Marv81s and Irishtexan - Come to mama!

[cclanofirish]

I remember quite well how it started... The reasoning was irrelevant. Removing Saddam had been planned since before Bush walked into office.

Which, by they way, I am not claiming is WRONG. But it's just the way it was.

Once and for all, back up your BS and prove it. Words dont mean shit.

 

[cclanofirish]

Yeah, that is true. His actions are not even vaguely approaching treason...not even remotely.

Im glad youve come into the light.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Being the good little liberal follower, aint ya. Just pathetic.

Absolutely not. In this thread, I never said I did not support Iraq did I?

Do you not like the truth?

We are in Iraq to try to create a counter-weight to some evil dictatorships.

Is there something wrong with that? Why is that Liberal?

I find your lack of support or belief in the President's plan to do this to be pretty liberal...but to each his own.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Im glad youve come into the light.

You are the one dissing the President on his plans, not me.

However, I am clear on the plans..are you?

 

[cclanofirish]

Absolutely not. In this thread, I never said I did not support Iraq did I?

Do you not like the truth?

We are in Iraq to try to create a counter-weight to some evil dictatorships.

Is there something wrong with that? Why is that Liberal?

I find your lack of support or belief in the President's plan to do this to be pretty liberal...but to each his own.

What? Youve clearly been saying that Bush deserves to be tried for treason. Did I miss something?

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Once and for all, back up your BS and prove it. Words dont mean shit.

"The fact is we will not enjoy real stability in the Middle East until Saddam Hussein is gone." - Dick Cheney, October 2000

"Responding to a question about the stalemate with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Cheney -- who was defense secretary during the 1991 Gulf War that ousted Iraq from Kuwait -- said a Bush administration might "have to take military action to forcibly remove Saddam from power."" - Dick Cheney, October 2000

These thoughts were always there...which I am not saying is wrong. But it's not like they had some epipheny in 2001. Heck, Clinton talked about it in 1998.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

What? Youve clearly been saying that Bush deserves to be tried for treason. Did I miss something?

onenybrother said that, not me.

I have NEVER in my life stated that Bush should be tried for treason. So yes, you missed something.

 

[cclanofirish]

onenybrother said that, not me.

I have NEVER in my life stated that Bush should be tried for treason. So yes, you missed something.

Crap....got it mixed up. Sorry about that.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

So, which side are you on, the Commies or America. Afterall, its just another Cold War.

Roughly speaking I believe that our priorities are (in this order):
1) Counter Al Qaeda andits offshoots
2) Prevent Chinese Hegemony in Asia
3) Stop North Korea proliferating WMDs
4) Counter the rise of Islamo-Fascism (through support of Israel, Turkey, the Kurds, etc)
5) Counter the Russians...those bastards are still at it...and our eye fell off that ball

These are the greatest threats to our country right now... Removing Saddam would have been about #7 on my list. [with #6 being limiting the impact from Chavez, Morales, and Castro]

 

[punishment]

So, which side are you on, the Commies or America. Afterall, its just another Cold War.

This is a ridiculous statement. This whole your either with us or against conservative crap gets old. You're either for the war, or your a communist, what kind of crap is that? What is this, McCarthyism? Even during the cold war, "non-commies" were against war.

I've stayed out of these political threads because people take things too far. It's one thing to have a mature discussion, but to come out and throw personal insults at people is just flat out silly. These threads shouldn't even be in this forum, as people do not display the maturity and respect necessary to have these types of discussions.

Love_My_Irish, you will not convince anybody on these boards about a "liberal" point of view. These boards are 90% conservative, which is not surprising considering the make-up of the type of student that attends ND.

I would participate in these political forums originally, but they quickly turn to trades of insults. So its best to avoid them.

Oh, and not only am I a liberal, but I was also in the Army. What does that make me?

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Crap....got it mixed up. Sorry about that.

no worries...

I think you will find I am not hysterical. But I am terribly analytical.

If you really want to get into the deeper nature of our recent conflicts with Iraq, Iran, and Al Qaeda I would suggest you read www.stratfor.com

The have wonderful bulletins about security situations. You will find Dr George Friedman to have some wonderful analyses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Friedman

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Love_My_Irish, you will not convince anybody on these boards about a "liberal" point of view. These boards are 90% conservative, which is not surprising considering the make-up of the type of student that attends ND.

I would participate in these political forums originally, but they quickly turn to trades of insults. So its best to avoid them.

My viewpoint is not liberal, but its assumed to be so. Mainly because I follow global strategy not tactical press releases.

People think this is about topical issues like WMD or Oil or Halliburton.

NONE of those play into this on a grand scale...they are merely vehicles for discussions or reasons given to placate people of various ideologies.

Oh, and not only am I a liberal, but I was also in the Army. What does that make me?

Part of the 45% of the Armed forces that is not Republican I would guess...

 

[marv81s]

This is a B.S. arguement. Some people will never be able to connect the war in Iraq with the war on terrorism. You would think you all would have a better understanding about the stakes of the war in Iraq compared to what we are now up going through with Iran. Could you imagine if we did nothing and Saddam and this nutjob in Iran? Saddam had connections to Al Qaeda, not saddam himself, but members of his reigme. Sorry, that is a fact. I blame Bush for not educating more of America for the reasons of the Iraq war, but none the less, this is an extension of the war on Terrorism. Also, I really hate to tell you guys, but Two of Saddam's generals, one was a the top Air Force general for Iraq, admitted that some of the WMDs were flown out of Iraq right before we invaded Iraq. I can't remember the book, but I remember seeing the general on a TV special on PBS. No I don't watch PBS all the time, but I did that night. We will never agree on this subject, but I will always believe that this was the right thing to do and you have no idea how much you hurt our soldiers or vets, when you say that these soldiers are dying for nothing or a bullshit cause, nothing is farther from the truth!!!!

 

[punishment]

My viewpoint is not liberal, but its assumed to be so. Mainly because I follow global strategy not tactical press releases.

People think this is about topical issues like WMD or Oil or Halliburton.

NONE of those play into this on a grand scale...they are merely vehicles for discussions or reasons given to placate people of various ideologies.



Part of the 45% of the Armed forces that is not Republican I would guess...

That's why I put "liberal" in quotations. I probably should have said "perceived liberal point of view."

But I think that more than 45% of the military is not a Republican. Or maybe it was just my experience. Never really mingled with the officers too much, who tend to be highly Republican.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Some people will never be able to connect the war in Iraq with the war on terrorism. You would think you all would have a better understanding about the stakes of the war in Iraq compared to what we are now up going through with Iran. Could you imagine if we did nothing and Saddam and this nutjob in Iran? Saddam had connections to Al Qaeda, not saddam himself, but members of his reigme. Sorry, that is a fact. I blame Bush for not educating more of America for the reasons of the Iraq war, but none the less, this is an extension of the war on Terrorism. Also, I really hate to tell you guys, but Two of Saddam's generals, one was a the top Air Force general for Iraq, admitted that some of the WMDs were flown out of Iraq right before we invaded Iraq. I can't remember the book, but I remember seeing the general on a TV special on PBS. No I don't watch PBS all the time, but I did that night. We will never agree on this subject, but I will always believe that this was the right thing to do and you have no idea how much you hurt our soldiers or vets, when you say that these soldiers are dying for nothing or a bullshit cause, nothing is farther from the truth!!!!

There is no link to Iraq and terrorism. That's a truth, not a perception or belief.

I have a clear understanding of the stakes. Iran is a far greater threat. They have delivery vehicles, the ability to make WMD, and the desire to use them. Two things Saddam did not have.

I can very well imagine what would have happened if we did nothing to Saddam. NOTHING. He was militarily and financially incapacitated. Iran is not.

When did I say it was a bullshit cause? I had them as #7 on my list of important items. I just see MORE important items than that one. Like Countering Islamo-fascism. Just for the record, Saddam was an effective deterrent against Islamo-fascism...just ask the thousands of Shiites he killed.

Just because I believe we should defend America should in no way affect America's Vets. My top5 items were in pure defense of America. Invading Iraq in no way improved our security...it did IN FACT allow Iran to rear its ugly head with no fear of retaliation.

At times, I am sorry that so many people feel we should sacrifice the security of America for the security of Iraq. However, in the end the people of Iraq will be better off. So from a humanitarian perspective sacrificing Americans for Iraqis is pretty noble.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

That's why I put "liberal" in quotations. I probably should have said "perceived liberal point of view."

But I think that more than 45% of the military is not a Republican. Or maybe it was just my experience. Never really mingled with the officers too much, who tend to be highly Republican.

In the 2004 election I heard 45%. In previous elections it was more like 40%. However, the lower you go in the ranks, the more Democrat the Army becomes...and vice versa for Republicans.

Yeah, the liberal-conservative thing is weird, since there are more than just TWO viewpoints on the war.

I personally think a pull-out would be a drastic mistake...and in fact, that we are NOW best served by really increasing the overall power of the Sunnis, which will in turn force them to stop supporting the insurgency. With a more balanced power sharing in place we are on good footing.

And, while I believe an semi-autonomous Kurdistan is in order, economically it should be part of Iraq since they are sitting on a bunch of oil, etc. If the country devolves into regions the Sunnis will be left with nothing and will initiate a Civil War. So we need to politically separate the 3 factions while tying them together economically.

It's really the only way to salvage the current situation and bring peace to Iraq.

At that point, the country will be on its own...but let's face it, it will not really be a strong counter to Islamo-fascists since it was never viewed as an Islamic state. Unlike Iran which is Islamo-fascist and serves as a beacon of hope to other countries. Unfortunately, they are getting so much good press from telling the US to get fucked on Nuclear Arms.

Had we done Iraq right we might have settled it down earlier and would thus present a much larger threat to Iran...thus deterring them more.

 

[irishtexan]

Liberal, Republican, I dont care. If I go to Iraq it is to watch the back of the Marine beside me. I dont care who agrees with this war or who doesn't but I sure as hell will stand next to any American and fight beside him, no matter where that might be.

 

[lattedatte]

Here's what I think about Iraq in general.

1. There must be a difference Iraq and terror if we attacked Iraq. Why, because arguably N. Korea and Iran have aided and harbored terrorist more and we haven't attacked them. Inconsistency.

2. I think most of us would have went to Iraq considering the timing, close to 9/11 and the intelligence presented, WMD's and aiding terrorist.

3. Tactical errors. This is what I have the most issues with and agree with the dems, if they would just ever say it instead of their typical cryptic messages. Bush and cronies underestimated the amount of effort it would take to accomplish the task, didn't give adequate support to our troops(armor, etc.), the obvious poor training of iraqi troops if our troops still in harm's way instead of Iraqi's. This is consistent with everything this president has done, he has great ideas, but cannot implement them and in this case it has cost too many American lives. That is inexcusable.

 

[marv81s]

Liberal, Republican, I dont care. If I go to Iraq it is to watch the back of the Marine beside me. I dont care who agrees with this war or who doesn't but I sure as hell will stand next to any American and fight beside him, no matter where that might be.

OOH F'n RAH Irishtexan!!!!

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Liberal, Republican, I dont care. If I go to Iraq it is to watch the back of the Marine beside me. I dont care who agrees with this war or who doesn't but I sure as hell will stand next to any American and fight beside him, no matter where that might be.

Exactly as it should be.

My ex-boss and good friend was an O-4 over in Afghanistan and Iraq. And he told me a lot of stories... Our boys sticking together is the key theme and is of utmost importance. That's what will bring back as many of our young men and women ALIVE and in ONE PIECE as possible.

 

[marv81s]

There is no link to Iraq and terrorism. That's a truth, not a perception or belief.

I have a clear understanding of the stakes. Iran is a far greater threat. They have delivery vehicles, the ability to make WMD, and the desire to use them. Two things Saddam did not have.

I can very well imagine what would have happened if we did nothing to Saddam. NOTHING. He was militarily and financially incapacitated. Iran is not.

When did I say it was a bullshit cause? I had them as #7 on my list of important items. I just see MORE important items than that one. Like Countering Islamo-fascism. Just for the record, Saddam was an effective deterrent against Islamo-fascism...just ask the thousands of Shiites he killed.

Just because I believe we should defend America should in no way affect America's Vets. My top5 items were in pure defense of America. Invading Iraq in no way improved our security...it did IN FACT allow Iran to rear its ugly head with no fear of retaliation.

At times, I am sorry that so many people feel we should sacrifice the security of America for the security of Iraq. However, in the end the people of Iraq will be better off. So from a humanitarian perspective sacrificing Americans for Iraqis is pretty noble.

I suggest you read some of these articles on the Saddam and terror connection, yes i know some of you THINK Foxnews is a conservative based news program, but to me and others, it is the only news program that gives people the news, without a political agenda, as well as the weekly standard.

http://www.foxnews.com/column_archive/0,2976,146,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199053,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199757,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200908,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202277,00.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/768rwsbj.asp

Why the Bush administration doesn't make more of this public is beyond me. They have made COLOSSAL errors in this war, that is a no brainer. Every war has had mistakes, big and small. If half of what some of these generals are saying is true about Rumsfield, then I have no idea why Bush hasn't accepted his resignation. I can't stand arm chair generals calling the shots, like what happened in Vietnam.

At the time of the Iraq invasion, Saddam was a bigger threat than Iran. The nutjob president in Iran was elected after the Iraq war. If we hadn't have taken Saddam out, we would be dealing with two crazy idiots right now. Not sure where you believe Saddam didnt' have the finicial capability to develop a nuke. He didn't have the capability, but he had the abilities to build other forms of WMDs, he had terrorist training camps up in northern iraq, he was paying 20K to suicide bombers families over in lebanon to blow up jews, he was murdering his own people, gassed his own people, torturing his own people. etc, so maybe that is what you meant by Saddam was an effective deterrent against Islamo-fascism.

When you stated in the past that you think the soldiers are dying for an unknow cause, some may take that as you believing that the cause is B.S. that is how i take it, but i am a little sensitive when it comes to this subject. I think what we are fighting for is a great thing, it is to give those people over in iraq the same freedom that we over here have and a lot of people take for granted.

 

[lattedatte]

I agree 100%, i just wish we had better leaders, sitting in their Ivory towers in DC., to carry out that belief. Our soldiers, who don't wan't to get involved in politics, deserve that. Where are the FDR's at? The Lincoln's? Even at a much lower level the reagan's or clinton's, regarless of your pol. beliefs both were able to gain support for what they believed in. Bush can't even gain support of his on party, that is a sign of a poor leader and don't forget i voted for him.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Why the Bush administration doesn't make more of this public is beyond me.

If they thought it had legs, they would encourage it to run. Karl Rove, NEVER, looks past stuff like this.

If half of what some of these generals are saying is true about Rumsfield, then I have no idea why Bush hasn't accepted his resignation. I can't stand arm chair generals calling the shots, like what happened in Vietnam.

That's why many officers call him Donald McNamara Rumsfeld

At the time of the Iraq invasion, Saddam was a bigger threat than Iran.

Simply not true. Saddam had no ability to project power. He was no more a threat to us than the saber rattling we have heard from Venezuela.

The nutjob president in Iran was elected after the Iraq war. If we hadn't have taken Saddam out, we would be dealing with two crazy idiots right now.

Saddam was not crazy. He was evil. Big difference. He was as logical as anyone up until the end. He just read the tea leaves wrong. His loss.

Iran has been filled with nutjobs since the 70's. Nothing has changed in that regard. Admittedly the last President did not wave his fist so much...but the fact is Iranian policy towards the US has not really changed. They are merely exploiting our weaknesses right now.

Not sure where you believe Saddam didnt' have the finicial capability to develop a nuke. He didn't have the capability, but he had the abilities to build other forms of WMDs

It's not the money, its the facilities. And it's clear that our intelligence services did not agree that he was doing anything...in fact they leaned towards NOT. However, the data was filtered by politicos in the Pentagon...

he was paying 20K to suicide bombers families over in lebanon to blow up jews, he was murdering his own people, gassed his own people, torturing his own people. etc, so maybe that is what you meant by Saddam was an effective deterrent against Islamo-fascism.

Yup. He did all those evil things. He killed thousands of Shiites in the name of containing Islamo-Facism (remember he was NOT a Muslim...he was a poser at best). However, he was a balancing power to Iran and Syria. That's why *WE* helped arm him. He balanced them out.

When you stated in the past that you think the soldiers are dying for an unknow cause, some may take that as you believing that the cause is B.S. that is how i take it, but i am a little sensitive when it comes to this subject. I think what we are fighting for is a great thing, it is to give those people over in iraq the same freedom that we over here have and a lot of people take for granted.

Agreed. People think we are fighting for US National security. And that is simply not the case.

We are fighting strategically to create a democratically elected government that will hopefull balance out the neighboring countries...and (it is believed by the Administration) that Democracy will flourish in other countries in that region once they realize how cool Democracy is.

My feeling is that the Islamo-fascists won't care.

Now, tactically, in order to leave we are fighting for exactly what you stated. "to give those people over in iraq the same freedom that we over here have and a lot of people take for granted"

But few people realize those two things...most think its about National Security.

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

Here are what I have come to believe are the facts on the Iraq War.

1. The Bush administration has really strong beliefs about the reformatory and progressive powers of Democracy.
2. They wanted to experiment with it in the middle east to kill extremism in the long-term.
3. Iraq was chosen because of its location and, more importantly, its oil. Oil is key because Iraq was supposed to be the 'spark' of a regional revolution; when Middle Easterners saw a successful, stable democracy being run by the people, they were supposed to take actions by which to follow suit. The oil was important because it is, simply put, money. It was supposed to finance the reconstruction of Iraq and its future success in the political, economic, and eventually social arenas. In short, oil would make the country wealthy and stable, which would make it even more appealing to the rest of the middle east.
4. No one really knew anything about the sunni-shiite rift or the important role played by tribalism.
5.The administration might have believed that they wouldn't find WMD in Iraq, but were so interested in applying their doctrine that they did what they had to: they lied to congress. And the best way for them to get their way was to tell the American people they were in imminent danger. Congress won't buy a project in democracy when it takes place in the Middle East, Africa, or most of Asia.
6. Everyone thought it would be swift and easy.
7. Donald Rumsfeld is an idiot and quite possibly, the worst defense secretary in American history.
8. The ideas about democracy are still entirely correct. The faults of this war lie entirely in its mismanagement.
9. It probably can't be won.. not anymore, at least.

 

[BGIF]

Liberal, Republican, I dont care. If I go to Iraq it is to watch the back of the Marine beside me. I dont care who agrees with this war or who doesn't but I sure as hell will stand next to any American and fight beside him, no matter where that might be.

Irishtexan and Marv,

I'm sorry I posted this thread.

I did it in the spirit of Semper Fi not for some of the inane statements made as pro or con about Iraq.

Unfortunately most of those posting would get an "F" in American History.

 

[BGIF]

I suggest you read some of these articles on the Saddam and terror connection, yes i know some of you THINK Foxnews is a conservative based news program, but to me and others, it is the only news program that gives people the news, without a political agenda, as well as the weekly standard.

The Weekly Standard doesn't have a political agenda? I suppose the ADA doesn't have a political agenda either. Or is it only the organizations that you identify with that are apolitical?

You present some good points but claiming the Weekly Standard doesn't have a political agenda is naive. And I'm being charitable.

 

[BGIF]

I agree 100%, i just wish we had better leaders, sitting in their Ivory towers in DC., to carry out that belief. Our soldiers, who don't wan't to get involved in politics, deserve that. Where are the FDR's at? The Lincoln's? Even at a much lower level the reagan's or clinton's, regarless of your pol. beliefs both were able to gain support for what they believed in. Bush can't even gain support of his on party, that is a sign of a poor leader and don't forget i voted for him.

Where are the FDR's at?

Hopefully, dead and buried. Yes, let's get a leader like the one that gave away the store to Stalin. FDR is every bit the Father of the Cold War as meglomanic Joe Stalin. You aren't familiar with political events of WWII are you? Or war strategy. Do you know who ordered the Pacific Fleet to be moved from West Coast ports to Pearl Harbor?

(Where are )The Lincoln's

?
You mean the leader who's election led to the death of half a milllion Americans? The leader who suspended habeus corpus? Who imprisoned thousands of political opponents? (No puny wire taps, just jail cells. Not outside the confines of the U.S. but in the Washington, D.C., military jails, civil jails, anywhere they could be shut up) Who violated the law with the "vote" on West Virginia independence? Who possibly violated the Constitution more times in 4 years than all the other Presidents combined? The President whose own party tried to dump his re-election? Who openly plotted against him?

Even at a much lower level the reagan's or clinton's regarless of your pol. beliefs both were able to gain support for what they believed in.

Dems vilified Reagan as much as Republicans vilified Clinton. Want to tell me about the brillance of Reagan and Clinton's as CINC? You aren't old enough to remember 220 Marines killed in a terrorist bombing due to inadequate security because the Lebanese barracks held down deployment costs. Were you old enough to watch dead Americans dragged through the streets of Mogadishu because Clinton and Aspin didn't want to spend money on armor to support the troops?

Bush can't even gain support of his on party, that is a sign of a poor leader ...

See Lincoln, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, et al

 

[BGIF]

...

Saddam had no ability to project power. He was no more a threat to us than the saber rattling we have heard from Venezuela.

Damn, I guess musta dreamt he dropped chemical weapons on the Kurds and Shites (his own and the Iranians. His invasion of Iran never happened either. Nor his invasion of Kuwait. Desert Storm and all the allies including Muslim nations was a myth, wasn't it?

Funny I remember the world economy being destabilized but you're probably right that's not National Security if we went back to the horse and buggy era (even though we don't have the 100 million or so horses we'd need for commuting much less for industry).

He was as logical as anyone up until the end.

Invading Kuwait was logical? Not withdrawing from Kuwait when facing vastly superior forces was logical too in your illogical mind. Years later, attacking No Fly Zone Allied Aircraft with missiles was logical when he had no Air Force? Fighting a second war instead of suing for peace was logical, I suppose too?

...most think its about National Security.

I'd like to see you riding a horse to work or walking.

 

[BGIF]

Here are what I have come to believe are the facts on the Iraq War.

4. No one really knew anything about the sunni-shiite rift or the important role played by tribalism.
...
7. Donald Rumsfeld is an idiot and quite possibly, the worst defense secretary in American history.
8. The ideas about democracy are still entirely correct. The faults of this war lie entirely in its mismanagement.
9. It probably can't be won.. not anymore, at least.

Oglaigh you usually put forth cogent arguments. This one is bad. I'm not going to honor them with a a point by point.

#4. The United States made use of tribalism (outside the U.S.A.) as far back as the Napoleonic era. France and England were the big players in the Sunni-Shite Rift and they never missed an opportunity to fan the flames of tribalism. Try the French and Indian War (where Washington cut his teeth) for a look at the M.O. See the Brits in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. The Brits in Africa and India. They were masters of injecting tribal friction to thwart nationalism.

Are you familiar with the Sykes Picot Agreement? It's guaranteed almost non-stop regional strife in Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria for most of a century.

Our State Department, War/Defense Department, and Executive and Legislative Branches all have had their fare share of bungling tribal issues in this part of the world and others since Washington said, "Don't get involved".

#7 See Lovemyirish's comments on "Robert McNamara" Rumsfeld. There's a reason he referred to the architect of the Vietnam War. You may want to read up a little bit about Lincoln's Sec of War Stanton. FDR's Sec War Woodring doesn't get a leadership award either. And we can add a more than a few Sec State's.

Your #8 and #9 contradict each other. If the ideas of democracy are still correct then all we have to do is correct the management mistakes and we're home. You note the fault is entirely with mismanagement. You omit that we tried to foist not merely a regime change but a change in a nation's style of government, a change that clashes with it's fundamental tribal culture.

 

[marv81s]

Irishtexan and Marv,

I'm sorry I posted this thread.

I did it in the spirit of Semper Fi not for some of the inane statements made as pro or con about Iraq.

Unfortunately most of those posting would get an "F" in American History.

Its a hot button topic BGIF, and I am as guilty as anybody when it comes to posting some of the commets on here. I am one that believes 1000% in the cause of why we are in Iraq and I see it as part of the war on Terror. And like Irishtexan said, if I get called, I get called and I'll gladly serve and stand with my marine corps brothers and sisters and protect their back.

And I admit me saying that the Weekly Standard doesn't have a political agenda was a "tad" off base, at best. All your post on here are outstanding!!!!!