TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 Dude, seriously? This is the 2nd most ridiculous post on here. There is plenty of intent in Iraq for people to kill Americans, the fact that you would even say there isn't, invalidates anything and everything you may have to say on this topic and I don't mean the speech I mean combat ops.Have you ever served? My guess would be no based on your opinions in this case, and the ignorance you display about Germany and Korea. P.S. We don't carry guns in Germany or Korea. The only people with guns in those countries are the guards at the gates of the bases. I meant that we don't have any intent in engaging in combat. Not that there is no intent against us. I assume you based most of your outrage at that misinterpretation. I've conceded about 6 different times in this thread that, by no means, are the 50K remaining soldiers out of harm's way. I also drew the distinction between that fact and having them being engaged in a combat operation/mission (a point you seem to agree with). That has been, and remains, my only point. No, I have never served but that doesn't prevent me from understanding the English language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 The point that many are making in this whole debate is that the President is using them for political gain, I just don't see how that is really happening here. I am a supporter of the President, so maybe it is my own tunnel vision, but I don't see it at all. Not in this speech, and not in general. If the President wanted to use Iraq and the troops for political gain, there are a lot of more effective ways he could have done it, rather than keeping Gates as SecDef, gradually winding down Iraq, and escalating in Afganistan. Paul Wolfowitz would be facing federal investigations, instead of collecting a fat World Bank paycheck. And so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 I just don't see how that is really happening here. I am a supporter of the President, so maybe it is my own tunnel vision, but I don't see it at all. Not in this speech, and not in general.If the President wanted to use Iraq and the troops for political gain, there are a lot of more effective ways he could have done it, rather than keeping Gates as SecDef, gradually winding down Iraq, and escalating in Afganistan. Paul Wolfowitz would be facing federal investigations, instead of collecting a fat World Bank paycheck. And so on. I agree. I'm NOT a supporter of the president (at all...) and I just don't see where he's trying to grab credit for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 Hardcore and RD, Let me clarify something... To me, this thread has nothing to do with my personal feelings about the Iraq War or my opinion on how many soldiers should be stationed in Iraq (or in the ME for that matter). If it were up to me, we'd have no remaining soldiers in Iraq. But, I'm able to see past that to evaluate just the speech itself. This comes down to a disagreement about how we took a phrase the president used. I took it as he seemingly meant it: meaning that we had no additional offensive initiatives in Iraq and didn't INTEND to use force any longer. That's not to say those soldiers are living in safety, but as both of you have mentioned, it's a much different/safer place than it was a few years ago. You seem to believe that he is misusing the phrase. I respect that given your military backgrounds...but you have to keep in mind that the majority of the people listening to him probably got from the speech what I did (minus the military background). In the end, I don't like the implications that I don't care about the sacrifices being made, the number of troops in danger, the fact that I don't understand because I don't serve, etc. I just meant to give this guy the benefit of the doubt during a time when we actually are getting some good news about the operation in Iraq. By the way, I do appreciate the service to our country that you've both provided. Believe it or not, even those of us who don't serve understand and appreciate the gravity of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcoreskinsfan Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 Yes, you are correct my outrage was based on that. I must apologize for throwing out the "have you served" card. I must say it tends to be a nasty habit of vets(sadly, myself included) to ignore or invalidate an opinion someone has that "hasn't been there." I'll agree that combat operations have ended but combat will probably not cease until the last soldier has departed Iraq. I don't fault the President for making the announcement, I would have just preferred he not said it. Many of my close friends are preparing for another tour to Iraq as we speak and I feel for their families who have been deeply offended by our President's words. Many of whom were equally offended when President Bush made a similar statement in 2003. My point is, sometimes the words that our politicians use bring harm and heartache to the families left at home while their loved ones are deployed. That's really my only gripe with his statement. I actually had a debate with my wife the other day over this very same topic and its difficult to make her understand what those words actually mean. I think this speech gives a false sense of security to those who have not been privy to what really goes on overseas. As far as him announcing a development goes, I'd much rather he announce when the last soldier has left. That will be when combat truly ends there or it will be when they start planning to bring the combat to our shores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 I understand that...I see your point. I think it comes down to those with a military background understanding the true definition of something vs. someone like me (and most of the country) getting the message trying to be communicated. I don't think most of the country is under the delusion that everything is safe and sound for those 50K troops. Despite my best efforts at overstatement and exaggeration, we all understand Iraq is not Germany and there will be dust-ups until no American troops remain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcoreskinsfan Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 I understand that...I see your point. I think it comes down to those with a military background understanding the true definition of something vs. someone like me (and most of the country) getting the message trying to be communicated. I don't think most of the country is under the delusion that everything is safe and sound for those 50K troops. Despite my best efforts at overstatement and exaggeration, we all understand Iraq is not Germany and there will be dust-ups until no American troops remain. Thanks for your support TD, it means a lot, seriously. I'd also like to thank you for making the attempt to view some of this with clear eyes and mind. Its sometimes difficult to remove yourself and your personal feeling for someone to see what they are actually saying. I may not seem like it but I actually agree with most of what you have said. Have a good night and Hail to the Redskins! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 Thanks for your support TD, it means a lot, seriously. I'd also like to thank you for making the attempt to view some of this with clear eyes and mind. Its sometimes difficult to remove yourself and your personal feeling for someone to see what they are actually saying. I may not seem like it but I actually agree with most of what you have said. Have a good night and Hail to the Redskins! Same to you! 9 days from today, we can both argue over what Shanahan says "incorrectly" after we blow out the Cowboys...deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcoreskinsfan Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 Same to you!9 days from today, we can both argue over what Shanahan says "incorrectly" after we blow out the Cowboys...deal? DEAL! I'm definitely looking forward to this season. HAIL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 Yes, you are correct my outrage was based on that. I must apologize for throwing out the "have you served" card. I must say it tends to be a nasty habit of vets(sadly, myself included) to ignore or invalidate an opinion someone has that "hasn't been there." I'd like to echo the thanks for your service, and add that you are a standup guy for the quote in particular. :notworthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Two U.S. troops die in Iraq; 11 total this month Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/26/501364/main20074517.shtml#ixzz1QQI1H2Er Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Mookie shoulda been put in a hole long ago http://www.npr.org/2011/06/20/137251986/soldier-killed-in-iraq-predicted-he-wouldnt-make-it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.