• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Army's hard sell

T

Travelsong

Guest
Originally posted by Hardsheller:
NO MAJOR TERROR ATTACKS IN AMERICA SINCE THE INVASION OF IRAQ!

That's zip. Nada. Zero. None.

Any more questions?
Who will the blame fall on when a nuclear device or a dirty bomb slips through a load of freight at one of our ports and finds it's way into the heart of a major city hiding in the back of a rig?

Who will be held accountable when a terrorist finally makes it through the border and does some grotesque act of horror?

It seems that's what it will take to wake some of you people up to comprehend that this should have been our primary concern since 9/12.
 

Hardsheller

Active Member
Site Supporter
Travelsong,

Why don't you just admit it.

You will blame George Bush for any future terrorist act that happens to America.

The Blame for all Acts of Terrorism falls on the Terrorists not their victims!

How can you know that insurgents who are killed in Iraq would not be Terrorists crossing the Mexican Border today if we had not invaded Iraq?
 
T

Travelsong

Guest
Originally posted by Hardsheller:
Travelsong,

Why don't you just admit it.

You will blame George Bush for any future terrorist act that happens to America.

The Blame for all Acts of Terrorism falls on the Terrorists not their victims!

How can you know that insurgents who are killed in Iraq would not be Terrorists crossing the Mexican Border today if we had not invaded Iraq?
Have you noticed that these insurgents are coming from Syria, Saudi Arabia and other gulf nations in an endless stream? They operate as efficient, well oiled machines. Our troops are giving them the best training they could ever hope for.

Meanwhile we've done almost nothing to create integrity at our borders and ports.

Something bad will happen and yes, Bush will be accountable.
 

Joseph_Botwinick

<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
Originally posted by Travelsong:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hardsheller:
NO MAJOR TERROR ATTACKS IN AMERICA SINCE THE INVASION OF IRAQ!

That's zip. Nada. Zero. None.

Any more questions?
Who will the blame fall on when a nuclear device or a dirty bomb slips through a load of freight at one of our ports and finds it's way into the heart of a major city hiding in the back of a rig?

Who will be held accountable when a terrorist finally makes it through the border and does some grotesque act of horror?

It seems that's what it will take to wake some of you people up to comprehend that this should have been our primary concern since 9/12.
</font>[/QUOTE]I don't know about you, but for me, I will blame Bush because his abbhorent permissive policy on illegal immigration will have allowed it. But, that really has nothing to do with the war. If he really wanted to, he could stop the illegals without bringing the troops home prematurely.

Joseph Botwinick
 
T

Travelsong

Guest
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/01/opinion/01krugman.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

July 1, 2005
America Held Hostage
By PAUL KRUGMAN
A majority of Americans now realize that President Bush deliberately misled the nation to promote a war in Iraq. But Mr. Bush's speech on Tuesday contained a chilling message: America has been taken hostage by his martial dreams. According to Mr. Bush, the nation now has no choice except to keep fighting the war he wanted to fight.

Never mind that Iraq posed no threat before we invaded. Now it's a "central front in the war on terror," Mr. Bush says, quoting Osama bin Laden as an authority. And since a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would, Mr. Bush claims, be a victory for Al Qaeda, Americans have to support this war - and that means supporting him. After all, you wage war with the president you have, not the president you want.

But America doesn't have to let itself be taken hostage. The country missed the chance to say no before this war started, but it can still say no to Mr. Bush's open-ended commitment, and demand a timetable for getting out.

I know that this argument will be hard to sell. Despite everything that has happened, many Americans still want to believe that this war can and should be seen through to victory. But it's time to face up to three realities. First, the war is helping, not hurting, the terrorists. Second, the kind of clear victory the hawks promised is no longer possible, if it ever was. Third, a time limit on our commitment will do more good than harm.

Before the war, opponents warned that it would strengthen, not weaken, terrorism. And so it has: a recent C.I.A. report warns that since the U.S. invasion, Iraq has become what Afghanistan was under the Soviet occupation, only more so: a magnet and training ground for Islamic extremists, who will eventually threaten other countries.

And the situation in Iraq isn't improving. "The White House is completely disconnected from reality," said Senator Chuck Hagel, referring to upbeat assessments of progress. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."

Mr. Hagel claims to believe that we can still win, but it's hard to see how.

More troops might help, but pretty much the whole U.S. Army is already in Iraq, on its way back from Iraq or getting ready to go to Iraq. And the coalition of the willing is shrinking.

Helping Iraqis rebuild their country could help win hearts and minds. But for all the talk of newly painted schools, the fact is that reconstruction, originally stalled by incompetence and corruption, is now stalled by the lack of security. When Ibrahim al-Jafaari, the Iraqi prime minister, visited Washington, he was accompanied by Iraqi journalists. One of them asked Mr. Bush, "When will you begin the reconstruction in Iraq?"

Meanwhile, time is running out for America's volunteer military, which is cracking under the strain of a war it was never designed to fight.

So what would happen if the United States gave up its open-ended commitment to Iraq and set a timetable for withdrawal?

Mr. Bush claims that such a step would "send the wrong signal to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission." But what the troops need to know is that their country won't demand more than they can give. He also claims that it would encourage the insurgents, who will "know that all they have to do is to wait us out." But the insurgents don't seem to need encouragement.

It's far more likely that if the Iraqi government knew that our support had an expiration date, it would both look to its own defenses and, more important, try harder to find a political solution to the insurgency.

The Iraq that emerges once U.S. forces are gone won't bear much resemblance to the free-market, pro-American, Israel-friendly democracy the neocons promised. But it will pose less of a terrorist threat than the Iraq we have now.

Remember, Iraq wasn't a breeding ground for terrorists before we went there. All indications are that the foreign terrorists now infesting Iraq are there on the sufferance of a homegrown insurgency that finds them useful for the moment but that, brutal as it is, isn't interested in an apocalyptic confrontation with the Western world. Once we're no longer targets, the foreign terrorists won't be welcome.

The point is that the presence of American forces in Iraq is making our country less safe. So it's time to start winding down the war.
 

Hardsheller

Active Member
Site Supporter
So we're the bad guys? Interesting myopic view of world affairs and especially the War on Terrorism.
 

Hardsheller

Active Member
Site Supporter
I suppose this is the Liberal Way to Fight a War on Terrorism.

1. Pull out of Iraq NOW
2. Pull out of Korea NOW
3. Stop all Recruiting for the Military as that is really in bad taste
4. Get rid of all Nuclear Weapons
5. Stop alienating Muslims by picking on Al Quaeda
6. Get Rid of the Patriot Act
7. Close Gitmo
8. Close the Borders
9. Oh yeah, I forgot one - Pull out of Afghanistan NOW

Now which of those Liberal Views seems out of place to you?
 
T

Travelsong

Guest
Originally posted by Hardsheller:
So we're the bad guys? Interesting myopic view of world affairs and especially the War on Terrorism.
Nope, we're the suckers. We fell for an unjust war while laced with fear from 9/11. We've focused our efforts on the wrong target and squandered mountains of money and precious time.

It's time to pinch yourself and wake up to the nightmare. We've created a colossal mess through stupidity and spread a giant welcome mat around the entire country.
 
T

Travelsong

Guest
Originally posted by Hardsheller:
I suppose this is the Liberal Way to Fight a War on Terrorism.

1. Pull out of Iraq NOW
2. Pull out of Korea NOW
3. Stop all Recruiting for the Military as that is really in bad taste
4. Get rid of all Nuclear Weapons
5. Stop alienating Muslims by picking on Al Quaeda
6. Get Rid of the Patriot Act
7. Close Gitmo
8. Close the Borders
9. Oh yeah, I forgot one - Pull out of Afghanistan NOW

Now which of those Liberal Views seems out of place to you?
Slippery slope fallacy. You are connecting a series of unrelated assertions.

Conservatism does not blow billions of dollars on nation building.

Once again, our primary obligation is to the safety of our own citizens.
 

Hardsheller

Active Member
Site Supporter
And since this has never been done before who's to say that this is not the best way to do it? You and the Liberals?
 
T

Travelsong

Guest
This transcends political affiliation and pierces directly into the heart of common sense.


We are doing virtually nothing to secure this nation while at the same time fighting a hopeless war which does nothing but exponentially multiply religious wackos willing to kill themselves for their cause.

When and if we are attacked on our own soil you will be with the rest of us. We are the majority now you know, yes? It's not liberalism my friend, it's just a natural desire to live and raise a family free from unecessary threats.
 

LadyEagle

<b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
Amen, travelsong.

Wonder if there will be a terrorist attack on our home soil this weekend? Al Qaeda knows how important July 4th is to Americans and how we get together by the thousands for fireworks, etc. How secure are all the commercial fireworks displays, anyway? What if there were a dirty bomb or nuke?

Far fetched? Well, because we haven't fought the war on terrorism on the homefront correctly, the thought has crossed my mind. Terrorists would not only have the opportunity to kill thousands of Americans on a July 4th attack, but would be striking at the heart of celebration and what we say we are doing in Iraq - Democracy.

Interestingly, just this week, two Iraqi men were caught by the Mexicans trying to cross the border illegally into California.

I do believe we will see a complete jihad in this country one day which will lead to another civil war. It won't be the government or our military keeping us safe though. It'll just be like the old wild west.
 
O

OCC

Guest
"You will blame George Bush for any future terrorist act that happens to America."

Hardsheller, the fact that people praise Bush for there being no more terrorist acts since 9/11 gives someone the right to blame Bush if there is another terrorist attack.
 
O

OCC

Guest
LadyEagle, I think it would be detrimental to their "cause" to commit a terrorist attack against you on the 4th of July. No...they would never do it.
 

Joseph_Botwinick

<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
King James,

In case you missed it, here it is again:

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by King James:
"Its usually chickenhawks that are eager to go to war using other people's children."

Michael Moore was asking senators/congressmen (forget which) in Fahrenheit 9/11 "why don't your sons join up?"...and they would just walk away. Shameful eh?
Yes. It is shameful until you learn the truth behind Michael Moore's propaganda and editing:

Congressional Children in War

Deceits 53-56



Early in this segment, Moore states that "out of the 535 members of Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq." The action of the segment consists of Moore accosting Congressmen to try to convince them to have their children enlist in the military. At the end, Moore declares, "Not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq."



Moore’s second statement is technically true, but duplicitous. Of course no-one would want to "sacrifice" his child in any way. But the fact is, Moore's opening ("only one") and his conclusion ("not a single member") are both incorrect. Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in Iraq in 2003. The son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter quit his job after September 11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery unit was deployed in the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden's son Beau is on active duty in the Judge Advocate General Corps; although Beau Biden has no control over where he is deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and therefore does not "count" for Moore's purposes. Seven members of Congress have been confirmed to have children in the military.



How about Cabinet members? Fahrenheit never raises the issue, because the answer would not fit Moore’s thesis. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s son is serving on the U.S.S. McFaul in the Persian Gulf.



Why not count Duncan Hunter's son? Note the phrasing: "only one had an enlisted son in Iraq." Although Hunter's son "enlisted" in the Marines, he is a Second Lieutenant, which means that he is above the rank of an "enlisted man." But why hide from the viewers how many Congressmen really have sons serving in the military in Iraq?



The editing of the Congressional scenes borders on the fraudulent:

….Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in Fahrenheit 9/11, was censored by Michael Moore.
According to the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune, Kennedy, when asked if he would be willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore that his son was thinking about a career in the navy and that two of his nephews had already served in the armed forces. Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive.

What was Michael’s excuse for trimming the key segment? Kennedy’s remarks didn’t help his thesis: "He mentioned that he had a nephew that was going over to Afghanistan," Moore recounted. "So then I said ‘No, no, that’s not our job here today. We want you to send your child to Iraq. Not a nephew.’"

Kennedy lambasted Moore as a "master of the misleading" after viewing the interview in question.
59 Deceits in Farenheitt 9-11

Once you see the true deceits behind Michael Moore's lies, you have to come to the conclusion that perhaps he wasn't really looking for the truth when he made that movie for an election year. And also, the way he exploited the suffering of military families at a loved one's gravesite and veterans who were wounded show that he is the one who bears the full weight of shame with his slander and disrespect. Shameful, Indeed. But, probably not in the way you were hoping or thinking.

Joseph Botwinick
</font>[/QUOTE]
 
O

OCC

Guest
Joseph, yeah I did miss it. Thanks for sharing that. I did see a few senators walk away with no comment when Moore asked why their sons don't join up though. The camera doesn't lie.

As for Moore being at the gravesites, there is nothing wrong with that. It is a movie about the war isn't it? It is no more shameful than Bush repeatedly referring back to an event that happened four years ago in an attempt to manipulate emotions.

I still believe it was a good movie. If he committed slander in it would he have not been charged?
 

billwald

New Member
The Talban stopped opium production and refused to let the Bush family and friends build a pipe line. Two monts after the war the pipe line treaty was signed and now opium prduction is running at 110%.

The purpose of the Iraq war is to ultimately transfer control of the Iraq oil to the Saudis and their Bush friends.

Nothing since the Reformation has reversed the flow of assets from the working people to our owners.
 

Joseph_Botwinick

<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
Originally posted by King James:
Joseph, yeah I did miss it. Thanks for sharing that. I did see a few senators walk away with no comment when Moore asked why their sons don't join up though. The camera doesn't lie.

As for Moore being at the gravesites, there is nothing wrong with that. It is a movie about the war isn't it? It is no more shameful than Bush repeatedly referring back to an event that happened four years ago in an attempt to manipulate emotions.

I still believe it was a good movie. If he committed slander in it would he have not been charged?
1. The camera does lie when it is edited to do so.

2. What is shameful is that he depicted the mourning family and wounded soldier as being anti-war, which couldn't be further from the truth, as was exposed in interviews, unedited, with those folks in the documentary expose' called Fahrenhype 911. Check it out sometime. It is full of Democrats (liberal, moderate and conservative) and Michael Moore's own stars refuting his propaganda.

Joseph Botwinick
 
O

OCC

Guest
1. The camera doesn't lie. The person behind the camera lies when they edit it.

2. It is shameful to portray someone as being antiwar when they are not...granted.
 
Top