DTOM, you make a pretty good point even if you didn't intend to.

People like Mr. Talking Point (Ted) commonly throw out terms like "libs" and "dems" as attacks against those people, but then claim to support the troops. But as you know, that's not possible because the armed forces are not 100% conservative republican. So basically, he's hurling insults at probably a fourth of our military on one side of his face while singing their praises in another. He can't have it both ways, but makes the attempt.

And now, people like me and you are labeled the same because we are looking at this mess in a non-partisan fashion. Meaning, we would be saying the same things if a democrat were president.

But, to all this "good news:. How many reporters do we have left in Iraq? Right now, they can't find anybody to go over there. And if you are embedded, the military controls the message. So, the really bad news is not being reported because there are no independent reporters over there anymore. In fact, I believe this is the worst coverage of a war EVER because of the dangers.

And lastly, I believe the 4000 deaths you refer to are "Disney Deaths". Disneyland/world prides itself in saying that nobody has ever died in a Disney theme park - ever. But that's because they are never declared dead until they leave the park. How many deaths get reported when the person didn't die until later? When the guy with 100 surgeries died last week, I didn't recall the death count going up. But his death was 100% the result of war injuries.

The entire situation in Iraq is a fabric of lies that simply buys Bush time to get out of office. The biggest coward sits in the oval office.

. 1. Is the surge working?

Yes. Certainly we would not be where we are today with the “old” strategy. The bad news is we didn’t do this sooner.

AQ is now about done for in Iraq and the government has made significant progress meeting the “benchmarks”. We know this because the Pelosi crowd is not balling and moaning this line of rhetoric anymore.

Certainly there are problems ahead but overall we have a imo better than even chance of “winning” the war. And by that I mean allowing for a stable democratic government to take over most of the fighting – and the US to act as backup from one or more bases inside Iraq.


This CSIS paper covers the good and bad to date.

http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_c...id,4393/type,1/

Two points both center on Sistani's motivations on the declaration of fatwas.

One, speculation has it that the air war has essentially forced Sistani into making a smaller declaration because of the continued deterioration of relations based on excessive use of air power. There was so much destruction that his supporters supposedly pleaded with him to do something. Any continued marginalization might provoke him into declaring the big fatwa which is what Al Sadr has been pushing for all along.

Two, Sistani's fatwas are the proverbial canary for anyone interested in the health of the surge. Their implementation is uncontrovertable proof that a loss of control has occurred.



This is not a good thing unless the idea is to foment social and political unrest and then point to it as a reason to stay. In some ways under the table funding is more dangerous than bombing in my opinion. My question is, if the war is taxing people domestically back home, if a full blown recession occurs as is expected, do you really think there will be enough money in the pipe to paste another Harriri poster child in Iraq?

Yeah, cuz nobody is keeping the death toll properly...

http://icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=5-2008

Oh wait, there's Sgt. German on April 11, 2008 right where Nighttimer said he died. The death toll in this war has been broadcast, politicized, and used as a football by both sides. Of course the death toll is a real cost of the war. It must be measured against the benefits derived.

On this day after Memorial Day, where we honor those that gave their lives for their country, let's keep in mind that every single soldier that died in Iraq chose to enlist. They may not have chosen to go to Iraq, but they certainly chose to serve. Unlike Vietnam, where we drafted men to serve and over 68,000 died in a war we eventually decided was for nothing, these men made a decision and should be honored for it.

Nighttimer repeats ad nauseum that 2007 was the deadliest year of the war and leaves off the fact that the past 12 months were among the lowest deaths. Over 600 died in the last 12 months, but over 100 of those were in June of 2007. Since the surge began, the death rate has plunged (relatively).

To put a number on Nighttimer's American city analogy: Detroit : 418 murders in 2006. Almost half as many deaths of Americans as occured in a combat zone. The good news is, the surge is working there too (I guess) with only 394 murders in 2007.

There should be a debate about whether or not our military strategy is minimizing the danger to our soldiers. There should also be a debate about whether or not those deaths are in vain or if they are accomplishing something.

So far, the Congress has not seriously attempted to withdraw our troops. This despite the overt pledges in the 2006 Congressional elections to do exactly that. Now, we can't fund our troops without pork laden bills that are doomed to rejection. Playing politics with our troops continues, on both sides.

So just for clarification.......you base your assessment on the political success of the surge, on the level of "balling and moaning" [whatever that means] from Democratic politicians?

Regarding "Disney deaths", it has been my experience in viewing icasualties.org, that people who are wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan and later die of wounds at Landstuhl or Walter Reed, are counted accurately in the death toll. I wouldn't be surprised if someone had slipped through, after prolonged surgeries and health issues stateside. But I have confidence in the number.

nighttimer



I breakdown post all the time, however your post wasnt detailed enough to breakdown, you just said the same thing 5 times straight like im some insensitve prick who doesnt care about the death of soldiers because I support the war. That would have cost me 15 extra seconds to do individual quotes on a post that wasn't worth a 5 second response. Get it?

Grammar wise my post are more than readable, and when debating with you im not motivated to correct the mistakes I actualy do catch anyway. You dont demonstrate that your worth the extra effort, you just preach against intolerance like most recently in the (Ted Kennedy) forum, only to turn right back and behave the same damn way. Arguments of grammar and posting technique are used mostly when people have no other arguments, so they resort to something off topic, unless of course a post flat out cant be read which Ive yet to see on this site from anyone.



Actualy I agree with many of Dontreadonme arguments, which he seems not to realize. I don't agree with his conclusion, and often that conclusion seems based on only the facts that would give us every reason to want to leave Iraq but that is besideds the fact, Ive argued that with him before directly.

Im interested in how you can go around preaching intolerance, then the very next day come in here and tell me directly that you dont need to know me, to know that the reason I dont fight in this war is because I'm a coward? I have a medical condition that I've explained here before. I've been told by 2 different doctors now that I wouldn't be able to join, I shouldnt have to explain this anyway because even if I could join but choose not to, and still supported our troops in this war, you are still in no position to spin the crap your spinning when I could give you quotes of actual soldiers encouradging the public to support them. Just ask and I'll give you those quotes if you need substantation.

Your flat out talking out you rear end again. Yea, your all about standing out against intolerance of race and politics, until the ones that display that intolerance share your race or politics, how convenient, and of course you display such behavior yourself as well which makes it even worse.







LOL, damn dude chill out. Yea we disagree on the war, so what. Most people who support our decision to fight this war, as well as most of the ones who dont support fighting it belive that the end goal should be peace. Now I could just say that you don't support this war because you actualy want the middle east to slip into kaos, or your just to stupid to see anything beyond the present. I know this is true of at least a fraction of the people who dont support the war, I dont know how many exactly but I've meet such people, and there is no shortage of stupid and shortsighted people in this country whether they be Conservative, Liberal, or don't give a damn about politics at all, so its certainly possible it applies to you as well. Isn't that about the amount of evidence you relied on to assume what my motivations are? That I support the war and dont fight in the war I support, so natuaraly to you I dont care about soldiers dying?

You know, I do know one thing about you for sure, and this is based on your posting. You display some of the most hipocritical behavior I've ever seen in any debater, in that your own post often contradict the tolerance you preach about time and time again on this site.



Again you don't know what your talking about, not in the least, because your speaking for other people! I gurantee you that many if not most of the soldiers who have died, would tell you that they died because they were willing to accept the risk that goes hand in hand with being a soldier. Soldiers and the families of soldiers remain the most supportive Americans by percent of this war, these are not children, this is not a draft war, so stop talking for people you dont know.









The rest of your post from this point on was too childish to even address with any degree of seriousness. All this is, is a back and forth pesronal free for all, and im wasting my time.

You have your set of values, you assume those values hold the moral high ground, and if someone supports the war they dont give a damn about soldiers. Grow up, and make at least one argument here that is worth responding to. Listen I don't care if I have an unpopular view of this war on this site, which I know I do, and I could care less if everyone else who shares your views steps up in your defense every time you cross the line by talking about people you don't know. All thats important to me here is that I know who I am, and what I care about. You on the other hand can say whatever you want, all your nonsense I take about as seriously as a bad politician saying they stand for change, your twice my age and lack the maturity to keep me interested, but you have a nice night now and good luck with your ramblings.



Donttreadonme



Such as the countless people who are directly involved yet support the war? You act as if nobody who fights in this war supports it, when support among soldiers remains higher than the general public, and some of these soldiers I've had the privilege of talking to directly to see that we share many beliefs.
And no, many soldiers don't share all my views, and for the ones that don't support the war they fight in, I hope for their saftey just the same, and im glad you got back ok whatever your stance is.

The fact of the matter is many people do expect or even want to hear bad news, because it helps them argue their non supportive political position on the war. Do you fit this description? Like I said (Who knows). I certainly don't know anything for sure about you because I've never meet you. Based on your posting you do focus on the negative excessivly however. I belive this is for one of two reasons, reason one is this war has effected you on a personal level in a way that has encouradged you not to support it. Perhaps witnessing the death of friends (if you have) was a part of this.

The everyday struggles a soldier faces are unimaginably tough, although I've never walked in the shoes of a soldier I know this to be true, because I've been told this by a few soldiers I know, and it's obvious by my own research as well. This in combination with witnessing violence, alone could have discouraged you from supporting this war, and saying ((Hell it's just not worth it)) but it's important to understnad that many soldiers have a different response to the same stuggles you face, which you surely know. Many soldiers are strengthened to press on and support the war, because these struggles they face make it that much more important that this war is won. We are all different, we all respond to difficult situations in different ways, im not going to say who is right or who is wrong because its not in my place to do so, in fact its not in anybodies place to do that. I hope this is the explanation for why you don't support the war, it certainly makes sense.

Now the second reason you may focus on the negative excessivly is because you know it benifits your personal postion on this war to do so. That is true more commonly of civilians than soldiers, and I belive a fair number of war critics fit this description. Violence and negativity can effectivly be used as a political stunt to discoradge others from holding a supportive view of the war that they dont. I'm not saying I know for a fact you do this yourself, but im not ruling it out either.

It's possible that some non supportive soldiers are unique in the sense that they fit Both Descriptions. In other words they focus excessively on the negative intentionally, because they have witnessed things, and experienced struggles that give them reason to want this war to end. Even that makes some sense, but im not going to say for sure where you stand here, all I can do is point out the obvious and thats the fact that you do in fact mostly focus on facts that support the stance that we should leave. I only had to read your post to know that much is true, is that unreasonable?

Amlord



Exactly! you hit the nail on the head Amlord. Telling a truth that supports a persons own position is one thing, but telling the whole truth, and telling the other side of the story, not too many people do that but Kudoes for catching it.

Is that what they call it ? Kudoes? As in internet slang for respect points or something? It's either Kudoes or Cheetos, personaly Id rather get Cheetos because them things are delicious, lol.

Thats a mighty bold assertion, especially after you decried Nighttimers alleged blanket statement about soldiers he may or may not have met. Just who are these people who so want to win a debate or be right, that they wish for bad news from Iraq?



Far too simplistic of of an assessment. I'm a seasoned military professional, death unfortunately is no stranger to me, but death does not shape my observations and experiences of American foreign policy. Someone who lets emotions shape opinion or ascribes an emotional dynamic to another's experiences is attempting to take away focus from reality and fact. I've lost more than a few soldiers, and I lost one of my closest friends in early September, well after the experience of living the Iraq reality that had forced me to confront what I was being told was the truth.

I've read the meeting summaries between MND-B and the MoI which make the Iraqi Army and Ministry leadership look like the graduating class at Clown College; I've witnessed the positive effects of the micro-grant programs and the outcomes of CERP fund expenditures; I've witnessed the propaganda spin that transforms a SIGACT into a PAO press release; I've been a party to tactical restrictions that kept us from bagging the bad guys on one day and the overzealous use of military force that generated more enemies the next day. I've talked to both ordinary Iraqi's and insurgents, and have come to realize why many of them fight and why many of them want us out of Iraq. I've stood witness to the propaganda that is directed towards Iraqi's and the propaganda that is directed towards soldiers and American citizens.

I've also taken quite a bit of time to read the various white papers and policy reports from many of the scholars and foreign policy experts that I named in the previous post, have you?

And yes, I've seen wasted lives, broken men and shattered families.........in pursuit of a politically driven military adventure, against a country that was virtually no threat to our national security. And I see [like many] that same telltale signs that this administration wishes to use the same template in a drive for a perpetual state of war that benefits only jingoists, politicians and the defense industry.



I think we can safely rule out left/right politics as a factor in my assessments. My personal position has been stated; I don't want to see a continuance of the degradation of our military and its morale; and I want our foreign policy to be one where our practices match our principles. Members such as yourself and Ted seem to be obsessively focused on Democrat versus Republican partisanship, and I think that is no accident. Politicians and the corporate MSM desire to foster that dynamic as it keeps people from asking the tough questions; it keeps them wrapped up in petty disputes, and it's great for ratings. I don't have a political dog in this fight, as both sides of the two party monopoly are equally culpable in the travesty that our foreign policy has become. My personal position on this argument comes from living it, and seeing the disconnect that much of the American public has with that reality. You claim that I focus excessively on the negative aspects in Iraq, and that may ring true as I have stated the reasons for which previously, but just as true as you focus excessively on the positive aspects, much of which is propaganda driven releases.



And ironically this is something I've been asking you about for quite some time..........


Maybe I'm in the minority on this, but when a poster takes the time to lay out a cogent debate and spell words correctly, it is a sign of dedication to ones argument; the desire to debate like an adult and not simply post as many times as they can.

"Benefits derived," Amlord? Ho'kay. Why don't you take a moment and explain a few of the benefits derived?

I've got the financial windfalls for Bechtel, Blackwater and Haliburtion, if war profiteering is your thing. Otherwise, besides all the funeral homes kept in business by the surge of dead bodies, I'm kind of stuck for any other beneficiaries.

Can you hook a brutha up with the 411?



Let's also keep in mind that like Vietnam those who served were sent off to die or come home mangled physically and/or mentally based upon a bright, shining, LIE. These men (and women--no gender bias, please--should be honored for their decision and their service by not lying them into an immoral war and then keeping them there to prop up the political ambitions of old men.



Leave it to a war supporter to find the flower growing out of the manure. (Relatively) even opponents of the war have to admit the death rate has plunged (relatively).

While you were reaching for the Rolaids to help with your bout of nausea brought upon my repetition of the unpleasant facts that 2007 wasn't a real good year for those trying to make the case for violence being down in Iraq, here's one day in Iraq looks like: Tuesday: 1 US Soldier, 37 Iraqis Killed; 83 Iraqis Wounded

Iraq remains a exceptionally bad place to live, but relatively speaking, an exceptionally good place to die.

Relatively speaking.



Debate? Debate WHAT, Amlord?

The burden of proof is on those who agitate for and cheer on the war though it hasn't made America safer or more respected, not on those who suggest peace might accomplish more than blowing the hell out of a country.

Debate's over. Five years later, billions spent and thousands of American, Iraqi and other lives ended the war cheerleaders STILL have no winning strategy, no exit strategy, and from all appearances no strategy at all beyond continuing to pour money, munitions and men (and women--no gender bias here) into the rat hole that is Iraq 2008.



The difference being the politics Democrats play just wastes money. The politics Republicans play wastes lives AND money.

Speaking relatively.




Maybe you need to get your glasses checked?

I'm really not "worth" the effort to proofread, spell-check, edit and just generally tidy up your mistake-ridden posts? Wow. That actually hurts my feelings.

However, pointing out your grammar and posting technique---or lack of---may work your nerves, but while you may not want to waste the extra 15 seconds trying not to look as if English is your second language it is within the board's Survival Guide to take the time and do it right.

Proper spelling and grammar is recommended in order to build credibility and increase the likelihood that your opinions will be taken seriously. A few extra moments spent proofreading certainly does not harm anyone.

Just for the record, I did take the extra 30 minutes to highlight a few of your post's pitfalls. Blame the old newspaper copy editor in me. I gave you a break on the placement of commas and using the word "post" instead of "posts."

1. No apostrophe.
2. Spell out numbers less than 10.
3. Misspelled word
4. "You're" is a contraction of "you are." Not "your."
5. No hyphen.

That was pretty good for you, net2007. It is a hopeful sign that you can be taught.

As for you being a "insensitive prick," that's not how I would characterize you, but you're entitled to define yourself.



I never asked you for an explanation. Why are you giving one when you previously wrote you weren't going to attempt to explain? You really shouldn't waste time trying to justify yourself to people when it's not requested.

You can barf up all the quotes of actual soldiers encouraging the public to support them. Supporting the troops is not the same thing as supporting the war. Apparently, that is a distinction you have been thus far unable or unwilling to make.

But since this is a debate board, by all means, net2007, provide the quotes. Then I can provide mine by actual soldiers calling for an end to the war.

Or I can just do a search of Dontreadonme's posts over the last two years. Whatever works.



I'm sure you'll understand it's real easy to blow off your whining about intolerance when you start off saying I'm talking out of my rear end (again). Not exactly a titan of tolerance yourself, are you? It does however make me wonder why your ear is so close to my nether regions?

Ew.



Head hurts from trying to find any bit of logic in this typically banal blurb written in a stream of unconsciousness. Maybe if I try again later I can figure out what the hell you are trying to say here. I doubt it though.



My head hangs in shame. Oh, wait--that's not it. My head hangs in boredom. Aren't you the guy who says "put some substance behind it for goodness sake, and consider history?" I thought that was you. Maybe I confused you with someone who doesn't specialize in beating dead horses. My bad.

Oh, and by the way, the word you're mangling is "hypocritical." Sigh.



Oh, but you do?

Beg to differ:

My son, Sgt. Ryan Montgomery Campbell, would be 26 years old, had he not been in the wrong place, at the wrong time, on the wrong mission.

He was killed on a farm road, south of Baghdad, April 29, 2004.

Ryan was in the wrong place. Iraq.

At the time of his death, Ryan's platoon was providing dismounted security for a team of engineers who were searching for and destroying roadside IEDs. A car pulled into the midst of 11 soldiers in Ryan’s platoon. 3 soldiers were wounded and 8 were killed when the driver of the vehicle detonated what has been estimated at more than 500 lbs of explosives. The mission of the platoon that day had absolutely nothing to do with field artillery.

Wrong time, wrong place, wrong mission.

Ryan’s best friend from childhood is currently serving his second tour of duty in Iraq. He, too, is a soldier in the First Armored Division. He, too, is not doing the job for which he enlisted. He was trained to be a tank scout. Now he is a sniper. His term of enlistment was up months ago, but he has been stop-lossed. The Army will not let him leave. He has become a part of the involuntary Army. He should be home by now.

It's too late for my son but not for his best friend and thousands of their fellow soldiers and Marines.

Now is the right time, the right place, the right mission to Bring Our Troops Home! Mary Ann MacCombie, Gold Star Mother

There are literally thousands of mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, sons, daughters who oppose this stinking war, net2007, so any time you want to roll out your testimonials from families for the war, I'm good to go with statements from those who oppose it. 'Bring it on," as a certain lost village idiot once said.



Oh, I know there are many people who give a damn about the soldiers. You don't, but that is something you've made painfully apparent.



Are you seriously trying to tell me to grow up? Not the guy who previously referenced an awesomely adolescent word like "cooties" in a prior post (and misspelled it--nothing new there)?

Apparently you do take my "nonsense" very seriously. You sure took enough time out of your planning the Victory in Iraq parades for the year 2108 according to John "100 Years" McSame, to reply in eye-rolling detail.






This from the lone wolf who just said, "...I don't care if I have an unpopular view of this war on this site, which I know I do, and I could care less if everyone else who shares your views steps up in your defense..." but blows big sloppy wet kisses to Amlord because he makes a point that shares your view. Must get awfully lonely on the outskirts of the lunatic fringe. You are a regular tower of Jell-o when it comes to your unshakable convictions net2007.



No.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kudos

Never get tired of being wrong, do ya?

Easy on the Cheetos. Too many of them and you'll get fat. You'll also suffer from permanently orange-stained fingers.

Dontreadonme



Are you serious? He made a comment about what dead soldiers would say if they were alive, he didn't mention names he genralized that for dead soldiers it's better be alive, well no kidding. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have said they died doing something they believed in. If that quote wasnt pulled right off of Full Metal Jacket anyway. ((Joker: The dead know only one thing, It is better to be alive.)) Yea amen to that, I agree its better to be alive.




You know I've showed you sources that range from high ranking Generals to Privates, including policy reports and opinions of individual soldiers, so don't go there. Remember consider your fellow debater has more than a 2 week memory if you want to ask questions you already know the answers to.



I respect your position, and agree with some of what you just said, but your end conclusion is not shared by our entire military, even if your argument that Iraq was not an immonent threat to our security is shared by most people including myself.



Yea right, two conserative republicans in support of this war just got smeared by you just after defending someone who shares your politics on the same issue, when they went as far to openly state that they dont need to know me to know I don't join the mililiatry because I'm a coward, and im supposed to buy that partisanship plays no role with you whatsoever? That reminds me of Keith Olberman saying he isn't Liberal, when every person he labels (Worst Person in The World) is republican or conservative. Lot thats good stuff man, you know naturaly im skeptical but I'll keep my mouth shut with the absolutes
because like I said (who knows)



And like I've been telling you for quite some time, I agree with many of your arguing points. Such as the hiring of Militias being counter effective. You just dont hear it or something. Or wait nevermind, below you blame it on the grammar, yet here we are holding a conversation. THATS SOME TRIPPY SH. . . . STUFF THERE MAN!



Substance is priority 1, and the substnace of his last post was nothing short of one long insulting cheap shot. Grammar is secondary when it's an occasional misspelled word or punctuation error. What can I say I don't proof read these post as I would a 12th grade history report, sorry.

You'll pardon me if I'm underwhelmed at some of the sources you've used. I was referring to sources from pre-eminent experts in the fields of foreign policy, military transformation and national security.



You have just proven my point. You've assigned politics to the views of two very distinct people and lumped them together. NT is a liberal Democrat, I am a paleo-conservative Libertarian. That we agree on the issue of our involvement in Iraq doesn't not signify anything political. I don't hold that against you, however........you are trapped in the paradigm where everything is Democrat versus Republican, just as they desire. Voluntary servitude to a two party monopoly, just as they desire.



No, you're recognition of the other side of the story is always summed up in exactly the fashion that you just wrote, sound bite. No critical thought, no introspection, just a forced passing reference to somehow prove that you are open minded and unbiased. For you, the positive outweighs the negative in Iraq......for me the opposite is true. No one person's assessment from news reports or articles is going to likely change what I witnessed and experienced first hand. I continue to read the analysis of scholars such as Kaplan and Boot who support the war in Iraq, and perpetual hegemonic war. They make some valid points on a micro scale, but not in my opinion on the macro scale.......nor in the best interest in the survival of this nation.



If you want your argument formatted like a third grader, that's fine with me. I just consider a lack of spelling awareness a sign of laziness. And when there is grammatical laziness, there is usually intellectual laziness.

It's also better to be right. As usual, you're wrong.

I didn't "pull" any quote from Full Metal Jacket. Only the basic training sequence of the movie is any good. The rest of the "Matthew Modine goes to Vietnam" crap sucks.

What I did do was paraphrase two different quotes. Neither of which has a damn thing to do with Full Metal Jacket.

Only the dead have seen the end of war. - Plato

War would end if the dead could return. - Stanley Baldwin

Soldiers often die fighting for something they believe in that turns out to be something that wasn't true.





Substance doesn't trump style and you don't have much of either net2007. Not when you insist your misspellings, tortured syntax and brutally horrific punctuation errors matter less than your absurd lapses of logic, misleading statements, cracked reasoning and dippy debate tactics.

You don't take being cogent AND coherent seriously? Fine. Why then should anyone take you seriously?

nighttimer





Work my nerves? Nah, but you know what? Pat yourself on the back for all that effort you just put into that post. Hell 30 minutes, lol? What exactly however are we debating at this point the war or whatever petty counter arguments you can muster up about why I don't fight in this war out of cowardness, and arguing grammar issues for 30 minutes? I don't have excellent grammar in general, you got me, it was my worst subject in school along with math, and I rode along with C's and D's while on the flip side I was acing reading and science. If I were to ever write a book I'd either take a college course to improve my grammar or higher a good proof reader.

I also make rather lenghty throurough post while typing fast. I know that words like (don't) require an apostrophe, typicaly I let the firefox spell checker take care of that in many cases just to save time. Right now im using IE until I reformat my HD because a virus has my computer on the fritz and I cant get firefox working. Many of the online features that involve pop up menus are out on IE as well it's working but not well. I tried the integrated spell check here and it isnt working either. I'll have my computer reformated as soon as I can, I have about 4 hours worth of reinstalling every program I have on my primary partition, about 80 Gigs worth. Until then your brain will just have to go through the unbelievable agony of figuring out the difference between dont and don't.

Is there anything else you would like to go over that derails this conversation any further into a personal free for all? You know while my post are readable it's true I could probably dot all my i's and cross every t, but this is less about spelling and more about you finding the only arguments you seem to be able to find, even if they do completly derail a topic by an excessive 30 minutes worth of effort on your part. I say this because you do it with arguments outside grammer issues. You call people racist that you don't know, you color me a coward for not fighting in the war I support, and you certainly don't know me either. I don't need to be 52 to see through these tricks and this childs play. Belive me, many of the people I knew growing up display similar behavior, it's not hard to spot.




Of course it wasn't requested, no kidding man, you seem more interested in trying to tell people why they believe what they do, rather than asking them. Otherwise I wouldn't be explianing anything about me in this kind of detail. You throw around all these absolutes, and if your going to do that I'll explain my position and why I hold it, to some extent. I shouldn't even put that kind of effort into debating with you, your right. Perhaps I'm going against my own gut instinct to talk to you, but now im interested to see what else you might say after some of this goofy stuff.

Look lets just knock this nonsense off, what do you say? We disagre, we both aparently belive our positions with conviction and if that motivates you to want to go toe to toe with me like this is a boxing match, then whatever. If you want to do it however, keep it within the general area of the debate topic. Telling me why I support the war in such an absolute manner is not productive when you don't have a thing to back such bold claims, assuming things about every member who disagrees with you in race and politics is not productive, correcting grammer issues, (sorry grammar issues) for 30 minutes would be productive if I actualy belived you did it for any other reason than to paint yourself the respectible debater.

The only reason I belive this, is because of key things you have said to debaters who are either usualy White or Conservsative.



Barf up?

I already know DTOM went to Iraq supporting it, and left not supporting it, he told me, and I belive this is true of other soldiers as well but you see I never denied that, in fact I agreed that many soldiers have called for an end to this war, I've said that many times. You like many, often speak the truth, but not the whole truth. For example you talk about how many soldiers have died in this war with no mention that the last 6 months have improved dramatically in Iraq, you talk about soldiers that don't support the war with no mention of those that do. You take the same exact approach in debating race and this is more of the same.



Well you were talking out your rear, I don't care if you spelled every word right and edited newspapers in your past or not, it wasn't to the point where im going to go jump to a moderator and complain, it wasn't vulgar, just you talking about people you don't know again. I believe in free speech so you can say whatever you want as far as im concerned Nighttimer as I told you in my last post, but I'll respond acordingly though. In a year of debating on this site I've reported one comment as out of line.

Ironicaly it was the last time I had to explain my medical contition (Tardive dyskinesia) prevents me from enlisting even if I choose to. It's a neurological disorder that is the result of a bad reaction to a medication I took a long time ago, someone then said I made it up, and thats just sad that I would do that. Lol I mean Jesus, such comments may be laughable in 99% of the cases, but that was just ridiculous man.

Usualy I choose not to debate this at all but usualy people that don't know me don't tell me I support the war yet don't fight in it because Im cowardly. The medication propranolol helps a great deal but unfortunately the symptoms of this condition are at their peak when my adrenaline and blood pressure go up. In other words, mostly when im physically active. Excercising is one thing that never fails to trigger uncontrolable tremmors, I choose to do it in my spare time however because I dont have have to hold a gun and put the lives of others in my hands when I excersice.

I mean really is this boaring you? Its boaring me, Ive talked about this 2 times now on this site both times having been told im either hypocritical or cowardly for not fighting in the war I support. When I was younger I was actualy interested in enlisting, that was a while ago though.

So if you want to get personal, yea we can do that. I'd much rather try and debate the topic directly. I don't remember ever telling someone (This is what you support, and this is exactly why you support it) I've made arguments that some people use poitical stunts and dont care about soldiers, but what I don't do is address people I don't know directly and speak in absolutes.



Well it started with chill out, which is slang for take it easy. Then I said most people belive the end goal regarding this war should be peace whatever their stance is. You know right after you told me the follwoing......

You support the war just fine. It's the troops you don't give a damn about.

then you said...

You no more encourage peace through war than you encourage chastity by rape.

Still with me? Have I misspelled something? Take a look you might just find something else we can ramble about.

I then went on to say.......

there are no shortage of stupid and shortsighted people in this country. Which is true.

Since my last response to you was about the amount of evidece you relied on to have the balls to tell me I don't give a damn about soldiers, shouldn't I make the same argument on you with a similar lack of evidence? I was being sarcastic and was pointing that it would be no better for me to suggest the same thing on you because I don't know you, period.

All I can do is point out what you've displayed in debate, but if I dont give a damn about soldiers Id sure love to see you quote me some. I've quoted you making generalizing prejudice remarks about whites, when I claimed it. So what have you got that demonstrates I dont give a damn about soldiers, beyond the mere fact that I support this war but dont fight in it?






Id like to belive I get it right all the time, but honestly I don't, and I try to admit when I've said something in error or something that was just wrong when I do. All I've been saying with you and DTOM is that many soldiers that you care not to mention support this war, while others dont. I want to make it clear that I believe there are varied views on this war from both soldiers and civilians, I say it all the time. Of course you choose to focus soley on the following.........



Wrong place, wrong time? Absolutly, and its a damn shame. Wrong Mission? Well that depends on who you ask, and what individual your talking about. I don't know him so I cant speak for him, he very well could have not indtended to go to Iraq, but soldiers generaly understand the risk involved with becoming a soldier and that it can potentialy bind them legaly to various situations, many of which are dangerous. This information is not witheld from soldiers when they enlist, I have several family members who have served so that I know. Have you ever in your life looked at a war either in your lifetime, or in the past and supported Americas role in it, yes or no?

Most people can not answer that question without saying yes, and most wars have been far bloodier than this one, yet it doesn't mean that everyone who supports a war they dont fight in simply don't care about soldiers, thats ridiculous.





We will just be going back and forth stating postions we both know are abundant in our miliraty, if you want to do that we can. I'll load you up like I did in my recent race forum with links galore. You know there are soldiers who belive in fighting this war, and families that continue to support this war having lost family members in it, and I know there are soldiers who fight in the war who don't support it, and who have family members that don't support it. If you insist though, at least it's more on topic, I'll show you some quotes next time I have time to debate here if you really need them.



Lol, ok how is that? Lets see why It's so apparent that I don't give a damn about soldiers, shall we? Copy some Quotes of me demonstrating this behavior and paste it here.........
________________________

CTRL C and CTRL V are the copy and paste keyboard shotcuts, you dont even have to right click and it saves time. It's easy give it a try and show me why I dont give a damn about soldiers. Back your statements.





It is an adolescent word, one Ive used probably twice in the last five years on paper. Oh well I misspelled it.

Lol I know what that McCain avtar meant now McSame? As in (McCain 2008 BC) the product of dated thinking that resembles George Bush, yet 5 months ago the left catered to McCain as a moderate who opposed Bush. Gotta love this hypocricy! You still make me laugh so at least that motivates me to contine to debate with you.

By the way that McCain quote is being pulled out of context if your actualy suggesting he either wants this war to last that long, or believes it needs to last that long. It was a hypothetical question with a hypothetical answer, he also said in the same quote...........

as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed

Which means he supports our presense their but on the same scale as today, he doesn't support a full blown 100 year war in Iraq, only that our foreign interest remain in the area, on a scale similar to North Korea today...........

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_us_ir...d_100_years.php

So thanks one side of the story yet again. Arguments such as this will fold when push comes to shove and these debates get one on one between Obama and McCain, you watch.






Yea and he didn't say you dont give a damn about soldiers either, it wasn't rude or personal, he just stated his opinion, and I agree with it. Anything else?



Lol, I said I didnt know if it was kudoes, I just heard the term for the first time not long ago. Thanks for that very informative spelling correction though Nighttimer!

Well that was a long post debating some very predictable things. Ive got to run for now, I'll probably reply again whenever I get this computer reformated, im looking forward to reading some more very interesting and predicable things, well catch ya later! and have a very nice day.

There's so much good news coming out of Baghdad these days it just tends to make the news media forget about all the trivial little stories like this:

WASHINGTON — The number of U.S. soldiers committing suicide rose again last year, according to a U.S. Army report released Thursday, despite the military's heightened efforts to encourage troops to seek care.

At least 115 active duty soldiers, National Guardsmen and reservists committed suicide in 2007 compared to 102 the previous year, the report found. Another two incidents are still under investigation, the military said. The Army counted 935 reported suicide attempts.

The study found a "significant relationship" between the risk of suicide to the number of days a soldier serves in Iraq and Afghanistan. About one-quarter died while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, the report found.

The largest percentage of suicides occurred during the first three months of a deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan, the report found. The largest percentage of suicide attempts came during the second quarter of deployment.

The numbers mark a 20-year high for military suicide rates, which began rising shortly after the Iraq war in 2003. The military has increasingly tried to address mental health issues, countering the view that they reflect a weak soldier. link

I can almost hear the rusty wheels grinding in the hearts of the board's conservative cheerleaders. "Big deal. It's ONLY 115 active duty soldiers. That's not a lot. Especially compared to other wars."

WASHINGTON — At the same time the Bush administration has been pushing for deep cuts in a popular crime-fighting program for states and cities, the White House has been fighting for approval of $603 million for the Iraqi police.

The White House earlier this year proposed slashing the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program, which helps local law enforcement officials deal with violent crime and serious offenders, to $200 million in the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1.

In 2002, the year before the Iraq war, the program received $900 million.

Those angry with the administration have a powerful ally in Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who chairs the House appropriations subcommittee that oversees the Justice Department.

"While President Bush requests millions of dollars for the war in Iraq, his domestic spending continues to shortchange our safety at home," she said.

When Budget Director Jim Nussle testified before her subcommittee last month, neither side showed any desire to compromise.

Mikulski called Bush's policies "outrageous" and labeled Nussle's testimony "snarky, scolding, dismissive."

"We have funded the surge of Baghdad, but we have not funded the surge of violent crime in Baltimore, Biloxi or other places," the senator said.

link2


That wacky George Bush. Making the streets of Baghdad safer while the streets of America grow less so.

Here's One Day of sweetness and light in the new, improved and Saddam-free Iraq. Enjoy!

The study found a "significant relationship" between the risk of suicide to the number of days a soldier serves in Iraq and Afghanistan. About one-quarter died while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, the report found.


Why are you surprised that war increases the potential for suicide in front line troops?

And by the way the suicide rate for the military is still below the civilian rate. Should we run from Afghanistan and Iraq?

It's the aftermath of combat that causes the problem and it doesn't stop when the soldiers are discharged. The suicide rate among former military personnel is double that of other civilians. (See This Science Daily Article).



And this just scratches the surface of the pathology that war inflicts on those who wage it and their families. PTSD is reported at more than 30% of those serving multiple tours. Family violence also increases. (There have been several cases of veterans killing their wives near Ft. Lewis, WA). An administration that cared would track and guard against all of these consequences of combat.

War increases the suicide rate for sure. Your data includes all wars from 1917? Looking more recently.

“The spike in suicides dipped significantly during the first three months of 2004. But Lt. Gen. James Peake, the Army surgeon general, said "any suicide is something we worry about and want to stop."
In 2003, 24 soldiers deployed to Kuwait and Iraq committed suicide — a rate of 17.3 per 100,000. The overall Army suicide rate during the same time period was 12.8 per 100,000 soldiers. This compares to the Army's rate of 12.2 for 2003 and 11.9 from 1995 to 2002.
The suicide rate for deployed troops dropped dramatically in 2004. Swanner said no suicides were reported in January or February, and just one soldier took his own life in March. The cause of another fatality has not yet been determined.

Despite the spike, officials said these figures remain lower than the national average of 21.5 per 100,000 for males ages 20 to 34. This is the age bracket for most U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/terrorism/a/arsuicide.htm

Since the argument is about PTST, that is, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, I don't believe suicide numbers for the whole of 2004 are particularly relevant. There weren't as many tours of duty to be stressed about at that time.

In the interest of being balanced if not fair, here is some good news out of Iraq:

BAGHDAD, June 1 (Reuters) - U.S. troop deaths in Iraq fell to their lowest level last month since the 2003 invasion and officials said on Sunday improved security also helped the country boost oil production in May to a post-war high.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Iraq's oil minister credited better security for the two milestones, which illustrated a dramatic turnabout in the fortunes of a country on the brink of all-out sectarian civil war just 12 months ago.

"We've still got a distance to go but I think lower casualty rates are a reflection of some real progress," Gates told reporters in Singapore. "The key will be to continue to sustain the progress we have seen."

American generals have stressed that the security gains are both fragile and reversible. That was shown in March, when an Iraqi government offensive against Shi'ite militias in southern Basra sparked a surge in violence in the capital and other cities, catching U.S. and Iraqi officials off guard.

The U.S. military said 19 soldiers died in May, the lowest monthly death toll in a five-year-old war that has so far claimed the lives of more than 4,000 American soldiers. link

This should give Ted and net2007 a excuse to break out the party hats and party like its 2003.

For everyone else, including the families of the 19 dead soldiers, this will only mean we're bleeding slower in Iraq. I know a way to cut the death toll to zero but we can't talk about that quite yet.

Hooray.

Clearly good news and this explains why the networks say little about Iraq these days – far be it from them to report anything that is not bad news.

Yes the casualties are still there to which I say they would be higher in Afghanistan if AQ was not busy in Iraq – as they call it the “front” of the war with the US.

Finally the Iraqi Army is getting respect in themselves and from the citizens of Iraq. The surge has done wonders for improving the conditions on the ground and the chances for victory in Iraq.

Speculation and opinion, no? Not to mention that we've had a fair number of 'lowest levels since the start of the occupation" before.



I will offer two points on the IA. The Kurdish Peshmerga Battalions are clearly professional formations, at least relatively speaking in the context of the Iraqi Army. And the IA is less corrupt and sectarian than the IP and the NP.

But, after the dismal showing in Basra and the ineffective performance in Sadr City prior to Sadr stepping back........what credible source leads you to believe that they have gained the respect that you heap upon them?

Same general question regarding your glowing assessment of the surge in general; the ghetto-ization of Baghdad with concrete walls, the militia and tribal control of civil services and the fact that the Mahdi Army is still very much intact [and Sistani may throw his support against the occupation] what credible source are you reading that fills you with such wonders? MNF-I? The White House? Surely not the networks......

on edit: I just perused an interesting paper written by former Vietnam Advisor and current Professor of Strategy at the Air War College, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama; Jeffrey Record.

The decision to invade Iraq may turn out to be the most adversely consequential foreign war in American history. The Iraq War has alien­ated friends and allies around the world; exposed the limits of American military power for all to see and exploit; raised the prospect of an Iraq Syndrome that could cripple US foreign policy for decades; soured civil­ military relations to the point where retired generals are publicly indicting their former civilian superiors for mismanagement and incompetence; depleted US land power and retarded the recapitalization of US air and naval power; weakened the dollar; encouraged Russian and Chinese strategic hostility; vindicated, to millions of Arabs, al-Qaeda’s story line about American imperial ambitions in the Middle East; aided and abetted the electoral victories of Hamas and Hezbollah; transformed Iraq into a recruiting and training ground for Islamist terrorism; promoted the expansion and Iranian power and influence in the region; encouraged Iran to accelerate its quest for nuclear weapons; enabled the probable establishment of a Shiite regime in Baghdad aligned with Tehran that could undermine Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab states with significant Shiite minorities, even provoking a regional civil war along sectarian lines; and increased the chances of a Iranian-American war that could prove catastrophic to the global economy.
Link

nighttimer


What do you mean you can't talk about ending the war quite yet? People have been talking about it for years Nightimer, YEARS. You've been talking about it since I first debated you. Some people have gone as far as to profit off of their message that this war needs to end, like Michael Moore, but people can't talk about it? You know thats not true, but perhaps you should write a letter to the same congress that now has an approval rating lower than Bushes, for letting on that they could end the war when they never had that power to begin with.

The surge by the way hasn't slowed that line of debate much, and many people will continue to make these arguments regardless of how the situation changes, so dont worry.

Also after the last few days in this room I absolutely loved this tid bit......

"We all want what's best for our country, our families and ourselves." (Republicans, Democrats, Blacks, Whites, male, or female we all want whats best.) http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry247320

Lol, except war supporting conservatives, those dirty rascals!

Thats a nice message you have there Nighttimer, but do you believe it?

The link sounds alot like what the late Odom wrote. You could copy and paste that response into an Paul Craig Roberts piece quite seamlessly.

The more immediate issue though is one that will extend the surge unto infinity, is the explosif new SOFA agreement that is in the works.




All I can say is Sistani better have a demorol before reading about this...

So we will build new bases? Don’t have now and never did have 50 bases in Iraq.

US says not seeking permanent bases in Iraq

BAGHDAD (AFP) — The US military said on Wednesday it has no plans for permanent bases in Iraq, a day after Baghdad said it was at odds with Washington over US troop deployments beyond 2008.
"The US has no desire to have permanent bases in Iraq," spokesman Kevin Bergner told reporters in Baghdad.
His remarks came a day after Iraqi spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said ministers discussed the proposed Status of Forces Agreement which is due to be concluded by next month and insisted that Iraq's national interests must be protected.
"A joint vision on this issue is yet to be achieved between the two sides, and ... the Iraqi side has a different vision, and it will not undercut or be negligent towards Iraqis' rights and sovereignty," Dabbagh said.
In February, President George W. Bush acknowledged that the US w