Dissent Inside Military Grows As Morale Continues To Drop

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: b0mbrman


To start, please point to where I said that you said morale was low. Thanks 🙂

What is the exact reason that you continue to doubt real soldiers' testimony to their morale? datalink7 has said in no uncertain terms that some of his soldiers are against the war and I will add that many of mine were as well. Thus, what more would you have to gain politically in us having low morale?

So where exactly? Please tell me you understand how question marks work...

What is much more incredible to me is that you see this as proof of me saying that you say soldiers have low morale, yet you don't see:

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

God you guys are acting like brainwashed whiners.

as saying that the soldiers in this thread are brainwashed. Double standard anyone?

What are you trying to prove? You obviously implied I would have something to gain politcally in you having low morale.

Now your acting like an idiot, so I suppose you will trying to say that I think all soldiers are idiots.

I don't, but I'm begining to wonder?? :laugh:

No more than you obviously implied the soldiers in here are brainwashed. But feel free to keep dancing. You're just digging yourself deeper and deeper.

Where is the quote where I said the soldiers are brainwashed? Please point it out. I'm not one of your grunts and I don't take orders very well, so I guess I can dig this imaginary hole of yours as deep as I want.

Show me your logic.

You know what your guys problem is? Your mistaking "attitude" as "morale" and you can't stand it that I don't have what you consider to be a "proper" attitude like a good soldier.

Wow, now you're really putting words in our mouths.

It's too bad that English doesn't have a corresponding ser and estar form of "are." Your brain seems too feeble to understand that being brainwashed can refer to someone brainwashed for one thread, one week, or one lifetime.

Wow, you really put me in my place.

Sarcastic as your lack of response came out, that lack still tells me you know you're beaten.

It's been a pleasure 😉

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So the media isn't as good as first hand reports? Then that's a problem because that's the way most people ge the news.

I think it was earlier in this thread where I mentioned that my Dad was in the Guadalcanal invasion and how he STILL thinks the Japanese are savages. I have a hard time taking opinions from people who have been on the ground as being very objective.

Your dads testimony agrees with the widely accepted history of the time. Someone who never met a soldier from the south pacific WWII would have the same impressions as the ones you got from your father.

However what if the media reported that troops loved the Japanese during WWII? Since it obviously conflicts with what your father told you....

you would then assume your father was full of BS?

First off, he STILL thinks they are savages. He has to because he used to kill them. In order to do that he had to dehumanize them and he's never been able to reconcile the fact that they are people, just like the rest of us. From that experience I have a tendency to discount first hand experiences (from people who had to kill to survive) as being tainted. My Dad doesn't look on himself as a murderer (and neither do I) though he has killed plenty I'm sure. He's even told me a few stories, minus some of the details I'm sure.

I see where your trying to go with your analogy and no I would try to gather more information. I wouldn't just take one article or one first hand report either and form a basis of opinion.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
...I see where your trying to go with your analogy and no I would try to gather more information. I wouldn't just take one article or one first hand report either and form a basis of opinion.

but thats NOT what you're doing. Not in your argument with me about the legitimacy of the article, or with the others regarding troop morale. In both cases you dodge questions, change your argument, and even flat out ignore facts, to promote your world view.

I know it sounds all warm and fuzzy to speak like you're some unpartial intellectual, but actions speak louder than words. You push one single agenda, ALL the time. The only thing that changes is the argument/catch phrase/made up excuse of the day to get it across. And the more you do it the worse you look.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit


That's my whole point, you see what you need to, don't you.

We see reality - you see... the NY Times! :roll:

You see a different reality then the people back home see.

You have to. In order to survive you have to convince yourself that your killing murderous terrorists and that your doing good. It's the nature of being on the front line, if you can say this war has a front line.

Is that how you justify your views that are obviously gleaned from 3rd-party publications and other forms of media?

Until you yourself have been there on the ground, your conclusions and opinions are meaningless; as they pertain to the realities on the ground.

You're damn right that we have two different perspectives and live in two different realities! What boggles my mind is that you honestly believe that your guesses somehow trump first-hand experiences. That's just utterly ridiculous! hilarious even!

You only believe in the reality you saw first-hand because you've been brainwashed 😀

oh ya

<in a robotic voice>
"must... not... let... them... see... the... truth.......<twitch> must... lie......."

😀

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Where is the quote where I said the soldiers are brainwashed?

right in this very thread:

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
God you guys are acting like brainwashed whiners.

And by "you guys," you were absolutely referring to all of the soldiers arguing with you in this thread.

short-term memory problems perhaps?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
...I see where your trying to go with your analogy and no I would try to gather more information. I wouldn't just take one article or one first hand report either and form a basis of opinion.

but thats NOT what you're doing. Not in your argument with me about the legitimacy of the article, or with the others regarding troop morale. In both cases you dodge questions, change your argument, and even flat out ignore facts, to promote your world view.

I know it sounds all warm and fuzzy to speak like you're some unpartial intellectual, but actions speak louder than words. You push one single agenda, ALL the time. The only thing that changes is the argument/catch phrase/made up excuse of the day to get it across. And the more you do it the worse you look.

I hated Bush from the start, he's an idiot and I believe that this war is a waste of American lives and resources. I guess I'm a just a tool in your opinion, of course that means my Dad, who won 2 silver stars and two purple hearts in WW2 is a tool too because he was against invading Iraq from the second he heard about it. I intially supported it, but my caveat was they BETTER FIND WMD'S and they didn't. Then they went and fubared the whole damn country.

The article has way more creedence to me then then the "he said, she said, he said" story. That's my opinion, I've explained it inside out and your free to agree or diagree. Just because you've had your boots on the ground in Iraq doesn't mean you can glean the truth any better then I can. I even maintain that you are more biased then I am.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: b0mbrman


To start, please point to where I said that you said morale was low. Thanks 🙂

What is the exact reason that you continue to doubt real soldiers' testimony to their morale? datalink7 has said in no uncertain terms that some of his soldiers are against the war and I will add that many of mine were as well. Thus, what more would you have to gain politically in us having low morale?

So where exactly? Please tell me you understand how question marks work...

What is much more incredible to me is that you see this as proof of me saying that you say soldiers have low morale, yet you don't see:

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

God you guys are acting like brainwashed whiners.

as saying that the soldiers in this thread are brainwashed. Double standard anyone?

What are you trying to prove? You obviously implied I would have something to gain politcally in you having low morale.

Now your acting like an idiot, so I suppose you will trying to say that I think all soldiers are idiots.

I don't, but I'm begining to wonder?? :laugh:

No more than you obviously implied the soldiers in here are brainwashed. But feel free to keep dancing. You're just digging yourself deeper and deeper.

Where is the quote where I said the soldiers are brainwashed? Please point it out. I'm not one of your grunts and I don't take orders very well, so I guess I can dig this imaginary hole of yours as deep as I want.

Show me your logic.

You know what your guys problem is? Your mistaking "attitude" as "morale" and you can't stand it that I don't have what you consider to be a "proper" attitude like a good soldier.

Wow, now you're really putting words in our mouths.

It's too bad that English doesn't have a corresponding ser and estar form of "are." Your brain seems too feeble to understand that being brainwashed can refer to someone brainwashed for one thread, one week, or one lifetime.

Wow, you really put me in my place.

Sarcastic as your lack of response came out, that lack still tells me you know you're beaten.

It's been a pleasure 😉

Dream on Junior.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Where is the quote where I said the soldiers are brainwashed?

right in this very thread:

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
God you guys are acting like brainwashed whiners.

And by "you guys," you were absolutely referring to all of the soldiers arguing with you in this thread.

short-term memory problems perhaps?

Ahh, Mr. Military Intelligence propagandist. You still here spreading your version/reality of the war? What's a'matter, you didn't get enough of it at the office today?

I'd think somebody as important as you must be would have better things to do. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
...I see where your trying to go with your analogy and no I would try to gather more information. I wouldn't just take one article or one first hand report either and form a basis of opinion.

but thats NOT what you're doing. Not in your argument with me about the legitimacy of the article, or with the others regarding troop morale. In both cases you dodge questions, change your argument, and even flat out ignore facts, to promote your world view.

I know it sounds all warm and fuzzy to speak like you're some unpartial intellectual, but actions speak louder than words. You push one single agenda, ALL the time. The only thing that changes is the argument/catch phrase/made up excuse of the day to get it across. And the more you do it the worse you look.

I hated Bush from the start, he's an idiot and I believe that this war is a waste of American lives and resources. I guess I'm a just a tool in your opinion, of course that means my Dad, who won 2 silver stars and two purple hearts in WW2 is a tool too because he was against invading Iraq from the second he heard about it. I intially supported it, but my caveat was they BETTER FIND WMD'S and they didn't. Then they went and fubared the whole damn country.

that whole paragraph has ZERO to do with anything we talked about in this entire thread.

The article has way more creedence to me then then the "he said, she said, he said" story.

The OP article is nothing but "he said, she said"! (well technically "she said, he said(mom->son))The author of the blog interviewed the same person! How can you blindly accept one and not the other? If you could drop your hell bent predetermined outcome for two seconds it would be painfully(probably VERY painfully) obvious to you.

That's my opinion, I've explained it inside out and your free to agree or diagree.

cop out. :roll:

Just because you've had your boots on the ground in Iraq doesn't mean you can glean the truth any better then I can.

glean truth? I never used my own "personal expiriences" in this entire thread. I used what is quite simply referred to by normal people as "logic and common sense" in my disection of the OP's article. you should try it sometime.

I even maintain that you are more biased then I am.

Of course you would, I could have easily predicted a call of bias, by you, against anyone who disagrees with you, its just another form of a cop out.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
...I see where your trying to go with your analogy and no I would try to gather more information. I wouldn't just take one article or one first hand report either and form a basis of opinion.

but thats NOT what you're doing. Not in your argument with me about the legitimacy of the article, or with the others regarding troop morale. In both cases you dodge questions, change your argument, and even flat out ignore facts, to promote your world view.

I know it sounds all warm and fuzzy to speak like you're some unpartial intellectual, but actions speak louder than words. You push one single agenda, ALL the time. The only thing that changes is the argument/catch phrase/made up excuse of the day to get it across. And the more you do it the worse you look.

I hated Bush from the start, he's an idiot and I believe that this war is a waste of American lives and resources. I guess I'm a just a tool in your opinion, of course that means my Dad, who won 2 silver stars and two purple hearts in WW2 is a tool too because he was against invading Iraq from the second he heard about it. I intially supported it, but my caveat was they BETTER FIND WMD'S and they didn't. Then they went and fubared the whole damn country.

that whole paragraph has ZERO to do with anything we talked about in this entire thread.

The article has way more creedence to me then then the "he said, she said, he said" story.

The OP article is nothing but "he said, she said"! (well technically "she said, he said(mom->son))The author of the blog interviewed the same person! How can you blindly accept one and not the other? If you could drop your hell bent predetermined outcome for two seconds it would be painfully(probably VERY painfully) obvious to you.

That's my opinion, I've explained it inside out and your free to agree or diagree.

cop out. :roll:

Just because you've had your boots on the ground in Iraq doesn't mean you can glean the truth any better then I can.

glean truth? I never used my own "personal expiriences" in this entire thread. I used what is quite simply referred to by normal people as "logic and common sense" in my disection of the OP's article. you should try it sometime.

I even maintain that you are more biased then I am.

Of course you would, I could have easily predicted a call of bias, by you, against anyone who disagrees with you, its just another form of a cop out.

LOL, if your trying to say something spit it out. Call a spade a spade instead of hiding behind "your coping out". That's a total BS waste of my time.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
LOL, if your trying to say something spit it out. Call a spade a spade instead of hiding behind "your coping out". That's a total BS waste of my time.

I said a lot more than that. But as you show AGAIN, you cant win this argument, so will continue to dodge it by posting without anything of substance.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Train, he won this argument a long time ago, let it go soldier.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
LOL, if your trying to say something spit it out. Call a spade a spade instead of hiding behind "your coping out". That's a total BS waste of my time.

I said a lot more than that. But as you show AGAIN, you cant win this argument, so will continue to dodge it by posting without anything of substance.

Is that the best you can do? I ask you to spit it out and your answer is I didn't reply with anything of substance? ROTFLMAO@U

Try this for substance:

A Reporter's View of the War in Iraq

After more than four years of reporting from one of the world's most dangerous war zones, Larry Kaplow isn't sure he wants to claim the distinction as the senior American journalist in Iraq.
.
.
.


On the biggest changes he's seen in Iraq since he's been there:

Overall, it's still just startling to me how much the security has deteriorated. Remember, it's not just western reporters who can't travel around.

Iraqis usually are afraid to go out of their neighborhoods or in areas where they are not the majority sect. They live in intense stress and fear. In 2003, you could drive anywhere in the country. When Saddam Hussein was captured in December, 2003, I jumped in a car with a driver and translator and rode up to Tikrit, arriving at dusk and interviewing locals. In 2004 and 2005 it became hard for foreigners to go many places. In 2006 it became too dangerous for Iraqis to move freely.

The intense Sunni-Shiite suspicion and animosity is one of the most destructive and tragic developments here. Most Iraqis still would rather live side-by-side but the violence by small segments of the population -- basically car bombers and militias -- has provoked fear and hatred even among former neighbors.

The fear and chaos strengthens the identity politics, the militias and the extremists and weakens the government and the U.S. influence. That, in turn, creates more chaos and fear. Iraqis are rational and strategic and calculate with whom to invest their lives -- their tribes, mosque, militia or the state-building effort here. The traditional, familiar, regressive trends win out in times like this.

As far as I'm concerned neither you, b0mbrman, or palehorse has contibuted a thing except to blow your own horns about "boots on the ground in Iraq". I just as well as a CEO if he thinks CEO pay is too high as to try and have a semi-intelligent conversation with you 3.

 

[Train]

Since you keep doging the argument, ill repost my question again

Originally posted by: Train
The OP article is nothing but "he said, she said"! (well technically "she said, he said(mom->son))The author of the blog interviewed the same person! How can you blindly accept one and not the other? If you could drop your hell bent predetermined outcome for two seconds it would be painfully(probably VERY painfully) obvious to you.

And please point out to me, because you already accused me of it once, and I denied it, and here I will deny it again, because for some strange reason you accused me of it AGAIN, when exactly did I use my personal expiriences ("boots on the ground") in my arguments in this entire thread?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Train
Since you keep doging the argument, ill repost my question again

Originally posted by: Train
The OP article is nothing but "he said, she said"! (well technically "she said, he said(mom->son))The author of the blog interviewed the same person! How can you blindly accept one and not the other? If you could drop your hell bent predetermined outcome for two seconds it would be painfully(probably VERY painfully) obvious to you.

And please point out to me, because you already accused me of it once, and I denied it, and here I will deny it again, because for some strange reason you accused me of it AGAIN, when exactly did I use my personal expiriences ("boots on the ground") in my arguments in this entire thread?

You never made an "argument" that I can see, you just blather on. If you can't see the difference between a blogger and a New York newspaper reporter that can be sued for defanation of character then arguing with you is a lost cause. I explained it to you several times so get it through your dense skull already.

I know your a soldier from previous posts you've made and you said this:

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
It it were my name on the piece and I had an audio tape to confirm what she said, I'd correct it rather then wait to be forced to. Right now it can be passed off as an honest mistake?

He didnt say it was a mistake, he said "Shot at, killed--it's the same thing."

Just think if you gave the troops the same benifit of the doubt you're giving this douche bag.

Now how about the reporter that's been in Iraq for 4 years?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Train
Since you keep doging the argument, ill repost my question again

Originally posted by: Train
The OP article is nothing but "he said, she said"! (well technically "she said, he said(mom->son))The author of the blog interviewed the same person! How can you blindly accept one and not the other? If you could drop your hell bent predetermined outcome for two seconds it would be painfully(probably VERY painfully) obvious to you.

And please point out to me, because you already accused me of it once, and I denied it, and here I will deny it again, because for some strange reason you accused me of it AGAIN, when exactly did I use my personal expiriences ("boots on the ground") in my arguments in this entire thread?

You never made an "argument" that I can see, you just blather on. If you can't see the difference between a blogger and a New York newspaper reporter that can be sued for defanation of character then arguing with you is a lost cause. I explained it to you several times so get it through your dense skull already.

I know your a soldier from previous posts you've made and you said this:

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
It it were my name on the piece and I had an audio tape to confirm what she said, I'd correct it rather then wait to be forced to. Right now it can be passed off as an honest mistake?

He didnt say it was a mistake, he said "Shot at, killed--it's the same thing."

Just think if you gave the troops the same benifit of the doubt you're giving this douche bag.

Now how about the reporter that's been in Iraq for 4 years?

wow, just wow.

So when an accusation is made that a reporter is being sensasionalist, you dismiss it without a thought. But soldiers killing sinnocents? that must be true. This is where your claim of being impartial falls short, because simply, you aren't.

And technically, I'm not a soldier 😉 But I did have boots on the ground.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Train
Since you keep doging the argument, ill repost my question again

Originally posted by: Train
The OP article is nothing but "he said, she said"! (well technically "she said, he said(mom->son))The author of the blog interviewed the same person! How can you blindly accept one and not the other? If you could drop your hell bent predetermined outcome for two seconds it would be painfully(probably VERY painfully) obvious to you.

And please point out to me, because you already accused me of it once, and I denied it, and here I will deny it again, because for some strange reason you accused me of it AGAIN, when exactly did I use my personal expiriences ("boots on the ground") in my arguments in this entire thread?

You never made an "argument" that I can see, you just blather on. If you can't see the difference between a blogger and a New York newspaper reporter that can be sued for defanation of character then arguing with you is a lost cause. I explained it to you several times so get it through your dense skull already.

I know your a soldier from previous posts you've made and you said this:

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
It it were my name on the piece and I had an audio tape to confirm what she said, I'd correct it rather then wait to be forced to. Right now it can be passed off as an honest mistake?

He didnt say it was a mistake, he said "Shot at, killed--it's the same thing."

Just think if you gave the troops the same benifit of the doubt you're giving this douche bag.

Now how about the reporter that's been in Iraq for 4 years?

wow, just wow.

So when an accusation is made that a reporter is being sensasionalist, you dismiss it without a thought. But soldiers killing sinnocents? that must be true. This is where your claim of being impartial falls short, because simply, you aren't.

And technically, I'm not a soldier 😉 But I did have boots on the ground.

MY god man. This is the last time I try to get this through your thick skull. I don't know for sure who is telling the truth but for the reasons I've listed I previosuly I give more credence to the reporters story. Credence means trust or acceptance, it's not saying that I believe what he said is set in stone. I realize that the mother contradicted him, according to the blogger.

If you see it any other way then it's you whose bias is showing. I told you before that your free to believe what you want and apparently you took that as a cop out on my part and thought you were winning the argument. DUHHHH!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Where is the quote where I said the soldiers are brainwashed?

right in this very thread:

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
God you guys are acting like brainwashed whiners.

And by "you guys," you were absolutely referring to all of the soldiers arguing with you in this thread.

short-term memory problems perhaps?

Ahh, Mr. Military Intelligence propagandist. You still here spreading your version/reality of the war? What's a'matter, you didn't get enough of it at the office today?

I'd think somebody as important as you must be would have better things to do. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

ill read that as "I know you just pwned me with my own ignorance, but my ego wont let me admit it - so I'll just continue to insult your person and service."

good game!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
LOL, if your trying to say something spit it out. Call a spade a spade instead of hiding behind "your coping out". That's a total BS waste of my time.

I said a lot more than that. But as you show AGAIN, you cant win this argument, so will continue to dodge it by posting without anything of substance.

Is that the best you can do? I ask you to spit it out and your answer is I didn't reply with anything of substance? ROTFLMAO@U

Try this for substance:

A Reporter's View of the War in Iraq

After more than four years of reporting from one of the world's most dangerous war zones, Larry Kaplow isn't sure he wants to claim the distinction as the senior American journalist in Iraq.
.
.
.


On the biggest changes he's seen in Iraq since he's been there:

Overall, it's still just startling to me how much the security has deteriorated. Remember, it's not just western reporters who can't travel around.

Iraqis usually are afraid to go out of their neighborhoods or in areas where they are not the majority sect. They live in intense stress and fear. In 2003, you could drive anywhere in the country. When Saddam Hussein was captured in December, 2003, I jumped in a car with a driver and translator and rode up to Tikrit, arriving at dusk and interviewing locals. In 2004 and 2005 it became hard for foreigners to go many places. In 2006 it became too dangerous for Iraqis to move freely.

The intense Sunni-Shiite suspicion and animosity is one of the most destructive and tragic developments here. Most Iraqis still would rather live side-by-side but the violence by small segments of the population -- basically car bombers and militias -- has provoked fear and hatred even among former neighbors.

The fear and chaos strengthens the identity politics, the militias and the extremists and weakens the government and the U.S. influence. That, in turn, creates more chaos and fear. Iraqis are rational and strategic and calculate with whom to invest their lives -- their tribes, mosque, militia or the state-building effort here. The traditional, familiar, regressive trends win out in times like this.

As far as I'm concerned neither you, b0mbrman, or palehorse has contibuted a thing except to blow your own horns about "boots on the ground in Iraq". I just as well as a CEO if he thinks CEO pay is too high as to try and have a semi-intelligent conversation with you 3.

In other words, you'll readily give some random NY times "reporter" the benefit of the doubt - with regards to unit morale - but the testimony of first-hand participants (actual soldiers) is dismissed outright!?

what a joker...

 

[Zebo]

Soldiers are just socialists living off the state by state rules and indicted by the state when crossing those rules - don't worry - real power comes from militias (See Iraq) and if we're ever threatened blood will roll down the streets till the enemy is vanquished,. To Me this story is like "Hard times recruiting Social Workers"

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Soldiers are just socialists living off the state by state rules and indicted by the state when crossing those rules - don't worry - real power comes from militias (See Iraq) and if we're ever threatened blood will roll down the streets till the enemy is vanquished,.

but we're very well-trained and well-armed "socialists" - never forget that! :laugh:

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Zebo
Soldiers are just socialists living off the state by state rules and indicted by the state when crossing those rules - don't worry - real power comes from militias (See Iraq) and if we're ever threatened blood will roll down the streets till the enemy is vanquished,.

but we're very well-trained and well-armed "socialists" - never forget that! :laugh:

Thats good, when the shit hits the fan you'll bring those arms, join your local militia and become warriors again.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
LOL, if your trying to say something spit it out. Call a spade a spade instead of hiding behind "your coping out". That's a total BS waste of my time.

I said a lot more than that. But as you show AGAIN, you cant win this argument, so will continue to dodge it by posting without anything of substance.

Is that the best you can do? I ask you to spit it out and your answer is I didn't reply with anything of substance? ROTFLMAO@U

Try this for substance:

A Reporter's View of the War in Iraq

After more than four years of reporting from one of the world's most dangerous war zones, Larry Kaplow isn't sure he wants to claim the distinction as the senior American journalist in Iraq.
.
.
.


On the biggest changes he's seen in Iraq since he's been there:

Overall, it's still just startling to me how much the security has deteriorated. Remember, it's not just western reporters who can't travel around.

Iraqis usually are afraid to go out of their neighborhoods or in areas where they are not the majority sect. They live in intense stress and fear. In 2003, you could drive anywhere in the country. When Saddam Hussein was captured in December, 2003, I jumped in a car with a driver and translator and rode up to Tikrit, arriving at dusk and interviewing locals. In 2004 and 2005 it became hard for foreigners to go many places. In 2006 it became too dangerous for Iraqis to move freely.

The intense Sunni-Shiite suspicion and animosity is one of the most destructive and tragic developments here. Most Iraqis still would rather live side-by-side but the violence by small segments of the population -- basically car bombers and militias -- has provoked fear and hatred even among former neighbors.

The fear and chaos strengthens the identity politics, the militias and the extremists and weakens the government and the U.S. influence. That, in turn, creates more chaos and fear. Iraqis are rational and strategic and calculate with whom to invest their lives -- their tribes, mosque, militia or the state-building effort here. The traditional, familiar, regressive trends win out in times like this.

As far as I'm concerned neither you, b0mbrman, or palehorse has contibuted a thing except to blow your own horns about "boots on the ground in Iraq". I just as well as a CEO if he thinks CEO pay is too high as to try and have a semi-intelligent conversation with you 3.

In other words, you'll readily give some random NY times "reporter" the benefit of the doubt - with regards to unit morale - but the testimony of first-hand participants (actual soldiers) is dismissed outright!?

what a joker...

What doubt is that? The choices are that (1) we have US soldiers killing women and kids on bicycles, OR (2) we have US soldiers just shooting at women and kids on bicycles? You think your winning an argument here? Your an idiot, and a loud mouthed idiot at that.

What genius you possess in how to create a democracy and nuture a future ally, which is what you claim your mission is. DUHHHHH!!

 

[Zebo]

How do you shoot women and children on bicycles?


You don't lead them as much.


Seriously, get a grip. You win a war one of two ways. Like Romans and kill everyone. Or Kill enough so the surviving population rolls on their compatriots due to fear of extermination. We havnt faugtht this way since WW2 and coincidently lost every war since. If you don't have stomach for warfare (which i don't either) maybe you shouldn't start them?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Zebo
How do you shoot women and children on bicycles?


You don't lead them as much.


Seriously, get a grip. You win a war one of two ways. Like Romans and kill everyone. Or Kill enough so the surviving population rolls on their compatriots due to fear of extermination. We havnt faugtht this way since WW2 and coincidently lost every war since. If you don't have stomach for warfare (which i don't either) maybe you shouldn't start them?

It's a fallacy to think that we can win a war halfway around the world against insurgents that don't have uniforms so they can blend into their surroundings at will, don't attack our forces except via suicide attacks/ambushes and are supported by the oil money from the oil rich sheiks who don't want another democracy in the ME. Look at the facts, things just keep getting worse, yet Bush keeps asking for more time and claiming progress.

I do find it rather ironic to be chastised by soldiers because I don't want anymore of them getting killed or maimed in what is so obviously a lost cause.