The Stab a Soldier in the Back Act 2007
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
A.B.Normal
New Member
Looks like even the Repubs are taking a second look at blindly following.
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
It's a good thing Canadians don't get a vote on our military practices.
I agree that there have been mistakes made. Plural. But I submit that some of them came about from political hand tying. Is President Bush 100% correct in this matter. Not only no but hell no. Show me a leader who ever has been. And unlike some, I prefer to try and do something over doing nothing. Change is an active process, not a passive one.
This could have been a done deal over a year ago. It isn't. That's a mistake. Give the military the go ahead to end this and they will.
I agree that there have been mistakes made. Plural. But I submit that some of them came about from political hand tying. Is President Bush 100% correct in this matter. Not only no but hell no. Show me a leader who ever has been. And unlike some, I prefer to try and do something over doing nothing. Change is an active process, not a passive one.
This could have been a done deal over a year ago. It isn't. That's a mistake. Give the military the go ahead to end this and they will.
spike
New Member
A.B.Normal
New Member
The Administration had unfettered support ,hell even the Dems supported the Invasion,even now Bush likes to point out he doesn't need any authority other than his own in Iraq.How could anybody see him as his hands being tide when he himself doesn't.
USA
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq Oct 10, 2002
and
UN
Resolution 1441
said stop Saddam.
They don't have a timetable.
The demoncrats & a not a few repugnicans have forever soiled their name for political interests. Let's hope folks are paying attention.
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq Oct 10, 2002
and
UN
Resolution 1441
said stop Saddam.
They don't have a timetable.
Considering that over 7000 men were killed in a WW2 training accident, I'd say this war is phenomenal in its low death rate.Bish said:
The demoncrats & a not a few repugnicans have forever soiled their name for political interests. Let's hope folks are paying attention.
A.B.Normal
New Member
If that was directed at me ,it just further proves my point that there was no "from political hand tying"
He likes to use the "they voted for it " so its their fault too and the UN declaration ,but as of January 2007 he has said
and from Cheney
so you see ,its HE who is responsible ,not "Political hand tying".
spike
New Member
This war was for political interests and obviously not any threat to the US. Yes, the people who mislead the public into it have soiled their name and worse.
Thankfully folks are paying attention now which is why most US citizens are against sending more troops to Iraq.
Yay, congress is listening to what the people want.
A.B.Normal
New Member
And thats why I was pointing out to SNP that the failures in IRAQ are not a result of political hand tying, especially as up until January 2007 he had the unquestioned support of both the House and Senate.Thanks for helping to prove my point.
Where, or more correctly, what, are the failures? The Hussein family is no longer a threat to its people or those outside Iraq.
The untold story on the rebuilding that is taking (and has taken) place is one of the greatest coverups in history. On top of that rebuilding effort is a combination Iran & terror group led insurgency inciting sect based bloodshed. In the event of our premature departure, we will see a reeneactment of the Cambodian Killing Fields in the desert.
More troops? That's up to the Generals & the CiC.
A stab in the soldiers back is a low point in American history.
The untold story on the rebuilding that is taking (and has taken) place is one of the greatest coverups in history. On top of that rebuilding effort is a combination Iran & terror group led insurgency inciting sect based bloodshed. In the event of our premature departure, we will see a reeneactment of the Cambodian Killing Fields in the desert.
More troops? That's up to the Generals & the CiC.
A stab in the soldiers back is a low point in American history.
A.B.Normal
New Member
Mistakes then
SNP said:
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
Guess you don't remember the reports of the troops fashioning their own vehicle armor due to lack of proper equipment. I do.
chcr
Too cute for words
That was when they had funding and full government "support."
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
Didn't look like it to me. Words and deeds are two different things. We all know about politicians and their words. Usually both are equally useless.
2minkey
bootlicker
Now if that ain't stabbing a solder in the back I dunno what is.
"Dear soldiers:
Hi! we're going to send you into a shitty region of the world, in order to... (fill in the blank with some reason, possibly made-up), and to achieve that task, we'll provide
-less troops than you need
-less equipment than you need
-less permissions than you need to fight a "war"
and, as an add-on bonus, we really haven't done our homework in understanding the area we're sending you into, so our strategies will flounder for a while, and a buncha you will get blown up and shot... but you'll figure out what to do..."
sorry gonz, despite your impassioned accusations of backstabbing in 2007 - launched from a couch in indiana no less - the real, foundational betrayal happened quite some time ago. and whatever nonbinding imaginary resolution the dems wanna push doesn't change that, and while it ain't exactly cool, it's superficial bullshit, not at all having the gravity of the original betrayal.
Where do you think that the acronym SNAFU comes from? In Normandy, the hedgerows were a severe problem for allied tanks. Until the soldiers took it upon themselves to create a solution. As long as there's warfare and "men in authority", there'll be industrious fixes to battlefield problems.