What about the 45,000 deaths a year the US due to traffic accidents...?
Why Won't Bush See Her?
- Thread starter stinkyboy
- Start date
N8 said:
If they let fertilized eggs drive, the president would tackle this issue with great enthusiasm.N8 said:
N8 got bunnied, now that's funny...LOL!
I accept the point that Bush (Commander and Chief) sent the US armed forces into Iraq. Yes he did....guilty.
But "personal" blame on Bush for her sons death is nothing but political BS. It is personal for her but political for everyone else.....on both sides.
If the responsibility for her son death is on everyone above him in his command structure there are tons of people she should be camping out to see. I mean they all shared a part.
I never said to "suck it up". She is greiving and wrongfully blaming the president directly for her sons death. I think she should forgive herself first....as I think much of her anger is missdirected.
But "personal" blame on Bush for her sons death is nothing but political BS. It is personal for her but political for everyone else.....on both sides.
If the responsibility for her son death is on everyone above him in his command structure there are tons of people she should be camping out to see. I mean they all shared a part.
I never said to "suck it up". She is greiving and wrongfully blaming the president directly for her sons death. I think she should forgive herself first....as I think much of her anger is missdirected.
H8R said:
Yeah N8, all of a sudden you aren't making any sense....
*shaking head*
Does she deserve to see Bush personally? Would she be appeased if she did?Changleen said:
Great thing about freedom is we can say that what she is doing is dumb, it is our right to do if we want.....right?
ok, so an official statement on where i stand:
yes, i believe that bush lied to us about the reasons for the war. but i don't necessarily think that invading was wrong in intself. Even though the whole WMD thing was unfounded, the principal of ousting a "evil dictator" (spoken w/ dr. evil voice) was, in itself, in good nature. now, the problem w/ piss poor planning on our governments part about maintaining the area is another issue.
but that still doesn't change that fact that her son chose to join a fighting force and agreed to fight "all enemies foreign and domestic", regardless of how our government classified them as "enemies".
so you happy now changleen? i'm officially off the fence
yes, i believe that bush lied to us about the reasons for the war. but i don't necessarily think that invading was wrong in intself. Even though the whole WMD thing was unfounded, the principal of ousting a "evil dictator" (spoken w/ dr. evil voice) was, in itself, in good nature. now, the problem w/ piss poor planning on our governments part about maintaining the area is another issue.
but that still doesn't change that fact that her son chose to join a fighting force and agreed to fight "all enemies foreign and domestic", regardless of how our government classified them as "enemies".
so you happy now changleen? i'm officially off the fence
Yes. Much better, thank you. Although as evil dictators go he wasn't anything special, and the damge we've done to hundreds of thousands of innocent people's lives somewhat outweighs the good, IMHO.manimal said:ok, so an official statement on where i stand:
yes, i believe that bush lied to us about the reasons for the war. but i don't necessarily think that invading was wrong in intself. Even though the whole WMD thing was unfounded, the principal of ousting a "evil dictator" (spoken w/ dr. evil voice) was, in itself, in good nature. now, the problem w/ piss poor planning on our governments part about maintaining the area is another issue.
but that still doesn't change that fact that her son chose to join a fighting force and agreed to fight "all enemies foreign and domestic", regardless of how our government classified them as "enemies".
so you happy now changleen? i'm officially off the fence
Changleen said:
Yes, Saddam only killed his own people, it's really none of our business.
Chang makes a good point, Given the civilian casualty figures of the last couple of years, you could make a convincing argument they were better off under him.
As long as we look at repressive countries, how about North Korea, Starving and killing it's citizens, or China. Or a little country I know of with the largest percentage of it's population in jail of any developed country, almost a 1.5 million people.
As long as we look at repressive countries, how about North Korea, Starving and killing it's citizens, or China. Or a little country I know of with the largest percentage of it's population in jail of any developed country, almost a 1.5 million people.
Volunteered in good faith that his life would only be endangered for the protection of our nation.manimal said:
What's in question here is not whether he was tricked into fighting (he wasn't), it's that it was unecessary to deploy our army over there.
If the soldiers were ordered to strap themselves to the front of the tanks to protect the armor (thank you, South Park), does that make it make the order okay because the soldiers are volunteers who should know there was the potential of death when they signed up?
He volunteered in good faith as enlisted man to do the following....ohio said:
It has to be pretty obvious that being put into harms way is probably not going to be defending the beaches of America. Of course he may not have thought it thru that a President might send him off on some boondoggle that stretches the imagination of what is right or wrong. But he doesn't get to determine that after the fact. Only prior to the commitment does he get that power.
While your example is dumb, the short answer is yes. If that's what has to be done then that's what has to be done to accomplish the mission. Thru out military history there have been circumstances where extraordinary causalities inflicted upon US forces were necessary to accomplish the mission. In WWII the landings at Tarawa and Iwo Jima were bloodbaths with the first waves basically being cannon fodder. Or the Ranger assualt on Pointe du Hoc during D-Day with a casualty rate of over 60%. US commanders in each of these knew that the outcome was going to be bad.ohio said:
Which is what he did. He followed his orders and served as he promised. I don't think anyone is questioning that. He was a dutiful soldier and, though I may be wrong, I don't really think this has anything to do with him... nor do I think this has anything to do with the general principle that wars result in casualties.DRB said:
What is in question (again, for me) is whether this was a proper use of that trust and commitment that soldiers give to their commander in chief. If a sargeant sends his men unnecessarily into danger that accomplishes no strategic end (my understanding is that Iwo Jima had a clear strategic goal), doesn't he have to answer for that, whether the casualities were 60% or 1%? Why does that responsibility not roll all the way up, if the order is one that cascading all the way down.
Officers get nailed for bad tactical decisions all the time. And it does roll up the chain of command all the way to the top of the military. Generals have gotten tossed out of commands for screws up forever. Shoot a 4-Star general in charge of training just got relieved for something.ohio said:
However, the disconnect on what you are saying happens to the move from military to civilian leadership. The responsibility of holding the civillian leadership responsible is that of the American voting public.
So to answer your question, yes it should roll all the way up.
Please don't tell me you're equating anything that's happening now with what happened in WW2. That is undeniably and incrediably bogus. In WW2 the marines indeed the whole of the armed forces had a purity of purpose that it is demonstrably not applicable to this situation.DRB said:
Part of our democracy relies on the poor saps at the sharp end being able to go to their end knowing that their sacrifice was for a good cause. That's why they fight until the end. This war cannot possibly give them that. How many disillusioned soldiers does it take?
The General got canned for unspecified personal misconduct, probably got caught jerking off in the soup at the cafeteria.DRB said:
Westy said:
I guess her name was Soup.
I never made any correlation between WWII and Iraq. The question from OHIO wasvalve bouncer said:
And I answeredohio said:
From there I used examples that happened to be in a book I've been reading on the fine line between tactical genius and stupidity and how normally outcome affects that destinction. There are a ton of others that I could have used from Sparta to a month ago but those seemed to be ones most would recognize.DRB said:
If that was not the question he wanted answered (which apparently it wasn't) then he should have asked a different question (which he did).
How many does it take? There as been an election and the guy in charge stayed in charge, so apparently not enough. Ultimately its the American public's responsibility, not the military, to determine what the good cause is. If they think that it isn't then they vote the guy setting the agenda out of office. They didn't do that. Why? I have no idea.valve bouncer said:
As a young lieutenant, there was one thing I NEVER had to worry about. That was a political decision made by the President. I didn't worry about it because I had no control over it. I made the oath, similar to the one, I quoted for enlisted men. At that point I quit getting to make a decision about a "purity of purpose" when it comes to carrying out the orders given to me. I go where they tell me when they tell me. (please don't waste my time with illegal orders its a given) When it comes time to re-enlist or to make a decision about resignation THEN I get to make a decision about my sacrifice being worth it. Otherwise, as a soldier,.........
As a veteran, I'll chime in.DRB said:
DRB has it pretty much hit it on the head. The American public elects politicians, politicians (Ultimately the President) are in charge of the military. They choose where and when to fight.
Anyone who enlists or accepts a commission, knows they might have to fight. Maybe they went in for technical training, maybe for a job, or maybe they love the military..it doesn't really matter. You follow orders.
The real angst around military deaths in Iraq revolves around a civilian policy issue, Declaring war on Iraq. People feel thay were lied to. People feel Intelligence reports were "sexed up" and blown out of proportion, personal vendettas were carried out against opponents of the war. In there was no WMD, No 9/11 connection, no terrorist training camps. It appears, in my opinion, we were led into this war under false pretenses. If my daughter were killed in a situation like this, I'd want to talk to the President to show him what his lies cost.
Would he see me? Probably not, he isn't required to, there is no way to garner a political gain from it. If he did, inspite of this, it would tell me a great deal about his character.
We haven't come too close to hitting that number...yet. I'd love to see an update on that Lancet study though, to see how the pace is going.Changleen said:
If you're looking at rates, we're on pace to show up our former ally in the region by quite a bit, but I don't expect that to keep up. Hopefully.
Well, there are. They just happen to be in Pakistan. That's what happens when you cut funding for geography classes in American schools, we invade the wrong country...Reactor said:
Silver said:
LOL!!!
I was originally for the war in Iraq, but not it just seems we're just spinning our wheels. It's time to get out, the only thing I see happening is losing more men/women everyday. Time to get out and to continue to aid Iraq, I say give them 24/7 access to a 1-800 help line.
Why the hell do right wing pundits insist on calling everyone who isn't a fascist "treasonous". Malkin and O'Reilly keep saying that you have to respect the pain she is feeling and that it would be wrong to demonize her, but then they go ahead to do just that.
Nice to hear a sexually harrasing asshole who cheats on his wife throwing that around...
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/The-OReilly-Malkin-Sheehan.wmv
Nice to hear a sexually harrasing asshole who cheats on his wife throwing that around...
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/The-OReilly-Malkin-Sheehan.wmv
I just don't understand why they would resort to "treason". Its desent. Nothing wrong with that. She hasn't threatened the president nor sold secrets to the "enemy."Silver said:
Let's just make sure that everyone does remember that she did get to meet him already and didn't take the opportunity. Its too bad she didn't take that opportunity to make her point to the president. To expect a second is unrealistic.
I was originally against the war, I still think it was the dumbest idea around and the leadership should be help responsible for lying to the public but pulling out now would create a vacuum just like what happened in Afghanistan. Iraq would collapse in on itself and would probably result in a full on civil war more than likely resulting in a Talibanesque government, Except in the north where the Kurds would kick ass. Of course Turkey would get all hot if the Kurds ended up with an independant nation. In a very selfish way this could be better for the US, it seems that one thing terrorists like more than killing Americans is killing people from the middle east, I guess it is always tougher playing on the road.Brian HCM#1 said:
Oh yea, friday The Cowardly Lion cruises by: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/12/bush.friday.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest
