digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

See the original image at nytimes.com —

Remember this war hero? He killed himself from PTSD.

nytimes.com — The photo below captures everything that Americans wanted to believe about the Iraq war in the earliest days of the invasion in 2003. Pfc. Joseph Dwyer, an Army medic whose unit was fighting its way up the Euphrates to Baghdad, cradles a wounded boy. The child is half-naked and helpless, but trusting. Private Dwyer’s face is strained but calm.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • YouGotDugg, on 07/15/2008, -5/+460Our country needs to get these men back and give them the help and support they need.
    • dedknedy, on 07/16/2008, -3/+54absolutely, positively, god damn right.
      • AtheismFTW, on 07/16/2008, -1/+12MORE SOLIDERS DIE FROM SUICIDE THAN FROM INSURGENTS

        http://digg.com/politics/Suicide_is_Deadlier_than_ ...
      • ManOfVirtues, on 07/16/2008, -0/+7You want to get a good idea of what our soldiers are dealing with, go down to your local Blockbuster and Rent "Stop-Loss".

        I have 5 buddies that just got back from their first tour in Iraq, One lost his wife and almost killed himself, another is an alcoholic, another doesn't work just volunteers as a nurse at the VA.
    • strangewill, on 07/16/2008, -6/+129Hey, I bought my magnet and put it on my SUV, I did my part.
      • bitterbug, on 07/16/2008, -2/+84Now your SUV is heavier, making you more dependent on foreign oil!
      • RobotCitizen, on 07/16/2008, -1/+94I have 3 magnets. I'm more patriotic than you!
      • DAllenJ, on 07/16/2008, -4/+25Our country needs to stop sending them over there in the first place.
      • edzz, on 07/16/2008, -19/+10"Hey, I'm not sure if all you bandwagon patriots have noticed or not, but all the ribbons in the world won't help *****. If you want to help the troops, give them something they want, like some armour for their vehicles or a ***** trip home. Slappin' a magnet on your gas guzzling SUV in the middle of a war for oil just makes you look like a giant prick"
      • h3lx, on 07/16/2008, -0/+28If you want to help the troops, give to your local VA Hospital. If you're unsure about what to give, ask. A range from toothbrushes to crayons for the kids in the waiting room, monetary donations to help offset travel expenses. Unsure about any of that, contact your Local Women's Auxillery. They have a list.

        Writing congressmen and Senators addressing the legality of the war, immediate plans for withdraw, stop loss and other concerns falls on deaf ears. They couldn't give a *****.

        It's more than a shame, but an outright ***** abomination.
      • LeeSoong, on 07/16/2008, -0/+12If America wants to help their soldiers, increase the VA healthcare funding and improve health care coverage - the coverage that ironically the U.S. is cutting back right when the men and women of the U.S. armed forces need it the most.

        V.A. hospitals should be the flagship leader in health care in the USA, with lots of extra capacity mothballed for use in times of disaster - floods, hurricanes, etc.

      • daedalus1982, on 07/16/2008, -0/+7I've always wondered if the troops saw any of the money from magnet sales.
      • nick1971, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5Dear h3lx
        If you post an IBAN and BIC code to a VA hospital I'll send money from Germany.
        Send me an address and I'll write every day maybe even a German citizen will carry some credit.
        There is no doubt that the foreign policy is naive and money driven but what the troops go through is awe-inspiring. The fact they do not have adequate medical care when they return is a repugnant, abhorrent anathema which I who have always had the privilege of socialized medicine find difficult to comprehend. This lack of understanding is particularly strong in such a great country such as yours.
        In the lack of being able to support in any other way I'll keep buying US and UK soldiers beers any time I meet them on my daily commute to Frankfurt. Get them home soon.
    • dfsjdkflasjk, on 07/16/2008, -47/+1Welcome to two weeks ago.
    • ansatsu29, on 07/16/2008, -1/+9wish i can digg you more...
    • Urbalist, on 07/16/2008, -18/+14I have 4 magnets AND a holographic Charizard ! Beat that !
      • DforSpiD, on 07/16/2008, -1/+16I have Blastoise, and water is super effective!
      • itsallinaname, on 07/16/2008, -8/+1I have Saddam Hussein, hidden underground tunnel power!!!!
    • tristan55555, on 07/16/2008, -5/+29men and women...
    • Rotzooi, on 07/16/2008, -23/+4From MY tax money? If you want Socialism, go to Europe!
      • mateoberry, on 07/16/2008, -1/+19Wage a trillion dollar war and occupation on credit, someday we get to pay the bill. We gave our "Hail to the Chief" and waved our flags, and the choice was made for us, and now we must pay the consequences. If we had listened to our allies in Europe, we would not have this debt on our heads, nor the blood on our hands.
      • nycmac247, on 07/16/2008, -8/+3although you're being dug down you do have a point - the military is voluntary...
      • IPublius, on 07/16/2008, -0/+6@ Nycmac - So is virtually everything else except prison (although even that is in a way). Should we not use your tax money to help pay for the men and women who spend their lives defending this country? What would be a better idea? Using it to buy a tree to fight global warming? You and Rot are welcome to leave and go someplace like Switzerland - who does not have a standing army - and rest assured that your tax money is not going to pay for someone who volunteered to put their life on the line to serve their country.
      • nick1971, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3I agree Europe its a really tough place to live. What with our universal health care; free access to high school and university education; and a comprehensive social security system its pretty barbaric place to live in.
        It also comes with a different ethical codex. Here it is considered a privilege of the strong and the rich to look after the weak and the poor.
        Anticipating your reply about how you want to keep your money I would remind you that our infant mortality is 4.08 /1000 births and your is 6.3.
        So while I am wishing that heroic soldier had the access to health care in Germany and think about how many babies we saved in the mean time I suggest you go out and fill your SUV.
    • poidh, on 07/16/2008, -28/+10What's funny of course is that "liberals" pretend that they want the tropps home because they care about them. They don't.
      They want the troops home because it was a Republican administration which sent them to war.
      • Spuy767, on 07/16/2008, -15/+5It's so hard to say the truth on Digg and be respected for it, most people just go on a wild digging spree and bury any opposing viewpoints. Liberals want one thing to come out of bringing the Troops home, political leverage. If it means the lives of millions of Iraquis, they don't care, the American people would never see that and would never hold them accountable, but they would be able to say, "We brought the troops home." and the American people in turn would say, "Rabble rabble, that's good cause CNN tells us it's good."
      • h3lx, on 07/16/2008, -2/+10Injecting partisan ***** into a universal issue for the cause of pitting one side against another... I fail to see how it equates to the truth. Stereotypically lumping politico-liberals with the actual 'real-to-life' liberals and differences are astounding. Same thing for republicans. Individually, they're all great people. It's only when the emboldened douche-bag steps up and proclaims to speak for the whole of the everything that ***** starts going awry. Conservatives want to bring the troops home because they have blood vested in this war and it's gone on long enough. Liberals want to end this war because they've blood vested and it's gone on long enough. Long gone are the days when you could step back and say Repugs and libtards blah, blah, blah... long gone are the days when the media talked about definitive obtainable objectives, mission oriented broadcasting and non-embedded coverage of the battlefield. 'Liberals' and 'Republicans' alike want to live in a America where pre-emptive war justified by false flags and the willful misuse of the public trust is a thing that happens only in the movies and Nazi Germany in the late '30s.

        Real liberals with genuine conviction do not go running amuck blaming conservatives and real republicans couldn't give a ***** about the liberal agenda. It's not as black and white. There's may be one guy standing on the white square, another standing on the black square, and 299,999,998 shades of grey. Oversimplification of the problem belittles the issue and hinders resolution. Why you want this war to end is no longer relevant, it may have been 5 years ago... but not anymore.
      • sk11, on 07/16/2008, -1/+10Conversely, you could argue that the only reason conservatives support Bush, the Iraq war, the war on drugs, military aid to Israel, big oil, subsidising large corporations, Guantanamo Bay, fewer American liberties and are against public healthcare, abortion, environmentalism, lowering pollution, etc., is because republicans tell them to.

        Before some of you get your knickers in a twist, look up something called playing devil's advocate, I know not all conservatives support these things, I am making a point.
      • CryRightardCry, on 07/16/2008, -5/+4Oh, right dumbass, I guess it was the Dems blindly supporting the Bush war.

        Are you serious, or just a dumb *****?

        YOU RIGHTARDS are the ones who cheered for the war, the ones who jerk off to pics of thousands of dead Iraqis.
        YOU pathetic cowardly ***** are the sad bitches who INSISTED on putting our troops in the meat grinder.
        What a dishonest piece of ***** you are.
    • dlllb, on 07/16/2008, -0/+8I wonder how much therapy/help they could give to veterans if they never bothered with the stealth bomber that crashed a few months ago... The amount you spend on just a few missiles, aircraft, tanks ect could go a lot further if that money were channelled differently.
      • laserman92027, on 07/16/2008, -0/+6SIgnificant amounts of therapy and help are available at the VA. I participate in the group sessions and in individual counseling. One problem is getting my fellow vets to do this rather than self medicate. You get so messed up that you reject everything. PTSD is the worst thing that has ever happened to me. Peer counseling is the best. I get meds at very low cost or free. I am 100% disabled and get SS and Medicare as well. It is not a great life but I get by. Between all of these programs I live a decent life.

        This issue is much bigger than these articles get across. They tend to be written from the point of view of the reporter not the veteran. They go out and look for the sad cases, not the successes. I would like to see balance. Talk to vets in all stages.

        The system isnt perfect but it tries hard. The VA has long term inpatient program that last as long as 90 days to help you get a leg up.

        I have a love hate thing with the VA.

        A Vietnam Veteran


      • sodade, on 07/16/2008, -3/+1But but.. we NEED bombers to defend America. No really. Er umm...
      • Wargalas, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Welcome home laserman, and thanks.
      • dlllb, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2@laserman92027
        You raise some very good points and you have my utmost respect for the things you have done.

        A 'chilly-in-summer' Brit
    • woodrow8292, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4"It’s not clear what therapy and medication could have saved Mr. Dwyer. He admitted lying on a post-deployment questionnaire about what he had seen and suffered because he just wanted to get back to his family. Ms. Minor said he sometimes skipped therapy appointments in El Paso."

      Sometimes only those who want to help themselves can be helped. I don't disagree that these troops need more support when they get back and basically I think they should get what ever they need for free for the rest of their lives. But you can only help those who want to help themselves. It's a tragedy but don't make it sound like he wasn't getting any help.
      • LeeSoong, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5Anytime 'sniffing cleaning solution' seems like a good idea, seek outside help. Huffing is dumb.

        Any form of chemical or drug abuse is going to make a situation worse.

        The body is a temple, not a garbage pit.
      • AtheismFTW, on 07/16/2008, -4/+4MORE SOLIDERS DIE FROM SUICIDE THAN FROM INSURGENTS

        http://digg.com/politics/Suicide_is_Deadlier_than_ ...
      • woodrow8292, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1We get it FTW quit spamming your submission all over I think one post of the link is good enough. How many times have you posted the link in this thread already??
    • RachaelMichele, on 07/16/2008, -1/+36Tell me about it. I just said good bye to my husband and saw him off to go to the Iraq and Afghanistan for the FOURTH time on Monday. He said leaving his two small children again was the hardest thing he's ever had to do. Our daughter's first birthday is next week. He'll also miss all the holidays again.

      The thing that gets me so angry, is this is all happening because of a truly moronic (stupid, stupid, stupid) and selfish man. Things could be so much better in my family if I felt like my husband's life were in danger for an honorable reason. Or even a rational reason would do.
      • mrtrevin, on 07/16/2008, -0/+12Sorry to hear that Rachael. I know it doesn't count for much, but I wish you and your family the best!
      • takamalak, on 07/16/2008, -0/+9Hope your family all the best and that this will be the last time he has to go over. I know a couple families in your situation and it's the biggest strain you can ever imagine.
      • FierceEagle, on 07/16/2008, -17/+4"Things could be so much better in my family if I felt like my husband's life were in danger for an honorable reason. Or even a rational reason would do."

        Actually, we are in Iraq and Afghanistan for both honorable and rational reasons. May I suggest that you stop letting ignorant Internet posters, misguided and/or dishonest politicians, and the main-stream media educate you on the justifications for war in Iraq.

        If you do the research, you will find that most of the common knowledge perpetrated by the media in regards to reasons we went to war are false. Included below is a non-exhaustive list of justifications for the Iraq war.

        1. Iraq did have undeclared and illegal WMD (we found small amounts of various kinds post-war), and Iraq secretly continued various WMD and other illegal programs, yet others were simply put on temporary hold.
        2. Iraq did have a relationship with al-Qaeda. Iraq cooperated with and supported al-Qaeda as well as many other international Islamic terrorist organizations (we found Iraqi documents outlining these "links" post-war).
        3. Iraq threatened the use of terrorism on all Americans and supported terrorism that resulted in the death of Americans.
        4. Iraq violated 16 UN Security Council resolutions over a 12 year period including the original Iraq War I cease-fire agreement.

        The list goes on and on. Iraq was a real threat and our going to Iraq to defend against that threat was necessary and justified. Please don't let the left-wing in this country convince you otherwise.
      • RachaelMichele, on 07/16/2008, -0/+6You're right, fierceeagle. I'm married to a high ranking Air Force aviator, but you probably know a lot more about what goes on over there than someone with top secret clearance. Thank you for watching out for my weak mind so easily influenced but the left wing crazies.

        By the way, what you quoted, and corrected me on, was an opinion. I can't be wrong. But thanks for trying anyway.


      • Dauntless1, on 07/16/2008, -5/+0Don't worry about it, FierceEagle. The truth is, most families are going to reject the war in Iraq as useless and illegal as long as they don't see a direct benifit to their own personal welfare.
      • RachaelMichele, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4Just so you know dauntless, my husband's paycheck almost doubles while he's gone. There's flight pay and hazard duty pay added to his normal pay, all of it tax free. Sounds like a direct benefit to me.

        Also, most military families fiercely support the war. Keep up.

        I'm insulted that you both assumed I am ignorant and selfish. Tell me, is it because I am a woman in general or because I am a military wife?
      • FierceEagle, on 07/16/2008, -3/+1Don't put words in my mouth. I never said I knew more about what's going on with the current situation than the people actually living it. I simply pointed out several "rational" and "honorable" justifications for going into Iraq to begin with, which is the reason your husband is there. The justifications I listed don't require a "top secret clearance" to know as it is public information. Although, they do require some intelligence and perseverance to prove as some research is required to find the information. Regardless of who you are married to, based on what you've said up to this point, I am quite sure I know more about the reasons we went to war than you. That is why I politely suggested you save yourself some heartache and educate yourself. Maybe then you could feel better about your husband, his mission, and your country. We could also have an actual debate instead of you hurling sarcastic insults at me. For someone so smart and privy to so much "secret" information, the insults really ought to be beneath you.
      • FierceEagle, on 07/16/2008, -3/+1"I'm insulted that you both assumed I am ignorant and selfish."

        I only said you are ignorant, but as long as you remain ignorant you are also selfish. Especially, considering what your husband is doing for our country.

        "Tell me, is it because I am a woman in general or because I am a military wife?"

        Neither. It is because you are wrong.
      • RachaelMichele, on 07/16/2008, -0/+6I never said I was "privy" to anything. My husband doesn't kiss and tell. I am influenced by his feelings on the war based on the knowledge he has. As for my information, I 'm just as current as you are. Once again, I said "opinion." I don't think any reasons on that list were cause for war. Opinion, not ignorance. Just because you interpret information differently doesn't mean you are any more educated.

        And if if you call implying that I'm ignorant and weak minded being polite, then I call my sarcasm courteous banter. At least my insults aren't backhanded.

        As much as I would love an "actual debate" I have a family to take care of by myself. No that's a lie. I wouldn't love to debate you. I don't find anything of value in your statements and think it would be a waste of time. Thanks for making this incredibly depressing time for me just a little bit more irritating. Maybe you can go kick a puppy now or something.
      • RachaelMichele, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4"Neither. It is because you are wrong."

        Ok, this is that last time I am gonna say this, and I'm going to say it real slooooow so maybe you understand this time.

        It
        is
        an
        opinion.
        There
        is
        no
        right
        or
        wrong.

        Now, I've given you more of my time than I'm comfortable with. Go put a yellow ribbon magnet on your car and leave me alone.

      • h3lx, on 07/16/2008, -0/+6*****. Armchair chickenhawks throwing around that same tired ***** 7 years after the fact with such religious fervor you'd think Cheney said it yesterday.
      • FierceEagle, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1"I never said I was "privy" to anything."

        That's right, you only made the suggestion that you were "privy," but you didn't actually say you were. Sorry about that. Maybe you ought not suggest things like that, if they aren't really true.

        If you believe that all of the justifications I listed are true yet you are still against the war, then you are even in worse shape than I thought. It's just that most that are against the war, believe we were led to war based on lies -- you know, "Bush lied people died." My assumption truly wasn't meant to insult, but to encourage learning and healing.

        In regards to your "opinion," you can hold whatever opinion you like, but you can't change the facts. Further, most reasonable people that know the facts also know the war is justified. So, if it's not because you don't believe in the justifications, then why is it you don't support the war? If you have time to answer, with family and all.
      • FierceEagle, on 07/16/2008, -2/+0"*****. Armchair chickenhawks throwing around that same tired ***** 7 years after the fact with such religious fervor you'd think Cheney said it yesterday."

        What's that make you then? An "armchair chicken."

        Unfortunately, I can't say I'm surprised liberals such as yourself continue to deny the facts. The reason you are hearing the same thing you did 7 years ago, and with the same "fervor," is because the facts didn't change. Although, the media coverage and the common knowledge about this war did.
      • RogueGenius, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5I'm not privy to anything other than the collective data available from many English speaking news sources around the world, and I can state definitively:

        1) There were no WMD's. The Administration lied. There once was (Reagan gave Saddam the gas he used to kill the Kurds in that famous footage) but Iraq was in compliance in 2003.

        2) Iraq did NOT have any relationship or even significant contact with al-Qaeda. All the evidence the Administration manufactured (read FAKED) to support that has long been disproven and shown for what it was. (Any 'post war' -- how can you have a post war when we are still in the process of losing it? -- documents to the contrary never made it to any outlet other than FOX)

        Saddam (not Iraq) did threaten a lot of things. He had more talk than his balls could cover. None of his threats were meaningful and that was known well before Bush knowingly took us into Iraq for his own purposes.

        I have no doubt Saddam (again, not Iraq) violated a lot of things. The US has violated more UN resolutions than Iraq, which is why anti-American, pro-confederate right-wingers are always called for the US to pull out of the UN.

        Sorry "FierceEagle" (*snicker*), your data is all false and you are a fool for still believing it at this point.

        I'm REALLY sorry to you RachealMichele. Your husband is in unnecessary, pointless danger. There is no hope for honor in this war, but I can wish you the best and hope he gets home to you healthy and soon. Please ignore 'weakchickenhawk.'
      • FierceEagle, on 07/16/2008, -2/+0"RogueGenius: 1) There were no WMD's. The Administration lied."

        Wrong. We did find small amounts of various illegal WMDs post-war and it was found that several WMD programs continued to grow through the years. Further, it shouldn't be expected that Saddam would leave all of his WMD out for us to find post-invasion. Nonetheless, we did find illegal WMD that Saddam falsely claimed he didn't have and that people like you continue to claim he didn't have. Please have a look at the following excerpts from the ISG report that people such as yourself love to reference. I guess you missed these parts.

        "ISG found a limited number of post-1995 activities that would have aided the reconstitution of the nuclear weapons program once sanctions were lifted."

        "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991."

        "ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations."

        "ISG judges that in 1991 and 1992, Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent. However ISG lacks evidence to document complete destruction. Iraq retained some BW-related seed stocks until their discovery after Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)."

        "The IIS had a series of laboratories that conducted biological work including research into BW agents for assassination purposes until the mid-1990s. ISG has not been able to establish the scope and nature of the work at these laboratories or determine whether any of the work was related to military development of BW agent."

        "From 1999 until he was deposed in April 2003, Saddam’s conventional weapons and WMD-related procurement programs steadily grew in scale, variety, and efficiency."

        "RogueGenius: There once was (Reagan gave Saddam the gas he used to kill the Kurds in that famous footage) but Iraq was in compliance in 2003."

        I've heard this conspiracy theory over and over again, but have found little credible evidence to support it. True, we provided some non-military support to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War, but we never armed him with conventional or WMD weapons.

        "2) Iraq did NOT have any relationship or even significant contact with al-Qaeda. All the evidence the Administration manufactured (read FAKED) to support that has long been disproven and shown for what it was. (Any 'post war' -- how can you have a post war when we are still in the process of losing it? -- documents to the contrary never made it to any outlet other than FOX)"

        Wrong again. Please see the following excerpts from the 9/11 Commission Report, and then further down from the Iraq Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism report.

        In regards to the post-war comment, major combat operations are over and that mission was accomplished a long time ago. The Iraqi army is on our side now. We are in the reconstruction/security phase, but the actual conventional war is over.

        Fox News may have been the only ones to report the existence of such documents, but that shouldn't be a surprise. The left-wing media would rather not report anything like that for obvious reasons. The truth is that the US government has these documents and is having an outside organization perform the analysis of them. I've included excerpts from their preliminary report below.

        9/11 Commission Report:

        "There is also evidence that around this time (March 1997) Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation."

        "In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence."

        "In July (1998), an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin."

        "Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 . . . Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq."

        Then, there is the recent Iraq Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism report on the subject which analyzed only 15% of captured Iraqi government documents:

        Iraq Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism Report:

        " . . . the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda--as long as the organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision."

        "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives."

        Further, if you search past news articles, particularly before 9/11, you will find many unbiased articles citing Iraq-al-Qaeda links. The evidence of such "links" is clear as well as the threat posed by such links.
      • adeptusliberus, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Ok FierceEagle and Dauntless1, if you love this war so ***** much, go join up right now, and put yourself in the exact same danger that Rachael's husband is in as we speak, before you say another god-damned thing.

        Rachael, it is my most sincere hope that your husband returns ASAP, along with everyone else involved in Bush's pointless vendetta.
      • FierceEagle, on 07/16/2008, -2/+0"Ok FierceEagle and Dauntless1, if you love this war so ***** much, go join up right now, and put yourself in the exact same danger that Rachael's husband is in as we speak, before you say another god-damned thing."

        I'm a bit too old for the armed services at this point. Regardless, no one in America needs to join an army or do anything else for that matter to freely express themselves. In case you forgot, oh great steward of America and her rights, Freedom of Speech is the first and most important amendment. I guess you only like free speech as long as it agrees with you -- how unfortunate. In any case, we all pay taxes, and we all have a right to be heard and to be represented. Don't let "adeptusliberal" or anyone else scare you away from saying what you believe is right.
      • LeeSoong, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1The USA dies without oil.

        Sad but true - cut the USA off from oil and the whole country would grind to a halt.

        No trucks, no cars, no food shipments, no trains, no flying in airplanes - Nothing.

        Complete social ~ economic collapse.

        Now, if you want to help the USA avoid such a 'stupid' fate, enact strong laws and education and reform programs to COMPLETELY convert the USA to high efficiency solar, wind, hydro, wave, geothermal, and nuclear power.

        Even President Bush said America has an Addiction to Oil.

        Coming down off that 'high' of cheap abundant energy, while banks implode, companies fold, layoffs increase, the dollar value plummets, food shortages spread, crime increases, homes foreclose, and the prices of everything else goes up and up -
        good luck on surviving the greatest social collapse since the fall of Rome:

        http://www.survivalist.info/supplies/
      • FierceEagle, on 07/16/2008, -3/+0LeeSoong, this thread is related to the Iraq war not energy. Maybe it's that you can't compete intellectually, so you change topics to one you are more comfortable with.

        In any case, we would have more oil now if we would have started drilling at home 10 years ago. Instead 10 years later, we still hear liberals like you tell us it will take another 10 years for new oil to make an impact. First, just by virtue of us announcing that we will be adding significant new supply to the market will bring down prices. Second, all of the energy alternatives you listed would take well beyond 10 years to mature to the point where they can replace oil. Oil won't last forever, but it's here to stay for quite a while. Until we have sufficient alternatives available, we will continue to use oil and we will need to utilize all oil resources available, especially those resources available here in the US.
      • h3lx, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Fierce,
        I'm the conservative, you're a ***** nut.
      • RachaelMichele, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Thank you for the kind thoughts everyone. I honestly really appreciate it.
      • RogueGenius, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Holy cut and paste, birdie. Somebody did a HUGE amount of work over that last 6 years to cobble together those tiny scraps of nothing. My favorite was the very first one (well, who am I kidding, after reading the first, seeing that is was crap, I quickly skimmed the rest)

        "limited number of post-1995 activities that would have aided the reconstitution of the nuclear weapons program once sanctions were lifted."

        I have a degree in Chemistry, am I guilty of 'activities that would aid the construction of nuclear weapons?" I also have bleach under my sink, and more than enough knowledge to turn it into a toxic cloud of chlorine gas. Ready to brand me 'chemical ali.'

        More importantly, and debunking all your crap. The ISG itself says they found nothing! No Chemical, Nuclear or biological weapons. You know the ISG: the source YOU are quoting. They found nothing of consequence! So, all the work you or whoever did to cut those bits of nothing out of a huge document, was wasted effort.

        You see, the problem with you right-wing types is you assume the rest of us are as dim witted as you. Luckily, it's more difficult to pull the wool over the eyes of the intelligent than republicans.
      • RogueGenius, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2To recap.

        1) There were no WMD's. The Administration lied. There once was (Reagan gave Saddam the gas he used to kill the Kurds in that famous footage) but Iraq was in compliance in 2003.

        2) Iraq did NOT have any relationship or even significant contact with al-Qaeda. All the evidence the Administration manufactured (read FAKED) to support that has long been disproven and shown for what it was. (Any 'post war' -- how can you have a post war when we are still in the process of losing it? -- documents to the contrary never made it to any outlet other than FOX)

        3) Saddam (not Iraq) did threaten a lot of things. He had more talk than his balls could cover. None of his threats were meaningful and that was known well before Bush knowingly took us into Iraq for his own purposes.

        4) I have no doubt Saddam (again, not Iraq) violated a lot of things. The US has violated more UN resolutions than Iraq, which is why anti-American, pro-confederate right-wingers are always called for the US to pull out of the UN.

        Those are the facts. Learn to deal with reality.
      • FierceEagle, on 07/17/2008, -1/+0"h3lx: Fierce, I'm the conservative, you're a ***** nut."

        Sure you are. And, why am I a nut? Just because you said so, right? Please.

        Most conservatives pride themselves in focusing on substance over style. Among other things, it's what distinguishes them from liberals. All you can offer are petty, baseless insults rather than actually addressing the issues. You're not any kind of conservative I ever known.
      • FierceEagle, on 07/17/2008, -0/+0"RogueGenius: who am I kidding, after reading the first, seeing that is was crap, I quickly skimmed the rest"

        That's been your problem the whole war and likely your whole life. Rather than look into things yourself, you rely on others to tell you what to think because you are too lazy. That's fine, if all you are interested in is spin and lies.

        "RogueGenius: I have a degree in Chemistry, am I guilty of 'activities that would aid the construction of nuclear weapons?"

        If you have the expertise to create WMDs, then of course. The WMDs don't make themselves. You need scientists for that.

        "RogueGenius: More importantly, and debunking all your crap."

        You haven't debunked a thing. All you've done is prove to everyone you are too lazy to be bothered with looking at the facts.

        "The ISG itself says they found nothing!"

        Wrong. If you would have actually read the information I've provided rather than skim it, you may have learned that the ISG did find small amounts of WMD post-war, just like I've said from the start. It's right there in black and white, you just need to read it and accept it. I know it's difficult because it's not what you've been told all of these years, but it's the truth.

        "You see, the problem with you right-wing types is you assume the rest of us are as dim witted as you. Luckily, it's more difficult to pull the wool over the eyes of the intelligent than republicans."

        Yeah, that's it. You have provided not one shred of evidence to support your position. Everything I've said, I've backed up with credible reports and facts. I don't have a problem with my wit, but apparently you do.
      • FierceEagle, on 07/17/2008, -0/+0"RogueGenius: 2) Iraq did NOT have any relationship or even significant contact with al-Qaeda."

        Just to recap . . . Maybe you "skimmed" past it, but I already provided you with excerpts from a US government sponsored report on captured Iraqi government documents that show Saddam did have a relationship with ("links") and did indeed cooperated with and support al-Qaeda as well as several other international Islamic terrorists. Ignoring the truth won't make it go away.
      • RogueGenius, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Sorry you feel that way fierce, but a guy on the internet isn't even worth the amount of time I've already wasted on you. The ISG concluded that Saddam was not a nice guy but was held in check and that no significant amounts of anything were found. That's it. There is nothing more to discuss. You can replace 'no significant' with 'small amounts' if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the ISG did NOT supply evidence that was even remotely in the neighborhood of worth going to war over.

        That is, unless you already wanted to go to war and were just looking for reasons. In which case you are a warmonger and are no better than, say Emperor Hirohito. The difference was Hirohito was a smarter and better warlord than Bush, so he had more success.

        Anyway, you've been sufficiently debunked. Respond if you want, if it's worthy I'll post back. If it's more crap about 'small amounts' then I likely won't.
      • FierceEagle, on 07/17/2008, -0/+0"You can replace 'no significant' with 'small amounts' if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the ISG did NOT supply evidence that was even remotely in the neighborhood of worth going to war over."

        Well, at least you now admit we found some WMD and related programs post-war. This is the same WMD people like yourself said Saddam didn't have leading up to the war. The fact that we did find any amount of WMDs and related materials combined with unconfirmed reports that Saddam moved incriminating material out of Iraq prior to the invasion are pretty good indicators that there was much more to be found prior to the invasion. One would be extremely naive to think that Saddam would just leave all of his illegal toys out for his arch-nemesis, America, to find. Although, apparently, he didn't do a very good job of cleaning as he forgot some things. Maybe that's an indication of how large the cleanup was as well as the amount to be cleaned up.

        "That is, unless you already wanted to go to war and were just looking for reasons."

        This might speak more to how you and other liberals operate than anything else. You basically don't like Bush and don't like the war, so you shape your "facts" around that premise.

        "Anyway, you've been sufficiently debunked."

        Again, you've debunked nothing. If anything, I've convinced you that Saddam did indeed have illegal WMDs and related programs. We may not have found the stockpiles we thought we would, but we proved Saddam was lying to us and that we were right to invade. Further, you've provided no evidence to back up anything you've said while I've not made one statement I can't back up. Your overwhelming bias can really cloud your judgment, and this is just another example.
      • RogueGenius, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Same old same old. I'm deluded because I can read the conclusions rather than pick what I want out of a report. No matter, read it loud: IRAQ HAD NO WMD. It's not me saying it, it's the ISG and 6 years of occupation. Frankly, I'm surprised none turned up. I was sure we would seriously look for a year or so, fail to find anything, then 'suddenly' find a boatload. Iraq was simply in compliance. That's the end of it.

        But you have hit on one thing: I hate the war. I disliked Bush, but I hate the war. Any war that is not demonstratively defensive is wrong. Bush wanted war, and I saw that loud and clear from the very beginning. It was first that the 9/11 bombers came from Iraq (oops, they didn't.) Next reason: 9/11 was planned by Iraq and proved by their meeting in Prague (oops. The Prague meeting never happened.) Ok, we can't tie 9/11 to Iraq, what next: Ah, WMD's. We know they have WMD's... except that by 2003, Iraq didn't have any WMD's. Could they being trying to reconstitute? They are trying to get Yellowcake! Oops, that document was faked as well.. What next? Dosen't matter, we were already in by then. A war of choice that never did find a reason.

        I'm sorry, nobody can be blind enough to still fall for this and scramble though documents to find pathetic scraps that can be twisted to mean just the opposite of what they do. You have to be a fool.

        I'm sorry Firece, but you are a fool.
      • FierceEagle, on 07/21/2008, -0/+0"IRAQ HAD NO WMD. It's not me saying it, it's the ISG and 6 years of occupation. Frankly, I'm surprised none turned up."

        Actually, it was you saying that. Remember when you said we could say that we found "no significant" or "small amounts" a comment or two ago? I guess you have a short memory. Yet again, the ISG report said we didn't find the "stockpiles," but indeed confirms we found "small amounts" of WMD.

        "I'm sorry, nobody can be blind enough to still fall for this and scramble though documents to find pathetic scraps that can be twisted to mean just the opposite of what they do."

        Only liberals would criticize others for actually reading a report rather than rely on second, third, and forth hand summaries. I've provided more than enough facts to back up my position, and you provided nothing, but conspiracy theories and hate. I'm done wasting my time with the likes of you. One minute you're willing to admit Iraq was found to have small amounts of WMD, and the next you claim the opposite. You have proven completely uneducated, unreasonable, and delusional -- a combination I have no patience for.
      • LeeSoong, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1You don't need 10 years - you can live Off-Grid TODAY simply by converting your own home:

        http://www.homepower.com/home/

        You car choices will be limited for the time being,
        but perhaps an electric scooter recharged from solar batteries would help?

        http://www.electric-bikes.com/

        To say that the USA has zero interest in Iraq oil
        is very, very unlikely:

        Operation
        Iraqi
        Liberation.

        Every wind turbine and solar panel is fighting terrorism,
        cutting off enemy funding - one barrel of oil at a time.


        O.I.L.

        Renewable Energy promotes peace and freedom for the U.S.A.

        Take the oil out of the equation and why would you want to visit the middle East, to add to your sand collection ?

    • xsuite, on 07/16/2008, -2/+12Govt aided help for a veteran? Are you insane?

      Thats right behind abolishing taxes on the Govts todo list.

      Its a real shame though. Vets get treated like ***** in exchange for all the hard work they do/have done.
    • TheMightyDane, on 07/16/2008, -6/+3Your country shouldn't have entered the country in the first place.
      • Dauntless1, on 07/16/2008, -4/+1Yeah, we really shouldn't have flown those planes into the taliban world trade center.


        Oh, wait...
    • shna, on 07/16/2008, -5/+2Can you believe this...????

      There are people here who dont even like this comment.
    • suttercain, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2You donate time to go down and help these guys or do you just say 'we should do something'?
    • FierceEagle, on 07/16/2008, -2/+3There is definitely room for improvement at the VA. Having said that, we can't expect the VA to help people it doesn't know needs help or that won't help themselves. Please see the following excerpt from the article, and I suggest you actually read the article next time instead of just the headline.

      "It’s not clear what therapy and medication could have saved Mr. Dwyer. He admitted lying on a post-deployment questionnaire about what he had seen and suffered because he just wanted to get back to his family. Ms. Minor said he sometimes skipped therapy appointments in El Paso."
    • FutureGuy, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Those fing hypocrite bastards who still support this war should read this. The cost of this war is incalculable. Go vote for McCain and repeat the same mistake, only a few more thousand lives like this would be lost. Its a shame what has become of this country in the last 8 years.
      • FierceEagle, on 07/16/2008, -5/+1I support the war, and I read this. Now what? How am I a hypocrite?

        This man apparently didn't want treatment as he lied on his post-deployment form and missed his therapy sessions. Further, it appears Schizophrenia played a much bigger factor in this man's life than did PTSD. In terms of life lost, the cost of this war has been relatively low, especially as compared to previous wars. While the sacrifice might seem great now, it is nothing in comparison to the sacrifices we would have to make if we did nothing. Remember 9/11? I'll never forget.
      • blackinthmiddle, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2If you support our military and everything they've been doing, you're simply a moron.

        Why don't you look up "executive order 13139 experiment". That's the little thing Clinton signed before he left office, which says that the military can perform experiments on it's people for any reason with no consent or even the knowledge of the participant! How on EARTH can you know that the military uses it's people like guinea pigs and still support anything they do?
      • FierceEagle, on 07/16/2008, -3/+1Yeah, isn't that the order that ensures all of our military is vaccinated from various biological WMD even if the vaccines aren't approved for full population use by the FDA? Those on the left like to call this "human experimentation," while reasonable folks see it as a necessary and smart precaution. You lefties are too fun sometimes.
      • nick1971, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3FierceEagle,
        With all the discussion of the falling dollar I'd just like to clarify with you the exchange rate between the currency rates.
        Dead US soldiers
        Maimed US soldiers
        US soldiers who committed suicide
        Iraqi civilians who have died
        Iraqi civilians who have been maimed
        Afghanistan civilians who have died
        Afghanistan civilians who have been maimed.
        People killed on the 11th September.
        Yes I live in Germany yes I was in DC on the 11th September.
        I understand the shock I understand the loss, I cried for your citizens but.....
        1 M people died in Rhoanda
        1M people die in Africa per year because of AIDS
        Whats the exchange rate for 1 US citizens life? Does it change between being a soldier and being a civilian? Is it really so different if you live in Africa / The middle east?
      • FierceEagle, on 07/16/2008, -2/+0I'm not exactly sure what you a referring to here, but I'll do my best. Of course, life is life, and any loss of life is a tragedy. Although, some loss of life is more justifiable than others. For example, even though we suffer a relatively few amount of casualties now, more life will be preserved in the long run than if we never went at all. America fights wars for the ultimate goal of peace and the preservation of life.
    • Yoda900, on 07/16/2008, -5/+1And tell them what? We were worried about them, so we brought them back before they could finish the mission for which they have bled and died the past five years?

      The VA needs work, yes. Our men need to be thanked relentlessly after fighting for their country, and that includes all the medical and phsychiatric care they need. But when you try to pull them out of their mission with the end finally in sight, you shame them and the mission they believe in.
      • kaynee, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Except that the current inept administration can't tell anyone what exactly "the mission" is at this point (certainly not the lies they originally gave us for going in) and they refuse to define "the end" that you say is finally in sight. Our soldiers deserve a little more respect than that for all they have sacrificed.
    • kingjam, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1The problem is if you gave them the option to come home, 95% of them would stay over in the war.
      • nick1971, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1I hope that this is not true. If the foreign policy in the USA has really been reduced to the level of a bumper sticker then we (the world community) then there is really no future.
        Please send me detailed descriptions how I build my bomb bunker if this is the case and I hope that you send the version that is radiation proof
      • kingjam, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1your a dumb ass
      • h3lx, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1You ***** MRE peanut butter for 6 months and then ask yourself if you want to go home.
        Would you rather bang your wife, or get blown up watching cat cookies crawling around the litter box?

        "Mission was accomplished 4 years ago, time to go home!" Aww Sarge, can't we stay a little longer, I ***** love getting shot at and blown the hell up.
    • Ratty, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Perhaps all the military personnel should grab their rifles, march to the Whitehouse and demand a withdrawl? That is why America has legal guns, isn't it?
      • h3lx, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1The drawback to that approach is that some very good men would lose their lives for something they believe in, both doing their duty, others demanding what is rightfully theirs. It would take over half a million of us to overwhelm the security forces, we would have to be willing to brave volleys of rifle and gas fire, active denial systems. Better to get 5,000,000 of us and clog everything up with bodies. Total Pacification by overwhelming numbers, no force at all. Stay there until everything grinds to a halt. No traffic, every street, field, runway, doorway, people everywhere. Chant if you want, but more important that they stay put and be willing to stay put indefinitely. Out of a nation of 300,000,000, you'd think that 5,000,000 would be fairly easy to assemble. I haven't tried. Force them to represent.

        5,000,000 people willing to walk off their jobs, set their lives aside, no kids, no wives to stand united in the face of a secretive gov't? It would take something drastic to jar them from their sleep... It'd have to be a city wide Waco without all the disagreement about who fired the first shot.
  • xerosawyer, on 07/15/2008, -232/+11Hero? Give me a ***** break
    • roryk27, on 07/16/2008, -10/+108yes. a hero.
      because unlike you he had the courage to put his life in danger to help another
      • xerosawyer, on 07/16/2008, -74/+11Help who? The Iraqi's? You mean the ones he's been sent over to kill? Oh I get it now.. idiot
      • askantik, on 07/16/2008, -4/+31Our troops weren't sent over to kill Iraqis, though it may appear that way sense we illegally invaded their country.
      • Typhoon2009, on 07/16/2008, -8/+62the ones he was 'sent over to kill' (which is a bit misleading considering he's a ***** MEDIC you spineless ***** *****) are the insurgents, who also don't mind the collateral damage (meaning the DEATHS) of their OWN countrymen. so shut the ***** up you cynical piece of *****. you are as much of a part of the problem as the assholes who keep our troops over there: the cynical, sarcastic, uncaring people who don't want help for our troops.
      • Gartland32, on 07/16/2008, -5/+16Well said Typhoon.
      • bgturk, on 07/16/2008, -21/+13What is so heroic about helping a child that you've just injured with your own bombs ?
      • ciaran036, on 07/16/2008, -13/+6Heroic? How stupid can you be to be fooled into going to WAR with another country for no good reason? How stupid can you be to risk your life for the benefit of arms and defence companies?
      • ciaran036, on 07/16/2008, -15/+3Typhoon2009: "*****" "spineless ***** *****" "shut the ***** up you cynical piece of *****" "assholes"...

        Yes, extremely well said.

        /s
      • Alegoo92, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6Oh go ***** yourself you miserable piece of *****. Your ***** attitude fueled by your idiocy which duos with your bias against the war must have friggin blinded you from the ability to read the ***** story. He's a ***** medic and didn't kill anybody. The people we were sent over to kill btw, weren't children, they were domestic and foreign terrorists.

        And it's the actual definition of a hero, so just shut the ***** up and go troll somewhere else you jackass.
    • tykwondingo, on 07/16/2008, -10/+35TROLL
    • iDiggIt42, on 07/16/2008, -12/+18***** troll is a...oh, nevermind, ***** you.
      • ciaran036, on 07/16/2008, -4/+2Wouldn't it be great if people were a little more constructive?
    • kemp34, on 07/16/2008, -10/+19What a total prick.
      • forceuser, on 07/16/2008, -6/+3I will give you a break over the head
      • kemp34, on 07/16/2008, -2/+10What does that mean? BTW I am calling xerosawyer a prick, not the troop. I believe the troop IS a hero. I am sure the ugly, despicable reality of war is what sadly drove him over the edge. We need to bring the troops home.
      • ciaran036, on 07/16/2008, -4/+2Alright a hero (picture proves). But most soldiers are far from heroes. Most SMART heroes can be found in NGO's and charities seeking to aid Iraqi's and reconcile Sunni's and Shias. That way, they can avoid being targeted - and avoid ruining the lives of his family.
    • Urgoz, on 07/16/2008, -12/+35If you don't stand behind our soldiers, then feel free to stand in front of them.
      • UltraMegaFilms, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4Can't a person stand behind human life? I don't want this war to represent me, and I am just as much of an American as any citizen. I respect the role of the troops for the deaths, both caused and sustained, not because of some middle school history book fantasy that they are standing up for our freedoms. I know soldiers, and a lot of them got a very nice signing bonus and the promise of a college education. More importantly, a lot of them feel the same way about the war... let's get the ***** out and start being a purely positive force on the world.
    • zyklon, on 07/16/2008, -14/+11Kill yourself. No, seriously. Do it.
    • DanBoodro, on 07/16/2008, -5/+17a lot of people don't like you.
    • Niallgriff, on 07/16/2008, -2/+20For the war, against the war, whatever. You don't insult someone for trying to make some good come out of it.
      • ciaran036, on 07/16/2008, -5/+1How did they try and make some good come out out of it? Killing people is good?
      • Alegoo92, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4I really wish you would try to explain your views to someone who's been in or is in the army. You're such a jerk.
    • pagno, on 07/16/2008, -7/+10I dont think the Tourettes Guy has enough insults and cuss words to describe you. You should be boiled in a vat of your own feces, quartered, and then spread to the corners of the country so others can see your shame, you dickless piece of inhuman *****.
    • potisreallygood, on 07/16/2008, -30/+6Wow, you just pissed off a caravan of soccer moms. Members of the united states military and police are usually huge pervert douchebags with pregnant 17 year old fiances, horrible taste in music, a need for entitlement, so they can force pain and control on others to make up for their insecurities. They put themselves in that situation, ***** em, SUPPORT THE TRUPS!
    • jacobj, on 07/16/2008, -2/+8You know, I am as opposed to the Iraq war as anyone I know; but I have to admire those people that believe in their country and are willing to fight and die for it. We do not know the context of the picture (whether there real and imminent danger), but that is not really important. The picture shows a gentleness and caring, a belief that not all around them is evil and corrupt, that children and always, always innocent.

      You know, you are expressing a hatred so vehemently that you are no better than the position you claim to oppose. You appear to see "us and them", which is the mentality that leads to hatred and war. The only difference is that you hide your opinions behind a non-aggression policy (or appear to) and therefore never have to prove your worth and courage.

      I may have concluded a lot (too much) from your comments, but you appear to be an arse, that only a deluded fool would listen to.
      • ciaran036, on 07/16/2008, -4/+3What's to admire? Their stupidity?
        In this case, you would be admiring a soldier who wants to kill people and sacrifice himself - but with no benefits of doing so. Remember, Iraqi's are not linked to 9/11. Al Qaeda is tiny. Most Iraqis who fought were resisting the illegal occupation or seeking revenge from family members murdered when bombs were dropped and bullets were fired. That is why I think it is stupid.

        What good has come from the Iraq war? Very little.
        Think how much the war has cost, and think where else that money could have been used.

        The only reason you admire those who are willing to fight and die in a foreign land is probably because you've watched too many war films like Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan. Nothing but propaganda, if you ask me. It's been drilled into your head - but if you thought about it for a minute, you would realise that it is ridiculous. The family members of an Iraqi rebel or member of Al Qaeda think that they are just as courageous. I have seen pictures of Iraqi's carrying children away from gun fights and such. They are just as brave. The difference is that they are only there by chance. US soldiers were SENT there by the US government. Although soldiers were not allowed an individual choice on the matter.

        Those that avoid war and conflict are the real brave heroes. Brave enough to stand up against the propaganda and lies (WMD's - 9/11 - Terrorists - Nukes etc.). These are people like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, who have been brave enough to stand up and say NO.
      • drvcr, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1Now your true colors come out.

        You are the delusional one for thinking that your support for Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich will make a ***** difference in this country. Oh great, the 50,000 votes that Paul receives in the general election will create a tidal wave of change that will sweep through the land, reforming our government.

        I don't support this war and call me what you will...but your delusion of what constitutes bravery is extremely unsettling and disturbing and some might even argue more disturbing than the war itself.

        We all know how much this war has cost this country in terms of US soldiers, innocent Iraqis and money. I think your intentions of trying to be constructive are coming across as insulting and somewhat stupid...Hence the reason no one feels the need to respond.

        I am responding out of sheer pity for your delusional state of mind. Go back to jerking off to Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich images on Google.


    • Crucible1001, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3Did you even read the story? He took the place of someone else that was supposed to go to Iraq.

      I do however feel that the entire war is a waste of time. This feels too much like Vietnam all over again.
    • Gev1982, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2Enough people have spent time explaining. You are an ignorant buffoon. Enjoy the freedoms that you take for granted--someone died for them. (PS, I dare you to repeat your words in front of a service member..***** coward)
      • xerosawyer, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Your heroic 'service members' have violated all bodies of military legality in the past 5-6 years. Think about that before you open your mouth next time.
      • Gev1982, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0Really? I can't speak for everyone, but I spent 13 months in Iraq and never committed a crime while there--neither did anyone that I worked with. You can kiss my ass with your social commentary of my country dude--have you had your feet on the ground in a war zone? If not, I suggest YOU think before you open your mouth.
  • zephyrnug, on 07/15/2008, -1/+163horrible story. a prime example of the horrors of war and the implications it has on a soldiers mind.
    • JurioLight, on 07/16/2008, -24/+1I think you are making a lot of assumptions. Could it be that this soldier had issues prior to going to iraq? There are lot's of people who commit suicide. They all have their reasons, why cant the iraq war be one of them? If there was someone out there who committed suicide because they couldn't stand their job, would you say that all jobs like it should be banned? Should working in general be banned?

      You, and many other diggers are incredibly short sighted. It's like you all run on 5second emotions and don't think after that.
      • fsweep, on 07/16/2008, -0/+8I don't know about that. I worked in mental health with PTSD soldiers who returned from Iraq. Many of these kids did things over there that they were not particularly proud of--- certainly not the sort of heroic deeds that are trumpeted in the mass media. They came home and couldn't sort out if they were still their mother's sons, their wive's husbands, their children's fathers, etc. A lot of crazy things happen over there--- things that should not happen. If you are at all human or normal, you will be affected. It is those who are NOT affected that I worry about the most.
      • zephyrnug, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5a lot of assumptions? i wrote one sentence. and you stated my point - the iraq war can affect someone so much they commit suicide. and no where did i say that people don't kill themselves because of their job - and i didn't say being a soldier should be banned.

        sorry but your whole stament - no!
    • sacs1800, on 07/16/2008, -3/+7Good story about a horrible subject. It occurs to me that this is why neo-cons hate the NYT so much: The reporters take off their rose-colored glasses when they are covering the war.
    • unravelled, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Reminds me of this recent post
      http://digg.com/health/Elliott_s_War_the_psycholog ...

      Guy had to wait over a year to get treatment for PTSD, much more info in the video.

    • yuletide, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Forget the "horrors of war" and its "implications". We don't need more examples of that; the military does not deny either the "horrors" or their psychological mal-effects.

      This story is a prime example of YET ONE MORE REASON (like we needed any more?) that the current administration is a DISGRACE, and has mishandled the situation in Iraq in every way possible, even down to rehabilitating the very soldiers we supposedly "support" so much. So much for the brave displays of yellow-ribbon patriotism.

      Yeesh.
  • JeremyGrieves, on 07/16/2008, -33/+87A testament to this administrations pure evil that they would not even look after the men who they tricked into fighting for their greed.

    They should have been impeached after the Walter Reed fiasco.
    • dexter411, on 07/16/2008, -29/+7Yes, tricked. With that sneaky volunteer Army and salary...
      • e36wheelman, on 07/16/2008, -2/+21For what it's worth, it stops being a volunteer army the day you sign your multi-year contract. These people cannot leave their jobs.
      • elipabst, on 07/16/2008, -3/+28The guy signed up after 9/11 to go fight the enemy, not because he needed a gov't paycheck. He, like many others, assumed the gov't would tell the truth and would never lie and send him on some ***** personal vendetta mission.
      • dexter411, on 07/16/2008, -9/+6"it stops being a volunteer army the day you sign your multi-year contract."

        Yeah, that's the stupidest thing I've read this morning. Committing to volunteer keeps the "volunteer" part intact (i.e. you CHOOSE to go in knowing that once you enter the armed forces, you make a promise to the Commander in Chief).

        "The guy signed up after 9/11 to go fight the enemy"

        I can't think of anyone more deserving of the title of "enemy" than a group of guys who blow themselves up in front of soldiers and civilians to generate publicity. If you're against the war, fine; it's your right as an American to have some deluded and inconsistent view that our President is both a bumbling moron and a manipulative sociopath who orchestrated a war "for fun." Unfortunately for you and your perception of the world, we still don't have any proof that he lied about anything.

        I know, it's unpopular to be rational on Digg, but it's funny that this site runs wild with both religious skeptics ("show me proof of god") as well as political fanatics ("I don't need proof to know Bush lied").
      • Skeea, on 07/16/2008, -2/+6Can you show me the WMD's that bush didn't lie about?
      • dexter411, on 07/16/2008, -3/+1Only after I find the luminiferous aether that Maxwell lied about.

        Being wrong isn't the same as lying, dunce cap.
      • drvcr, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Ohhh aren't you the clever one Dexter 411. Dunce cap...haven't heard that one in a while.

        If you are giving me the choice of "bumbling moron and a manipulative sociopath" I'll take the latter and say that President Bush in fact a smart man who likes to sandbag people into thinking he is quite stupid.

        Being wrong might not be the same as lying...but being "wrong" under the guise of using false pretenses and withholding information is in fact lying. Which our president is very much capable of doing since I admitted that above.

        Of course the next thing you'll say is that withholding information or using false pretenses is not considered lying, or you will ask for proof.



      • dexter411, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1"Which our president is very much capable of doing since I admitted that above. "

        Oh, well if you admitted it, then that's all the evidence I need... See the circular logic there?

        "Of course the next thing you'll say is that withholding information or using false pretenses is not considered lying, or you will ask for proof."

        Withholding information or using false pretenses is lying, no question. I'm not surprised, though, to see you equate such moronic comparisons with asking for proof. Proof is generally required to make an assertion and all you've shown me so far is that you are big on the latter with none of the former.

        Honestly, I am not a fanboy. If someone can show me evidence that President Bush knowingly mislead the nation (e.g. him telling an associate, "There aren't nukes there, I just don't like Saddam..."), then I will concede that you are right. You disliking someone and [in hindsight] their policy, though, is not proof of them having lied in the first place. It's pretty clear at this point that the intelligence Bush used in his decision to invade Iraq was wrong... but nothing in that suggests he misled us without extra proof (yep, there's that dreaded word).
    • geoboy, on 07/16/2008, -1/+7The president has the authority to do anything he wants without any chance of impeachment. That is, unless he does something devious of a sexual nature. That kind of ***** just ain't tolerated around here. But anything else goes.
      • dexter411, on 07/16/2008, -6/+3Just to be clear... do you think President Clinton was impeached because of the oral sex or because he lied about it under oath? Or is the whole "perjury" thing not important if it's about something that's not a big deal?
      • vypergts, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
      • nick1971, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1Funny its the only thing that Europe would not criticize
    • toekneebullard, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5From the article: "He admitted lying on a post-deployment questionnaire about what he had seen and suffered because he just wanted to get back to his family. said he sometimes skipped therapy appointments in El Paso."

      I'm not saying this isn't tragic, and I'm not saying our government hasn't dropped the ball (majorly) on taking care of it's soldiers, but you can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped.
      • dexter411, on 07/16/2008, -3/+1Yes we can!
      • nick1971, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1OK Place for being negative. I'm going to get negative digged but as I have more than some experience in this area.
        Psychiatric medicine is not about filling out a form and being willing to accept that you are sick.
        Start reading and I'll send you papers (give me an email address and I'll send you 1000 - no I'm not sick just educated)
        The only way to diagnose problems is that a psychiatrist talks to people.
        To say that they lied on a form is the same level of naivety as to say that child abuse victims actively ring the social services to say they are abused. Yes this is a hard example but I have limited line width to present the facts.
        People with PTSD need time with a psychiatrist. Not just 1 session but multiple sessions over time. The need group therapy offered at times over time.
        Yes psycopharmalogical intervention is a part of treatment but only a part.
        The veterans of this war have burnt the candle at both ends and in the middle. There is a cost. They were willing to accept the burden on their psyche as part of the battle. It is now our responsibility as a global community to pick up the problems with their mind and souls in the same way we would pick up a complex fracture of their leg.
        For physical woulds we accept it takes time. For wounds of the mind and the soul it takes longer. Any one who doubts this should spend a tour in Iraq. Its easy to say that PTSD is a problem with the weak when posting to DIGG go out there, come back and I'll give you an appointment in 6 weeks at my practice. In the mean time you can experience the honors of flash backs, free floating anxiety, severe depression. When you have done this you can talk on this subject in DIGG. Until then pray to god for thanks that these problems do not affect you or your love ones.
    • Phylodome, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1Or just the inherently evil nature of government in general. It would be interesting to see what digg would say about a war like WW2, in which around 50 million (conservative estimate) lost their lives. Wake up people it's not "this" government, it's just government.
      • nick1971, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1I think with respect WW2 was different. The countries wanted to be liberated including Germany, the war was less 1 on 1, there was a clearly defined enemy, they soldiers had uniforms, the war was supported by the populations at home.
        WW2 was a war (and perhaps the last one) with a good side and a bad side. I would speculate its easier (a word which I use with the greatest respectto WW2 veterans) to take this on board than with the Iraq conflict.
    • wizzroom, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1More than just impeached, the president and the members of his administration who helped perpetuate the lies for going to war should be tried as war criminals, found guilty, and given proper punishment equal to the worst of criminals.
      • nick1971, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately this would require that you are subject to international law, which you were at GWB's 1st term and then you withdrew from before Iraq. Then there is the minor problem that you withdrew from the recognition of the International Criminal court and published subsequent legislation allowing US citizens to be rescued from Den Haag.
        My only positive thought on this is that the US Army would probably have a good time in Holland with legalized prostitution and cannabis.
    • SmokinOkie, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1***** YOU for making this tragic event a political statement!
  • tykwondingo, on 07/16/2008, -1/+330This is only going to get worse.

    PTSD/Shellshock is serious business and the VA Hospitals can't handle the workload... I have to wait 3-4 months to see a doctor unless I'm having a heartattack. This is how we treat the people who are willing to die to defend what we stand for. Regardless of what you think of the war, our military members and veterans should be treated better.

    • JBmtk, on 07/16/2008, -2/+15What are your thoughts on McCain? I'm interested to see your reply since your obviously a veteran.
      • askantik, on 07/16/2008, -6/+27Hopefully he doesn't believe the notion that McCain should be president simply because he's a veteran and was a POW. Yes, McCain deserves our respect for his courage and honor during his tour of duty, but we must remember that that does not necessarily make a good president or a person who can judge things well and be in the most powerful position in the world. In my opinion, being a veteran is pretty much McCain's only qualification for the job. Not saying Obama has anything any better... Just saying. McCain touts his time as a POW like it totally means he's ready to be president.
      • pagno, on 07/16/2008, -5/+33As a veteran(I know you didnt ask, but Ill say it anyway :), ***** McCain. He didnt even vote for the new GI Bill, and lobbied against it, in fact. Now, he takes credit. Hes a piece of *****. I think hes playing the sympathy card. "Oh, I was a POW, pity me, pity ME!" No offense to POWs, they deserve that respect. They get 50% from the VA, and alot more, yes, good. However, MC thinks that one milestone in his life, some 40yrs ago, entitles(yes, thats the word) him to unabashed respect and adoration, and obviously, to the Oval Office. Military experience is a plus, but NOT required.

        For the record, Ive turned my back on Obama for the most part, so you people can shut your face, too. The only "compromise" in FISA was the Bill of Rights!
      • captmorgan555, on 07/16/2008, -0/+8As a veteran i completely agree with both comments above.
      • lbdinh, on 07/16/2008, -0/+10As a veteran, I also 100% agree with you pagno. Especially after the GI bill nonvote too. I'm using the GI Bill right now but a grand a month just doesn't cut it. Especially here in Cali.

        Whatever happened to soldiers taking care of soldiers? Of all things, he should know better. It seems that he only looks out for his own interest.

        I admire his courage in Nam but nowadays, he's just becoming a tool for the GOP. He does what he's told like a good boy.

        This man does not ever need to be president. ***** McCain.
      • Julik, on 07/16/2008, -7/+5@Pagno McCain was part of the group that got the new GI Bill stuff rolling. He just had a different plan for it. He wanted it to scale up with your time in the service... if you serve for 12 years you get more than the guy that served for 4 years. He did not say they should not pass a new GI Bill... he said they should pass the one he presented.

        So yes he should take credit for getting the ball rolling.
      • lbdinh, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3@Julik:

        Sen. McCain was NOT part of the group that got the new GI BILL rolling. Sen. Jim Webb, also a Vietnam veteran, was the original person who proposed the new GI Bill and McCain had to propose a different one because he thought Webb's proposal was "too generous" for our troops.

        I think everybody knows that the current GI Bill is a damn joke and Webb merely proposed we revert back to the WWII style GI Bill. If it was good enough for our WWII vets, why is it too good for our troops now.

        I dropped out of college in 2002 to join the Army because I didn't want to be in anymore debt. With the current GI Bill, it might be enough to barely pay for tuition in an average state university but it doesn't even go near the cost of living and books. I also have to be enrolled in school full time just to get the full benefits.

        If you don't see the paradox here yet, then you need to look harder because if I hadn't save up a decent sum of money over the years, I'd be SOL now. I'm currently going to community college right now to save money and will be transferring to a state university next year so I'm glad this bill was passed. Congress proved McCain's proposal to be a joke by showing overwhelming bipartisan support to Webb's Bill.

        If you're telling me I have to do 12 years of service just to get a full ride, then I'd have to disagree. Who the hell wants to still be going through school in their 30s? I'll probably have a family by then and the GI Bill ain't gonna support them, that's for sure.

        Contrary to popular belief, the GI Bill is not free you know. I had to pay a nonrefundable $1200 of my own money as an investment to make sure I get the benefits of the GI Bill. Since most soldiers never use the GI Bill, the government gets this money back. Of course I could've opted out and not receive the benefits. I also traded 5 years of my life along with blood and sweat while constantly putting my life on the line. I only signed up for 3 yrs but ended up doing 5 involuntarily because of stop-loss and extensions. But, if you still don't think I deserve it, then I can't change your mind.

        Let me ask you this though: If we can spend trillions to send our troops to war and put them in harm's way, what's another $100 Billion (over the next 10 years) to let our troops feel secure about their future?

        Not only does this increase troop morale, it also promotes a more educated America.
      • tykwondingo, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Good call lbdinhlbdinh!
    • Majhem, on 07/16/2008, -1/+21Here in Australia, even after WWII, Govt. psychologists were aware of PTSD/Shellshock. Returning veterans were officially given this piece of advice regarding how to cope with it.

      'Try not to talk about it.'

      Oh, simple... Unfortunately for my family (and many others) this 'counsel' has resulted in mental illness, and even suicides.
      We need to learn from our mistakes, more needs to be done for returning servicemen/women's mental and emotional health.
      • grinchdec23, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2More like , "Dont talk about it, or...........!!" best comment ive read so far.
    • travis1982, on 07/16/2008, -0/+11In reality, there really is no cure, or even decent therapy, for PTSD. Expect to see a lot of the same from other soldiers coming back, it's a ***** shame.
      • Stormwern, on 07/16/2008, -3/+2There's medication, they just need to see a doctor so they can get it.
      • Julik, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1Every veteran that returns from Iraq goes through everything they need to find/get help. But it is hard to force someone into it, and a lot of times they don't get the help they need because they don't realize they need it until they are too depressed to want it anymore.
    • h3lx, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5Storm, if it were that easy we'd have a wheelbarrow full of the ***** and hand it out like goddamn party favors.
      • Sawta, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1He's not trying to say that it's a simple matter; in fact, important things are rarely easy. However, just because they are not easy, doesn't mean they shouldn't be done.
    • davidaod, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2"to defend what we stand for."

      Which is what, exactly? Everyone knows the Iraq "war" is *****, you ***** idiot.
      • Dauntless1, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1Yeah, and I'm sure the average line soldier has a say in the day to day war decisions made by our government. That's like me saying that your boss being an asshat entitles me to disrespect you.
    • smartass007, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2nothing personal, but the government doesn't care about you
  • moolaismyfriend, on 07/16/2008, -84/+10Remember republicans and white trash from upon science. there is no such thing as depression for Republicans and white trash. They call that being a fag.
    • DreadPirate, on 07/16/2008, -5/+14More bigoted nonsense from Moola the moron. Buried and reported.
    • Seann7656, on 07/16/2008, -3/+12Way to both completely generalize and prove your ignorance.

      Better luck next time...
    • eliot2000, on 07/16/2008, -1/+7"Remember republicans and white trash from upon science."

      Does this mean we should remember Reps and WT on a scientific basis- that we should study them in the past? Or maybe we should make sure our memories of them do not portray them as fans of science?

      Or do they make magnetic poetry for trolls now?
    • RogueGenius, on 07/16/2008, -3/+5Dugg up, not because I agree with your wording, but because there is an element of social truth in what you say. Swaggering, pseudo-manhood is a strong element of culture conservatives. It compensates for the self-precieved lack of real manhood. (and it's not always a self-deception.)
  • Dbeneath, on 07/16/2008, -4/+163I support the troops and oppose the war. This administration has it backwards and it is peoples' sons and daughters that are paying the price. RIP private.
    • bundwallah, on 07/16/2008, -0/+9God ***** damn the politicians and the media for equating not supporting the war to being against the troops. Simple ***** that everyone fell for. They have nothing to do with each other!! Soldiers are but one of the many tools of the armed forces. When they are deployed under dubious circumstances its' not something they can control. They just do their duty to the best of their ability under the worst conditions. It's shameful how they are treated once they have served their time.
      • Dauntless1, on 07/16/2008, -0/+0Yes, and it's twice as shameful how an uninformed, cowardly public tries to blame them for doing their jobs as they were required to do. No american has a right to spit on a soldier if he's too chicken ***** to walk up to the president and do the same thing. The orders came from him, or did people skip that day in school?
      • bundwallah, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Are the Iraq veterans getting spat on? I recall that's what happened in Vietnam when they came back. I agree with your comment. Those soldiers are following their orders and I'm sure there are plenty that they don't personally agree with. You've got to feel for them though, they're put in a catch-22 situation. They may have to do things they don't agree with to survive another day. These folks need care, attention and thanks when they return. Regardless of whether you agree with the job they were sent to do. That accountability resides with the President. Which he of course will find a way to shirk from.
    • yuletide, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Dbeneath: well said.
    • Earendil215, on 07/20/2008, -0/+0I appreciate your civil and concise way of cutting to the heart of the matter. As someone who, for lack of a better way of putting it, supports the war*, I can still totally accept your opinion.

      I am glad that those returning from Iraq and/or Afghanistan will get a far better reception than Vietnam vets. They were often worse than spit on - my dad and others were more afraid of 'coming home' than being 'in country' because of how abusive protesters were.

      * - waaaay over-simplified. My opinion is different than yours, but I get sick when I see the price vets like Pfc. Dwyer have paid. I'm not at all happy about many, many things that have happened. But I think Iraq was/is necessary. So I'm not some war-mongering, big oil supporting, Haliburton-investing b@stard. I think that the (very poorly conducted) war in Iraq was the best option for fighting terrorism anywhere but here.
  • Makethistough, on 07/16/2008, -13/+56American people want to get out, Iraq wants us to get out. Why are we still there? Military Keynesian Economics only works if the costs of the war go back to our infrastructure and security. We are only starting to cause more resentment against our Foreign Policy, and the only solution is to get out troops home.

    Obama nor McCain will pull out troops from Iraq unless they need to be redeployed to a different effort.

    Please consider other parties than the Democrats or Republicans for your Presidential and Congressional votes.
    • Drogoganor, on 07/16/2008, -18/+7Sure, if you want to waste your vote.

      You need to push for preferential voting before you push for a third party. Everything else is just vain posturing.
      • erhanaltay, on 07/16/2008, -3/+4Waste a vote? You're obviously slow minded. Politics isn't always about the current election. I'm voting Libertarian to support the ideas that the LP represents. Hopefully my vote and the votes of others will help shape America's ideological views, which will in turn shape the 2 parties views.

        The Democrats and Republicans were both much more libertarian in the past than they are today.
      • Drogoganor, on 07/16/2008, -3/+2The truth hurts, doesn't it.
      • Drogoganor, on 07/16/2008, -2/+5"I'm voting Libertarian to support the ideas that the LP represents. Hopefully my vote and the votes of others will help shape America's ideological views, which will in turn shape the 2 parties views."

        Good luck with that.
      • flip2trip, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2@Drog---erhanaltay is correct. If you keep voting for the two major parties you will continue to get the same crap over and over. Until enough people vote third party to gain support nationally, we will get Repub and Demo retards running this country into the ground. I say if you are voting for Obama or McCain because you feel you are voting for the lesser of two evils you are wasting your vote. I remind you that even if you paint a turd red or blue, in the end all you have is a painted turd.
      • RogueGenius, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Let me offer a little more refinement on that. What Americans lack is strategic thinking when voting. I do feel that in this election it is hypercritical to get as many republicans out of office as possible. We must break this lock they have on things before we can get our country back on the right track. Obama isn't near perfect, but just having him in office swings the power balance.

        Here is how I think about voting. If my state is close, then I vote for the best man of the two parties. If polls show that the election isn't even close in my state (depressingly often) then a vote for either candidate is wasted (if I vote for the winner, then my vote didn't put him over the top, if the loser, then since all electoral votes go to the winner then my vote didn't count at all). This is when to vote for third parties. Will it get a third party candidate elected? No, but if a third party represents 19% of the vote (think Ross Perot) then they can't be ignored. The two parties will have to cater to that block. It can and has changed the dynamic. Perot turned the republican side of the election from crazy Reagan social crap to more moderate economic terms.

        They popped right back once pat buchanan deliberately took that party down, but if they had stuck to their guns the Republican party wouldn't be the dispicable thing it is today.
    • Lukesed, on 07/16/2008, -6/+13Even if the Greens, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists all voted together they still wouldn't be able to elect a candidate.
    • BillMoocho, on 07/16/2008, -7/+6Right, because voting for a 3rd party isn't just wasting your vote...
      • prahareturns, on 07/16/2008, -0/+11And if you don't vote against an incumbent you are voting for the status quo. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are willing to risk their political careers to make the tough choices that are required for the future stability of our country.

        At least someone voting for a third party is voicing their discontent instead of wallowing in defeat and promotion of the status quo. I personally believe that the vote would be better utilized voting against the incumbent but at least they are voting their conscience.
    • kemp34, on 07/16/2008, -8/+12I'm voting third party and encouraging everyone I know to do so.
      • Drogoganor, on 07/16/2008, -15/+4Well you're a stubborn *****.
      • mateoberry, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2I have and will vote for Barack Obama again. I believe that despite his imperfections, he is the very best candidate that this election has to offer. I agree with his idealism AND his sense of moderation. Sometimes I wish he would think EXACTLY like me, but then again, thank (the) god(s), I'm not running for president. Even better, Barack Obama actually has a chance of winning. I respect Ron Paul, and many of his libertarian views I also agree with. I am not a cookie cutter Democrat.

        That said, everyone has the right to vote for who they deem fit, be they Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green, etc.

        If people earnestly study the candidates, and honestly believe that there is not difference between John McCain and Barack Obama, then I respect their choice to vote third party.
      • RogueGenius, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1No he's not an *****. He's just not savvy. Few of us are. You must think in terms of strategic voting. You CAN use third parties to change things. They won't get elected, but that hardly matters if you move the one or both of the two parties to adapt to the new block. Third parties are a powerful tool that we need to learn to use.
    • erhanaltay, on 07/16/2008, -5/+6Keynesian Economics doesn't work at all.
      • kemp34, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2Very true.
      • RogueGenius, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3Are you on crack? You ever head of the depression and how it ended. If Keynesian economics didn't work we wouldn't have been ready for the War.
    • pagno, on 07/16/2008, -0/+7They will be re-deployed for Martial Law.
      • jamdogg, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3You know why? Because the whole "fight them over there" line has backfired bigtime.
        Now it's not just Iraqis (who were not a terrorist threat in the begining), it's the WHOLE WORLD that is majorly pissed at the US led invasion. Now even US citizens are a "terror threat" to their own country. When a few more bombs go off on US soil, you'll get your troops back.
      • Dauntless1, on 07/16/2008, -1/+0@Jamdogg
        So you're advocating the idea of terrorism on U.S. soil?
      • jamdogg, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1THINK Dauntless1 THINK. There are around 500 million people in the US. Some of those are severely angry at the government and system as it is. It only takes a very small number of motivated individuals to engage in assymetric warfare.
        Now who's to say that some people in Norway or Greece or Viet-*****-Nam aren't also hacked off enough at US actions in Iraq to go to America and cause havoc.
        I'm not saying people should do it, just it's more likely that they might because of the hell created in Iraq.
    • mateoberry, on 07/16/2008, -3/+8Despite his imperfections, Barack Obama is the best chance the US has at ending the occupation of Iraq.
    • joot2112, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2Exxon-Mobil will post the biggest profit in history. Bush thinks that means the economy is doing well.
      • Earendil215, on 07/20/2008, -1/+0This has nothing to do with the story above.
    • Julik, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Iraq wants us out? Last I heard Iraq wanted a plan... either for the US to leave, or a plan for them staying.
    • nicheplayer, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3Operation
      Iraqi
      Liberation
    • sotjian, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1It's simple. The USA is a runaway train. There's no fixing it. Put your head between your knees and hang on tight.
    • ciaran036, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Because the land of the free isn't actually a democracy.
  • selmer, on 07/16/2008, -25/+2Aaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • TNicholson, on 07/16/2008, -6/+107And the guy who threw the puppy off the cliff is alive and well, no doubt.
    • redfox2600, on 07/16/2008, -18/+2Wasn't that fake?
      • ConceptualTrap, on 07/16/2008, -0/+15you apparently were lulled into that initial media blitz...nope, it's as real as the thousands of iraqi civilians killed as a result of their new "liberation"
      • askantik, on 07/16/2008, -4/+6I heard that it was fake from word-of-mouth, but never saw any legitimate account of it being real or not online, only speculation. It was a terrible act indeed, but no more terrible than the other atrocities of war. And this is coming from an animal-worshiping, hippie, pagan, vegan. Poking fun at myself, of course.
      • sajorojas, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5Yeah its real. The soldier bragged about it in his blog and recently was dismissed from duty or something. I thought I favorited the article but I cant find it now.
    • statsman1982, on 07/16/2008, -3/+10Sadly, no...

      www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/12/marine.puppy/ -

      EDIT--ugh. Link doesn't work. I apologize. But it is real. Try this one:

      http://digg.com/pets_animals/David_Motari_MUST_DIE ...
      • csw1342, on 07/16/2008, -6/+3?? Cite the source from which the majority of us heard it initially? Brilliant. Way to prove a point. Their is no definitive proof in that video.
    • nycmac247, on 07/16/2008, -0/+9Puppy-throwing Marine Discharged from Corps

      http://www.zootoo.com/petnews/puppythrowingmarined ...
    • walkerdarin2003, on 07/16/2008, -7/+2It is sad that someone is nit picked for something as stupid as a ***** dog. Its not like it is war or something. Don't even give me any crap about how wrong it was. Most of what is really wrong doesn't air its self over here. No one gives two ***** about those deployed except for maybe close family, but those tie die out quickly. Patriotism was a fad after 9/11. I know when I came back no one could care less.
      • Dauntless1, on 07/16/2008, -0/+0Because patriotism isn't a fad, it takes real courage to volunteer to defend your nation, and