Thread: Democrats: What is the most politically-advantageous number of dead US troops?

dalem,

Well, you may recall that we wanted to wait a while but we had half the planet's yapping proles screaming that we needed to do it RIGHT THEN.

Fecking idiots.

-dale

uh, actually- no.

the CPA- the one time america was actually running the show- was in charge from 2003 to 2004. the bush plan, since late 2003/early 2004, was for the CPA to give way june 30, 2004, to the iraqi interim government, which by that time (as the Iraqi Governing Council) was to have finished the Transitional Administrative Law (which they did under immense US pressure). to disrupt the insurgents, the CPA transferred authority on the 28th.

in other words, the transfer of authority was planned out and kept to, and was not subject to "half the planet's yapping proles."

Originally Posted by Julie

That "muck" as you call it, is what has gotten the confidence down in many Americans as to the Iraq War.

The American people are not so stupid as to believe those 3 incidents represent government treason, or are the norm. If you look back to any period of war you'll find similar lapses in administration. Those incidents are simply not substantive arguments against the war in Iraq.

It was the Americans in the 2004 election that forced him to make changes in DOD, Rumsfeld being one of them.

Rumsfeld left in 2007.

The plan envisages the reconstruction of an old pipeline, inactive since the end of the British mandate in Palestine in 1948, when the flow from Iraq's northern oilfields to Palestine was re-directed to Syria.

Now, its resurrection would transform economic power in the region, cutting out Syria and solving Israel's energy crisis at a stroke.

Until 1948, the pipeline ran from the Kurdish-controlled city of Mosul to the Israeli port of Haifa, on its northern Mediterranean coast. The pipeline would cut Israel's energy bill drastically - probably by more than 25 per cent - since the country is currently largely dependent on expensive imports from Russia.

I can read. But I am not going to go off on a tangent to debate the pipeline. Your contention was that the pipeline was the reason behind Bush's support for the ME Peace Conference and, also, that the US was going to dictate the destination of oil from Iraq. The article doesn's back you up. So, what's your proof?

Shouldn't the Oil Minister in Iraq handle that?

He should definately handle his end of it.

Perhaps you are not aware that all the cabinet-level departments of the US gov't have liasons with their counterparts in foreign governments. DOE represents US commericial interests in dealing with international pipeline issues. What's sinister in that?
It's common operating procedure. USDA handles US grain sales overseas, regulates export/import of beef and so on. State handles foreign aid through USAID. All the military branches conduct joint military exercises with foreign countries. DOT handles agreements concerning international flights. And so on.

I'll use Bluesman's thread to give you more spinelessness from our generation's Tokyo Rose, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

Captain's Quarters LinkyDinky.

"Who's winning?" Reid asked a group of reporters. "Big Oil, Big Tobacco. ... Al Qaeda has regrouped and is able to fight a civil war in Iraq. ... The American people are losing."

Seriously, what's next for this Fifth Columnist from Las Vegas? "And soon the wives and daughters of our deployed soldiers will be sleeping with the mailmen."

"The Statue of Liberty ist kaput!"

This guy is truly a wonderment of a turd. I hope his constituents and his fellow party members are proud of him.

-dale

Mr. Bush is always rabbling about let history judge my action, and history will. I am a historian, my recordings of his actions will center on his treasonous lies, manipulations of the populace with deceptions, and breaking away from decade long treaties in accordance with the geneva conventions. Is the President above the law? Should not the President be accountable equally with the law as every other American?

I think every war, including the current war in Iraq, has many more reasons of being fought than just one; some are noble, but too often some are cowardly deceptions for profiteering. Every war seems to have the same general shades of patriotism, and hidden at the time the war is being fought, selfish agendas from powerful men. Sartre once said, "When the rich wage war, it is the poor who die." How often in the past have the rich and powerful men in this country found ways to spare their off spring to serve in battle? We that are still old enough all remember too well the ridicule so many of the elite received, because of the favoritism's their children received to avoid going into battle in Vietnam. Of course the irony of this is, now certain figures in politics wish us to just forget it happened, then even go so far as to act offended for when they are called out.

I suppose Mr. Bush has no problem with the elitist of our country of finding ways for their sons and daughters not to serve, for he now not only justifies his tour of duty in the "rich boy squadron", he some how even acts like he earned his way there. The obvious irony is Mr. Bush has abused the mission of our national guard, the same guard that so protected his preverbal bottom when he was young from fighting in over seas combat. We as a nation lost over 58,000 American lives in Vietnam, before as a nation we realized we made a mistake. We have lost over 3,000 now in Iraq. As a proud veteran of the USMC, I just wonder what the number in Iraq is. Is it 5,000? Is it 10,000? Is it 20,000? The longer we stay the more these numbers will become a reality. Surely to God the American people have grown wise enough to never allow these numbers to grow that high. One of the greatest presidents ever to sit in the oval office once said, "History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap." I for one believe Mr. Reagan was right on the money there. For I do not believe one American soldier dead in action in Iraq justifies 100 million Iraqi's free. The Iraqi's freedom should be earned by their blood, not by our brave young soldier's blood. But sadly this government of ours, obviously like Mr. Reagan stated, believe the price of aggression was cheap.

Furthermore, we need to bring our boy's and girl's home! It does not matter who is president, how long we stay, or what strategy we have. When we leave Iraq it will be a matter of days, not even months before they are ruled by yet again another ruthless dictator. Probably more than likely this time a religious zealot to boot! The Iraqi people have never and probably will never fight for their freedom. You can't shove freedom down a person's throat that hates and despises everything we as a nation stand for. We need to learn from the lessons of our own past. Now is the time to act, not later, before these numbers grow higher.

If you disagree with me that's, ok, but I am just wanting to compare numbers with you in closing here for a second, what is your number? Mine was ZERO! This government is way over a 3,000 from what I would have considered too many, and the number even as I write is rising. We need more patriotic Americans writing this president and congress, demanding that they send our young men and women home! "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public" Theodore Roosevelt.

Please edit your post, Mr. Historian. We can't proceed with ripping your delusional and incoherent rant until it's legible. Try creating a paragraph or two, just for kicks and giggles.

Chesty would appreciate it.

Oh, Amos, I don't normally do this, but have you checked in with a member introduction? It's the first forum on this board. You really can't miss it and failing to do so will lead to waterboarding.

Please do so, sir.

Originally Posted by AmosGraber

Mr. Bush is always rabbling about let history judge my action, and history will. I am a historian, my recordings of his actions will center on his treasonous lies, manipulations of the populace with deceptions, and breaking away from decade long treaties in accordance with the geneva conventions. Is the President above the law? Should not the President be accountable equally with the law as every other American?

So please list the specific treasonous lies, the deceptions, and the broken treaties. How about two examples of each and we'll either point you to threads where they've been discussed already or discuss them anew.

-dale

Originally Posted by AmosGraber

...I am a historian, my recordings of his actions will center on his treasonous lies, manipulations of the populace with deceptions,...

For a brief, shining moment I thought I would get the objective critique of our Iraq policy I have so often longed for. Unfortunately, you've managed just another exercise in predefined terms and snarly pronouns. How about some substantiation, analysis, and all those other tricks real historians use.

Originally Posted by AmosGraber

Mr. Bush is always rabbling about let history judge my action, and history will. I am a historian, my recordings of his actions will center on his treasonous lies, manipulations of the populace with deceptions, and breaking away from decade long treaties in accordance with the geneva conventions.

I can call myself a historian too, doesn't mean MY interpretation of history is correct....

Originally Posted by AmosGraber

Is the President above the law?

No

Originally Posted by AmosGraber

Should not the President be accountable equally with the law as every other American?

Yes, but apparently the preceeding president wasn't (and still isn't) so....

Originally Posted by AmosGraber

I think every war, including the current war in Iraq, has many more reasons of being fought than just one; some are noble, but too often some are cowardly deceptions for profiteering.

Great then as a "Historian" I'm sure you can recognise the reasons for going into Iraq besides the WMD error and Oil....

Originally Posted by AmosGraber

Every war seems to have the same general shades of patriotism, and hidden at the time the war is being fought, selfish agendas from powerful men. Sartre once said, "When the rich wage war, it is the poor who die." How often in the past have the rich and powerful men in this country found ways to spare their off spring to serve in battle? We that are still old enough all remember too well the ridicule so many of the elite received, because of the favoritism's their children received to avoid going into battle in Vietnam. Of course the irony of this is, now certain figures in politics wish us to just forget it happened, then even go so far as to act offended for when they are called out.

I suppose Mr. Bush has no problem with the elitist of our country of finding ways for their sons and daughters not to serve, for he now not only justifies his tour of duty in the "rich boy squadron", he some how even acts like he earned his way there. The obvious irony is Mr. Bush has abused the mission of our national guard, the same guard that so protected his preverbal bottom when he was young from fighting in over seas combat. We as a nation lost over 58,000 American lives in Vietnam, before as a nation we realized we made a mistake. We have lost over 3,000 now in Iraq.

This is all very nice but again this is just YOUR opinion. There are many AWOL Americans coming up here to Canada abusing their responcibility's and protecting their preverbal bottoms yet I don't see Bush abandoning HIS country. I see Bush as a man of conviction, who yes has made some mistakes both in life and in the White house, but untill I am in his possition I reserve the right to critisize the man. As for Veitnam public opinion is exactly why you failed in that war. If you go to war, go all in or mind yer own business.

Originally Posted by AmosGraber

As a proud veteran of the USMC, I just wonder what the number in Iraq is. Is it 5,000? Is it 10,000? Is it 20,000?

As many as it takes to stabilise Iraq and transform them into a freind and possibly even an ally. Even a non-military man such as myself can recognise this....

Originally Posted by AmosGraber

The longer we stay the more these numbers will become a reality. Surely to God the American people have grown wise enough to never allow these numbers to grow that high. One of the greatest presidents ever to sit in the oval office once said, "History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap." I for one believe Mr. Reagan was right on the money there. For I do not believe one American soldier dead in action in Iraq justifies 100 million Iraqi's free. The Iraqi's freedom should be earned by their blood, not by our brave young soldier's blood. But sadly this government of ours, obviously like Mr. Reagan stated, believe the price of aggression was cheap.

Again...its all nice to quote your "fellow" historians but this is all just your opinion and not fact.

Originally Posted by AmosGraber

Furthermore, we need to bring our boy's and girl's home!

When the jobs done and not before, they all know what they signed up for in the military, to serve their country or die trying. I'd like nothing better to see my fellow Canadians come home safe and sound, but they have a mission, took an oath and a responcibility and I'd expect them to keep their word as many other Canadians have done before them.

Originally Posted by AmosGraber

It does not matter who is president, how long we stay, or what strategy we have. When we leave Iraq it will be a matter of days, not even months before they are ruled by yet again another ruthless dictator. Probably more than likely this time a religious zealot to boot! The Iraqi people have never and probably will never fight for their freedom. You can't shove freedom down a person's throat that hates and despises everything we as a nation stand for. We need to learn from the lessons of our own past. Now is the time to act, not later, before these numbers grow higher.

So says you, my gut feeling right now is we will get something inbetween a Democracy and a dictator. Opinions are like noses, everyone has one. The Iraqis fought the Americans for Saddam, allbeit not very forcefully for him. themselves is an entirely different matter....

Originally Posted by AmosGraber

If you disagree with me that's, ok, but I am just wanting to compare numbers with you in closing here for a second, what is your number? Mine was ZERO! This government is way over a 3,000 from what I would have considered too many, and the number even as I write is rising.

As I said, MY number is "As many as it takes". Many died in WWII, but the number was worth it, many more would have died without a fight. I'd rather die with my morals than live as a coward.

Originally Posted by AmosGraber

We need more patriotic Americans writing this president and congress, demanding that they send our young men and women home! "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public" Theodore Roosevelt.

Actively seeking defeat IS unpatriotic and servile to our enemy's.

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Actively seeking defeat IS unpatriotic and servile to our enemy's.

So lets get this much straight. What you're saying is that if you're a patriotic American who thinks Americans shouldn't be dying for the freedom of Iraqis, you have no moral right to vote for a leader that will pull out of Iraq, simply because it would be perceived as a defeat by America's enemies?

Hey AmosGraber-

Gonna answer my questions above? Or are you just blowing hot air?

-dale

Originally Posted by Feanor

So lets get this much straight. What you're saying is that if you're a patriotic American who thinks Americans shouldn't be dying for the freedom of Iraqis, you have no moral right to vote for a leader that will pull out of Iraq, simply because it would be perceived as a defeat by America's enemies?

You can't read english now? Actively seeking defeat IS unpatriotic and servile to our enemy's. Completely different to what you just wrote and it was a contrast to what AmosGraber was saying. Harry Reid is just one of these unpatriotic Americans, not for wanting to bring the troops home but saying anything, including stating "We have lost the war" when the fat lady hasn't even taken a sip of water and even looked at the stage.

Originally Posted by dalem

Hey AmosGraber-

Gonna answer my questions above? Or are you just blowing hot air?

-dale

Sorry took me a couple of days to get just a few of the treasonous actions the Bush adminstration is guilty of:

Deception of Congress and the American Public
Committing a Fraud Against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371)

Making False Statements Against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 1001)

War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148)

Misuse of Government Funds (31 U.S.C. § 1301)

Improper Detention, Torture, and Other Inhumane Treatment
Anti-Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340-40A)

The War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 2441)

The Geneva Conventions and Hague Convention: International Laws Governing the Treatment of Detainees

United Nations Convention Against Torture, and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment: International Laws Governing the Treatment of Detainees

Command Responsibility (for known illegal acts of subordinates in the military)
Detainment of Material Witnesses (18 U.S.C. § 3144)

Retaliating against Witnesses and Other Individuals
Obstruction Congress (18 U.S.C. § 1505)

Whistleblower Protection (5 U.S.C. § 2302)

The Lloyd-LaFollette Act, or "anti-gag rule" (5 U.S.C. § 7211)

Retaliating against Witnesses (18 U.S.C. § 1513)

Leaking and other Misuse of Intelligence and other Government Information
Revealing Classified Information in Contravention of Federal Regulations (Executive Order 12958/Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement)
Statutory Prohibitions on Leaking Information (18 U.S.C. § 641, etc.)

Laws Governing Electronic Surveillance
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq.)

National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. chapter 15)

Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 222)

Stored Communications Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. § 2702)

Pen Registers or Trap and Trace Devices (18 U.S.C. § 3121)

Laws and Guidelines Prohibiting Conflicts of Interest (28 U.S.C. § 528, etc.)

Of course a few of these the administration has already been found guilty of, but Libby took the fall for them. I have alot of admiration for Libby. However I feel he must of just been the lowest one on the totem pole in the room when they talked about who was going to take the fall.

Now lets get some evidence

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

You can't read english now? Actively seeking defeat IS unpatriotic and servile to our enemy's. Completely different to what you just wrote and it was a contrast to what AmosGraber was saying. Harry Reid is just one of these unpatriotic Americans, not for wanting to bring the troops home but saying anything, including stating "We have lost the war" when the fat lady hasn't even taken a sip of water and even looked at the stage.

So it's ok to vote for someone who is for immediate pullout? That's not treason by your definition?

Originally Posted by AmosGraber

Sorry took me a couple of days to get just a few of the treasonous actions the Bush adminstration is guilty of:

Deception of Congress and the American Public
Committing a Fraud Against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371)

Making False Statements Against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 1001)

War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148)

Misuse of Government Funds (31 U.S.C. § 1301)

Improper Detention, Torture, and Other Inhumane Treatment
Anti-Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340-40A)

The War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 2441)

The Geneva Conventions and Hague Convention: International Laws Governing the Treatment of Detainees

United Nations Convention Against Torture, and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment: International Laws Governing the Treatment of Detainees

Command Responsibility (for known illegal acts of subordinates in the military)
Detainment of Material Witnesses (18 U.S.C. § 3144)

Retaliating against Witnesses and Other Individuals
Obstruction Congress (18 U.S.C. § 1505)

Whistleblower Protection (5 U.S.C. § 2302)

The Lloyd-LaFollette Act, or "anti-gag rule" (5 U.S.C. § 7211)

Retaliating against Witnesses (18 U.S.C. § 1513)

Leaking and other Misuse of Intelligence and other Government Information
Revealing Classified Information in Contravention of Federal Regulations (Executive Order 12958/Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement)
Statutory Prohibitions on Leaking Information (18 U.S.C. § 641, etc.)

Laws Governing Electronic Surveillance
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq.)

National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. chapter 15)

Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 222)

Stored Communications Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. § 2702)

Pen Registers or Trap and Trace Devices (18 U.S.C. § 3121)

Laws and Guidelines Prohibiting Conflicts of Interest (28 U.S.C. § 528, etc.)

Of course a few of these the administration has already been found guilty of, but Libby took the fall for them. I have alot of admiration for Libby. However I feel he must of just been the lowest one on the totem pole in the room when they talked about who was going to take the fall.

So you have evidence for all of these? Any pending cases?

-dale