Obama sends more troops to the middle east

• Obama sends more troops to the middle east - icytoes
  • are we getting enough war in our diet? - mk
  • Iraq is a Middle Eastern country, Afghanistan NOT..sm - van
    • Obama on his decision to deploy additional 17,000 troops in Afghanistan..sm - van
    • Thank you van - and thank you for being civil - icytoes
      • Every one makes mistakes, it is enough - van
  • Please try to keep the facts straight...(sm) - Just the big bad
    • Don't waste your time, JBB - Reality Check
    • It's deceiving - icytoes
      • Obama/Afghanistan - they say will stay in America instead
      • And Africa is a Continent! nm - sm
        • What are you talking about - what does Africa have to do with any of this - icytoes
          • I think what 'sm' meant when she said... - van
      • Despite your attempt at spin - Afghan and Iraq are 2 different wars.....nm - sm
        • Actually, it was my understanding that both arenas represent the - SM
          • Afghanistan - war on Al Quaeda and Taliban; Iraqi FREEDOM - kill Saddam Hussein - sm
        • What spin - these are my thoughts - icytoes
          • Trying to lump the 2 wars into one and call Obama a liar is S-P-I-N - sm
            • Right, Obama said already during his campaign that - van
              • Correct - icytoes
            • Jeez - is JTBB the only civil person on this board - icytoes
              • No worries, icytoes. - Zville MT
                • Thanks Zville MT - icytoes
              • These are the 16 countries in the Middle East...s/m - van
              • Well..........your comments speak for themselves........ - sm
      • I think maybe the word you were looking for...(sm) - Just the big bad
        • You are correct - confusing - icytoes
          • And where do these "fresh" soldiers exist? Appalachia? - sm
            • Stop attacking me!!!!! - and JTBB answered my question - icytoes
              • No one is attacking you, they are correcting you. - Miss Take
                • No, they are attacking - icytoes
                  • and you know lots of people DID NOT vote for him because he's black - - Amanda Howard
                  • Apparently... - Miss Take
                  • LOL! and they vote! nm - talking to the wall
                    • Thanks - I needed a laugh (no message) - icytoes
          • From what I understand....(sm) - Just the big bad
            • Ha Ha Ha on the Maddow reporter - icytoes
      • It looks as though you weren't really paying attention... - sm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Has anyone else noticed what's going on in the middle east with elections?  I don't think I would credit all this to just Obama's speech in Cairo, but my guess is that his example (and ours by electing him) has been noticed around the world.

The "pro-Western coalition" won in Lebanon, beating out Hezbollah.

"The leader of the largest bloc in the pro-Western coalition, Saad Hariri, said early Monday in a televised speech that he extends his hand to the losing side "to work together and seriously for the sake of Lebanon." He urged supporters to celebrate without provoking opponents."  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/07/lebanon-election-results-_n_212359.html)

And how about Iran?  Check this out.  This looks familiar.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/31210578#31210578

Maybe there's something to be said for extending a hand of peace instead of pointing a rifle. 

Did Bush campaign promising a freedom agenda in the Middle East?  I must have missed that during the debates.  In fact, he specifically said he was against nation building when he debated Gore, although in all fairness, he didn't say he was against nation wrecking.

I guess he doesn't understand that the decider created more suiciders than he got rid of.

I can't wait to see how his base spins the long awaited truth from Bush's own lips that there were no WMDs and that Iraq had no ties to 9/11.

May God help us all.

Israel needs the help of no one.  They will always prevail because they are backed by God -- the one true God.  All those who come against the people of Israel will suffer loss.  It is not out of fear that Israel arms itself, it is out of a deep understanding of their past, present, and future revealed to them by God.  Israel is loved by God and hated by their muslim neighbors because of that fact. 

There is no Palestine.  As I said before, the palestinians are squatters.  Claiming a land that never belong to them and never will be promised to them.  Their name is not on the lease! 

Article Launched: 6/16/2006 12:00 AM

Bush declines to meet with border officials

Sara A. Carter, Staff Writer

San Bernardino County Sun

President Bush has refused to meet with border law-enforcement officials from Texas for a second time. His response to their request came in the form of a letter Monday, angering both lawmakers and sheriffs.

In fact, some Republican members of the House, upset by what they call the administration's seeming lack of concern for border security, are preparing to hold investigative hearings in San Diego and Laredo, Texas, early next month.

Members of the House Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation hope to expose serious security flaws that could potentially lead to terrorist attacks in the country, said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, who is a member of the panel and has pushed for the hearings.

The next terrorist is not going to come in through (Transportation Security Administration) screening at Kennedy airport, Poe said. We already have information that people from the Middle East have come through the border from Mexico. They assimilate in Mexico learning to speak Spanish and adopt customs and then they cross the border into the United States.

Poe requested the meeting for members of the Southwestern Sheriffs' Border Coalition a group that includes all 26 border-county sheriffs from California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. The sheriffs wanted to speak to the president about the increasing dangers in their communities and along the border.

The president is the busiest man in the world but he needs to take the time to talk to the border sheriffs and learn what's happening in the real world from them, Poe said. We can't understand why he refuses to meet with them.

In May, all of the Republican House members from Texas traveled to Washington to meet the president regarding border security. Bush did not meet with them, however, and former White House spokesman Scott McClellan was sent in his stead.

Poe said the White House letter dated Monday showed the disconnect between the administration and the American people who want the border secured.

The president would appreciate the opportunity to visit with border sheriffs, said the White House letter written by La Rhonda M. Houston, deputy director of the Office of Appointments and Scheduling. Regrettably, it will not be possible for us to arrange such a meeting. I know that you understand with the tremendous demands of the president's time, he must often miss special opportunities, as is the case this time.

Rick Glancey, spokesman for the sheriffs coalition, said its members are angry and disappointed in the president's response. Glancey said Bush's recent tour of the border with Border Patrol spokesmen did not reflect the reality of what locals live with every day.

It's a slap in the face to the hardworking men and women on the front lines of rural America who every day engage in border-security issues, Glancey said. He missed the opportunity to take off his White House cowboy boots and put some real cowboy boots on and walk in our shoes for a few minutes.

The border hearings will expose the truth to the American public and force the administration to take a serious look at the border, said Allan Knapp, Poe's legislative director.

Knapp and Poe have traveled twice to the border this year, spending time along barren stretches where they witnessed no security and numerous migrants crossing into the United States, they said.

We need to expose the lack of border security before it is too late, Poe said. We're fighting a war on terror in Iraq and we're winning, but we're losing our own border war. These hearings will be a necessary step in the right direction.

Andy Ramirez, chairman of the Chino-based Friends of the Border Patrol, said he has been called to testify before the panel in San Diego. Ramirez said he has turned in two years of Border Patrol documents and memos, which he will discuss before the committee.

The president has basically pushed his whole administration's agenda toward the war on terror, yet he can't find the time to meet with law-enforcement leaders responsible for border security, Ramirez said. It is appalling and outrageous that the war on terror and border security does not extend to the U.S. border.

He just wants our vote and he figured this would be the way to get it.  To promise to not tax us middle class folks.  I don't believe he intends to keep his promise.  He may at first but the bottom line is that all the government spending of his and the 3 trillion dollars he plans to spend....where he is going to get that money?  He is going to get it from us and that includes the middle class. 

All the companies who get tax hikes will pass that tax onto us as well by jacking up prices of products and services so we the consumers pay for that tax hike.  Then Obama will have to raise taxes on the middle class as well to cover his government spending.  It is common sense people.  Look at his record.  He has consistently wanted to raise taxes and that includes on us middle class folks he is all of sudden so interested in helping out since he is up for election.  Give me a break.  I see through the lies and false promises.  That isn't change.  That is Washington elitists at their norm.

the middle class person's best friend!  Funny how now he wants to help us, when each time he had the opportunity to, he voted against it. 

Replying to a post below, I thought this would be a good link in a separate message in case people skip over it below.

The US Military troops speak and here is what they say - 68% for McCain, 23% Obama.  Here is the link below.

http://activemilitaryformccain.blogspot.com/

So if you take that, plus Obama has a 5 point lead over McCain in today's polls, plus the 11% who are not decided it is a very close call.  November 4th is going to be an excited day for sure.

Since everyone is at least a bit familiar with John McCain’s record when it comes to strolling through a market in Baghdad with hundreds of his closest guards, or how he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years (except when he flip flops on that).

But not that many really, truly know just how horrific his voting record is when it comes to the troops.  And it is pretty consistent – whether it is for armor and equipment, for veteran’s health care, for adequate troop rest or anything that actually, you know, supports our troops.

This is chock full of links to the roll call votes, and the roll call votes have links to the actual underlying bills and amendments.  I present this so that there is support and things that can be rattled off when saying that McCain is not a friend of the military.  Feel free to use it as you want, but this can be tied into the "Double Talk Express".  But here is a very quick statement - John McCain skipped close to a dozen votes on Iraq, and on at least another 10 occasions, he voted against arming and equipping the troops, providing adequate rest for the troops between deployments and for health care or other benefits for veterans.

In mid 2007, Senator Reid noted that McCain missed 10 of the past 14 votes on Iraq.  However, here is a summary of a dozen votes (two that he missed and ten that he voted against) with respect to Iraq, funding for veterans or for troops, including equipment and armor.  I have also included other snippets related to the time period when the vote occurred.

September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments.  At the time, nearly 65% of people polled in a CNN poll indicted that "things are going either moderately badly or very badly in Iraq.

July 2007:  McCain voted against a plan to drawdown troop levels in Iraq.  At the time, an ABC poll found that 63% thought the invasion was not worth it, and a CBS News poll found that 72% of respondents wanted troops out within 2 years.

March 2007: McCain was too busy to vote on a bill that would require the start of a drawdown in troop levels within 120 days with a goal of withdrawing nearly all combat troops within one year.  Around this time, an NBC News poll found that 55% of respondents indicated that the US goal of achieving victory in Iraq is not possible.  This number has not moved significantly since then.

February 2007:  For such a strong supporter of the escalation, McCain didn’t even bother to show up and vote against a resolution condemning it.  However, at the time a CNN poll found that only 16% of respondents wanted to send more troops to Iraq (that number has since declined to around 10%), while 60% said that some or all should be withdrawn.  This number has since gone up to around 70%.

June 2006:  McCain voted against a resolution that Bush start withdrawing troops but with no timeline to do so.

May 2006:  McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.

April 2006:  McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.

March 2006:  McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.

March 2004:  McCain once again voted for abusive tax loopholes over veterans when he voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes.  Jeez, McCain really loves those tax loopholes for corporations, since he voted for them over our veterans' needs.

October 2003:  McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000.

April 2003:  McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.

August 2001:  McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000.  To his credit, he also voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which he now supports making permanent, despite the dire financial condition this country is in, and despite the fact that he indicated in 2001 that these tax cuts unfairly benefited the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

So there it is.  John McCain is yet another republican former military veteran who likes to talk a big game when it comes to having the support of the military.  Yet, time and time again, he has gone out of his way to vote against the needs of those who are serving in our military.  If he can’t even see his way to actually doing what the troops want, or what the veterans need, and he doesn’t have the support of veterans, then how can he be a credible commander in chief?

by Phillip Butler, PhD

People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always “No, John McCain was a POW with me.” The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ½ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ½ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW.

John’s treatment as a POW:

1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September 1969, the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965, so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POWs for their country. A dam good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.

2) John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately, this was often the case; new POW’s arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was nonexistent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John’s father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW’s suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.

3) John was offered, and refused, “early release.” Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to “admit” that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was “lenient and humane.” So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions, and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW’s were released, with the sick and wounded going first.

4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 660 military POW’s in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled as follows: Medals of Honor – 8, Service Crosses – 42, Silver Stars – 590, Bronze Stars – 958 and Purple Hearts – 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe. Among the POWs John wasn’t special. He was just one of the guys.

John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty, and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.

I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.

Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60s and 70s. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John’s age (72) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for four or more years.

I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.

It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush’s war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me, John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John’s views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.

I’m disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate or maverick Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist minister. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he dislikes that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don’t see that John is the “straight talk express” he markets himself to be.

Senator John Sidney McCain III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who “Returned With Honor.” That’s our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I’ve decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States.

by Phillip Butler, PhD

Doctor Phillip Butler is a 1961 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a former light-attack carrier pilot. In 1965 he was shot down over North Vietnam where he spent eight years as a prisoner of war. He is a highly decorated combat veteran who was awarded two Silver Stars, two Legion of Merits, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Heart medals. After his repatriation in 1973 he earned a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California at San Diego and became a Navy Organizational Effectiveness consultant. He completed his Navy career in 1981 as a professor of management at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He is now a peace and justice activist with Veterans for Peace.

http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/08/25/why-i-won%e2%80%99t-vote-for-john-mccain/

I'm so glad that Joe Biden is in the White House now, considering he was one of only two who spoke up about this.  Our troops deserve an administration that respects and cares about them and will do its best to protect them.

By Peter Eisler, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON —— Military leaders knew the dangers posed by roadside bombs before the start of the Iraq war but did little to develop vehicles that were known to better protect forces from what proved to be the conflict's deadliest weapon, a report by the Pentagon inspector general says.

The Pentagon "was aware of the threat posed by mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) …… and of the availability of mine resistant vehicles years before insurgent actions began in Iraq in 2003," says the 72-page report, which was reviewed by USA TODAY.

The report is to be made public today.

Marine Corps leaders "stopped processing" an urgent request in February 2005 for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles from combat commanders in Iraq's Anbar province after declaring that a more heavily armored version of existing Humvee vehicles was the "best available" option for protecting troops, the report says.

Marine officials "did not develop a course of action for the (request), attempt to obtain funding for it or present it to the Marine Corps Requirements Oversight Council for a decision on acquiring" MRAPs, the report says.

The military continued relying mainly on Humvees until May 2007, when then-incoming Defense secretary Robert Gates called procurement of the MRAPs his top priority. Since then, the Pentagon has spent more than $22 billion to buy more than 15,000 of the vehicles.

When field commanders first began requesting MRAPs, military officials saw the armored Humvees as a more immediate option to countering IEDs, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. "The threat has evolved and our force protection measures have evolved with it," he said.

The Marines requested the inspector general's investigation in February after an internal report accused the Corps of "gross mismanagement" of the urgent request for MRAPs. Hundreds of Marines died unnecessarily because of delays in fielding the vehicles, said the Jan. 22 study by Franz Gayl, a retired Marine officer and civilian science adviser.

Two U.S. senators —— Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware, now the vice president-elect, and Republican Kit Bond of Missouri —— demanded an investigation after details of Gayl's study were published.

"The Pentagon was aware of the threat IEDs posed to our troops prior to our intervention in Iraq and still failed to take the steps to acquire the technology needed to reduce the risk," Bond said after reviewing the report. "Some bureaucrats at the Pentagon have much to explain."

USA TODAY detailed the Pentagon's failure to move quickly on MRAP development in a series of stories last year. Gates credited one of those stories with sparking his interest in the vehicles.

Marine commanders in Iraq's then-volatile Anbar province sought 1,169 MRAPs in the February 2005 urgent request. "There is an immediate need for an MRAP vehicle capability to increase survivability and mobility of Marines operating in a hazardous fire area," it said.

The inspector general's report says that Marine officials advised Marine Corps commandant Michael Hagee at the time that armored Humvees were the "best available, most survivable" vehicles to meet the request.

MRAPs are far more resistant to IEDs and landmines than armored Humvees because they're higher off the ground and rest on a V-shaped hull, which deflects blasts from the vehicle's underside.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-12-08-mrap_N.htm

we discover that KBR (a subsidiary of Cheney's Halliburton) knowingly exposed United States soldiers to toxic materials in Iraq. 

Please watch this video.  It's only three minutes long, and it's heartbreaking.  Don't our troops deserve better from a commander-in-chief that claims to care about them?

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CBS_KBR_knew_dangers_of_toxic_1223.html