Bush Tells Troops 'Much More Will Be Asked of You'

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

You still haven't shown how Iraq was part of the war on terror. Just saying so doesn't make it so. Sorry, I don't buy into neocon propaganda.

Did Saddam provide money to the Palestinian homocide bombers or not? You know he did.

That made Saddam part and parcel of the war on terror. You may not like that fact, but it IS a fact.

You are wrong. It is BAA propaganda. Saddam paid a death benefit to the family of a suicide bomber. He did not pay the bomber. Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror.


---------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
You're right, we SHOULD send more troops--LOTS more. We should also stop pussy-footing around and sending our soldiers into urban combat when a good carpet-bombing would work wonders for terrorist-infested areas.

Yeah...let's kill them damn Muslims. Worthless pieces of sh*t. What do they know?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
Your original post to which I replied stated:
"And sitting around in a Clintonesque manner with our collective thumbs up our butts - and our cigars who knows where - was a complete failure and didn't prevent enemies from taking up arms against us on our very own soil."

How did Iraq attack us on our very own soil?

You're obviously avoiding my questions conjur.

Did my statement claim Iraq was the enemy? No.

Do I still think it's smart to be in Iraq in order to fight enemies in the entire ME? Yes.

Was Iraq also supporting terrorism? Yes.

Now please answer my questions.

Your lack of ingenuity is rather obvious. You know this thread is about the troops in Iraq and, hence, it's about the war in Iraq. Your comment above was clearly intended to say that Iraq has attacked us, on our own soil no less. I'm still waiting for that proof that Iraq attacked us on our own soil.

Don't dictate to me what my own comments consisted of. I know damn what what I said and what I intended and it's definitely NOT what you're claiming. Don't place word in my mouth either. You're attempting to build yet another strawman by twisting my words in a way that is patently untrue.

My, my, my. Rather defensive all of a sudden, TLC. What's the matter? Your plan to follow in CsG's steps of obfuscation and ambiguity failing?

You know damn well you were referring to Iraq. That's what this thread is about.

How weak and pathetic. Inginuity? [sic]I'm surprised you know that word because you surely haven't semonstrated one iota of it. Quite the opposite, in fact.

At least I know how to spell it.

Did Saddam provide money to the Palestinian homocide bombers or not? You know he did.

No, he didn't. I'd like to see proof he did. He paid the surviving families of Palestinian suicide bombers but he did not directly fund their terrorist activities. That's a *very* tenuous tie to terrorism and there's no way in hell Bush would have gotten even one vote to authorize the use of force if that reason was given.

That made Saddam part and parcel of the war on terror. You may not like that fact, but it IS a fact.

Utterly false as I just proved above.

You proved nothing. He paid money to terrorists. He fomented terrorism by Palestinians because of his funding. Ever notice how once we took Sadam out and the checks stopped rolling in that Palestinian homocide bombers fell off drastically?

He did NOT pay money to terrorists. Go ahead, show me the proof.

Trying to make your argument by splitting hairs is rather disingenious.[sic]

Nice attempt at using a big word. Too bad it failed.

You didn't even pay attention to the definitions you posted yourself.

"Affording safety or security from danger."

Figure it out. Nor did you respond to any of my scenarios above. Is it safer or not safer in a rough part of twon when a bunch of cops are around you or when none are around you?

C'mon, let's not be stubborn here. You'r wrong, plain and simple.

Talk about strawmen arguments. Let's stick to the topic of this discussion, shall we? Terrorism.

Sure. Admit you were wrong first about "safer." We went back and forth on this and now that your pants are down around your ankles you want to ignore it? Not a chance. Fess up, for once.

Fess up to what? You know I'm right. The fact that you can't substantiate your claims is proof of that.

You made the contention. The burden of proof is on you. Prove it.

No, *you* made the accusation that Clinton did nothing. That accusation has been made many times up here and has always been proven incorrect. Go search.

That's not how it works and you know it. The burden of proof is on you. I'm not doing your legwork. You made the claim. Back it up or withdraw it.

*You* made the claim that Clinton did nothing. Go ahead, prove it.

It's been proven up here MANY times before that he did quite a bit.

What's the matter? Chicken?

Well complaining to me about it isn't going to fix it for you. Either deal with it, fix it, or don't respond if you don't like it.

IOW,

"I'm a lazy SOB and I don't care."

I don't care because you seem to be doing nothing but wasting my time with avoidance tactics, redirects, and plain out and out BS. Your dishonesty in this debate has been vividly evident and is clear for all to see.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA

CsG must be proud of his underling.

 

[maluckey]

O.K.

Being a soldier nowadays (volunteered after a ten year break). I have no issues with more work in Iraq. This will be my current unit's second rotation in Iraq. I beleive in freedom of the press and all, but I really have isues with pollsters trying to run things. War is unpopular...yes, we get it. War is also necessary at this point in Human soceity. Pick a side and stand to the end. The quote in my sig is still viable though hundreds of years old. If you don't recognize it, or at least have read works by the author, perhaps you are in no position to make assessments in military/political matters. At the very least, you should check it out and learn something. The quote is a cautionary statement for those who have difficulty chosing sides. It instructs that you should pick a side and stick to it, because being Neutral leaves you in a compromising position no matter who wins, and distrusted by all.

I don't care how much Bush or anyone else spends on partying. I do care that embedded reporters with the enemy are aiding (by tacit approval/assistance) the enemy. By not denouncing the enemy at every chance, they embolden them. Whether Bush was right wrong or in-between, doesn't matter. What matters is to finish the objective and get the soldiers home to their families. When all is over, the press can crucify the administration as it sees fit. I feel, having seen the situation, that everything is as good as can be expected, and haven't met many Combat soldiers in disagreement (except for REMFs and the like who are NEVER happy with deployment).

I also take issues with nightly causualty tallys for Iraq, without listing the Iraqi casualties for the Enemy. The US Army reports wounded and Fratricide in it's casualty figures. It also reports heat related injuries, disease, and training accidents. Take these away, and you have far less than 1 percent death rate. I would venture that the death rate in New York city is about the same if you use the general populace, and iclude traffic, accidental and murder into the mix.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison
linkage

Amputations account for 2.4 percent of all wounded in action in the Iraq war

Which makes about 250 amputees

And the rest of that quote:

twice the rate in World War I and World War II, said Chuck Scoville, the amputee program manager of Walter Reed. Sophisticated body armor and medical techniques in the battlefield have preserved lives but not necessarily limbs.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
OK, I'll restate - 10% casualty rate with 1% fatalities.
The 9% in between would have been a much higher number if our
medical work hadn't improved since the technology during 'Nam.

Don't loose sight of the extent of the injury to the survivors though,
they are much more catostrophic than past encounters have been.

When you consider *all* injuries which comply with the Pentagon definition, we're talking well over 30,000 injured (includes mental illness, physical ailments from being in theater, etc.)

Actually about 23,000.

linkage

There are well over 30,000 that are considered injured according to the Pentagon definitions. I can't find the thread up here but I believe it was covered on a PBS documentary. Perhaps on NOW with Bill Moyers.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison
linkage

Amputations account for 2.4 percent of all wounded in action in the Iraq war

Which makes about 250 amputees

And the rest of that quote:

twice the rate in World War I and World War II, said Chuck Scoville, the amputee program manager of Walter Reed. Sophisticated body armor and medical techniques in the battlefield have preserved lives but not necessarily limbs.

Yeah, too bad they aren't dead right? I mean that would help your body-count cause, no? :roll:

Disgusting...

CsG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison
linkage

Amputations account for 2.4 percent of all wounded in action in the Iraq war

Which makes about 250 amputees

And the rest of that quote:

twice the rate in World War I and World War II, said Chuck Scoville, the amputee program manager of Walter Reed. Sophisticated body armor and medical techniques in the battlefield have preserved lives but not necessarily limbs.

Yeah, too bad they aren't dead right? I mean that would help your body-count cause, no?
CsG

:disgust:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
CsG must be proud of his underling.

Didn't someone get vacationed for doing this exact thing against you when you were not in the thread? Why yes, yes someone did.

We'll see, I guess...

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison
linkage

Amputations account for 2.4 percent of all wounded in action in the Iraq war

Which makes about 250 amputees

And the rest of that quote:

twice the rate in World War I and World War II, said Chuck Scoville, the amputee program manager of Walter Reed. Sophisticated body armor and medical techniques in the battlefield have preserved lives but not necessarily limbs.

Yeah, too bad they aren't dead right? I mean that would help your body-count cause, no?
CsG

:disgust:

And you don't think some here would like to see a bigger body count to help turn opinion against the war? Come on now - don't kid yourself...

CsG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
And you don't think some here would like to see a bigger body count to help turn opinion against the war? Come on now - don't kid yourself...

CsG

There might be one or two but your comment was addressed to Conjur and I see no evidence that Conjur is one of those who feel that way.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison
linkage

Amputations account for 2.4 percent of all wounded in action in the Iraq war

Which makes about 250 amputees

And the rest of that quote:

twice the rate in World War I and World War II, said Chuck Scoville, the amputee program manager of Walter Reed. Sophisticated body armor and medical techniques in the battlefield have preserved lives but not necessarily limbs.

Yeah, too bad they aren't dead right? I mean that would help your body-count cause, no? :roll:

Disgusting...

CsG

Go "Cheney"


And you damn well better apologize for that ridiculous remark.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison
linkage

Amputations account for 2.4 percent of all wounded in action in the Iraq war

Which makes about 250 amputees

And the rest of that quote:

twice the rate in World War I and World War II, said Chuck Scoville, the amputee program manager of Walter Reed. Sophisticated body armor and medical techniques in the battlefield have preserved lives but not necessarily limbs.

Yeah, too bad they aren't dead right? I mean that would help your body-count cause, no?
CsG

:disgust:

And you don't think some here would like to see a bigger body count to help turn opinion against the war? Come on now - don't kid yourself...

CsG

:roll::roll:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
And you don't think some here would like to see a bigger body count to help turn opinion against the war? Come on now - don't kid yourself...

CsG

:roll::roll:

The baby is just a wee bit upset that the war in Iraq isn't going according to the fantasies of the neocons he worships.

 

[arsbanned]

Our long national nightmare will end eventually. Probably not well.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison
linkage

Amputations account for 2.4 percent of all wounded in action in the Iraq war

Which makes about 250 amputees

And the rest of that quote:

twice the rate in World War I and World War II, said Chuck Scoville, the amputee program manager of Walter Reed. Sophisticated body armor and medical techniques in the battlefield have preserved lives but not necessarily limbs.

Yeah, too bad they aren't dead right? I mean that would help your body-count cause, no?
CsG

:disgust:

And you don't think some here would like to see a bigger body count to help turn opinion against the war? Come on now - don't kid yourself...

CsG

:roll::roll:

Why am I not surprised you won't believe the truth. Just keep hiding behind your cookies...

CsG

 

[phillyTIM]

well if "much more will be asked" of our troops, heil bush sure as hell better pay them dearly, especially since he's s#ittin' out $40 million dollars for this wretched inaugural fat-pig farce, when that $40 million could be helping save a number of american soldier lives!!! christ, how insane is this and why do americans stand for bush's atrocious, self-serving bulls#it?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
And you don't think some here would like to see a bigger body count to help turn opinion against the war? Come on now - don't kid yourself...

CsG

There might be one or two but your comment was addressed to Conjur and I see no evidence that Conjur is one of those who feel that way.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur
My, my, my. Rather defensive all of a sudden, TLC. What's the matter? Your plan to follow in CsG's steps of obfuscation and ambiguity failing?

CsG? The only one I see failing so far in this thread is you. Your obvious dodging, weaving, and obfuscations are apparent to anyone who not thick as a brick.

You know damn well you were referring to Iraq. That's what this thread is about.

The thread is about Iraq. But nowhere did I claim or even infer Iraq "attacked" the US as you poorly attempted to twist it. At this point, I'm rather dubious about you having any reading comprehension whatsoever.

At least I know how to spell it.

You figured out how to use a spell checker? Wow. You are so impressive. :roll:

He did NOT pay money to terrorists. Go ahead, show me the proof.

If you haven't seen the proof, then you surely shouldn't be arguing about something for which you are evidently clueless.

Learn something:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles...310.html?oneclick=true

Nice attempt at using a big word. Too bad it failed.

Maybe it's a big word to you. That I could understand completely.

Fess up to what? You know I'm right. The fact that you can't substantiate your claims is proof of that.

/watches conjur floating blissfully ignorant down that river that's not in Egypt.

*You* made the claim that Clinton did nothing. Go ahead, prove it.

It's been proven up here MANY times before that he did quite a bit.

What's the matter? Chicken?

More poor reading comprehension from you. It figures. Here's what I said about Clinton:

"And sitting around in a Clintonesque manner with our collective thumbs up our butts - and our cigars who knows where - was a complete failure and didn't prevent enemies from taking up arms against us on our very own soil. Yeah, that was a real sound strategy."

What did Clniton do besides bomb an aspirin factory in Sudan? He had OBL in his sights on several different occassion abd failed to take action. That failure to take the proper action (capturing or killing OBL) ended up costing us many lives.

Feel free to rebut that, con.

CsG must be proud of his underling.

People have been vacationed for less around here. For some reason though you won't be as it's apparent you're the teflon con.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
My, my, my. Rather defensive all of a sudden, TLC. What's the matter? Your plan to follow in CsG's steps of obfuscation and ambiguity failing?

CsG? The only one I see failing so far in this thread is you. Your obvious dodging, weaving, and obfuscations are apparent to anyone who not thick as a brick.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! I'm not the one avoiding questions and changing the subject.

You know damn well you were referring to Iraq. That's what this thread is about.

The thread is about Iraq. But nowhere did I claim or even infer Iraq "attacked" the US as you poorly attempted to twist it. At this point, I'm rather dubious about you having any reading comprehension whatsoever. [/quote]Let's go to the tape again:

"And sitting around in a Clintonesque manner with our collective thumbs up our butts - and our cigars who knows where - was a complete failure and didn't prevent enemies from taking up arms against us on our very own soil."

Hmm...and you admitted this thread is about Iraq. So, you're claiming Iraq attacked us on our own soil. Where's the proof?

At least I know how to spell it.

You figured out how to use a spell checker? Wow. You are so impressive. :roll:

No spell checker required. What's interesting, though, is you misspelled it right after I had used it. Hmm....

He did NOT pay money to terrorists. Go ahead, show me the proof.

If you haven't seen the proo0f, then you surely shoudln't be arguing about soemthing for which you are evidently clueless.

Learn something:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles...310.html?oneclick=true

From the headline itself, it disproves your argument:

The Iraqi leader's payments to the families of dead Palestinian terrorists means more trouble for Yasser Arafat, writes Paul McGeough in the West Bank

Nice attempt at using a big word. Too bad it failed.

Maybe it's a big word to you. That I could understand completely.

No, it was a big word for you. That's why I mentioned that you failed in its use. It was too big for you.

Fess up to what? You know I'm right. The fact that you can't substantiate your claims is proof of that.

/watches conjur floating blissfully ignorant down that river that's not in Egypt.

You just disproved yourself! BWA HA HA HA HA

*You* made the claim that Clinton did nothing. Go ahead, prove it.

It's been proven up here MANY times before that he did quite a bit.

What's the matter? Chicken?

More poor reading comprehension from you. It figures. Here's what I said about Clinton:

"And sitting around in a Clintonesque manner with our collective thumbs up our butts - and our cigars who knows where - was a complete failure and didn't prevent enemies from taking up arms against us on our very own soil. Yeah, that was a real sound strategy."

What did Clniton do besides bomb an aspirin factory in Sudan? He had OBL in his sights on several different occassion abd failed to take action. That failure to take the proper action (capturing or killing OBL) ended up costing us many lives.

Feel free to rebut that, con.

Go search the threads up here. There was one just a week or so ago. Shouldn't be too hard for you to find.

CsG must be proud of his underling.

People have been vacationed for less around here. For some reason though you won't be as it's apparent you're the teflon con.

Say what? You're following in his footsteps using the same fallacious logic. It's obvious you envy him.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: conjur
Say what? You're following in his footsteps using the same fallacious logic. It's obvious you envy him.

You mean admire?

 

[conjur]

Worship is more appropros 😉

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
And you don't think some here would like to see a bigger body count to help turn opinion against the war? Come on now - don't kid yourself...

CsG

:roll::roll:

The baby is just a wee bit upset that the war in Iraq isn't going according to the fantasies of the neocons he worships.

Yeah, Bowfinger probably is upset that the War is being won.

Oh, you were trying to call me names? How nice. First off - I'm not upset at how the WAR is going when put in the perspective of WAR. However I do have problems with the way the media is reporting(or rather not reporting) the whole story over there. Oh, and I don't worship neo-cons.

CsG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
And you don't think some here would like to see a bigger body count to help turn opinion against the war? Come on now - don't kid yourself...

CsG

:roll::roll:

The baby is just a wee bit upset that the war in Iraq isn't going according to the fantasies of the neocons he worships.

Yeah, Bowfinger probably is upset that the War is being won.

Oh, you were trying to call me names? How nice. First off - I'm not upset at how the WAR is going when put in the perspective of WAR. However I do have problems with the way the media is reporting(or rather not reporting) the whole story over there. Oh, and I don't worship neo-cons.

CsG

So you still stick to your claim that Conjur would be happy if the body count was higher?

 

[phillyTIM]

csg just seems like he's around to bust threads with topics/opinions that he doesn't agree with; it happens all the time. and what's with those "un-BAN" things in the signature---are they your other henchmen-in-crime? see csg has managed to bust up this thread already. lets just call what is happening here, for what it is.