% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Microsoft Corporation Message Board

  • forfunorformoney forfunorformoney Oct 29, 2004 11:11 AM Flag


    Our troops need a better protection. our troops need a commander in chief who has combat experience and knows what is like to be in combat.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • << 75% of Military WILL BE DISAPPOINTED >>

      And that makes you happy?

      To demoralize our armed forces?

      Doesn't that alone make you feel some shame?


    • Kerry is going to win.

    • >If the commanders didn't request it, apparently they felt that they were adequately prepared.

      The commanders often don't request quite a lot if they believe the politicos do not want to do it.

      Case in fact, Rumsfeld was loathe to send enough troops in the first place, so after what happened to Gen. Shinseki it is no wonder that the generals would not publicly admit they need more.

      The lack of proper humvee armoring, and body armor shows the lack of planning by the Pentagon for the aftermath.

      Keep in mind Iraq was an elective war, there was no reason they could not have held up to do better planning, bring on board other allies, and 'really' find out if WMD existed.

      If Bush loses tonight it will be because of Iraq.

    • "I have several friends in Iraq. They all support Bush."

      Mine don't

      And yes I had a neighbor who was killed on 9/11.

      If national security was a high priority and not just a talking point for Bush, we wouldn't have 21 of the 23 most wanted terrorists still at large, the boarders wouldn't be wide open for the benefit of Bush's supporters who want cheap labor, and the funds available for the most in danger states like NY wouldn't be underfunded with overfunding going to States like New Mexicao and Nebraska.

    • << So what if a majority of the military will vote Bush - they don't elect the President, the American people do.

      Yes - but in a time of war, don't "the American people" have an obligation to give consideration to what our troops want?

      << There are far more issues to consider than just Iraq. >>

      Yes - there's the war on terror. It's probably the most important issue.

      You may have other priorities... but if so, don't come back and say that you "support the troops."

      << rather unintelligent right wing Bush supporter. >>

      One who has you admitting that you don't support the troops.

      Either I'm pretty intelligent, or you really are against our troops.

      Why would you vote against them otherwise?


    • <The commanders got what they requested and we decisively won.>

      Funny thing, since we've won over 1000 have died.

    • << But hey if you screw up, blame the troops and the commanders. >>

      Again - show me a single request for equipment that was denied by Bush.

      You can't... because there weren't any.



    • <I have several friends in Iraq. They all support Bush.>

      You are really sucking wind now.

      There's no way you have a friend, let alone friends.

    • The operable word is CLAIMS. Obviously form we've heard from the troops and the commanders it is just more lies.

      "Again - the commanders got everything they requested."

      And they didn't ask for munnitions?

      "You can play monday-morning quarterback to their judgement all you like... probably easy for you."

      That's a lame statement, made more so bexause he was warned prior to going into Iraq. But hey if you screw up, blame the troops and the commanders.

    • << You are a real piece of work, blame the commanders. >>

      I'm not blaming anyone... I think that everyone did an unbelievable job.

      The commanders got what they requested and we decisively won.

      You're the one questioning the actions of those commanders. Not me.

      But it's not surprising, since you have proven that you don't support the troops.


    • View More Messages
49.87-0.03(-0.06%)Apr 29 4:00 PMEDT