Clarification/Follow-up by jackreade on 06/10/06 12:33 am:
A song for this happy occasion.


"I’m gonna tell you fascists
You may be surprised
The people in this world
Are getting organized
You’re bound to lose
You fascists bound to lose

Race hatred cannot stop us
This one thing we know
Your poll tax and Jim Crow
And greed has got to go
You’re bound to lose
You fascists bound to lose.

All of you fascists bound to lose:
I said, all of you fascists bound to lose:
Yes sir, all of you fascists bound to lose:
You’re bound to lose! You fascists:
Bound to lose!

People of every color
Marching side to side
Marching ‘cross these fields
Where a million fascists dies
You’re bound to lose
You fascists bound to lose!

I’m going into this battle
And take my union gun
We’ll end this world of slavery
Before this battle’s won
You’re bound to lose
You fascists bound to lose!

Words by Woody Guthrie
Music by Billy Bragg
Words © Copyright 2000 by Woody Guthrie Publications, Inc


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We are alive and still fighting fascists. :)

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 06/12/06 1:56 pm:
>>>We are alive and still fighting fascists.<<<

And yet, despite all your efforts, guys like Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, the Communist Chines and North Koreans, the Ahmadinejad government in Iran, the Sudanese government, and every other petty dictatorship in the world still exist. In fact, the only ones to have actually eliminated any fascist governments from the world are the "militarists" that you pacifists hate so much. So who is accomplishing more in the fight against fascism: the pacifists who have not accomplished ANYTHING in 50 years of trying, or the militarists who take a stand and say "this far, no further"? Bush, the "militarist" you so love to hate, has eliminated not one but two fascist governments from the world, and will likely add a third one to that list.

So how that "organization" thing workin' for ya?

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 06/12/06 8:10 pm:
>>>He is PRO SOLDIER.<<<

Really? So what percentage of the military and military family vote do you think he will get? I think it will be some number approaching ZERO... probably from below.

This "pro-soldier" Congressman has done nothing but disparage the troops fom day one.

Let's see what he was in favor of as of November 17, 2005, shall we?

On November 17, 2005, Murtha submitted the following resolution (H.J. Res. 73) in the House of Representatives:

Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government"

This, of course, was false. Every single economic indicator had shown significant improvement with more improvement expected. Furthermore, the training of 145,000 Iraqi troops cannot be considered anything but an improvement in Iraqi security.

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Again, this is a falsehood. There are currently 1.4 million active-duty US military forces. There are only about 140,000 US troops in Iraq. So unless we are saying that only 1 in 10 US troops can actually fight, and ALL of them are in Iraq, we still have 90% of our curent troop strength to draw down on if necessary. Furthermore, I would argue (rather convicingly) that the troops strength that we curently have is fine, and no additional numbers are necessary. I would say that we need s different troop MIX in terms of specialties, but in terms of actual NUMBERS, the current troops levels are fine.

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,

Interesting that he should mention that... first of all, that is what the troops are there for, to fight the insurgents. They are supposed to be the target for the insurgency, so that when the insurgency attacks they can kick their asses to hell and back again. Which is generally the outcome every time our troops engage the insurgency in battle.

Furthermore, I would point out the fact that as of November (and continuing to today) the US troops have not, in fact, been the primary target of the insurgency. The insurgents kept getting their asses handed to them every time they targetted US troops. So they switched targets to Iraqi civillians in an attempt to create factional disaffection between Shias and Sunnis and also to create bad press for the USA.

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Also a falsehood. Approximately 60% of Iraqis wanted and still want US troops to stay until Iraq can handle its own security. The 80% that want US troops to leave include those who want them to leave IN THE LONG RUN AFTER IRAQIS CAN HANDLE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS. So Murtha's statement is just plain false.

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Another false number. 45% of SUNNIS feel that way. And since Sunnis are actually only 37% of the population of Iraq to begin with (at most), only about 16% of the population actually feels that way. Or put differently, 84% of the country does NOT feel that the attacks by the insurgency are justified.

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;

This was, of course, Murtha's own opinion rather than Congress' finding. That's why Congress never adopted this bill.

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

SO why would anyone consider that to be pro-soldier? Why would a guy who is pro-soldier want to set up a situation in which the troops are put into additional danger just to get to the location of the operation they have to perform. Isn't it safer to be close-by and not have to travel (especially by air) than it is to have to redeploy for every single operation? This is a pro-soldier stance?

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

Yeah, because diplomacy works so well with Muslim fanatics.

This is the pro-soldier congressman you are speaking of? One who doubts the troops even as they prove themselves time and again by getting the job done? One who accusses the soldiers of committing a massacre before he even has all the facts? Who's side is he on anyway? Shouldn't he be demanding proof that such an event even happened before pointing fingers at the military that you claim he loves so much?

Pro-soldier, my ass. The guy is a pacifist and he's anti-soldier, and it is all because that is how he intends to gain higher office. He's a politician and he gave up his support for the military to pursue political ambition.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by jackreade on 06/12/06 8:45 pm:
He wants to save their lives and save them from horrible maiming....***THAT'S PRO SOLDIER***

We are engaged in an un-win-able war. Even George Bush and The Bush Crime Family know that now.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 06/12/06 8:56 pm:
No, he wants to retreat, and wants the sacrafice of the 2700+ soldiers who have died to date to be meaningless. He doesn't trust the ability of the soldiers to get the job done and get it done well.

THAT is anti-soldier. A person who wants the sacrifice of soldiers to be meaningless and who doesn't trust the ability of the troops cannot be called "pro-soldier" no matter how he couches his terminology.

But I guess that's fair. The soldiers certainly don't agree with Murtha's opinions. They don't share his categorization of their abilities or their willingness to continue the fight. And they certainly don't want to leave until the job is done. So if Murtha is anti-soldier, I guess it is only fair that the soldiers are anti-Murtha.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by jackreade on 06/12/06 9:13 pm:
George W. sacrificed the lives and broken bodies of all the dead and injured soldiers ***and still counting***.

From the bombing or Pearl Harbor to the end of WWII was ****3 1/2 years***. American lives lost, 400,000 plus. We are still NOWHERE in Iraq. Iraq is the endless war...read about VietNam.

Electricity in Baghdad--8 hours a day!
Daily bombings and mayhem.
Iraq's oil not paying for build-up.
"Iraqi armyand police" full of all manner of underireables like insurgents for example!

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 06/12/06 9:16 pm:
>>> Stop lying<<<

Now I see why you call Bush a liar all the time. Anyone who disagrees with you must be a liar. Not wrong, not mistaken, not having a different opinion... a liar.

Y'know, in the old days, if you called someone a liar without proof, you were likely to get challenged to a duel. So you didn't do it unless you were willing to put your money where your mouth is.

But in this day and age of pacifism, anyone can say anything they like without having to worry about consequences.

I like the old days better. Sure, there was less civility in the world. But civility is over-rated. In the old days, a gentleman was a gentleman, and people were more polite to each other because of the consequences. It sure beats the insults we hear now every day... like calling people you disagree with "liars" or "bigots" rather than stating how and why you disagree with them.

Well, all things change, and a pendulum swings in both directions.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by jackreade on 06/12/06 9:22 pm:
Murtha is PRO SOLDIER. HE DOESN'T WANT THEM TO GET KILLED AND MAIMED.

So, quit lying, he is not anti-soldier.

QUIT LYING.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 06/12/06 9:25 pm:
I don't want them to get killed or maimed either. What I want is to let them do the jobs they volunteered and WANT to do. And not letting them do so because you don't trust them is not a pro-soldier stance. It is an "I don't trust them" stance... which is by nature anti-soldier.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by jackreade on 06/12/06 9:45 pm:
DEATH IS FINAL....FOR THE SOLDIERS KILLED.

Anyone who wants to stop American soldiers from dying, IS PRO SOLDIER.

My last comment. :)