War Protestors and Politicians PUT UP OR SHUT UP

Heres is your chance take it please

Published on January 26, 2005 By Moderateman In Politics

For all the whining crybabies protesting the war and bemoaning the treatment of the poor terrorist here is a great idea.

All you have to do is get a new bill together saying NO MORE FUNDING OF WAR>> THATS all

then sign your names to it, get on television and get together a coalition of the weak and cowardly to have petitions signed.

Its very simple really all you have to do is come out and tell america "we will not have part in the greater war on terror"

But of course then you have to live with all your neighbors knowing who you are.

The politicions knowing there re-election is in risk of failing WILL NOT HAVE THE BALLZ to do this.

If your so sure this war is a bad war, wrong war, wrong time, wrong reasons, step up to the national plate and take your swings, out front in view of everyone.

But since you value your jobs and eating at the public troth YOUR not going to do this, your just going to cry, and whine in the background, take sneak shots at the President.

Comments (Page 4)

Dr Guy

on Jan 29, 2005

I pull out my West Point diploma when you do. Rumsfeld has been shown not to listen to advice given from him. Under his command the army chief of staff was made into a lame duck and his replacement named a year early, something unheard of, because his views did not agree with the easy scenario. The army chief of staff went to west point, did you?

Lies are cheap, allegations cheaper. The truth costs a lot and you have none. How about providing your backup for your OPinion?

if not, that is all it is, and I am glad he is Sec Def, and you are not!

Dr Guy

on Jan 29, 2005

The terrorists know eventually we are going to leave, but they're not waiting.

And they are dying over there, not here. Ever hear of the 'Rope-a-Dope' strategy?

Moderateman

on Jan 29, 2005

Reply By: stevendedalusPosted: Saturday, January 29, 2005brilliant strategy, put our military where the terrorists can get to them in an area ripe for recruitment because we left the people to the looters, the kidnappers and couldn't even get basic utilities to them for weeks.Yeah, like "Bring them on!"

Now that was and is a huge mistake....

Moderateman

on Jan 29, 2005

In other words, Iraqi anti aircraft batteries firing on U.S. and British jets was an act of war, unlike your crime scenario.Exactly and the airforce should have taken them out--as simple as that.

steve your a real smart man,,,,the truth is the airforce did not take em out...simple as that.

Lee1776

on Jan 29, 2005

In other words, Iraqi anti aircraft batteries firing on U.S. and British jets was an act of war, unlike your crime scenario.Exactly and the airforce should have taken them out--as simple as that.

The problem is that we did take them out. But Saddam simply bought more and put some poorly trained Joe conscript behind the new AA guns. We could not simply keep reacting to shots taken at us, because sooner or later the odds are that those missiles and guns was going to hit something. The law of averages was there. It was a must to either stop the supply of new missiles (something the was not happening under the oil for food program) or change the person forcing those conscripts into firing them. We tried the first, but their was just too many profiteers out there for Saddam to get more missiles from. So in the end we did the second option.

That's My Two Cents

Moderateman

on Jan 29, 2005

That's My Two Cents

I do love your two cents.. keep them solid opinions comming, please..

Dr Guy

on Jan 29, 2005

hey, did you get any?

Fish!

Shame for those who read this wrong!

whoman69

on Jan 30, 2005

You need to pay more attention to the news.
"In a contentious exchange over the costs of war with Iraq, the Pentagon's second-ranking official today disparaged a top Army general's assessment of the number of troops needed to secure postwar Iraq. House Democrats then accused the Pentagon official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, of concealing internal administration estimates on the cost of fighting and rebuilding the country.

Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops.
"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said. General Shinseki gave his estimate in response to a question at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point — something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers — are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." He also said that the regional commander, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, would determine the precise figure.

A spokesman for General Shinseki, Col. Joe Curtin, said today that the general stood by his estimate. "He was asked a question and he responded with his best military judgment," Colonel Curtin said. General Shinseki is a former commander of the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia."

Link

The administration also fired the Secretary of the Army over the disagreement on amount of troops needed.

"The former civilian head of the Army said Monday it is time for the Pentagon to admit that the military is in for a long occupation of Iraq that will require a major commitment of American troops.
Former Army secretary Thomas White said in an interview that senior Defense officials "are unwilling to come to grips" with the scale of the postwar U.S. obligation in Iraq. The Pentagon has about 150,000 troops in Iraq and recently announced that the Army's 3rd Infantry Division's stay there has been extended indefinitely.

"This is not what they were selling (before the war)," White said, describing how senior Defense officials downplayed the need for a large occupation force. "It's almost a question of people not wanting to 'fess up to the notion that we will be there a long time and they might have to set up a rotation and sustain it for the long term."

The interview was White's first since leaving the Pentagon in May after a series of public feuds with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld led to his firing.

Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz criticized the Army's chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, after Shinseki told Congress in February that the occupation could require "several hundred thousand troops." Wolfowitz called Shinseki's estimate "wildly off the mark."

Rumsfeld was furious with White when the Army secretary agreed with Shinseki.

Last month, Rumsfeld said the United States would remain in Iraq as "long as it takes." But the Defense chief was not specific about the size of the force.

White said it is reasonable to assume the Pentagon will need more than 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq to provide stability for at least the next year. Pentagon officials envisioned having about 100,000 troops there immediately after the war, but they hoped that number would be quickly drawn down."

Link

Now how about some backup for your opinion.

Moderateman

on Jan 30, 2005

The question was not whether I was being called names, it was whether there was name-calling at all.

-suspeckted

sus???/ honestly, when and IF I call YOU a name there will be no doubt, ok?

Moderateman

on Jan 30, 2005

Reply #52 By: Dr. Guy - 1/29/2005 9:03:49 PM
hey, did you get any?
Fish!
Shame for those who read this wrong!

yep did!! keeper, mostly given away and eaten.

Moderateman

on Jan 30, 2005

Reply #53 By: whoman69 - 1/30/2005 8:15:06 PM

can YOU do anything besides tearing america and her policies apart? hmmmmm???

Lee1776

on Jan 31, 2005

Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army

Not to take this off subject anymore then it needs to be but: You do know that Gen Shineski was one of the most despised and least respected Army Commanders of his time by those who served under him? As a 1LT. stationed in Germany, his soldiers placed warning letters on the Company 1SG desk, that he would be shoved in a wallocker and thrown out a third story window if he remained a platoon leader. Not one person I know questioned his departure or was not happy that he left.

New commanders are appointed after every Command review board once a year. His replacement was picked the year before he left at a board that did not only chose his replacement, but most of the Armies upper command. That year's review board was held a few months early because to the coming activity that would have made holding the board impractical and it's members unable to attend. He did not leave early, just that his replacement was chosen early in order for him to prepare for the difficult events to follow. Nothing strange there. The Media and politicians has tried to hype this up as something strange, it was not.

But I do wish to say one thing about that man. He could take that useless piece of S$%# %$^$^ french looking #$@#$% bleep... black beret and S$%^& @#$ #$@#$% $%#% where the sun don't F$%#^ shine. The only reason why we have to wear the G#^&% things is because as the USAERA Commander he pruchased near 200 thousand of them without authorization and had to pay half of two months pay for them. Many say he just counted the days until he didn't need authorization after that.

That's My Two Cents

ParaTed2k

on Jan 31, 2005

Yup, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki will always be remembered by those of us who served during his tenure as "the beret boy". It was pathetic how he stole the Black Beret of the head of the Rangers who revered it, (because they earned it) and forced it on the heads of those who resented it. I remember wondering how the good general would feel if General Officer stars were issued to all the E-4 and below for mandatory wear.

Lee1776

on Jan 31, 2005

It was pathetic how he stole the Black Beret from Ranger who revered it, (because he earned it) and forced it on the heads of those who resented it.

Ya, he wound up giving them buff berets. Nothing like adding insults to injury. The interesting thing is, I almost never see a Ranger in them anymore. Most Ranger commanders authorize their soldiers to wear the old BDU Cap now.

Even when he did order the Army to purchase them, he was in so big of hurry that he ignored procurement regulations. The Regulations required the contracts to go to US firms first then to Allies. But he went strait to the enemy (China). Nothing like giving millions of US Army dollars to a communist country. I wonder what ever happened to all of those things? I'm sure he put them in some warehouse someplace so he could roll around in them on the weekends.

Those China made ones was never issued after the first soldiers refused to wear them and leaked the info to Rush Limbaugh, because of the China label.

Most soldiers are just waiting for the day the present Army Commander leave. The only reason why this one had not ordered them to be worn with the class A uniform only, is out of respend to Shinseki. The word is all the people on the short list for the postion is ready to do the change with the new combat uniforn arriving later this year.

That's My Two Cents

whoman69

on Jan 31, 2005

He did not leave early, just that his replacement was chosen early in order for him to prepare for the difficult events to follow. Nothing strange there. The Media and politicians has tried to hype this up as something strange, it was not.

Nothing strange there except that its unprecedented in history and made him a lame duck.

Do you have the same arguments to make for the Secretary of the Army?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!