Soldiers have their say...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Frustrations mounting...

[FlamesAddiction]

It's going to be like a Palestinian-type deal.

That's pretty much what I thought would happen before the war started. The U.S. is going to have their own "West Bank" where pulling out will look like bowing to terrorism.

[Cowboy]

Lanny are you being sarcastic when you say "Not what I expected to hear). Are you speaking of the frustrations in Iraq, and the feeling of some of the soldiers.

It is exactly what I expected, but I know the soldiers have remain there, and probably for a long while

[Cowperson]

Actually, that's what you've been hearing before in other stories posted on this site through the last year. There's frustration with leaving Mucky al-Sadr still standing when they had him cornered in Najaf and frustration with leaving Fallujah when they had the bad guys surrounded a few months ago after heavy fighting. They see political decisions made in Washington preventing them from achieving a decisive win and you saw that again in the story in the Washington Post today (Lanny posting a mainstream media story!!).

You see it in the web blogs of soldiers as well. It seems a common lament for soldiers trained to fight a formation type war and instead finding themselves locked in the nebulous art of peacekeeping/peacemaking.

A similar story from over a year ago:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/...65p-91932c.html

Maybe Rumsfeld saw the story in the Washington Post today - he said today troop levels for USA soldiers could decline in Iraq after the January elections as more Iraqi security forces are applied.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134968,00.html

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Well, maybe a little.

All of this frustration they are feeling is definitely nothing more than a morale issue caused by the flip flopping ways of one John "Lurch" Kerry. If that SOB hadn't said all those hurtful things about our troops the situation would be much better.

[Displaced Flames fan]

John Kerry hasn't said anything hurtful about the troops. He's been critical of the decision to go to war, even though he had the same intelligence that Bush had and supported the decision at the time, but one thing he has never done is criticize or be unsupportive of the troops.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 10 2004, 03:46 PM
John Kerry hasn't said anything hurtful about the troops. He's been critical of the decision to go to war, even though he had the same intelligence that Bush had and supported the decision at the time, but one thing he has never done is criticize or be unsupportive of the troops.

In keeping with the American mood from the 80's where a collective guilt set in for leaving the troops in Vietnam high and dry, you'll rarely if ever see a politician do anything but praise the soldiers fighting the war.

It's why the Swiftboat "Babykiller" ads of Kerry dissing his fellow soldiers in Vietnam have been so effective, his own image and his own words caught in tape. It fit the time, nothing unusual then, but it's a crushing weight on him in the time we live in today.

Cowperson

[Bingo]

Many opinions out there ... I read an informal poll a week ago that had 82% of Iraqi soldiers saying that they would vote for Bush in the upcoming elections. A matter of who you talk to I guess.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Great post Cow, and something I am having a real hard understanding down here. Americans are so damn vendictive. They never forget (The Alamo!) what happened in the past nor apply that to the changes in the world. What Kerry said in support of the Viet Nam protest was right on the money at the time. But he is still being held to that 30 years later, even though times have changed dramatically. But what can you do about a country that still embraces a socument written over 220 years ago as being relevant in todays world (the second ammendment argument kills me). Americans need to learn to put the past aside and focus more on the now. The country would be much better off.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 10 2004, 04:27 PM
Great post Cow, and something I am having a real hard understanding down here. Americans are so damn vendictive. They never forget (The Alamo!) what happened in the past nor apply that to the changes in the world. What Kerry said in support of the Viet Nam protest was right on the money at the time. But he is still being held to that 30 years later, even though times have changed dramatically. But what can you do about a country that still embraces a socument written over 220 years ago as being relevant in todays world (the second ammendment argument kills me). Americans need to learn to put the past aside and focus more on the now. The country would be much better off.

You might not feel that way if you were a Vietnam veteran.

Just a point.

BTW...the tear up the constitution and throw it away because it's 223 years old is a REAL good one.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 10 2004, 04:35 PM
BTW...the tear up the constitution and throw it away because it's 223 years old is a REAL good one.

Did I say that Dis? Did I say tear it up and throw it away? No I did not. What I said was that embracing a document written that long ago can be extrem ely dangerous. What was applicable then is not very applicable now. The document does need some serious modification (ammendments) in given areas. It is dated and is in need of some updating. Or are you suggesting that what was applicable 223 years ago is still applicable in today's world? Things have not changed much at all, right?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Oct 10 2004, 04:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Oct 10 2004, 04:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Oct 10 2004, 04:35 PM
BTW...the tear up the constitution and throw it away because it's 223 years old is a REAL good one.

Did I say that Dis? Did I say tear it up and throw it away? No I did not. What I said was that embracing a document written that long ago can be extrem ely dangerous. What was applicable then is not very applicable now. The document does need some serious modification (ammendments) in given areas. It is dated and is in need of some updating. Or are you suggesting that what was applicable 223 years ago is still applicable in today's world? Things have not changed much at all, right? [/b][/quote]
Well, yes, it is applicable because the first 10 ammendment refer to basic human rights in this country. I, for one, don't believe that the second ammendment gives an American citizen the right to own a gun.....so maybe you're just barking up the wrong tree?

However, Canadians own guns. The US just needs better laws governing ownership.

If you're talking about the NRA leaning on the 2nd ammendment as a refuge where there is zero gun restrictions then I agree with you 100%.

Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 10 2004, 03:46 PM
John Kerry hasn't said anything hurtful about the troops. He's been critical of the decision to go to war, even though he had the same intelligence that Bush had and supported the decision at the time, but one thing he has never done is criticize or be unsupportive of the troops.

That's the line Bush used in the debate, that Kerry had access to the 'same' intelligence. I find it hard to believe that a sitting President and John Kerry had access to the same sources. There have to be CIA briefings, high-level intelligence decisions, priority making, etc. that Bush had.

If Bush had the same intelligence as the Senate, then the US intelligence apparatus is woefully inadequate. Maybe that's what we're finding out now.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Oct 10 2004, 04:42 PM

That's the line Bush used in the debate, that Kerry had access to the 'same' intelligence. I find it hard to believe that a sitting President and John Kerry had access to the same sources. There have to be CIA briefings, high-level intelligence decisions, priority making, etc. that Bush had.

If Bush had the same intelligence as the Senate, then the US intelligence apparatus is woefully inadequate. Maybe that's what we're finding out now.

John Kerry served on the Senate Intelligence committee which is privy to the same intelligence as the National Security Council.

Find it hard to believe all you want, but it's true.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Dis, then we are in full agreement. What do you think about the Patriot Act and the impacts of that document has on the Consitiutional Rights of citizens? Don't you think that the constitiution needs to be more defined in this area to prevent documents like the Patriot Act from riding roughshod over our rights? Just another example of the changes that the times has on the constitution and how it needs to be a living and breathing document.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 10 2004, 04:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 10 2004, 04:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Did I say that Dis? Did I say tear it up and throw it away? No I did not. What I said was that embracing a document written that long ago can be extrem ely dangerous. What was applicable then is not very applicable now. The document does need some serious modification (ammendments) in given areas. It is dated and is in need of some updating. Or are you suggesting that what was applicable 223 years ago is still applicable in today's world? Things have not changed much at all, right?

Well, yes, it is applicable because the first 10 ammendment refer to basic human rights in this country. I, for one, don't believe that the second ammendment gives an American citizen the right to own a gun.....so maybe you're just barking up the wrong tree?

However, Canadians own guns. The US just needs better laws governing ownership.

If you're talking about the NRA leaning on the 2nd ammendment as a refuge where there is zero gun restrictions then I agree with you 100%.

Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right. [/b][/quote]
I'm going to have to lean towards Lanny on this one (surprise!). The constitution is so old it's ancient. If many of the clauses included are simply basic human rights, then it shouldn't be hard to keep those same core principles, but assisting them with a 21st century context.

Seems dumb to me to build a guiding principle for a nation and then not augment that strategy for decades, despite two industrial revolutions, elimination of slavery, women voting, planes flying, etc. I think government institutions should be dynamic and flexible, not starchy and stubborn.

Though, if you make a constitution too easy to change, you might have some dictator come along and change the core principles. If you're afraid of that (as many Americans are afraid of many things) then I suppose entrenching your constitution in a nearly indestructible format is the right thing to do.

I wonder if Iraq's new constitution will read, "We the Iraqi people..."

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Oct 10 2004, 04:46 PM

I'm going to have to lean towards Lanny on this one (surprise!). The constitution is so old it's ancient. If many of the clauses included are simply basic human rights, then it shouldn't be hard to keep those same core principles, but assisting them with a 21st century context.

Seems dumb to me to build a guiding principle for a nation and then not augment that strategy for decades, despite two industrial revolutions, elimination of slavery, women voting, planes flying, etc. I think government institutions should be dynamic and flexible, not starchy and stubborn.

Though, if you make a constitution too easy to change, you might have some dictator come along and change the core principles. If you're afraid of that (as many Americans are afraid of many things) then I suppose entrenching your constitution in a nearly indestructible format is the right thing to do.

I wonder if Iraq's new constitution will read, "We the Iraqi people..."

So you're leaning towards Lanny on this one. Lanny just said he agrees with me 100%......

Interesting.

[Agamemnon]

Right, sorry. I'm agreeing with the post I quoted, not your general conversation. Obviously.

I think the whole thing should be redone, though its so entrenched that that's probably impossible. I'm sure it would be un-American to change that hallowed document, overshadowed only by the bible as the leading moral document in America.

If you guys don't think it should be re-done... well... I guess I disagree

[Red]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 10 2004, 09:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 10 2004, 09:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Did I say that Dis? Did I say tear it up and throw it away? No I did not. What I said was that embracing a document written that long ago can be extrem ely dangerous. What was applicable then is not very applicable now. The document does need some serious modification (ammendments) in given areas. It is dated and is in need of some updating. Or are you suggesting that what was applicable 223 years ago is still applicable in today's world? Things have not changed much at all, right?

Well, yes, it is applicable because the first 10 ammendment refer to basic human rights in this country. I, for one, don't believe that the second ammendment gives an American citizen the right to own a gun.....so maybe you're just barking up the wrong tree?

However, Canadians own guns. The US just needs better laws governing ownership.

If you're talking about the NRA leaning on the 2nd ammendment as a refuge where there is zero gun restrictions then I agree with you 100%.

Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right. [/b][/quote]
Yup, they need the gun registry bill C68




Disclaimer: Poking fun at the gun registry in canada, not you guys.
________
Suzuki T Series History

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Oct 10 2004, 04:46 PM
. If many of the clauses included are simply basic human rights, then it shouldn't be hard to keep those same core principles, but assisting them with a 21st century context.

So you're telling me that rights to free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, unreasonable search and seizure...etc, etc, etc, need to be updated to apply to the 21st century?

Why?