How many more body bags?

[carpro]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
Please read my comments that you produced in that reply.

I take that to mean you made it up.

Thanks. You may restore your credibility yet.

 

[freedom's cause]

here's why we should not cut and run


posted document.write(timestamp(new Date(2005,7,28,6,16,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); August 28, 2005 06:16 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A message to Cindy Sheehan
I realize how tragic your loss is and I know how much pain there is crushing your heart and I know the darkness that suddenly came to wrap your life and wipe away your dreams and I do feel the heat of your tears that won't dry until you find the answers to your question; why you lost your loved one?

I have heard your story and I understand that you have the full right to ask people to stand by your side and support your cause. At the beginning I told myself, this is yet another woman who lost a piece of her heart and the questions of war, peace and why are killing her everyday. To be frank to you the first thing I thought of was like "why should I listen or care to answer when there are thousands of other women in America, Iraq and Afghanistan who lost a son or a husband or a brother…”

But today I was looking at your picture and I saw in your eyes a persistence, a great pain and a torturing question; why?

I know how you feel Cindy, I lived among the same pains for 35 years but worse than that was the fear from losing our loved ones at any moment. Even while I'm writing these words to you there are feelings of fear, stress, and sadness that interrupt our lives all the time but in spite of all that I'm sticking hard to hope which if I didn't have I would have died years ago.

Ma'am, we asked for your nation's help and we asked you to stand with us in our war and your nation's act was (and still is) an act of ultimate courage and unmatched sense of humanity.
Our request is justified, death was our daily bread and a million Iraqi mothers were expecting death to knock on their doors at any second to claim someone from their families.
Your face doesn't look strange to me at all; I see it everyday on endless numbers of Iraqi women who were struck by losses like yours.

Our fellow country men and women were buried alive, cut to pieces and thrown in acid pools and some were fed to the wild dogs while those who were lucky enough ran away to live like strangers and the Iraqi mother was left to grieve one son buried in an unfound grave and another one living far away who she might not get to see again.

We did nothing to deserve all that suffering, well except for a dream we had; a dream of living like normal people do.

We cried out of joy the day your son and his comrades freed us from the hands of the devil and we went to the streets not believing that the nightmare is over.
We practiced our freedom first by kicking and burning the statues and portraits of the hateful idol who stole 35 years from the life of a nation.
For the first time air smelled that beautiful, that was the smell of freedom.

The mothers went to break the bars of cells looking for the ones they lost 5, 12 or 20 years ago and other women went to dig the land with their bare hand searching for a few bones they can hold in their arms after they couldn't hold them when they belonged to a living person.

I recall seeing a woman on TV two years ago, she was digging through the dirt with her hands. There was no definite grave in there as the whole place was one large grave but she seemed willing to dig the whole place looking for her two brothers who disappeared from earth 24 years ago when they were dragged from their colleges to a chamber of hell.

Her tears mixed with the dirt of the grave and there were journalists asking her about what her brothers did wrong and she was screaming "I don't know, I don't know. They were only college students. They didn't murder anyone, they didn't steal, and they didn't hurt anyone in their lives. All I want to know is the place of their grave".

Why was this woman chosen to lose her dear ones? Why you? Why did a million women have to go through the same pain?

We did not choose war for the sake of war itself and we didn't sacrifice a million lives for fun! We could've accepted our jailor and kept living in our chains for the rest of our lives but it's freedom ma'am.
Freedom is not an American thing and it's not an Iraqi thing, it's what unites us as human beings. We refuse all kinds of restrictions and that's why we fought and still fighting everyday in spite of the swords in the hands of the cavemen who want us dead or slaves for their evil masters.

You are free to go and leave us alone but what am I going to tell your million sisters in Iraq? Should I ask them to leave Iraq too? Should I leave too? And what about the eight millions who walked through bombs to practice their freedom and vote? Should they leave this land too?
Is it a cursed land that no one should live in? Why is it that we were chosen to live in all this pain, why me, why my people, why you?

But I am not leaving this land because the bad guys are not going to leave us or you to live in peace. They are the same ones who flew the planes to kill your people in New York.
I ask you in the name of God or whatever you believe in; do not waste your son's blood.
We here have decided to avenge humanity, you and all the women who lost their loved ones.
Take a look at our enemy Cindy, look closely at the hooded man holding the sword and if you think he's right then I will back off and support your call.

We live in pain and grief everyday, every hour, every minute; all the horrors of the powers of darkness have been directed at us and I don't know exactly when am I going to feel safe again, maybe in a year, maybe two or even ten; I frankly don't know but I don't want to lose hope and faith.

We are in need for every hand that can offer some help. Please pray for us, I know that God listens to mothers' prayers and I call all the women on earth to pray with you for peace in this world.

Your son sacrificed his life for a very noble cause…No, he sacrificed himself for the most precious value in this existence; that is freedom.

His blood didn't go in vain; your son and our brethren are drawing a great example of selflessness.
God bless his free soul and God bless the souls of his comrades who are fighting evil.
God bless the souls of Iraqis who suffered and died for the sake of freedom.
God bless all the freedom lovers on earth.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/08/message-to-cindy-sheehan.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by carpro:
I take that to mean you made it up.

Thanks. You may restore your credibility yet.

Please re-read my post to you - the one you reposted in your reply.

 

[Bluefalcon]

Ever since the War of Northern Aggression the U.S.A. has thought that it can start wars in order to stop any perceived wrongs. Slavery was wrong, but was it as wrong as abortion?

And this "We have to show resolve!" nonsense "...or the enemy will be encouraged!" The Muslims are still ticked about the Crusades for crying out loud! The more you kick them in the butt, the more they want nuclear weapons to annihilate, yes, not kick us back in the butt, but to annihilate us! This is their one and sole desire! And, of course, being the moral nation that we are, we will never annihilate them first, at least not yet, anyway.

Cheers, Bluefalcon

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Bluefalcon:
Ever since the War of Northern Aggression the U.S.A. has thought that it can start wars in order to stop any perceived wrongs. Slavery was wrong, but was it as wrong as abortion?

And this "We have to show resolve!" nonsense "...or the enemy will be encouraged!" The Muslims are still ticked about the Crusades for crying out loud! The more you kick them in the butt, the more they want nuclear weapons to annihilate, yes, not kick us back in the butt, but to annihilate us! This is their one and sole desire! And, of course, being the moral nation that we are, we will never annihilate them first, at least not yet, anyway.

Cheers, Bluefalcon

This is not true of all Muslims.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Dragoon68]

Here's a CBS News article on the subject from 9 Dec 2004:

War Readiness Again Hot Issue

It reveals at least one of the main concerns many of us had with the motives for questions. Here's an extract:

Extract from War Readiness Again Hot Issue:
... The guardsman who questioned Rumsfeld on the vehicle armor, Spc. Thomas Wilson, had consulted earlier with a Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter who is embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team.

The reporter, Edward Lee Pitts, said he had worked with guardsmen after being told reporters would not be allowed to ask Rumsfeld any questions, Pitts wrote in an e-mail to co-workers sent Wednesday. ...

Here's the predictable criticism of the "administration" - not from the soldier - but from CBS News:

Extract from War Readiness Again Hot Issue:
... Critics questioned why the Pentagon has been unable to send enough armored equipment 21 months into the war. They said war planners had too rosy a picture of how the campaign would unfold and so didn't think so many troops and so much armor would be needed for so long.

"This is about faulty analysis and a failed strategy," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a California Democrat who sits on the House Armed Services Committee. "We've never had enough troops on the ground since the fall of Saddam Hussein's government to deal with the insurgency because we didn't expect one."

Loren Thompson, a defense industry analyst with the Lexington Institute think tank, agreed.

"We have pretty much miscalculated every step along the way — why we went, how we should do it, what we needed, what support we would have, how long it would last — we pretty much got it all wrong," he said.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said Congress had given the Bush administration all of the defense spending it had requested. Why then, he asked in a letter to Rumsfeld, were soldiers combing landfills for scrap metal to protect themselves?

"This administration has received every dollar they have asked for from Congress," Durbin said in his Chicago office Thursday. "So, the money has been there."

Retired Maj. Gen. Nash, an analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations, agreed that the issue is part of a continuing theme.

"All of this fuss — whether it be (extended deployments) or having sufficient armor — all of this is a continuation of the issue of poor planning ... lack of understanding of the consequences of invading Iraq," he said. ...

Some people focus on the problem and others focus on the solution. One complains and the other acts. I can't say the complaining isn't productive some of the time but a lot of the time the solutions are already in motion before the whiners even understand the problem.

No one has ever been able to predict every need of every war prior to it. We're always short something. We rarely predict every move the enemy will make. We're usually surprised. We didn't get off to a particularly good start in World War II which still remains our greatest conflict of modern times.

We've never been fully prepared for war. Perhaps, that's not a completely bad thing else we might find ourselves having great difficulty restraining that force in times of peace.

Somehow, thanks to American ability and determination - military and civilian - we've been able to meet the challenges more often than not. That - meeting the challenges - is what we need to all focus on now. We don't need to fight one another. We need to fight our enemies together.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by carpro:
I take that to mean you made it up.

Thanks. You may restore your credibility yet.

Please re-read my post to you - the one you reposted in your reply. </font>[/QUOTE]I did. You made it up .

Or to be charitable, you drew incorrect conclusions based on what you thought I implied.

As a Christian, why is it so hard for you to admit that you made a mistake?

 

[Bluefalcon]

I speak in generalities.....more Muslims hate the U.S.A. than love her.

Cheers, Bluefalcon

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

More Muslims that you see on tv hate America than love her. That does not mean that more Muslims hate America than love her, unless you have some access to actual scientific polling data of Muslims worldwide of which I am not aware.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by carpro:
I did. You made it up .
Or to be charitable, you drew incorrect conclusions based on what you thought I implied.

As a Christian, why is it so hard for you to admit that you made a mistake?

Again, abject fatuity, nothing more.
I asked you questions, didn't I?
Why are you having so much trouble with them?

All you have to do is tell us why you chose to interject your facts into the discussion.........

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Dragoon68:
Here's a CBS News article on the subject from 9 Dec 2004:

War Readiness Again Hot Issue

It reveals at least one of the main concerns many of us had with the motives for questions. Here's an extract:

Extract from War Readiness Again Hot Issue:
[qb]... The guardsman who questioned Rumsfeld on the vehicle armor, Spc. Thomas Wilson, had consulted earlier with a Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter who is embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team.

The reporter, Edward Lee Pitts, said he had worked with guardsmen after being told reporters would not be allowed to ask Rumsfeld any questions, Pitts wrote in an e-mail to co-workers sent Wednesday.

I'm working from memory here, but Wilson's motives coulld be called into question for several different reasons.

#1-I believe 90% of the humvees in his outfit had been uparmored when he asked his question. 100% of them would be uparmored by the time they left Kuwait.

#2-The area his unit was assigned to was a fairly low risk area where it probably wouldn't matter very much whether they were uparmored or not.

#3-Considering #1 and #2, he had no direct combat experience to determine the combat worthiness of the vehicle themselves. He was , in all, likelyhood going by what he had seen in the media, which is not always accurate.

#4-Pitts. We all know what his motives were. By allowing himself to be the mouthpiece of a glory hungry journalist, Wilson's motives deserve to be called into question.


Comment: The troops cheered his question. I wonder how many would have cheered if they had known that words were loaded in his mouth by a journalist.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by carpro:
I did. You made it up .
Or to be charitable, you drew incorrect conclusions based on what you thought I implied.

As a Christian, why is it so hard for you to admit that you made a mistake?

Again, abject fatuity, nothing more.
I asked you questions, didn't I?
Why are you having so much trouble with them?

All you have to do is tell us why you chose to interject your facts into the discussion......... </font>[/QUOTE]You sure are hung up on "fatuity", aren't you?

Remember this exchange?

OldRegular wrote:

"Why is it that on this supposedly Christian Forum there are so many people who hate President Bush so much and do all they can to tear him down?"


BiR wrote:

"Okay, since you used the word, I challenge you to show us anyone who has stated that they "hate" President Bush. Please provide us with links to the quotes where it was indicated that the person in question has professed a hatred for President Bush.

After all, you are the one who made the claim........ "


You took OldRegular to task for drawing conclusions based on the tenor of posts of some people he considered to be Bush hater. There were no such "quotes" and OldRegular tried to explain to you how he drew his conclusions. You continued to harrass him several more times for a quote.

Now you draw conclusions that are incorrect from something I wrote and can provide no "quotes" for you conclusions either.

There's a lesson here somewhere if you're paying attention, but I doubt you'll get it.

I'm hoping you'll surprise me.

 

[Phillip]

By studying the types of Muslims and the beliefs of those "types"; you can put together a convincing argument by simply studying the geography of the world and estimated population of these groups.

You will find that BlueFalcon's statement is quite accurate, but Joseph is also right, the networks just love to show anybody who hates America; it makes for good ratings.

A good portion of the Muslims in Iraq are moderate and therefore love the fact the USA took away the tyrant they feared. Many other Middle Eastern countries (Arab) have many Muslims that do hate America--with the exception of a few left over Republican Guards; these are the people we are fighting--

The citizens of Iraq are worth effort. If we can show a country that lives in fear under a tyrant that freedom is possible; the entire world might start changing.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Ah, I knew it.....

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by carpro:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dragoon68:
Here's a CBS News article on the subject from 9 Dec 2004:

War Readiness Again Hot Issue

It reveals at least one of the main concerns many of us had with the motives for questions. Here's an extract:

Extract from War Readiness Again Hot Issue:
[qb]... The guardsman who questioned Rumsfeld on the vehicle armor, Spc. Thomas Wilson, had consulted earlier with a Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter who is embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team.

The reporter, Edward Lee Pitts, said he had worked with guardsmen after being told reporters would not be allowed to ask Rumsfeld any questions, Pitts wrote in an e-mail to co-workers sent Wednesday.

I'm working from memory here, but Wilson's motives coulld be called into question for several different reasons.

#1-I believe 90% of the humvees in his outfit had been uparmored when he asked his question. 100% of them would be uparmored by the time they left Kuwait.

#2-The area his unit was assigned to was a fairly low risk area where it probably wouldn't matter very much whether they were uparmored or not.

#3-Considering #1 and #2, he had no direct combat experience to determine the combat worthiness of the vehicle themselves. He was , in all, likelyhood going by what he had seen in the media, which is not always accurate.

#4-Pitts. We all know what his motives were. By allowing himself to be the mouthpiece of a glory hungry journalist, Wilson's motives deserve to be called into question.


Comment: The troops cheered his question. I wonder how many would have cheered if they had known that words were loaded in his mouth by a journalist. </font>

These are good points. Another thing to think about is that someone in the Army, or other branch of service do have a right to question the capability of their equipment; including making improvement suggestions; however, you don't take it to the news media--you take it to upper command and otherwise keep your mouth shut.

This is the reason different service groups have restricted and sensitive information--that may not be classified, but is not to be passed to the public.

These necessary requirements are necessary to keep our troops safe. (Regardless of what the media may think with their ferocious appetite for information.)

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by carpro:
You sure are hung up on "fatuity", aren't you?

Perhaps I would not have to be "hung up" on it if you didn't exhibit it so brazenly.

You took OldRegular to task for drawing conclusions based on the tenor of posts of some people he considered to be Bush hater. There were no such "quotes" and OldRegular tried to explain to you how he drew his conclusions. You continued to harrass him several more times for a quote.

That isn't exactly true now, is it?
I asked OldRegular to support a contention he stated so unequivocally, and yet OldRegular could not provide even one quote where someone used the word "hate" to describe their feelings about the President. Think about that: not even ONE.

Now you draw conclusions that are incorrect from something I wrote and can provide no "quotes" for you conclusions either.

That isn't exactly true now, is it?
Go back to my initial response to you. Notice what I said, and how I said it.

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond
I hope you aren't suggesting that Wilson has to "set foot on a battlefield" before he has any credibility?

Notice that this is a question, isn't it? Did I assume anything? Nope: I asked you a question. Here is how you responded:

It's not his service to his country I question. It's his motivation for asking the questions.

So, exactly how why did you feel compelled to note that he "never set foot on a battlefield?" What does this have to do with his "motivation?" You never mentioned anything about his motives in that post, did you?
Then you attempted to engage in misdirection:

Wilson having not set foot on the battlefield yet is merely a statement of fact. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

Again, you did not mention anything about his motives. Exactly why did you offer this if you are questioning his motives?
Your next quote was more of the same:

I take that to mean you have no evidence to prove that anything I said at all was not 100% true. If that is not the case, please provide me with the facts that contradict what I wrote.

Again, there is no mention of motive here.
Your response to Dragoon has indicated that you are indeed questioning his motives, as you actually stated this again. Now perhaps you can tell us why you felt compelled to note that he "never set foot on a battlefield," and how this supports your questioning of his motives. Hey: you are the one who introduced this into the discussion.

 

[carpro]

Sure.

Just as soon as you provide us with a quote where I questioned Wilson's service.

The real problem is that I've answered your question more than once, but it's not the answer you want, so you keep crying about it.

Final Word.

 

[Dragoon68]

I understood Carpro's original comments and have no problem with them. As I see it, he questioned the comments made by Wilson on several counts which he's since detailed.

I didn't take them as a higher level questioning of Wilson's loyalty or service to his country. I took them merely as questioning both the content and motive of his specific questions about the Humvee armor. That seems like reasonable concerns regardless what the actual truth of the matter may be.

Wilson's questions could have been self originated out of personal concern for himself and his peers. Troops do ask questions like this and, sometimes, from their perspective, logistical issues involving uniforms, equipment, etc. can be perceived negatively.

However, it sure seems from Pitts' own e-mail to his colleagues that there was some influence over Wilson towards possibly framing his question. I flat don't trust the news media to be honest about much of anything! I don't know if Wilson has since been asked about this but it would be interesting to know what he'd say if he were.

But, regardless, the question Wilson asked was promptly answered by Rumsfeld. The problem of additional armor for Humvee and other vehicles was already being addressed by the responsible leaders.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by carpro:
Sure.

Just as soon as you provide us with a quote where I questioned Wilson's service.

More of the same..........
Go back to my quote:

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond
I hope you aren't suggesting that Wilson has to "set foot on a battlefield" before he has any credibility?

Carpro, that was a question. It is a question that you have never answered. That is not a statement, is it? That is a question.
You finally did offer this:

I'm working from memory here, but Wilson's motives coulld be called into question for several different reasons.

#1-I believe 90% of the humvees in his outfit had been uparmored when he asked his question. 100% of them would be uparmored by the time they left Kuwait.

#2-The area his unit was assigned to was a fairly low risk area where it probably wouldn't matter very much whether they were uparmored or not.

#3-Considering #1 and #2, he had no direct combat experience to determine the combat worthiness of the vehicle themselves. He was , in all, likelyhood going by what he had seen in the media, which is not always accurate.

#4-Pitts. We all know what his motives were. By allowing himself to be the mouthpiece of a glory hungry journalist, Wilson's motives deserve to be called into question.


Comment: The troops cheered his question. I wonder how many would have cheered if they had known that words were loaded in his mouth by a journalist.

That's great, but exactly why did you offer that he never "set foot on a battlefield?" Why did you post that? What does this do to reinforce anything?

The real problem is that I've answered your question more than once, but it's not the answer you want, so you keep crying about it.

Final Word.

You have never answered that question, carpro.
Why did you post that he "never set foot on a battlefield?"
Read the question that I posted again at the top of this email.
It's a one-word answer: "yes" or "no."

 

[LadyEagle]

Bumping this up 6 months later. Compare what is on this thread to the progress or un-progress with civil war looming in Iraq tonight. An interesting read ?