Sarge Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 A lot of my friends in the Corps openly say they he has betrayed the Corps. IF I get their permission and have time, I'll print some of their emails Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 We are currently reducing the forces we have in Japan/Okinawa. The Marines that we have had there for decades are leaving. Makes no sense to send more there.Generals should be the ones making the decisions on force structure and numbers in Iraq to accomplish the foreign policy objectives. It shouldn't be Congressmen, democrat or republican. When they decide they can accomplish the objectives with less people then they are not "cutting and running". If they are deciding for any other reason than that then they are being negligent in their duty and responsibility. I agree, generals SHOULD be making the choices on troop levels but that has not been the case from day one of the planning for the Iraq war. All the military experts/war games said Iraq would take up to 500,000 troops. Rumsfeld and the neocon whitehouse disagreed, they wanted more like 90,000. We all know who won that argument. BTW I dont know of any generals who were being negligent so much as they were overruled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 You are right. Someone should be standing in their corner. And everyone should at least consider the impact on them when making decisions. I'm not sure that many opponents are really opponents for the "sake of the troops". Sorry, call me cynical...I think they have their own selfish reasons for being against the war and wanting to bring home the troops. And that thought is not restricted to democrats, they just happen to be the opposition party now. Man, you ARE cynical. Let me ask you this: What was the absolute worst part of September 11th? To me, it's the fact that 3000 people died. The war in Iraq was unnecessary and 3000 Americans are going to die in that as well (desperately hope I'm wrong). Fact of the matter is, anti-war folks literally value human life more than pro-war folks. To me, 2500 troop's lives > democracy in Iraq. To GWB, 3000 troops lives < democracy in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Generals should be the ones making the decisions on force structure and numbers in Iraq to accomplish the foreign policy objectives. I agree, then why is it that when the generals wanted more troops, they were given their walking papers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 The point here is missed. It isn't the call to reduce troop numbers that is a problem, IMO. It's that he states or presence in Iraq is more of a problem then Iran or NK having nukes. It's an idiotic statement at best. Really? It is actually pretty spot on, and you mischaracterized the quote by leaving out world peace. Is our presence in Iraq helping or hurting world peace? Personally, seeing how many terrorists we are creating, and looking at the increase of terrorism worldwide since the invasion of Iraq, i would say that he is correct. I would also say that fighting in Iraq now, is a MUCH MUCH greater threat to world peace then either Iran or NK having a nuke. I mean come on now, why in the world would EITHER country attack us, or side with terrorists and give them weapons? Would it be in their countries best interest? Even if Iran gets a nuke, they are not going to attack Israel with it, they will get nuked back. It's the good ole deterrence bit and it is not as great a threat to world peace as you think. Now, on the other hand, you have created instability in the middle of the worlds energy resources, and created a terrorist haven in Iraq. That IS hurting world peace. Kilmer is right though, most people won;t even bother to try to understand the meaning of his words, and the lemmings will follow suit, such as the thread starter did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted June 27, 2006 Author Share Posted June 27, 2006 I also love that this mini article seems to have no quotes, no references, and is just one journalist's reinterpretation of events (unless I missed how to link to the larger article). If this was an anti-Redskins' rumor you guys would be all over this as a piece of uninformitive, ill researched, and poorly written drivel spun by a hater. Yeah, Fox News and Brit Hume just made it all up. http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/attack/135159.php Murtha says U.S. poses top threat to world peaceSOUTH FLORIDA SUN-SENTINEL MIAMI — American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to an audience of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon. Murtha was the guest speaker at a town hall meeting organized by Rep. Kendrick B. Meek, D-Miami, at Florida International University's Biscayne Bay Campus. Meek's mother, former Rep. Carrie Meek, D-Miami, was also on the panel. War veterans, local mayors, university students and faculty were in the Mary Ann Wolfe Theatre to listen to the three panelists discuss the war in Iraq for an hour. A former Marine and a prominent critic of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, Murtha reiterated his views that the war cannot be won militarily and needs political solutions. He said the more than 100,000 troops in Iraq should be pulled out immediately, and deployed to peripheral countries like Kuwait. "We do not want permanent bases in Iraq," Murtha told the audience. "We want as many Americans out of there as possible." Murtha also has publicly said that the shooting of 24 Iraqis in November at Haditha, a city in the Anbar province of western Iraq that has been plagued by insurgents, was wrongfully covered up. The killings, which sparked an investigation into the deadly encounter and another into whether they were the subject of a cover-up, could undermine U.S. efforts in Iraq more than the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib in 2004, Murtha said. "(The United States) became the target when Abu Ghraib came along," Murtha said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Yeah, Fox News and Brit Hume just made it all up. http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/attack/135159.php Again Nelms, try to get his entire speech, not just a paraphrase from a website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 webnarc- Murtha was not talking about moving troops to face the Koreans, he was answering a question about where they could be "redeployed" (nice sounding word for cut and running) Russert asked him where troops could be sent and still kill Zarqawi. and he answered, "kuwait, or okinawa even" uh, nice work General Patton. except that Okinawa is 4,000 miles away- across from Iran and China. Which would take 12 tanker refuels in a round trip flight for F-16s. oh yeah, the Japanese don't want us on Okinawa either. but great strategy there defeaticrats!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 webnarc-Murtha was not talking about moving troops to face the Koreans, he was answering a question about where they could be "redeployed" (nice sounding word for cut and running) Russert asked him where troops could be sent and still kill Zarqawi. and he answered, "kuwait, or okinawa even" And where did the "troops" that killed Zarqawi come from? Oh yea, the troops didn't kill Zarqawi, a bomb did. . . Now why do we need troops to get him? uh, nice work General Patton. except that Okinawa is 4,000 miles away- across from Iran and China. Which would take 12 tanker refuels in a round trip flight for F-16s. Ummm, are you telling me we don;t have any carriers in the Persian Gulf with F-16s right now :doh: Come on now, at least use the brain you have, and state what he said. How would the lack of US troops have hampered getting Zarqawi? It wouldn't have, and we would not be sending home young men without limbs or in body bags. Something I though people would want. oh yeah, the Japanese don't want us on Okinawa either. but great strategy there defeaticrats!! I see you get ALL you information from the right wing huh :doh: Maybe try to be a little bit more informend next time OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted June 27, 2006 Author Share Posted June 27, 2006 Russert asked him where troops could be sent and still kill Zarqawi. and he answered, "kuwait, or okinawa even"uh, nice work General Patton. except that Okinawa is 4,000 miles away- across from Iran and China. Which would take 12 tanker refuels in a round trip flight for F-16s. Murtha is not the brightest crayon in the box. Have you ever sat down and really listened to him talk. He's actually a pretty stupid guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Ummm, are you telling me we don;t have any carriers in the Persian Gulf with F-16s right now :doh: Come on now, at least use the brain you have, and state what he said. How would the lack of US troops have hampered getting Zarqawi? It wouldn't have, and we would not be sending home young men without limbs or in body bags. Something I though people would want. I will tell you that we certainly dont have any carriers in the Persian Gulf with F-16's on them, but your never wrong so I must be. Also, without ground troops there we would never have gotten saddam or zarqawi. Without ground troops we cant flush them out of their holes and make them scurry arround to a suitable bombing site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalex41 Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201054,00.html It's pathetic to hear a sitting U.S. congressman say this. He needs to return his medals and check himself in for a full and complete mental evaluation. I think Murtha needs to be "censored" in Congress and a "gag order" placed on him. This kind of reckless discourse is extremely harmful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalex41 Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201054,00.html It's pathetic to hear a sitting U.S. congressman say this. He needs to return his medals and check himself in for a full and complete mental evaluation. The good citizens of Pennslyvania, should and I hope they will hold him "accountable" for his asinine statement when re-election comes again. !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madman_Mike Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 And where did the "troops" that killed Zarqawi come from? Oh yea, the troops didn't kill Zarqawi, a bomb did. . . Now why do we need troops to get him? Boots on the ground spoted him and directed the plane that dropped the bomb. Without boots on the ground we never would have had a clue where he was. So your point is? Ummm, are you telling me we don;t have any carriers in the Persian Gulf with F-16s right now :doh: Ummm... F16 are air force. They cannot land on a carrier. The navy uses F14s and FA18s. Way to pretend to be an expert. :doh: Come on now, at least use the brain you have, and state what he said. How would the lack of US troops have hampered getting Zarqawi? It wouldn't have, and we would not be sending home young men without limbs or in body bags. Something I though people would want. See above general Chom and get back to me when you can explain how to find one man from 10,000 feet with no human intel. I see you get ALL you information from the right wing huh :doh: Maybe try to be a little bit more informend next time OK? You are telling somone else to try to be more informed after the ignorance you show in this post? All I can say is..... :rotflmao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalex41 Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 nelms, he makes an ass out of himself with this ****. No need to check himself into anywhere. The public who pays attention already knows he's nuts.I would hate to see you in a "one-on-one confrontation" with him, you appear to be really " p***ed !!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 And where did the "troops" that killed Zarqawi come from? Oh yea, the troops didn't kill Zarqawi, a bomb did. . . Now why do we need troops to get him? Go take a nap young man, your becoming delusional... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalex41 Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 But, unfortunately, this isn't Joe Blow blogger posting rants on the internet. This is a sitting U.S. congressman making these statements. Just more propaganda for the enemy.Barry Goldwaters' opinion is "archaic and mundane"., it is also not :germaine to the statement made by Rep. Murtha. Are you "abeting" his stance"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted June 27, 2006 Author Share Posted June 27, 2006 Boots on the ground spoted him and directed the plane that dropped the bomb. Without boots on the ground we never would have had a clue where he was. So your point is? :owned: Ummm... F16 are air force. They cannot land on a carrier. The navy uses F14s and FA18s. Way to pretend to be an expert. :doh: :owned: See above general Chom and get back to me when you can explain how to find one man from 10,000 feet with no human intel. :owned: You are telling somone else to try to be more informed after the ignorance you show in this post? All I can say is..... :rotflmao: :owned: Daaaaaammmmmmmmmmmmmnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn! Chommie got knocked the F out! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Barry Goldwaters' opinion is "archaic and mundane"., it is also not :germaine to the statement made by Rep. Murtha. Are you "abeting" his stance"? its called a message board signature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted June 27, 2006 Author Share Posted June 27, 2006 its called a message board signature. Thank you. At first, I was wondering WTF he was intimating. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalex41 Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 I know. It pisses me off as well. It always helps when a person who is apart of our federal government is questioning publicly what we are up to in Iraq(or anywhere else for that matter). :doh: All it does is . . . just like you said, adds more fuel to the fire of our enemies.Not only does he dig a hole for himself, he compromises the integrity of our efforts towards bringing this situation to fruition, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Come on people. Leave Chom alone. How is he supposed to know that the laser guided bombs actually require someone to place the laser on the target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalex41 Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Exactly. Our elected officials need to be held to a higher standard. I mean, what was the purpose of these comments? What was he trying to accomplish? Everyone already knows his opposition to the war.I am very curious abut finding out exactly what his motives are !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted June 27, 2006 Author Share Posted June 27, 2006 Come on people. Leave Chom alone. How is he supposed to know that the laser guided bombs actually require someone to place the laser on the target. Curiously, you won't see him pop his hippie head in here again. Talk about cutting and running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Curiously, you won't see him pop his hippie head in here again. Talk about cutting and running. Well what I think he is doing is speaking authoritatively about a subject in which he has no effing clue...but won't acknowledge that simple truth. Talk about philosophy and theoretical causes and effects, don't talk about tactics, techniques, and procedures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.