetrated by Saddam Hussein. The U.N never approved the war in Yugoslavia and there was never any suggestion that Milosevic possessed or sought WMD.
Did you you see Osama Bin Laden on TV.All his talking points were the same as the Democrat party.He said the same things that the Democrats are saying on this page.What does that tell you about the Democrat party?
Posted by An American on September 8, 2007 08:38 AM