" It is time to declare you a total fool and send you to tell your mother she wants you!"

Now you've gone and made him cry.

Hey ParaTed, guess what? You've already lost your argument genius! Know whay? Because instead of contering Virupaksha's post with some facts of your own, you started out by calling him a fool and letting all the rest of us know that you don't have a good arguement to counter his with! Nice going! Now you've just made yourself look like the schoolyard bully who just pushed him off of the swing set, kicked him in the head, took his lunch money and says "Watch where your going faggot!" as you walk off to search for a little girl to punch.

Gezz man, it's not even constructive smack talk. I mean if you want to talk smack, fine, have at it! But use some imagination for crying out loud! That is what I can't understand about the far right sometimes! Instead of using the brains that God gave them whenever they want to debate with a Liberal and get their point aross, they resort to calling them terrorist loving cowards and traitors who deserve to be shot between the eyes. As if not liking the war was treason against the state punishable by death!

So pay attention boys and girls, school is in session. Here's a lesson on how to talk smack:

The one thing I am really sick and tired of are some of the crew on the right who talk a good game, but are not willing to back it up with any kind of action. So here's my challenge to all those who consider themselves "Red": why don't you bible-thumping, anti-equality, anti-employee, pro-big business, anti-abortion, pro-death, pro tax-and-spend-and-welch-on-the-debt freaks on the right start walking the walk for a change. Starting with you ParaTed. You love this country so much? You support this President and what he stands for so much? You support this war and all the troops fighting in it so much? Then prove it! Instead of talking the talk and calling guys like Virupaksha cowards, why don't you do something to prove to the rest of us that you are a patriotic American? It's really simple so even you should be able to pull this off, and you'll only have to do one thing...

Enlist.

Instead of taking guys like Virupaksha to task for their opinion, why don't go down to your local recruitment office, become an Army of One, fly out to the gulf and start putting bullets into all the insurgents you can find? You really love this country? I want to see you prove it! I want to see you do something besides pumnp out insults on your keyboard all day long whenever your not living in your parents basement, sitting on the couch in your underware watching the Military Channel all day long.

Oh by the way Ted, here's a little tip for you...

When you start to notice that your genitallia is turning orange, that's a signal that you should back away from the Cheetoes.


And that boys and girls is how you talk smack...

So do trhe rest of us with brains and imagination a favor, if you are going to debate someone on their political views, don't resort to the tired old 6th grade schoolyard crap that I see in the local fishwrap everyday. It just shows that not only are you incapable of using what little brains God saw fit to bless you with, it just defeats your whole arguement and it makes people not take you seriously.

Now, you want to know how this should have been handled? Take out your notebooks and observe...

Virupaksha, where are you getting your facts and figures from? Are you refering to the new Washington Post-ABC News poll? If so, could you please be more specific as to what the results actually said? For example:

"The survey found that only one in eight Americans currently favors an immediate pullout of U.S. forces, while a solid majority continues to agree with Bush that the United States must remain in Iraq until civil order is restored -- a goal that most of those surveyed acknowledge is, at best, several years away.

Amid broad skepticism about Bush's credibility and whether the war was worth the cost, there were some encouraging signs for the president. A narrow majority -- 52 percent -- currently believe that the war has contributed to the long-term security of the United States, a five-point increase from earlier this month...

So far, continuing spasms of violence in Iraq are competing with regular declarations of progress in Washington. Few people agree with Vice President Cheney's recent claim that the insurgency is in its "last throes." The survey found that 22 percent of Americans -- barely one in five -- say they believe that the insurgency is getting weaker, while 24 percent believe it is strengthening. More than half -- 53 percent -- say resistance to U.S. and Iraqi government forces has not changed, a view that matches the assessment offered last week in congressional testimony by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. John P. Abizaid.

Views of the current status of the insurgency were deeply colored by partisanship. More than a third of all Republicans, 35 percent, agreed with the administration that the insurgents were growing weaker in Iraq, compared with 13 percent of all Democrats and 19 percent of all political independents..."

A little more information please about what the poll was actually saying. Like the fact that a total of 1,004 randomly selected adults were interviewed by telephone June 23-26 for the survey.

And by the way, about Al-Queda becoming stronger, do you have any hard evidence to back that up or is that just your own personal opinion? Myself, I haven't seen any evidence to back up such a claim so could you provide a source for me to go to so that I can read it and make up my own mind?


That's what I mean. If you want to be skeptikal and want him to back up what he is saying whit facts then fine. But to resort to name calling? It doesn't make you right...

...it just makes you look like a liberal.

That's what I mean. If you want to be skeptikal and want him to back up what he is saying whit facts then fine. But to resort to name calling? It doesn't make you right...

There has been a number of learned reviews in Foreign Affairs and the recent writings of a neo conservative like LUttwak that covers the same ground. As for AL Qaeda, the Press all over Asia and even Europe has been saying that this terrorist group has become active. AS far as Iraq is concerned the USA has not been able to stop the flow of trained terrorists from Saudi Arabia and other regions.

Notice how dubya again linked the invasion in Iraq with 9/11. It was subtle, but it was there. "We will fight the war on terror no matter where they are." (paraphrasing). But, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or the terrorists until we mucked up the country. Now it sure does.

Yes, there were no terrorists operating in Iraq prior to Bush removing Saddam. If anyone thinks because they are operating in Iraq we are safer they are dangerously naïve. In addition to the terrorists operating in Iraq, they have begun to regrouping in Afghanistan. We have not weakened there movement we have enabled it and given the terrorists a great recruiting tool to gather more of the nuts that would inflict another 9/11 or worse in the United States.

Bush said absolutely nothing new in this great speech last night! He says the same things over and over. We must stay the course. We were right to go into Iraq and the continued reference to 9/11 and the war on terrorism in Iraq. None of what Bush said is any more true today then it was the first time he said it!!!!! There is no evidence that 9/11 was planned or executed by anyone in Iraq! Where it was planned, we are fiddling around and have allowed Osama bin Laden to remain free because we have not committed the necessary resources to finish the job in Afghanistan were 9/11 was hatched. As to the number of troops needed in Iraq, every general that told Bush what he needed has somehow retired. Tommy Franks said he needed 300,000 troops in Iraq the day that Saddam Hussein fell in order to control the country. Bush provided about 130,000 of the 300,000 and as a result our military could not control the borders, prevent the enemy from using the ammunition dumps, clean out the pockets of resistance that were bypassed on our rush to Baghdad or safeguard the infrastructure that the American taxpayer is paying to rebuild. Both the decision to go into Iraq was flawed as well as the execution of that plan because Bush doesn't know what he is doing!

Bush didn't avoid the issues, he addressed them. You just don't like his answers. Big difference. If you can't express your views and be honest at the same time, why do you bother?

Whether you agree or disagree with the reasons behind the war, the reality is we are there now. There is no magic time machine that can go back and change that fact. Some of you would like to see us just pull out and leave the Iraqis to their fate. That's unrealistic and cruel.

Now that we are there, we have a responsibility to ensure that those people have a chance of establishing a solid government and a peaceful society for themselves. That means protecting them from the foreign terrorists (not rebels, insurgents, or freedom fighters...they're terrorists) until they are in a reasonable position to defend themselves.

To do otherwise at this point is simply cruel and heartless.

Gen Franks Op Plan 1003(Iraq War Plan) is detailed in The Price of Loyalty by Ron Susking. On page 95, the requirements for troop strength is laid out. Per Gen Franks, The day Saddam falls he said we need 300,000 troops to establish and maintain control of Iraq. Gen Shinseci, Former Army CoS told Bush it would take "several Hubdred Thousand Boots on the Ground" in Iraq. Amb. Paul Bremen said he asked Bush for more troops and Bush did NOTHING to provide the added troops! We never establish the proper control of the borders, amo dumps, areas of unrest or protect things like water and oil lines etc.

Here's a tip for your smack-talk, when you want to challenge someone's patriotism like that, make sure you aren't talking to a veteran.

Well what gives a veteran the right to question someone elses patriotism and threaten that person into silence? Is that what they have all been fighting for, the right to silence anybody whose views they don't agree with? I don't think so! As soon as we do that, we become just like the very thing that our troops have been fighting against. We become the very monster that we have been trying so hard to destroy. The First Amendment does not say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances except in cases where the views expressed are not in line with the far-right conservatives." There is no exception made.

As far as questioning his patriotism - that is exactly what ParaTed did to Virupaksha. I turned the tables on him. So what? My point is if he thinks that he has the right to openly question the patriotism of someone else because of what they believe, then he should expect someone else, somewhere along the line to question him. He should not expect to have it both ways, veteran or no. Being a veteran gets you a lot of respect from some quarters, but it doesn't and it should not give you license to act or speak in a dishororable fashion. When you do that, you cheapen the honor and reputation of all veterans - including my late Grandfather who ran away from home at the age of 14 and lied about his age so that he could join the Navy and support his family, who served his country for the better part of 38 years, who was sationed at Pearl Harbor 7 Dec 41 and lived to tell the tale, who served in every major theatre in the Pacific including Midway, Guadacanal and the Phillipines, who came home to raise a family and taught us to respect and honor our country and all those who fought and died for her, who passed away 11 years ago and whose presence I miss to this day.

So if ParaTed is a veteran then I say good for him, more power to him. That still doesn't give him license to act in a manner unbecoming to someone who has defended our rights to express ourselves freely. There are better ways for him to get his point across than lashing out like that, because when he does that it dishonors all veterans out there including my Grandfather, and that is something that I take very personally.

For that he should be ashamed of himself.

See, that's a bit of a problem. I've tried to enlist. I've been medically barred from enlistment.

Same here. I have a lot of small physical problems that if it was was just limited to one wouldn't disqualify me, but add them all up and they make me physically unfit for duty. Bad knees, bad back, bad feet, bad eyes and a genetic disposition for diabetes made the recruiters say "Sorry son, can't use you. Besides your age disqualifies you even if were were fit." (I'm 38)

So, if military service is all that is required to prove patriotism and support, does this meet your level of proof?

Nope, it's not just millitary service, its more than that. It also has to do with respecting the views and opinions of others who may not agree with your own. That is waht I was taught, and that is what a lot of the wives that I work with in my office who were left behind when the 116th was deployed to Iraq believe as well. They know that there are people out there who think of their husbands as "baby killers", they know this yet they still feel that they are entitled to their opinions because that is one of the things their husbands are fighting for.

Myself? I was working for a circuit board manufacturer that produces some of the components that go into some of the cruise missles and tanks being used in the Gulf right now. At least I was until I was downsized. Now I've got a different job but I still want to support our troops somehow. So my wife ran across http://www.anysoldier.com/index.cfmLink where you can send care packages to the troops overseas - which we have done and will continue to do when our finances allow for it. I fly my flag (weather permitting), I display those magnetic ribbons on my car, I wear a flag pin with a yellow ribbon on it that I still have from the Gulf War everytime I go to work, everytime I meet a veteran on the job I thank him or her for their service and tell them about my Grandfather.

So no, it's not just military service. There are all sorts of small ways that we can all show our support. I have a friend at my office who is in the Naval Reserves. He wqas called to do his two-week stint this last Mother's Day. As soon as he got onboard - they shipped out. For a while there it looked as if they were going to be sent to the Gulf. His wife and their four kids were on pins and needles at home wondering when - or if - daddy was ever going to come home. We were all there to support them and give them a shoulder to lean on.

And we all breathed a sigh of relief when my friend came home this past month, safe and sound.

So there are other ways of supporting the troops - like giving aid and comfort to those who are left behind. Sometimes they are the ones who need the support the most.

LW is correct! "BEFORE" you start talking "smack" about someone and questioning their patriotism, you should "first" inquire as to whether or not they're a vet! Which just for "your" info you'll find that most of us here are vets or the spouse of a current military member. And for the record are you now or have you ever been in the US military? If not it's time to put up or shut up.

See? This is what I am talking about - disrespect.

I know that a lot of you may feel that I showed a lot of disrespect for ParaTed in my post - and you know what? You're right, I did! I DID IT TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT!!!!!! The point is if you disrespect someones viewpoint and question their patriotism, then you should expect the same thing to be visited upon your house! You shouldn't expect to-have-it-both-ways!

Now don't get me wrong, I love smack talk (which should be fairly obvious right about now), as long as it's intelligent smack talk and it shows some imagination. What ParaTed was doing was just the same-old-same-old crap that we have been hearing and seeing for the past year in the local fishwrap. By this point it is nothing but dull and totally without merit.

You want to go after someone's viewpoints? Go ahead, have at it! But do it in a way that makes me not think that we are all nothing but a bunch of smack talking gangstas who are being manipulated in someone else's version of Grand Theft Auto: Red vs Blue. That's what we've become people! We're not talking about Conservatives vs Liberals, Republicans vs Democrats, or Red Vs Blue anymore...we're talking the Bloods vs Crips. That's what we've turned into now! We've turned into a couple of street gangs fighting for territory, only it's not over who gets to sell what drugs on certain street corners. Now we're fighting over who gets to say what about whom and how often do they get to say it.

I swear, I'm waiting for the day when I open up my local fishwrap and read about how some Conservative Republican is in jail because he put a shotgun into the grill of some Liberal Democrat and pulled the trigger because he didn't like his views on the war.

Come on people, enough is enough.

Whats more important is that we give the terrorists what they need, a ton of bombs and lots of caskets!

they can banish on a whim, though I've never seen it done.

Ha, ha.

Ok, I will cop to this: at no time in his post did ParaTed actually say threaten Bahu into shutting up "or else". You guys are right about that and I was wrong to insinuate that.

Now, I have a question for ya...how is the language that Ted used not threatening? I hear this all the time on the radio, in the fishwrap, I see it everywhere. The insinuation in using this kind of language is that "you'd better keep your mouth shut if you don't agree with me...or else."

Now, drmiler, you say you served six years in the Navy? Fantastic! Fanfreakingtastic! I'm not being sarcastic when I say this either when I say thank you.

Now, I noticed that in your quote you stopped at a certain point and didn't include...

I know that a lot of you may feel that I showed a lot of disrespect for ParaTed in my post - and you know what? You're right, I did! I DID IT TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT!!!!!!

Which was all I was trying to do. Hello.

Now, did I go too far? Eh, I'll admit to that and say yeah, I did.

That's all. I'll leave it at that and say yeah, I went too far.

Posted by: Robert Cox at October 28, 2004 02:09 PM

For what it's worth, here's the connection, from my original post. It was no videoconference. They were asked to change their focus to Iraq.

http://www.topdog04.com/000781.html

Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack:

When he was back at the Pentagon, two miles from the White House across the Potomac River in Virginia, Rumsfeld immediately had the Joint Staff begin drafting a Top Secret message to General Franks requesting a "commander's estimate," a new take on the status of the Iraq war plan and what Franks thought could be done to improve it. The general would have about a week to make a formal presentation to Rumsfeld. (Page 5)

"Hey," Newbold said in his best take-notice voice, "I've got a real tough problem for you. The secretary's going to ask you to start looking at your Iraq planning in great detail - and give him a new commander's estimate."

"You got to be shitting me," Renuart said. "We're only kind of busy on some other things right now. Are you sure?"

"Well, yeah. It's coming. So stand by."

The current Iraq war plan, Op Plan 1003, was some 200 pages with 20-plus annexes numbering another 600 pages on logistics, intelligence, air, land and sea operations. According to this plan, it would take the United States roughly seven months to move a force of 500,000 to the Middle East before launching military operations. Renuart went to see General Franks, who had received only a vague indication there had been discussion in Washington about the Iraq war plan. Renuart now had more detail.

"Hey, boss," Renuart said, reporting that a formal request of a commander's estimate was coming. "So we'd better get on it."

Franks was incredulous. They were in the midst of one war, Afghanistan, and now they wanted detailed planning for another, Iraq? "Goddamn," Franks said, "what the fuck are they talking about?" (Page 8)

That morning, six days after the president's request on the Iraq war plan, Rumsfeld flew to see General Franks at CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa. After greeting everyone, he kicked Franks's staff as well as his own aides out of the room, even telling his military assistant, Vice Admiral Giambastiani, "Ed, I need you to step outside."

"Pull the Iraq planning out and let's see where we are," Rumsfeld told Franks when they were alone. (Page 36)

"Let's put together a group that can just think outside the box completely," Rumsfeld ordered. "Certainly we have traditional military planning, but let's take away the constraints a little bit and think about what might be a way to solve this problem." (Page 37)

Four days later, December 1, a Saturday, Rumsfeld sent through the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a Top Secret planning order to Franks asking him to come up with the commander's estimate to build the base of a new Iraq war plan. In two pages the order said Rumsfeld wanted to know how Franks would conduct military operations to remove Saddam from power, eliminate the threat of any possible weapons of mass destruction, and choke off his suspected support of terrorism. This was the formal order for thinking outside the box.

The Pentagon was supposed to give Franks 30 days to come up with his estimate - an overview and a concept for something new, a first rough cut. "He had a month and we took 27 days away," recalled Marine General Pete Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a Rumsfeld favorite. Franks was to report in person three days later. (Page 38)

Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack: December 12 he and Renuart returned to the Pentagon to give Rumsfeld their update. (Page 42)

Franks got only another week before Rumsfeld summoned him back to the Pentagon on December 19 for the third iteration. (Page 43)

Posted by: topdog04 [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 6, 2005 02:30 PM

The total force was 500,000 and the force level the day Saddam fell was 300,000. Bush screrwed the pooch and brave American military lost their lives because of the choice Bush made to go it on the cheep in Iraq.