Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
It's not only the dead, it's the horribly wounded that are surviving this war in unprecedented percentages.
The numbers are still small compared to Vietnam but the ghastliness of what they are surviving is just heartbreaking.
Im not saying they aren't lucky to survive, in fact I'm not saying anything at all about it other than I find it tragic, I'll let the soldiers decide what they think of their own situation.
Supporting the troops isn't only beating the drums of war, it's using their services in an honorable way at all times, our leadership IMO is tragic.
__________________
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
Let's see... We dump more American Military into the most unsettled part of Iraq, and hey - guess what???? More Americans are dead... This is news???
Nobody is surprised about deaths in war. Stop pretending to be so ignorant - or maybe you aren't pretending. WWII saw, what, 275K deaths in a shorter time than this "war" has lasted, which has only resulted in 3500 deaths. The Civil War saw over 200K deaths as well. It ain't about the numbers dead because if this war was justified, we'd have to be more than thankful that "only" 3500 have died. But, because this war is not in any way justified and is, in fact, a diversion from the real enemy, those 3500 deaths are a horribly sad tragedy and it is a crime that they have been sent off to die the way they did....
Nobody is surprised about deaths in war. Stop pretending to be so ignorant - or maybe you aren't pretending. WWII saw, what, 275K deaths in a shorter time than this "war" has lasted, which has only resulted in 3500 deaths. The Civil War saw over 200K deaths as well. It ain't about the numbers dead because if this war was justified, we'd have to be more than thankful that "only" 3500 have died. But, because this war is not in any way justified and is, in fact, a diversion from the real enemy, those 3500 deaths are a horribly sad tragedy and it is a crime that they have been sent off to die the way they did....
You make a statement like:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divide Et Impera
I guess the "surge" is working in a sense, huh? We've got a "surge" in our numbers of Americans dead....
And then claim I am "pretending to be ignorant"??? Now that's funny!!
What's sad is that you guys continue to post these sort of "stats", only to hammer away at the current leadership. Conrad is the only one who seems to place this in proper context...
Guess what - congress just approved a massive funding bill. Bush will remain in office for another 1.5 years and we will have men & women in Iraq at least for that long and probably a great deal longer.
As such, there will continue to be American deaths and casualties. Shocking isn't it...
Your constant droning on and on about how it's a shame, sad & a tragedy and even a "crime" is perhaps the most "ignorant" statement of all...
The men and women who have died, have been injured and are still fighting have suffered no greater tragedies than any other American soldier who has ever fought in a war.
I was at a party Saturday night where 2 kids were present, both in the Army and both who have served in Iraq (one kid had done two tours). They both have more insight and perspective on this whole matter than any one of us will ever have. Their disgust for the manner in which this war has been politicized was quite clear. As a soldier, among many tremendous qualities they possess is their respect for history. They know quite well the sacrifices that were paid in previous wars by their predecessors. And they feel no more worthy of your pathetic form of "support" than any of their fellow brothers & sisters who fought in past wars.
You want to show your support for the troops DEI - than actually DO that! The men & women who you feel have been asked to carry out a crime, who have been told to go and get killed and mamed for illegit purposes - support them! Or - continue on with your own form of ignorance - uh, I mean support...
I have a feeling Bush will be our leader as long as there is one drop of oil left in the M.E.
The reporter that broke the Ports sale has picked up on another little story.
Bush signed an Exec.order to law 3-09-07 that if anything happens at home or abroad that needs a decider like him he will do what needs to be done with Congress out of the loop and no oversight. I have a feeling W will use this new power around election time to cancel the elections until he feels it is safe enough to resume safe ever day life.Only then will he step down if there is no more oil in the M.E. Bush will be our leader for as many years as he wants.
Look it up. Jerome Corsi is the reporter that wrote the article but you can find the new law Bush signed on the Whitehouse something maybe .com? It is something about Homeland Security #51 or 91 Hell,I don't know,I just heard Jerome on the radio talking about it. Bird flu or even abig downturn at the stock market,any threat from Iran or just about anything and George is King,Hitler or Chavez.
Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency
May 18, 2007 By Matthew Rothschild
With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.
In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a “catastrophic emergency.”
Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility “for ensuring constitutional government.”
He laid this all out in a document entitled "National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51" and "Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20."
The White House released it on May 9.
Other than a discussion on Daily Kos led off by a posting by Leo Fender, and a pro-forma notice in a couple of mainstream newspapers, this document has gone unremarked upon.
The subject of the document is entitled “National Continuity Policy.”
It defines a “catastrophic emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function.”
This could mean another 9/11, or another Katrina, or a major earthquake in California, I imagine, since it says it would include “localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies.”
The document emphasizes the need to ensure “the continued function of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government,” it states.
But it says flat out: “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.”
The document waves at the need to work closely with the other two branches, saying there will be “a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government.” But this effort will be “coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers.”
Among the efforts coordinated by the President would ensuring the capability of the three branches of government to “provide for orderly succession” and “appropriate transition of leadership.”
The document designates a National Continuity Coordinator, who would be the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.
Currently holding that post is Frances Fragos Townsend.
She is required to develop a National Continuity Implementation Plan and submit it within 90 days.
As part of that plan, she is not only to devise procedures for the Executive Branch but also give guidance to “state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure.”
The secretary of Homeland Security is also directed to develop planning guidance for “private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators,” as well as state, local, territorial, and tribal governments.
The document gives the Vice President a role in implementing the provisions of the contingency plans.
“This directive shall be implanted in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 USC 19), with the consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved.”
The document also contains “classified Continuity Annexes.”
Funny how this got no play from the righties on this board. They like to blissfully ignore the gradual installation of a f***ist government....
What's sad is that you guys continue to post these sort of "stats", only to hammer away at the current leadership.
"Stats"??? No, its called reality and real numbers that show that the current "leadership" has failed to provide it from the start... These "stats" show a conitued worsening of the caos created by Lord Bush's rush to war in this region and his great "surge" is a too little, too late stop gap attempt at salvaging his so called legacy. The time to send in the greatest number of troops was at the comencement of this war as he was advised by GENERALS to do so...
Quote:
Guess what - congress just approved a massive funding bill. Bush will remain in office for another 1.5 years and we will have men & women in Iraq at least for that long and probably a great deal longer.
Right, and remind us the reason why the massing funding bill is needed in the first place?
Come on 82, the blame for this rests solely on the Bush Administration and will continue to rest there even when he and his cohorts pawn this war off on future administrations. What's really sad is how some people like yourself seem to think Bush's responsibilty for this mess is absovled when he leaves office in early 2009...
Until this mess is over the hammering will continue to strike the flat head of Geroge Bush II;and rightfully so...
__________________ Goin' "Double Maverick!"
Last edited by LoyaltyisaCurse; May 28th, 2007 at 10:01 PM.
You want to show your support for the troops DEI - than actually DO that! The men & women who you feel have been asked to carry out a crime, who have been told to go and get killed and mamed for illegit purposes - support them! Or - continue on with your own form of ignorance - uh, I mean support...
And please enlighten us as to what that is 82...
Perhaps its undying support for Bush and his failed policies while making sure you have the American flag and yellow ribbons plastered on your Ford F-150?
Maybe people who are sick of this war and do not support the Iraq war feel that the best way to support the troops is to bring them home to their families uninjured and alive...
What makes you the authority on support? How are you supporting them? By continuing to shop at malls, buying gasoline, taking advantage of tax cuts during war time, and taking vacations?
What sacrifices has anyone in this country really made for the troops, including yourself?
Until you can provide some real insight in to that, get off your sanctimonious, "I am a better American than you" crap. Its the same old song and dance you have bee spewing since you came to this board; only now its much more subtle as to avoid a banning.
__________________ Goin' "Double Maverick!"
Last edited by LoyaltyisaCurse; May 28th, 2007 at 10:17 PM.
:
Linear Mode
