Army Desertion Rate Highest Since 1980

[Hudson]

Army Desertion Rate Highest Since 1980WASHINGTON (Nov. 16) - Soldiers strained by six years at war are deserting their posts at the highest rate since 1980, with the number of Army deserters this year showing an 80 percent increase since the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.

While the totals are still far lower than they were during the Vietnam War, when the draft was in effect, they show a steady increase over the past four years and a 42 percent jump since last year.
We're asking a lot of soldiers these days," said Roy Wallace, director of plans and resources for Army personnel. "They're humans. They have all sorts of issues back home and other places like that. So, I'm sure it has to do with the stress of being a soldier."

The Army defines a deserter as someone who has been absent without leave for longer than 30 days. The soldier is then discharged as a deserter.

According to the Army, about nine in every 1,000 soldiers deserted in fiscal year 2007, which ended Sept. 30, compared to nearly seven per 1,000 a year earlier. Overall, 4,698 soldiers deserted this year, compared to 3,301 last year.
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/army-desertion-rate-highest-since-1980/20071116154509990001

[seeinred]

That is not even remotely surprising. :action-sm

[queeby]

Why would this shock anyone? When you treat them like shit and send them to war under false pretenses, this kind of thing happens. I can't wait for the people that never signed up to come on here and start calling our generation cowards.

[livebackwards]

You mean they're finally getting sick of dying for no reason?

Imagine.

[Kris_LTRMa]

This is long .... it's a portion of an email my cousin Steve, a 1st Lt in the Marines sent out to let everyone know he's okay. Basically, I think that where we as civilians have a different outlook on things than those in the military. Steve believes he's making a difference over there. Granted this is his first tour. I'm sure those who deserted felt the same way. I'm sure that after doing two or three tours they just got frustrated that the way they left the place is the way it was when they returned? I don't know...but in no way can anyone say that this generation - or any generation - was raised to be a bunch of cowards. Steve is 26 and proof of that.

....I know the enemy is down there and they can see us. I think most of the time, especially at night, they are hiding because they know what my helicopter is capable of doing. Our rotor blades make a very distinct sound when we come over the horizon....
....I've been into Baghdad several times escorting army medical helicopters. Those are always interesting flights. Baghdad is a bad place. Medical Escorting or Casevac (Casualty evacuation) as we call it is another one of our primary missions. It is never planned and if you are on the Casevac schedule for the day you stand by and wait for an alarm to sound. When that alarm echoes down the flight line, everyone from the pilots to the plane captains are rushing to the aircraft. All our gear is already staged in the cockpit and within a couple of minutes we have both engines started and the aircraft is armed up and ready to meet on the taxiway with the army Blackhawk that is used for the Medivac. The Blackhawk has a medical crew on board that has enough supplies with them to keep the Marine, Soldier or Iraqi civilian alive until we get them to a hospital on one of the bases in the operating area. Our mission as Cobras, is to escort the Blackhawk into the zone to pick up the casualty and then escort them to the combat surgical hospital. If the Blackhawk takes enemy fire it is our job to suppress and neutralize the threat so that they can get to their objective safely.
... Iraq is an interesting place. You wonder why these people want to live like this. There are a lot of destroyed buildings and houses from the wars over the last 15 years. There is trash every where and piled high on the streets. There is sand everywhere. Who would have thought. It's not like the sand we are used too. It's like real fine dirt and the wind blows it everywhere. I think I have enough sand in my room to make a sand castle. The air is real dry and nose bleeds are a common occurrence. The weather goes from one extreme to the other. Hot during the day and cold at night. We are going into the winter months and sand storms are common. It supposedly snows here as well....

The Iraqi people are finally starting to work with coalition forces and win back their country. At the beginning of the war they sided with the insurgents but learned that once the U.S. pulls out, the insurgents are going to kill them to take over. It’s a long story.... What you see now is the insurgents targeting Iraqi civilians because they are showing coalition forces where the insurgents are hiding, where the IEDs are and where the weapons Cache's are.
... The Marines are very motivated and working hard to support the mission. It is a joint effort by both ground and air from all the services and everyone is working well together.

[abudabit]

You mean they're finally getting sick of dying for no reason?

Imagine.

They're not cowards. I think it's more the getting sent over to hot ass Iraq for multiple tours when they expected only 1. You'd have to be crazy to join the military now - or you'd have to really love Iraq. No women in your life + 120 degree weather + limited benefits + nonsensical mission + multiple extensions on your tours != incentive.


www.ronpaul2008.com

[Jerry1]

They're not cowards. I think it's more the getting sent over to hot ass Iraq for multiple tours when they expected only 1. You'd have to be crazy to join the military now - or you'd have to really love Iraq. No women in your life + 120 degree weather + limited benefits + nonsensical mission + multiple extensions on your tours != incentive.


www.ronpaul2008.com

That is one of the major factors. Imagine being sent over for like 6 months to a year and then when your time is almost up they end up extending it.
God bless them though!

[dodisman]

I didn't serve so I can't speak to it either way...It must be hell over there and to see these kids coming home horribly burned, missing limbs...i guess you have to understand why people desert...fucking trauma

[Butter Nuggets]

While looking for whatever happened in 1980 that would make desertions so high I found that many articles provided a fun chart (http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/nation/washington/cabinet/20071116_ap_armydesertionrateup80pctsince03.html).

It provides some context and is not alarmist so I was surprised to find it. Anyone know why it so high in 1980?

Definitely not cowards. The war has been on so long that if they were cowards they would have bailed by now.

[DonTheTrucker]

When one side wants them to do everything at one time and the other side of the aisle is actively campaigning for them to lose, the poor soldiers don't know what to do.

[Xyn]

I didn't serve so I can't speak to it either way...It must be hell over there and to see these kids coming home horribly burned, missing limbs...i guess you have to understand why people desert...fucking trauma

I can understand deserting during a draft. You didn't want to fight but were force to, so you say fuck that. But an enlisted soldier deserting? You know shit has got to be bad when those numbers go up.

My dad served in Vietnam. He's never been very talkative about it. He didn't go AWOL, but I do know he tried to kill himself once, so I know he must have been through some pretty bad shit. Not having ever served, I can't get into the heads of anyone in uniform, but I can't help but feel supportive of all of them, no matter if they snap and do something stupid, or if they desert or whatever else.

I just wish we weren't weakening our military on this Iraq shit. Money is being taken from other areas and being poured into the war, people are deserting, recruitment numbers are down... The situation is nowhere near as grim as some people make it out to be, but it just isn't getting better. We need a strong military and well defended boarders. Even if we pulled out of Iraq tomarow, who knows how long it would take to build back up? It's not like we were at our nations prime when we went into Iraq in the first place.

Picking fights with douchebags like Saddam just doesn't seem worth all of this. It's not all doom and gloom, but where is the good? Where is the prize we have won with the lives of thousands of our soldiers and billions of our dollars?

Our soldiers just deserve better than this. We owe them better.

[LiddyRules]

the other side of the aisle is actively campaigning for them to lose are they?

[Butter Nuggets]

are they?

Not all of them, just insignificant ones like the Senate majority leader (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18227928/).

[DonTheTrucker]

Not all of them, just insignificant ones like the Senate majority leader (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18227928/).

Not to mention the supporters of those politicians. It disgusts me. We're in this thing now, for better or worse. Why should we just give up and lose? Us leaving Vietnam is indirectly related to why these fucking savages think they have such power over us as it is.

[abudabit]

We're in this thing now, for better or worse. Why should we just give up and lose?

We lost when we initiated the war.

[livebackwards]

The way I see it, we, as a country, had a chance to say "no" to going into Iraq, and that was in 2003, when we were taking everyone who was pro-invasion at their word. Now we're paying the price for it. We've torn down their infrastructure, the civilian population is dependent on us, we really can't leave them holding the bag in good conscience. It's going to be a hard lesson, to have to see this through when we now know we were wrong to ever start it.

I feel awful for the troops, for the most part brave, well-meaning young kids railroaded into service by a sense of duty and the lies / opportunism of those in charge. If the politicians are losing this generation's trust to the point where they're deserting, good. They never earned it in the first place, and now they've pissed it away.

[abudabit]

The best thing we can do is to never repeat this mistake again - vote wisely in 2008.

As for cleaning up our current fuck up - well shit, what happens happens. Staying or leaving both have their consequences.

An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. (http://www.ronpaul2008.com) We invested 3000 soldiers lives, 100x as many soldiers well being, and over $1 trillion during this time of massive deficit and debt - and we still haven't reached the cure! It's been almost 5 years - longer than WWII.

[LiddyRules]

Not all of them, just insignificant ones like the Senate majority leader (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18227928/). That's not the same as saying "Hah! The troops are losing!" What do you want them to do? Just say "yep, yep, everything's fine, war's going good, everything's a-ok?" Being against the Iraq War is NOT the same as being against the troops and it shocks me how few people get that.

Not to mention the supporters of those politicians. It disgusts me. We're in this thing now, for better or worse. Why should we just give up and lose? Us leaving Vietnam is indirectly related to why these fucking savages think they have such power over us as it is. So what's your suggestion, we fucked up so instead of eating our just desserts keep at it and hope that eventually something turns our way? Isn't this sort of hubris the type of thing that has destroyed every single other world power throughout time?

[Voss's Tumor]

The best thing we can do is to never repeat this mistake again - vote wisely in 2008.

As for cleaning up our current fuck up - well shit, what happens happens. Staying or leaving both have their consequences.

An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. (http://www.ronpaul2008.com) We invested 3000 soldiers lives, 100x as many soldiers well being, and over $1 trillion during this time of massive deficit and debt - and we still haven't reached the cure! It's been almost 5 years - longer than WWII.

It'll never happen.

I watched a documentary the other day talking about Evangelical Christians and their wacky movement during political times. They were bragging somewhere to the tune of 70-80 million voters who are motivated only by not killing babies and trusting any leader who says God talks to him.

Isn't this sort of hubris the type of thing that has destroyed every single other world power throughout time?

Yep.

I'm truly thinking very seriously about moving to another country. I'm just trying to research my best options.

[DonTheTrucker]

We lost when we initiated the war.

You're fucking kidding right?

All it would take is to stop letting JAG lawyers and politicians run the war and we'd be a lot better off.

[Voss's Tumor]

You're fucking kidding right?

All it would take is to stop letting JAG lawyers and politicians run the war and we'd be a lot better off.

Please, God, Don, tell me you're not one of those "Saddam hit the towers" guys...

[LiddyRules]

You're fucking kidding right?

All it would take is to stop letting JAG lawyers and politicians run the war and we'd be a lot better off. This is not new. It's not like suddenly during the Iraq War it became a PC country run by PC lawyers and PC politicians. We knew the climate going into it. We thought we'd be given a lot more leeway, we thought we'd be treated as saviors and we weren't. We were cocky and it hurt us. We bought into it, we thought it would be a good deal, we'd get more markets, but we were never able to connect like we thought we would and once did in the 90s. So of course the bureaucrats and the lawyers would come in and try to fix things by hindering us in everyything we do with their antiquated rules and regulations. We thought we could work around those rules and regulations but our lack of movement is so apparent that that further hurts our cause.

But we can't act shocked by this since we knew the climate in the first place.

[abudabit]

If the war ended tomorrow it would still be a loss. We lost so much (people, time, credibility, influence, money, money, people) and gained so little (a caged dictator got overthrown and replaced by violent militias / al qaeda). Congrats. There's your wonderful genius plan. We got rid of Saddam who only controlled 2/3 of the country and was cut off in all directions and got a cluster fuck instead.

[LiddyRules]

If the war ended tomorrow it would still be a loss. We lost so much (people, time, credibility, influence, money, money, people) and gained so little (a caged dictator got overthrown and replaced by violent militias / al qaeda). Congrats. There's your wonderful genius plan. We got rid of Saddam who only controlled 2/3 of the country and was cut off in all directions and got a cluster fuck instead. But I think their point is that if we keep at it for years and years and years, eventually it'll be a gain.

[Jerry1]

Sad part is that if we up and leave Iraq tomorrow, we'll almost garauntee be back in another 5 or 10 years
Two factors or of the combination of the two will happen.
1.Iran rolls in to end the chaos under the reasoning that they can't let this chaos continue on their doorstep. Plus they will go around saying we'll do what the US and western powers could never do.
Then in five or so years from now, we'll end up going up against Iran over their WMDs.

2.A new Taliban-type government comes to power in Iraq and harbors Al queda or others like it. They build up and train in Iraq and pull off another major attack in the US making us go back to Iraq. Much like when the US stopped supporting Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out, leaving the door open for the Taliban.

We opened this can of worms. So we can either clean it up now or clean it up later.

[Xyn]

We opened this can of worms. So we can either clean it up now or clean it up later.

Unfortunately we can't clean it up now. If we are willing, able and required to do something in the future, so be it, but all we're doing now is maintaining the status quo.

Maybe if we got several trillion dollars together, initiated a draft and created a police state across the entire middle east, we could have a military victory. Short of that, there are just some things that a military can not do, even if they are the best in the world.

Speaking of no win situations, welcome to the game :action-sm

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6587/thegamecx2.jpg

[Vyce]

I'm wondering which statistic will get more play in the media this week: the one about desertion, or this story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21868884/), which states that violence in Iraq is down 55% since just the summer (it's down even more dramatically from longer periods of time, such as a year ago).

Seeing as good news doesn't fit the media's narrative - and how that story I just linked goes out of its way to try and find ANY scrap of negative news that it could hold onto - I've already got my guess as to what the answer will be.

[DonTheTrucker]

Please, God, Don, tell me you're not one of those "Saddam hit the towers" guys...

Of course not, I'm one of those "we fucked up by doing this in the first place but we should make the best of a bad situation" guys.

It's not an unwinnable war. The people who started the thing won't let the guys fighting the war win it. There's a huge difference between "CAN'T WIN" and "DON'T WIN".

Personally, I think that the people running this war are so afraid of the left that actually wants us to lose, so they can pin a loss on Bush, that they're scared of doing what is necessary to win.

In a choice between cowards and traitors, I'm forced to pick cowards.

[abudabit]

I'm wondering which statistic will get more play in the media this week: the one about desertion, or this story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21868884/), which states that violence in Iraq is down 55% since just the summer (it's down even more dramatically from longer periods of time, such as a year ago).

So basically after 5 years it's still going on. Wonderful, those are high standards you have. No big deal though, we gained so much and didn't really lose anything. I can't wait until the war ends next month!

[Hog's Big Ben]

This is not new. It's not like suddenly during the Iraq War it became a PC country run by PC lawyers and PC politicians. We knew the climate going into it. We thought we'd be given a lot more leeway, we thought we'd be treated as saviors and we weren't. We were cocky and it hurt us. We bought into it, we thought it would be a good deal, we'd get more markets, but we were never able to connect like we thought we would and once did in the 90s. So of course the bureaucrats and the lawyers would come in and try to fix things by hindering us in everyything we do with their antiquated rules and regulations. We thought we could work around those rules and regulations but our lack of movement is so apparent that that further hurts our cause.

But we can't act shocked by this since we knew the climate in the first place.


:D

Well played, sir. :clap::clap::clap:

[Voss's Tumor]

Of course not, I'm one of those "we fucked up by doing this in the first place but we should make the best of a bad situation" guys.

It's not an unwinnable war. The people who started the thing won't let the guys fighting the war win it. There's a huge difference between "CAN'T WIN" and "DON'T WIN".

Personally, I think that the people running this war are so afraid of the left that actually wants us to lose, so they can pin a loss on Bush, that they're scared of doing what is necessary to win.

In a choice between cowards and traitors, I'm forced to pick cowards.

No one "wants" the whole thing to be a waste of time, but you can't really call a group of people traitors for saying "I told ya so".

[Jerry1]

Unfortunately we can't clean it up now. If we are willing, able and required to do something in the future, so be it, but all we're doing now is maintaining the status quo.

Maybe if we got several trillion dollars together, initiated a draft and created a police state across the entire middle east, we could have a military victory. Short of that, there are just some things that a military can not do, even if they are the best in the world.

Speaking of no win situations, welcome to the game :action-sm

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6587/thegamecx2.jpg

The last time we had to clean it up was because of this....
http://www.revisionism.nl/Sept11/20010911NY456.jpg
(Sorry for the dramatic point)

Bush Sr. pretty much ended support of the mujahadeen when the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan after about 10 years of monetary and equipment support. The US Stinger was the bane of the Soviet Army Hind gunships and helped turn the tide in that insurgency.
But when support was cut off in 1989 the Afghans were left to their own devices and erupted into a civil war where the Taliban ended up in power. The same group that let Bin Laden and Al Queda set up camps in Afghanistan to plan attacks on the embassies, the USS Cole and the Sept 11 attacks(for those that don't believe in the conspiracy theories).
Plus keep in mind that Al Queda and Iranian supported groups are already in Iraq.

Better to clean it up now. But like Ant says, we're going about it the wrong way.
You are right in the fact that a major change in strategy needs to change over there because the status quo will not do it. This is very reminiscent to Vietnam due to the fact that we're so worried about offending people somewhere. In Vietnam we were afraid to anger the Chinese or Soviets for fear of them getting involved or retaliating. Now its a fear of world opinion and the media's opinion.
In a conflict where our forces are left alone to do the jobs they are supposed to do with little interference, they are very successful(WWI, WWII, Granada, Panama, Gulf War) and the ones with all these restrictions have been less successful(Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq).
You'd think we'd learn?

[Xyn]

The last time we had to clean it up was because of this....
http://www.revisionism.nl/Sept11/20010911NY456.jpg
(Sorry for the dramatic point)

Bush Sr. pretty much ended support of the mujahadeen when the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan after about 10 years of monetary and equipment support. The US Stinger was the bane of the Soviet Army Hind gunships and helped turn the tide in that insurgency.
But when support was cut off in 1989 the Afghans were left to their own devices and erupted into a civil war where the Taliban ended up in power. The same group that let Bin Laden and Al Queda set up camps in Afghanistan to plan attacks on the embassies, the USS Cole and the Sept 11 attacks(for those that don't believe in the conspiracy theories).
Plus keep in mind that Al Queda and Iranian supported groups are already in Iraq.

Better to clean it up now. But like Ant says, we're going about it the wrong way.
You are right in the fact that a major change in strategy needs to change over there because the status quo will not do it. This is very reminiscent to Vietnam due to the fact that we're so worried about offending people somewhere. In Vietnam we were afraid to anger the Chinese or Soviets for fear of them getting involved or retaliating. Now its a fear of world opinion and the media's opinion.
In a conflict where our forces are left alone to do the jobs they are supposed to do with little interference, they are very successful(WWI, WWII, Granada, Panama, Gulf War) and the ones with all these restrictions have been less successful(Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq).
You'd think we'd learn?

If we leave and terrorists start taking control in Iraq, bomb them. Keeping our troops in a never ending meat grinder isn't making us any safer. The fact that we haven't had another 9/11 has nothing to do with what we're doing in Iraq.

Also, enough with using 9/11 as a propoganda piece. It's denigrating to the lives lost.

Unfortunately, we couldn't win in Iraq like we did in WWII even if we did have a change in policy. The people we are fighting aren't a nation or a military like we used to fight against.

Oddly enough, Bush standing with a big Mission Accomplished sign behind him is probably the closest thing to a victory we'll ever get in this war. At that time, the military had done what they do best. They came in and cleaned the place out. Invasion is one thing, occupation is another. An occupation is a costly thing, in both lives and money. Also, here's the thing about occupations. You don't win an occupation, becuase you have already won.

The only thing we can do is stay or lose. If the Iraqi's took responsability and were able to keep the peace on their own, then maybe we could walk away. As it is, they've done a pretty good job showing how unable they are to maintain order without us around.

Most people are pretty sick of the war right now. Recruitment is way down and soldiers are deserting. The brave people who stay there will have to keep staying there. Either that, or we would have to draft some people.

Billions, Trillions will keep pouring in. We've been in there for over four years, how much longer are we willing to piss away our military resources? Another five? Ten? Twenty?

It was a mistake to go in. The majority agree on that. Now the question is, obviously, where do we go from here?

Who knows, it may not get much worse in the long run, but without any way for us to win, it's not going to get much better. So do we admit our error and walk away now, or do we spend more lives and more money just so we can walk away in a few more years?

I don't want our soldiers to lose, so that's why I want to get them out of this no win situation. If anyone has anything more concrete than "we'd win if we had a policy change," I'd love to hear it. If there is truely a way for us to win, bring stability to Iraq and get the hell out of there, I'd much prefer that to any other alternative. I just don't know how anyone can think that is a reasonable expectation.

[Jerry1]

I didn't mean to be one of those Sept 11 propaganda people. I didn't believe in the Sept 11/Iraq connection then and I don't really much believe it now. I just meant to say that this a possibility, a real one, that could happen. Kinda gotta learn form history.
It's just that we can't just end up bombing them again if the terrorists take control over there and operate out of there. It didn't work for Clinton in 98 after the embassy bombings. It'll take troops on the ground. Right back where we started.
Funny thing is that the best time we could have gotten rid of Saddam was under Bush Sr. After the first Gulf War, the people of Iraq saw a weakened, not so confident Iraqi Army and thought this was the time to get him out. In fact, Bush kinda pushed the people to revolt.
However, when the people in the north did revolt, with the thinking that the US will support them, the Iraqi Army just crushed them.
If we did do it then, it would have been easier and would have had support from the people of Iraq. Instead we waited 10 years and lost credibility with the Iraqis.
If we leave tomorrow, great. I just don't want this biting us in the ass years from now.


Funny thing is I do rememeber all those people saying to invade Iraq during the Clinton years. They don't say much now.

By the way, you are right. The question is "Where do we go from here?",

[Vyce]

Better to clean it up now. But like Ant says, we're going about it the wrong way.
You are right in the fact that a major change in strategy needs to change over there because the status quo will not do it.

You say this. And people here, and elsewhere, keep saying this. "We need to change the status quo."

Ahem.

We DID THAT.

It was called "The Surge". Democrats and liberals, almost as a whole, shit all over it. And what's been the result of the surge thus far?

An overwhelming reduction in the amount of violence that has occurred in Iraq. Portions of Iraq which many considered "unwinnable" or irrevocably lost, have done nearly a complete 180. And still, people are acting as if things are the same as they were before the Surge happened. They're not. Things are demonstrably different.

It doesn't mean that the "mission" is anywhere close to being finished, but the worst problem in Iraq was the security, and that's greatly improved. It's still a difficult job, because now the pressure is on the Iraqis themselves to self-govern, and there's enough graft and corruption present in the government for that to not being occurring near on the level it should be. Still, though, the question has to be asked, do certain Americans really want us to succeed over there?

And I honestly believe, in terms of elected Democrat officials and many liberal idealogues, the answer is a resounding no. They want Iraq to be a failure, in part to "humble" Bush, whom they hate on a level that even surpasses the Republican hatred of (Bill) Clinton circa the 90s, and also because, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid himself stated, things going poorly in Iraq equals more Democrats taking power in Congress. I'm fucking sick and tired of hearing fucking Democrats saying "bring the troops home" and people act as if they're doing it because they have America or our troops best interests at heart. That's all bullshit. It's all about advancing their own political agendas and gaining more political power, just as much as Iraq could be considered furthering the NEOCON AGENDA.

[Jerry1]

The question does have to be asked. And yes, I would like for us to succeed over there. Have a stable Middle East country, friendly to the west? Maybe, heaven forbid, a country that will sell oil a little less to us? Sure!
Plus a major factor to wanting to succeed would be knowing that all those soldiers killed or injured(physically or mentally) in Iraq would not have been for nothing.

Kinda sickens me to see that Democrats don't want us to succeed in Iraq. Not so much to sound patriotic but knowing that means they kinda want, in a way, more dead Americans.

[DonTheTrucker]

And what's been the result of the surge thus far?


Not that you could find that information on any regular media sources. Just sayin'....

The bottom line is that no war has ever been won without overwhelming show of force. When we fight like our military is designed to, we win. When that same military is turned into a referee force in the middle of a civil war, nothing gets done. That doesn't mean we're losing. That means we aren't winning. We're in limbo.

Things are indeed turning around, but we're still not doing things the way we should be. And you can directly blame Harry Reid and his minions for that. Bush's people are so scared now that they won't allow the military to fight the way they should be. And don't think for a second that the Democrats are not hoping that they can pin ultimate failure on Bush before November 2008. We lose, they win. Thats all that matters to them. Simple as that.

[LiddyRules]

Things are indeed turning around, but we're still not doing things the way we should be. And you can directly blame Harry Reid and his minions for that. The Democrats have been in "power" (and I use that term loosely) for what a year? Yet the war's been going on for about 5 and most of that time Congress was firmly in Bush's camp. Yet if the war is going better recently, with Democrats in power, then why is the Democrat's fault that the war is going badly?

And don't act like it's those political masterminds the Democrats who are using this war for political advantage. The Republicans are and have been doing the same thing. Neither side has the best country's interests at heart, no side is blameless, and both sides are using whatever they can with this war for their own political advantage.

Kinda sickens me to see that Democrats don't want us to succeed in Iraq. There's a difference between not wanting a success and wanting to cut our losses. Not want to waste more money and lives refereeing a civil war we caused. Yes, we fucked up there, but we shouldn't have been there in the first place. So should we keep paying for a dreadful mistake? I can't answer that because I realize that there is no good answer. Personally I think the best option would be for them to fight it out between themselves. But I don't know how it would play in the future I don't know if it would play in the future.

Not so much to sound patriotic but knowing that means they kinda want, in a way, more dead Americans. Seriously? I can play too.

Kinda sickens me to see that Republicans still want us in Iraq. Not so much to sound patriotic but knowing that means they kinda want, in a way, more dead American soldiers. (I totally just upped you.)
Kinda sickens me to see that Republicans don't want universal health care. Not so much to sound patriotic but knowing that means they kinda want, in a way, more dead American babies.