Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: demaw1 on August 01, 2004, 05:33:15 PM
-
open letter.
For give me if I step on any toes.
I realized today after reading the thread..[ kerry meets troops] the real disconnect between liberals and conservitives, most but not all democrats and republicans...I am not nieve,I as most of you do, know whats going on, but this was real because it is very possible that my 2 sons will be involved soon in this war .
The picture that showed the look on our guys face said a thousand words to me. They didnt have that look, or said what they said , about their cic because they are conservative or republican or just plain hate kerry.
It is because they are at dire risk for their lives and their country. It is because like it or not, the last democratic president the grunts could trust with their lives, was f.d.r.[ j.f.k. was unfortunally in office for only 2 years and was greatly respected by the troops.]
Most ,but not all democractic leaders and most, but not all liberals dispise the military.Our people in harms way know this and are very concerned about it.The problem is the democrats now have a long track record since f.d.r. of deserting our military,or sending them into harms way and not letting them fight, or totally tieing there hands in battle,or sending them somewhere with out all equipment they need to do the job,ie carter and iran. Have replublican presidents made mistakes,yes as did f.d.r.
They know that those that would be in power soon are more worried about what france ,germany,russia and any number of .countries think, then their welfare and yes lives.They hear the talk of the liberails, see the sometimes out right lies from the news papers ,some have seen f-9/11 and are very disheartened.They wondered how the imbeded reporters could report 1 thing and the news papers another.Most of them believe the reason some of us in America are not dead, is because they are fighting there,not here. The troops,I guess many conservitives,and those of us with short wave radios know more of the truth of what is going on there,the hosiptals ,schools etc being built.
Our troops have befriended many iraqi people and kids and these people are helping us the best they can...seems there gov,is trying.Do I think it will work? No I dont, but we got to try and lets do the fighting over there.Believe it or not our young men and women are more aware then we were in the veitnam era.They have heard Democrat leaders,liberal columist,hollywood types compare there cic to hitler and stalin. They read that europe by a 60 percent margin believe that they are more evil than those they fight. They see almost half of canadas young people think they are evil.They know that french,german,italian.isreal,briton russian ,china the u.n.and 95 percent of the elected democrats including Kerry, clintons,gram,edwards, not to mention saddam himself said iraq had w.m.d.s.They know puton himself called bush a couple of days before bush decided to go in and told him that saddam was going to have a meeting with [obl] 2nd in command to discuss hitting America acording to russian intell.
They have a right to be worried when Kerry takes over, as they believe the democrats havent changed and they will get screwed again.Do they like bush because he is from texas,a republican,religious,rich? No....because he stood by them and gave them every thing they need to fight and win.I know that is a hell of a concept for liberals to understand,as they are more worried about some prisoners wearing woman underware.
I have been asked for sources before when it suitted certain people so here it is.
I work a lot in s.b ca. near a navy weapons station.I live near l.a. air base....my son has some friends on active duty.my daughters, girl friends, boy friend ,is there.I have had some fine oppertunies to just listen to them .Only 1 higher than corprol.
Last, but important to me I have listen to my son.
-
I think you nailed it.
-
Demaw,
I have been in the military since the first gulf war in 1990. I do agree that Demos send troops to conflict and tie their hands. Mogadishu is a prime example. If I had to go to war I would rather be under a Republican. Republicans have always backed the military. I do not, however like the fact that Republicans are quicker to go to war. This war we are in is a total disaster. Poised for success but set up for failure. The military is stretched to thin which is putting my fellow service members in great risk. With the amount of troops sent to Iraq that same amount of troops in Afghanistan probably would have sealed the deal there. So now we are faced with rebuilding two countries. Running 2 campaigns in 2 different countries is just plain dumb. It is your tax dollars and the blood of kids in the military that is paying the price for lack of leadership. But hey its all for the war on terror. We captured Saddam, but today we are on terror alert orange in our finacial icons. Terrorist are still blowing themselves up all over the world. Insurgents, "terrorist" are cutting peoples heads off. Bin Laden is still free. Afghanistan is still very unstable, Iraq is still very unstable and will be for years to come. So I ask you, What are these kids dying for? Do you honestly feel safer now than before 9/11? To me not one thing has changed.
-
I guess we could have just sucked it up and could consider the occaisonal terrorist attack the "cost of doing business", like the Europeans seem to do, but I think we did the right thing and took the battle to them. There simply is no other way than to endanger our troops, that is what they are and are for.
-
"There simply is no other way than to endanger our troops, that is what they are and are for."
Lizking that is the most ignorant reply I have heard on this BBS.
You obviously havent served or have children who serve. You are basically saying that soldiers are expendable. Our job is not to just go off and die so you can make rediculous comments on the BBS. Fighting wars is our business yes. Casualties will happen. This is not the old days when soldiers stand in formation and shoot at each other. I am stating my opinion that this war could have been better organized. Finish one before you start another. Hitler tried to fronts and look where it got him.
-
Jamusta, while I agree with you on some points I equally disagree on others. I joined the Army back in '86 and quit after 13 yrs because of Bill Clinton. It was a hard decision to throw away that many years, so close and all, but I could not do it anymore because we had the democrat party not suppporting its troops.
Are the repubs sometimes eager to go to war? Sometimes I believe so, yet I do feel that both Afghan and Iraq were necessary. I "DO" feel safer here in the USA now. Let's face it though, sooner or later, we would have been repairing these countries if we had invaded or not. The world seems to always be asking the USA for help, yet damning us for intefering. (Yup, that's truely how I feel too)
I'll be honest, Kerry scares me. I do not want someone in office who will be a bedfellow with the French and Germans. His pandering will only bring about ruin.
I think the US has a long way to go to repair ties with the world. But I want the world to take a serious look at their own backyard. France and Germany have acted reprehensibly with their dealings with Saddam.
Instead of looking at the US and criticising, look at yourselves and be honest.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
I guess we could have just sucked it up and could consider the occaisonal terrorist attack the "cost of doing business", like the Europeans seem to do, but I think we did the right thing and took the battle to them. There simply is no other way than to endanger our troops, that is what they are and are for.
I agree. During Clinton's presidency there seemed to be the prevailing opinion abroad that America would not retaliate with more than gestures and words, no matter what. The "bad guys" out there were mightily encouraged by this lack of will, I believe. Say what you will about Bush, there is no doubt about America's resolve to bring the fight to the aggressors. And that does not make us the aggressor! Am I the only one who is encouraged by the fact that someone in this world is willing to stand up to the bullies of the world? Generally speaking, I do feel like the world is safer. It's just some parts of the world aren't particularly safe to visit, right now, for Americans. So what? There's enough to see and do in my own back yard, so-to-speak.
-
Originally posted by jamusta
"There simply is no other way than to endanger our troops, that is what they are and are for."
Lizking that is the most ignorant reply I have heard on this BBS.
You obviously havent served or have children who serve. You are basically saying that soldiers are expendable. Our job is not to just go off and die so you can make rediculous comments on the BBS. Fighting wars is our business yes. Casualties will happen. This is not the old days when soldiers stand in formation and shoot at each other. I am stating my opinion that this war could have been better organized. Finish one before you start another. Hitler tried to fronts and look where it got him.
no it's not, I'm sure I have posted some more ignorant :)
that IS what a soldier is for just as putting out fires IS what a fireman does and arresting deadly criminals IS what a cop is for - both of which give the ultimate sacrifice at times but don't have the media/libs crying foul everytime one of them falls....
EVERY war can be "done better" - hindsight is a wonderful thing
fact is we are where we are TODAY, who do you want to lead us TOMORROW???
skerry kerry & his bag of mis-fits? LOL
nice Bush/hitler comparsion there too :rolleyes:
-
Goth,
I am concerned for the long run. Like I said, one at a time. The threat at the time was Bin Laden. He is still free. After that, if needed, go to Iraq. I am not disputing that. Todays soldier is not like the old days. Most join for college now. We have college students fighting wars. Most dont understand that. After this they will not stay in. Numbers will fall. No one will join. If you dont think this to be true, just look at the stop loss thats in affect. Soldiers were already trying to get out. This will affect the future readiness of our military.
-
I don't feel safer, and our government doesn't appear to feel safer either.
I travel into DC every day, they are making plans on extending the perimeter around the Capitol and White House. The absence of attacks within the US' borders does not equate to safety, might just be cooking up something bigger.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I don't feel safer, and our government doesn't appear to feel safer either.
I travel into DC every day, they are making plans on extending the perimeter around the Capitol and White House. The absence of attacks within the US' borders does not equate to safety, might just be cooking up something bigger.
-SW
Would Kerry in office make you "feel" safer?
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I don't feel safer, and our government doesn't appear to feel safer either.
I travel into DC every day, they are making plans on extending the perimeter around the Capitol and White House. The absence of attacks within the US' borders does not equate to safety, might just be cooking up something bigger.
-SW
and you'd done what differently to make yourself "feel safer" in the nations Capitol?
just wonder, my two sisters live/work there - maybe they can do it too...
-
I wasn't like a majority of kids back in the '80s, signing up for college benefits. When I signed up I knew quite well that I could possible be overseas, protecting my country and others, and possibly dying for it.
I did sign up for our stance on freedom and the hope to bring it to all the world.
-
Once again my job is not to die. Just like the firemans job is not to die while putting out the fire. The officers job is not to die while catching a criminal. My job is to complete my mission and to keep the soldiers under me alive. I dont see why you people can't see this.
-
Good for you Rip, you are a tard.
Eagler, its not about what I would have done - its about people making statements that the US and world are safer, that is simply not true. Feeling safer in these times is akin to turning a blind eye to someone smoking a cigarette by a gas pump. If you can show me a statement where I said I expected to feel safer, then by all means, point it out to me. I simply said I do not feel safer and I don't EXPECT to feel safer for many years.
Also, I like how both of you put the quotes around the feel or feel safer - magnifique. Notice how I didn't do it, even though I was responding to a few in this thread who stated they felt safer.
-SW
-
Originally posted by jamusta
Once again my job is not to die. Just like the firemans job is not to die while putting out the fire. The officers job is not to die while catching a criminal. My job is to complete my mission and to keep the soldiers under me alive. I dont see why you people can't see this.
It's obvious your belief and mine are a little different. I signed up to be a medic, and it was my job to save lives. It's also the job of the military to take them.
I don't want our kids killed. I don't want their kids killed, but in this realistic world, belief differences bring about conflict that cause death. I am proud of our kids making a difference in the world, helping other countries realise their freedom to be different if they want.
-
Your job is not to die-your job is to protect our country. The President's job is to determine when and where.
-
Originally posted by jamusta
Once again my job is not to die. Just like the firemans job is not to die while putting out the fire. The officers job is not to die while catching a criminal. My job is to complete my mission and to keep the soldiers under me alive. I dont see why you people can't see this.
If you arent prepared to die to do the job then why volunteer for it? I have the utmost respect for guys putting their lives on the line defending the freedoms that we enjoy and if I was called on to go through a draft or whatever then I would go. But its all about choices....I hear it all the time at work when someone complains about work conditions. They made the choice to do what they are doing....nobody else did. I have a hard time feeling any compassion for those guys that volunteered for military service just for the college benefits and now are all pissed because they actually have to go fight. Nobody forced you to join....thats why its a volunteer military.
And no your job may not be to die....but there is the chance that may happen when bullets start whizzing around.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Good for you Rip, you are a tard.
-SW
Good for me? I asked you a question. You refuse to answer it. You and Horn have a consistent bad habit of calling names first, then knee-jerk replying. Can't you two act like adults and discuss an issue without resorting to personal insults?
-
It was not a question, you already had your implications. You want to ask a question, then ask it. Don't include your preconcieved notions in it.
I also find it ironic you ask me to act like an adult when you run around calling people liberals or some slang name for democrats when they don't agree with you.
I'll treat you like an adult if you can act like one.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
It was not a question, you already had your implications. You want to ask a question, then ask it. Don't include your preconcieved notions in it.
I also find it ironic you ask me to act like an adult when you run around calling people liberals or some slang name for democrats when they don't agree with you.
I'll treat you like an adult if you can act like one.
-SW
Well paint a broader picture then, a "tard" indicates a single person, a "Liberal" indicates a GROUP of people, not a singular one.
And, answer the question. Oh, you can't? Afraid to have to provide facts and data that would make you feel safer if Kerry was in office? :lol
-
See, preconcieved notions. Just because I think Bush and his administration are ****ing up, I must support Kerry. Isn't that right? You just can't get past choosing a side and then presuming someone is on the other one.
Someday you, and those like you, will learn this isn't about teams or whose side gets voted into office.
-SW
-
I asked a simple question:
Would Kerry in office make you "feel" safer? Not sure what kind of spin you're webbing into that question. Feel free to defensively spin it the way you want though.
-
punt
-
Originally posted by slimm50
punt
LOL! :rofl
-
There is no spin, its clear as day. Had you not included your preconcieved notions into the statement, I would have answered it. Why Kerry? Bi-partisan. As much as you say you "vote the issues" you clearly chose a side.
-SW
-
This is my stance. (http://forums.checksix.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=2319&PN=1)
-SW
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Good for me? I asked you a question. You refuse to answer it. You and Horn have a consistent bad habit of calling names first, then knee-jerk replying. Can't you two act like adults and discuss an issue without resorting to personal insults?
Ok, let me get this out of the way, then: I call a shovel a shovel. If the shoe fits.....
But to answer your question: I would feel safer with someone in office who wasn't incompetent, who could actually admit a mistake and try to rectify it, who wouldn't mislead us to fulfill his own agenda, who wouldn't hire extremists in key positions, who would filter intelligence information properly and who might have a workable plan other than "duck and cover." For starters. To date, that man is not our current President. So, if that means a change in regime then so be it. Happy now?
h
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
...this isn't about teams or whose side gets voted into office.
-SW
but it is as they will decide the future of this country for the next four years..
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
This is my stance. (http://forums.checksix.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=2319&PN=1)
-SW
Who would you suggest as a good candidate to make you feel safer?
-
Only to those who have bought into the two party system. You let the party heads control who you vote for.
-SW
-
Jebus Rip, do you read or just post?
I simply said I do not feel safer and I don't EXPECT to feel safer for many years.
Few posts up. I don't expect or want to feel safe, because the only way that will happen is to curtail my freedoms. Again, a few posts up: its about people making statements that the US and world are safer, that is simply not true.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Horn
I would feel safer with someone in office who wasn't incompetent, who could actually admit a mistake
h
So you're going with a write in then?
-
Originally posted by jamusta
This war we are in is a total disaster.
[/b]
I dont see how you get there. This war so far has been the quickest and least bloody in our History, at least unless you are going to call Panama in 90-91 a war. Perhaps "total disaster" was an overstatement?
Originally posted by jamusta
We captured Saddam, but today we are on terror alert orange in our finacial icons. Terrorist are still blowing themselves up all over the world. Insurgents, "terrorist" are cutting peoples heads off. Bin Laden is still free. Afghanistan is still very unstable, Iraq is still very unstable and will be for years to come. So I ask you, What are these kids dying for? Do you honestly feel safer now than before 9/11? To me not one thing has changed.
If you had read closely you would have discovered that the latest specific attacks on NYC financial district have been in planning since BEFORE 9-11-01. You cannot claim they were being planned because of Bush, or our reaction to 9-11. Bin laden may not be captured but I would not call it free either, he is holed up like a rat afraid of everything that moves and has probably been killing some members of his clan/tribe/followers simply out of fear they might turn him in. The other attrocities you mention are also nothing new. The radical islamicists have been doing that for at least the last 50 years. I object to the notion that our brave men and women (I reject the term "kids") have been dying in vain, I think saying so besmirches their sacrifice. I do not take it fro granted and object to you dishonoring them so.
But, to answer your question directly; yes I feel safer now. There are two governments who were directly and actively supporting terrorist organizations that are not doing so now because they no longer exist. On top of that another well known supporter of terrorism (Libya) has seen that his days were numbered and (supposedly) come to his senses. Next we point at Iran and Syria, once they fall what 2-bit dictator will want to risk his neck to support the likes of Al-Quaeda or Hezbollah? I expect you will say Kim Jong Il, and if you do you have made my point about Iran even more so. There is little we can do WRT North Korea now, they've got nukes. If we move against them we can kiss Seoul goodbye, and lose one of the strongest Asian democracies there are. If we don't want to be equally powerless against Iran and Syria the time is now, before they get nukes.
-
Originally posted by Toad
So you're going with a write in then?
I'm not accepting any nominations Toad! :D
-
Originally posted by Edbert MOL
Next we point at Iran and Syria, once they fall what 2-bit dictator will want to risk his neck to support the likes of Al-Quaeda or Hezbollah? If we don't want to be equally powerless against Iran and Syria the time is now, before they get nukes. [/B]
So you are advocating the immediate invasion of Syria and Iran? Just trying to be certain I'm reading it correctly.
I dont see how you get there. This war so far has been the quickest and least bloody in our History
You realize don't you that your next two invasions will be substantially more bloody? Iran has not suffered 10 years of economic embargo, destruction of their air force and third party active military monitoring of over half their country. They've been increasing their military since the '88 war w/ Iraq:
from 1996: http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9608/06/iran.threat/
Current Strength: http://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/mbmeIX.html
They don't need nukes.
h
-
Originally posted by Horn
So you are advocating the immediate invasion of Syria and Iran? Just trying to be certain I'm reading it correctly.
[/b]
Not immediate, no. But soon enough to prevent them from getting nukes, yes. What do you propose we do, try to win their hearts and minds and convince them that World peace is their best choice? The latter MIGHT work if it becomes clear that the alternative is being put into a cell like ole Saddam is right now. Should we sit here and wait while they continue to fund and train terrorists?
Originally posted by Horn
You realize don't you that your next two invasions will be substantially more bloody?
-snippage-
They don't need nukes.
Syria would be easier, no doubt about it, Iran has some formiddable terrain as well. But are you saying thier conventional military is as much of a threat/deterrent as NK's nukes?
-
Originally posted by demaw1
open letter.
Most ,but not all democractic leaders and most, but not all liberals dispise the military.
BS
-
Originally posted by sling322
And no your job may not be to die....but there is the chance that may happen when bullets start whizzing around.
Wasn't it Patton who said "It's not dying for your country that wins wars, it's making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his that does" ?
Sure, I'll grant ya tha soldiers die in combat, but no good commander ever sends troops into the fray KNOWING they will get killed.
In fact a good Commander does EVERYTHING possible to support his troops and provides them with the very best tools, weapons, strategies and opportunities to succeed.
No half bellybutton measures, no tieing of thier hands, no betraying of the faith.
Will Kerry be a good Commander?
Is Bush a good Commander?
In my book, Harry S. Truman was a great Commander, he used the Atomic Bomb to save soldiers lives.
Simplistic? Yeah I guess, but if we as a Nation are going to use our military might around the globe, then we have to give our troops the all the support they need to get the job done as quickly and as safely as is concievable.
-
Let me clear the air since some of you seem confused. I know being in the military is hazardous. No doubt in my mind i could be killed, whether by war or simply in a training accident. Although death is a part of my job, for those of you who insinuate that, and I quote, "There simply is no other way than to endanger our troops, that is what they are and are for." Or "that IS what a soldier is for" shows your lack of respect for those in the military. Your basically saying that we are expendable. To you we maybe chess pieces but to us it's someones father, mother, sister, brother or friend.
Those willing to go to war, are those who have never been to war.
-
Originally posted by jamusta
Let me clear the air since some of you seem confused. I know being in the military is hazardous. No doubt in my mind i could be killed, whether by war or simply in a training accident. Although death is a part of my job, for those of you who insinuate that, and I quote, "There simply is no other way than to endanger our troops, that is what they are and are for." Or "that IS what a soldier is for" shows your lack of respect for those in the military. Your basically saying that we are expendable. To you we maybe chess pieces but to us it's someones father, mother, sister, brother or friend.
Those willing to go to war, are those who have never been to war.
no one but you has used the word "expendable"
-
Originally posted by jamusta
Let me clear the air since some of you seem confused. I know being in the military is hazardous. No doubt in my mind i could be killed, whether by war or simply in a training accident. Although death is a part of my job, for those of you who insinuate that, and I quote, "There simply is no other way than to endanger our troops, that is what they are and are for." Or "that IS what a soldier is for" shows your lack of respect for those in the military. Your basically saying that we are expendable. To you we maybe chess pieces but to us it's someones father, mother, sister, brother or friend.
Those willing to go to war, are those who have never been to war.
And just to clarify with you, as a veteran I never desired to go to war, but if the call had come you bet your sweet bottom I would have gone willingly.
If the kids of today just join the military for the college bonuses then they are too stupid to go to college. There are many and easier ways to get into college (ie scholarships, grants, loans, work programs, etc.)
Join the military and you are signing up for the ultimate gamble, and with that said I fully believe that our military should stay an all volunteer military. I don't want some jack*** in a foxhole next to me crying cause he had to put off his college for another year.
-
Jamusta.......reply
I thank you for you service and your thoughtfull reply.
Id like to go over some points and see what you think.
You said iraq and afganistian is still unstable and may be for years and you are totally right,but lets digg a little deeper.
Did you know the last fire fight we had with german organized resistance was 5 years after ww2 ended , they were called the black wolves or something like that. Even if peace was declared by both sides tomarrow it would be quite sometime before anything was stable.
Yes the military is streached very thin,why because for eight years the clinton admins. destoryed it. We didnt have the chance to choose when we were hit they chose it. Now we had to use what we had. Yet so many want to put the same type of leadership in office while we are at war.....go figure.
I believe bin laden is dead.....and if he isnt hes in a hole somewhere ,saddams 2 boys are dead and he is in a cell, scared hell out of Lybia....finally brought attention to what the church commision did to intell agencys Ya I feel safer.
running 2 campaigns in 2 countries is stupid. we had 2 theaters in ww2
what are these kids dieing for? It would really be neat if you could ask them, I agree with them ,they took the battle there, and away from here. They bought us time to do the best we could at home, to protect home. Yes we have a problem in new york, do you think we would have come close to stoping it a year and a half ago?
We have collage students fighting......I agree, thank God for republicians, the last war the dems ran .WE WERE ALL HIGH SCHOOL KIDS.
thanks again for you post
-
Goth we agree on going to war. I feel the same way. I have no disire to take a life nor to lose mine. If called I would go because it is my duty.
That said, with the times today, most are college students wanting the 30k plus the services pays now. When you were in it was just the GIBILL. That in itself attracted a different kind of soldier. We now call it a kinder gentler army. The soldiers that come out of basic training now have rights. The days of telling someone to take out a machinegun nest with 2 grenades are over.
Demaw with all that you have said, has the terrorism stopped? Are they just waiting for the right time to strike as they did 9/11?
What has been acomplished during this war? Was Iraq any greater threat than say NK or Iran? If Bin Laden is dead then why are all these attacks still happening? With the terror levels, what info do they put out? How do we protect ourselves on alerts filled with no info? How can you feel safe with that?
I am neither a Demo or a Republican, Liberal or Conservitive. I believe restricting yourself to either blinds you to what the big picture really is. It is up to each of us to be vigilant and protect ourselves. The government cant do it alone. SO to believe that one president can protect you better than the next just doesnt make sense to me. The plan to bring down the towers was conceived during the clinton years, it was executed during Bush's term. Could either have stopped it, obviously not.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Did you know the last fire fight we had with german organized resistance was 5 years after ww2 ended , they were called the black wolves or something like that.
I think that may be overstating the case - all the named source stuff I've seen on the "Werewolves" seems to point to it bordering on bogeyman-like.
The Rand Corporation's report America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq (http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1753/) puts post-war US combat casualties in Germany at 0.
Allen W. Dulles, then head of the Office of Strategic Services addressed New York's Council on Foreign Relations Sept. 3, 1945, saying: "There is no dangerous underground operating there (Germany) now although some newspapers in the United States played up such a story."
"The Werewolves existed more in the idea or the fantasy stage than ever as a real phenomenon," said Lt. Col. Kevin Farrell, a historian at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Ft. Leavenworth, Kan.
Tom Schlesinger, a retired Army major and professor at Plymouth State University in New Hampshire who served in Army intelligence in occupied Germany, described the Werewolves as "almost a deliberate urban myth."
"I was in Germany all through the surrender and, although at lower rank, had access to all classified intelligence distribution as part of the occupation security force," Schlesinger said. "The Werewolf story turned out to be mostly a hoax, perhaps some wishful thinking of a few SS officers, though it caused us a few inconveniences due to the phony alerts."Source (http://publicbroadcasting.net/wnyc/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=538738)
-
Jamatsu.......reply.......tha nk you for your questions.....
No terrorism hasnt stopped and it wont ever unless we do what we have to do and what was done thru history to stop it.
But the idea is not to stop terrorism, but to destory anyplace it can use as a refuge,staging area,communications or even go to a hosipital for a wound. and to keep them on the run.....I just realize something, the other side keeps saying we havent stopped the terrorist...but that has never been the goal cause you cant.
Iraq was a much greater threat to us than n.korea for 4 strong reason which if you want me to say I will. Iran is a threat to us but to a smaller degree. Untill the nuclear weapons thing syria was more of a threat than iran.
Bin laden is important,but not the point.This is a religious war someone will take his place no one unreplaceable. If what you say is true than why was there terrorism before he was born.
Have you for gotten the uproar from the democrats saying bush is failing because of no warning system? no it doesnt do much but the dems agreed to this plan and that is why it is used.
the alerts are not for us to protect ourselfs, to protect your self cary a weapon in the trunk and pray you can get to it on time If it is a bomb, you are out of luck, better to know where you are going after death than to in this case worry about all the ways to protect yourself,
I feel safer because of what I wrote last time did any of it make any sense to you? besides if I die I know where I am going.
Once again you said collage kids.....when the dems sent us we were high school kids.....question ,if you have to go ,is it better to go at collage age ,or hi school age?
.
-
>>This war so far has been the quickest and least bloody in our History, at least unless you are going to call Panama in 90-91 a war. Perhaps "total disaster" was an overstatement?
<<
Well it might be the fact that we will be in Iraq forever. Lets see, before we can leave, we have to make sure that any weapons we leave for them to defend themselves from Iran, won't be used against us. So, we have to make sure we leave a poplulation of United States loving Iraqis. Yea, we should be able to do that in about 1 year eh?
This isn't Viet Nam where we can just leave when we realize "ohoh." We have to stay unless we want Iran handling Iraqs resources.
-
Uhm, I don't think you know what you mean demaw1: The kids are high school aged, they graduate and go to the army so it can pay for college. They are the same.
-SW
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Well it might be the fact that we will be in Iraq forever. Lets see, before we can leave, we have to make sure that any weapons we leave for them to defend themselves from Iran, won't be used against us. So, we have to make sure we leave a poplulation of United States loving Iraqis. Yea, we should be able to do that in about 1 year eh?
I hear ya and agree, of course if you think about it, we are STILL in Germany, over 50 years after cessation of formal hostilities.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Uhm, I don't think you know what you mean demaw1: The kids are high school aged, they graduate and go to the army so it can pay for college. They are the same.
-SW
I'm not speaking for demaw, he's more than capable of that himself. But I THINK i know what he means. In Vietnam the average age of a combat soldier was 19. In GW1 is was something like 26. I do not know what it is now but there is a lot more senior people involved on the ground, the NCO portion of our military is the backbone and they've shown themselves to be capable and professional.
-
I know, BUT I'm saying that 18-19 are college aged. They aren't high school "kids", but adults at that point. Most had graduated H.S., if not all.
-SW
-
I understand demaw. Back then there was a draft. Now there isnt. The reason I say college kids is because the majority are freash out of high school and come to the military under the impression its for 4 years, go to school, get out, continue schooling just to find out they owe a total of 8 years.
You say terrorism cant be stopped. So if thats the case then why fight it with overwhelming force. Why not do what we have been doing all along, react instead of act? Do you think that we will get caught up in a never ending cycle like Isreal and the Palestinians? My fear is that we will continue our war on terrorism and spread it to other countries. We cannot handle Iraq at this point let alone going into Syria or Iran. Hell Sudan is talking about fighting foreign troops if the U.N. sends them. The world sees that the U.S. is spread thin. Our military has weakened and countries will stand up against us.
-
akswulf......collage....
sure i will explain myself...on avg...kid gets out of high school 17..18. takes 6 months to 2 years off ,joins military, when do you think he is ready for combat?
back then....same thing but if drafted [number system] he would most likely be burying his head in the ground before he is nineteen or shortly after he is nineteen......to date I have not heard off anyone haveing to take a sand dune 3 times cuz you only have to take it once under this president......any bets on how many time we will have to take a sand dune if kerry gets in? Just for fun wulf do you know what i mean? honest just for fun.
-
Don't ask me what I think Kerry will do. I don't even know what Bush will do. It doesn't matter either way to me, I hope neither will be president after this years election - but I do know one will be, and my money is on Bush.
Of course, since the days of Vietnam the entire battlefield has changed completely. Today wars are fought counted in days against countries with weak militaries. Bush isn't some magical wonder weapon, Iraq was a feeble nation - and Afghanistan was beaten into submission by not just our military. Of course, there are still huge problems in both countries - Afghanistan is less reported though. With regards to Afghanistan, many higher ups believe it will implode. So again, don't attribute much to this president - its too early to tell what good has really been done.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Edbert MOL
Not immediate, no. But soon enough to prevent them from getting nukes, yes.
I'll say it again--they don't need nukes. Their army is as strong as it needs to be to provide an exceptionally bloody conflict. Right now. If we want to know what weapons they have we must merely check our receipts.
What do you propose we do, try to win their hearts and minds and convince them that World peace is their best choice? The latter MIGHT work if it becomes clear that the alternative is being put into a cell like ole Saddam is right now.
[/b]
Something like that--the Iranian Republic is nothing like SH's Iraqi dictatorship. It is a blend of Parliamentary government ruled by the clergy (Guardian Council) if you can get your mind around that--using the Qu'ran as final arbiter of the law. It is horribly inefficient. Here's how it works:
http://www.wsu.edu:8000/~dee/SHIA/REP.HTM
Therefore I believe diplomacy and economic incentives would work best in this instance combined with allies united against terrorism--whether it be the actual UN or another organization we create with the same goals--to put pressure on their government until they saw how they suffer internally from the world's displeasure. Remember, Iran controls 1/5 of the world's oil so they do have bargaining chits.
Remeber also our initial foray into putting our man in charge of Iran in the '70's?
http://i-cias.com/e.o/pahlavi2.htm
Interestingly, the overthrow of the Shah probably prevented Iran from becoming a nuclear power as the extremists backed away from anything smacking of Westernalism.
Should we sit here and wait while they continue to fund and train terrorists?
[/b]
See above.
But are you saying thier conventional military is as much of a threat/deterrent as NK's nukes?
Absolutely. The only direct threat posed by NK is if they were to sell their technology/final product to someone else. It is unlikely we would invade them too--the last "police action" over there was too costly and inconclusive to be repeated any time soon.
h
-
Dead.........wolves
I first paid attention to the wolves story some months back.The history channel was showing a small series on the allies run thru france into germany and the end of war. They didnt say the wolves were disbanded by the ss maybe for the same reason I dismissed it also. History channel as I remember it said they caused along with some others a decent amount of problems for about 6 months. thats close enough 2 two months I guess.Slight amont of trouble for 2 years.The allies wanted to of course down play their role for obvious reasons.In russian sector it was reported that there was a clash between suspected members of wolves and russian troops 1949.It wasnt confirmed could have been anything I guess.
Next time, I read about rices statement ,perked my interest
read reynolds colum and because of my bias against la and ny times Idismissed most of her colum. didnt find a lot at rand, but didnt push it, because of the history channel,which I have some faith in.
also didnt think rice et al would lie because it would be easy to the dems to dispute and cause a fire storm...didnt like words like ambiguity being used and some historians took issue with ,which means some didnt....So common sense told me must be some truth....about all I know about.
-
Jamusta......dont think you mind me answering your questions.
Well yes we have only been reacting and not to hard,we reacted because they had noy hit on our turf. When they did they killed thousands. At that point the time for reacting was over.Remember they made the choice not us.
The reason for overwhelming force is 1,hopefully no veitnams any more. 2.If you go into a country any country dont do it half assed. Remember the trouble wake island caused japan. Lot of men lost some ships and lots of time . and that time hurt them and help us. Remember carter and iran same thing.
Jamatsu the reason Isreal and palastine are in a never ending circle is because we wont let israel get out. If we have leadership like johnson,carter, nixon, clinton yes we will or we just walk away but there is no place to hide.
Yes we can handle iraq just fine if we have the will,contrarary to popular opinion we dont do things like other countries because we will give them a chance for freedom. If they dont want it well the world is as the world is.
Good point about the world standing against us if spread thin.
This is my take,we are different than any country in the history of the world.We have nuclear weapons that work. Now the world knows we wont use them unless our backs are totally against the wall,that could happen even if evey one moved to texas and became pacifest,
again good point: no we cant go into iran now ,syria we could, no proof but I bet if we did we would find a lot of those wmd that are missing. Dont let those that are now saying If we go into iran wont be the same it would be blood bath. it may or may not be harder,but if we wait untill they have nucluar weapon then it would be a blood bath.
Our military right now is as strong as it was in 1 st gulf war. Numbers isnt the hole story,confidence in your cic, in yourself,and each other counts a lot.
The only reason the sudan is standing is because the un has showed nothing but cowardice,pure and simple. France blocked anyone going in,un wanted their resolution we wrote to use softer words....excuse me the death tol is a million over last ten years and rising faster now. and kerry wants to be part of these guys .?
-
Jumusta,
You sound like you are on the long side of 10+ years in, or begining to have plans for the private sector. Please be safe Sir.
-
Originally posted by Horn
But to answer your question: I would feel safer with someone in office who wasn't incompetent, who could actually admit a mistake and try to rectify it, who wouldn't mislead us to fulfill his own agenda, who wouldn't hire extremists in key positions, who would filter intelligence information properly and who might have a workable plan other than "duck and cover." For starters. To date, that man is not our current President. So, if that means a change in regime then so be it.
h
The search for such a candidate hasn't lead either party to a viable alternative. So.....
-
It never hurts to be informed. That should be the first thing one does before forming an opinion.
I'm a disabled vet. I served in the Navy before a lot of you were even born. As far as I'm concerned, the worst person to be commander in chief is a chicken hawk like Bush, who used his father's influence to avoid service in Vietnam, then avoided most of that "cush" berth too after he was grounded from flying for failing to achieve a required physical (public record here, folks, available for anyone to see). After being refused a transfer to Alabama twice, to a unit which didn't have the type of planes he was trained to fly, they finally granted the transfer after he'd ALREADY moved to Alabama anyway. No one at the base remembers seeing him, including both the CO and XO of the unit. His pay records reflect the fact that he was unpaid for that period. At no time after that did he ever regain flight status, after the first grounding, and despite having wasted thousands of taxpayer dollars to train him. Most notable during his supposed Alabama service was the fact that he went on an arranged date with President Nixon's daughter, and they sent the presidential chopper to pick him up (again public info, readily available to anyone with the guts to look). Again, no one else in the unit recalls this incident occuring on base - which is where he should have been. I'm pretty sure I'd remember if the president's helicopter came to my duty station. Who knows where Bush was actually picked up at the time? No one from the Alabama Guard unit, that's for sure. Where does Bush go next? He's transferred to an administrative unit based out of Denver, Colorado. Why? To make up lost time from his missing days, as required at the time. He never shows up in Denver for his administrative duty, either. He is, instead, already enrolled at Harvard Business School, and asks for an early discharge to attend school - after the fact. It is granted. No reason given for why. Here's a man, supposed to be serving make-up time for AWOL periods at an administrative unit which is known for just that purpose; and instead he's given an honorable discharge never having made up his AWOL time at all, as required by military rules at the time. Why? Hmmm, maybe because the most political of all military units is the National Guard? That is, of course, why it was famous during Vietnam for being the hiding place of the rich and powerful. Is it because daddy was at the time, first a U.S. Representative from Texas and then later the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N and a Special Envoy to China? Is it because Nixon was trying to marry W off to his daughter?
What does an experience like that do to someone who later in life wants to portray himself as being pro-military and gung-ho? I'd say it makes him dangerously gung-ho. It leads to severe cognitive dissonance. It leads to chest-thumping, jingoistic behavior that gets good people killed simply because they chose to actually serve.
Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather have someone who actually served his country rather than someone who avoided serving it. Because of that, I didn't support Clinton; and I'm not about to support Bush. And I'm not the only vet who thinks the same way - http://www.vetsforkerry.com
And if you really wish to educate yourselves about some of the truly horrific things that Bush is doing to the military and to veterans via his unfunded broken promises and under the table program cuts to support his tax cuts for himself and his rich buddies, like Cheney, then I suggest you visit the following sites:
http://www.vva.org
http://www.vfw.org
-
Hi Weazel.
-
Originally posted by Sceadu
It never hurts to be informed. That should be the first thing one does before forming an opinion.
http://www.vva.org
http://www.vfw.org
My father is a VN vet and his opinion is the exact opposite of yours. Kerry said he committed atrocities/war crimes.
Did you see any off the atrocities that Kerry said was rampant in the Vn war? How do you feel about those?
How do you feel about him throwing someone elses medals away?
You say its good to be informed. Did you know this before you posted?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Hi Weazel.
I was thinking Voss
-
Originally posted by X2Lee
My father is a VN vet and his opinion is the exact opposite of yours. Kerry said he committed atrocities/war crimes.
Did you see any off the atrocities that Kerry said was rampant in the Vn war? How do you feel about those?
How do you feel about him throwing someone elses medals away?
You say its good to be informed. Did you know this before you posted?
No. And Kerry didn't say everyone was committing atrocities. I vividly recall the Mei Lai trial. Are you saying that it didn't happen? Atrocities did occur. More than just Mei Lai. Rampant? No. Did they happen? Absolutely. Does that mean that all vets committed them? No. Does it mean that atrocities were committed? Absolutely.
They weren't medals, They were ribbons. Join the military and discover the difference for yourself. Or go ask dad.
And, yes, I knew if before I posted. More questions for me?
As I said. It doesn't hurt to be informed. It certainly does hurt to be misinformed, especially in a representative democracy. When the ignorant vote, then the ignorant get elected. Case in point - Bush.
http://www.bushwatch.net
-
It's Saxon/Old English for shadow
Shadow, one might say shade, even.
If you porked the account you had been using and got banned, you might want to start a new shade account.
-
wow
you take flip flop kerry or the cic who talks the talk and walks the walk
I give a rats arse what either of them did what 35+ years ago
I care what each does and stands for TODAY and who their associates are TODAY & who they will be TOMORROW!
screw yesteryear
-
I don't understand the preceeding post. Today was the first day I discovered the message boards. I just started AH last week. I found it listed on tucows.com and thought it sounded a lot like a game I used to play on the GEnie online service called Air Warrior, and later via AOL. Turns out it is almost exactly like AW and was likely inspired by it; but much better. Still don't get the shade/shadow thing, though. Sceadu is the character name I used for my SWG character until I got fed up with all of the unfixed bugs and rampant geeks and leet dudes. I used Stiletto in AW as my handle on GEnie.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
wow
you take flip flop kerry or the cic who talks the talk and walks the walk
I give a rats arse what either of them did what 35+ years ago
I care what each does and stands for TODAY and who their associates are TODAY & who they will be TOMORROW!
screw yesteryear
Flip flop Kerry? Now that's funny coming from a fan of Bush, who has a much longer record of flip flops on issues.
http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm
The man doesn't walk any walk other than what he thinks will get him elected, and doesn't talk any talk other than the same. And after he's elected/installed he trashes every promise he made to get elected except ONE - he kept the tax cuts for the wealthy. Dick Cheney saved $212,000+ dollars on his taxes last year, thanks to the Bush tax cut. That's saved, not paid. How much of a tax cut did you get? How much funding did the promised VA hospitals get? How much funding did the promised base housing overhauls get? How much of the promised additional funding did school districts near military bases get? How much of a promised pay increase did the active military get? How much of a promised increase to hazardous duty pay did the reservists in Iraq get? How much access to healthcare did the called-up reservists get? You want to die for a liar, go right ahead. Trot on down to your local recruiter and join right the reserves. Just pray that nothing happens to your family while you're gone. Not a penny of Bush's budgets have ever gone to help the families of reservists called for active duty. Bush and Co. couldn't give a crap about them or you. Unless it's election time.
Walk the walk? Right.
-
(http://onlinedegrees.phoenix.edu/images/mil_salute.jpg)
Sceadu
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Dead.........wolves
I first paid attention to the wolves story some months back.The history channel was showing a small series on the allies run thru france into germany and the end of war. They didnt say the wolves were disbanded by the ss maybe for the same reason I dismissed it also. History channel as I remember it said they caused along with some others a decent amount of problems for about 6 months. thats close enough 2 two months I guess.Slight amont of trouble for 2 years.The allies wanted to of course down play their role for obvious reasons.In russian sector it was reported that there was a clash between suspected members of wolves and russian troops 1949.It wasnt confirmed could have been anything I guess.
Next time, I read about rices statement ,perked my interest
read reynolds colum and because of my bias against la and ny times Idismissed most of her colum. didnt find a lot at rand, but didnt push it, because of the history channel,which I have some faith in.
also didnt think rice et al would lie because it would be easy to the dems to dispute and cause a fire storm...didnt like words like ambiguity being used and some historians took issue with ,which means some didnt....So common sense told me must be some truth....about all I know about.
Well your unshaken faith in Dr. Rice's fact-checking capabilities after the Iraqi WMD fiasco is admirable, and with that sort of unshakable faith, I'll not really bother arguing the case one way or the other. But even if your assertion of them causing a "decent amount of problems for about 6 months" is correct, your initial parallel is still overstating the case - IIRC the US never lost all control of a couple of cities in Germany in 1946 to the Werewolves, so the Werewolves are not even in the same league as the Iraqi resistance, and the Iraqi resistance represents a much greater military problem than the slight inconvenience the werewolves achieved. So all in all, it's not really much of a parallel at all.
-
Originally posted by Sceadu
No. And Kerry didn't say everyone was committing atrocities.
***
No but he admitted he did
***
They weren't medals, They were ribbons. Join the military and discover the difference for yourself. Or go ask dad.
***
They were not his, how does that strike you?
***
-
Originally posted by X2Lee
Originally posted by Sceadu
No. And Kerry didn't say everyone was committing atrocities.
***
No but he admitted he did
***
They weren't medals, They were ribbons. Join the military and discover the difference for yourself. Or go ask dad.
***
They were not his, how does that strike you?
***
Some were his. Some weren't. The people who gave him the other ribbons were apparently ok with it. I certainly don't have a problem with it. It's called free speech. One of those protected freedoms in the Bill of rights which Ashcroft is busily trashing for his boss. Then again, what do you expect from someone like Ashcroft who devoutly believes that calico cats are a sign of the devil?
And no Kerry didn't admit that he did. What he said in his testimony before Congress is a matter of public record. Look it up for yourself, instead of just parroting whatever Hannity and O'Reilly think for you. Try Lexus/Nexus if you have access. If not, try a newspaper site.
-
SCEADU........REPLY
I thank you for your service to or country. I respect the time you took to write your feeling down instead of just one liners. I do totally disagree with 95 percent of what you said.Thing is dems.,repub. all did the same to a point.I do not car what they did 35 years ago what are they doing now. Right now is when our young ones have to fight like it or not.Kerry is a johnson clone,Wish Id known you could get some small wounds and bug out.Kerry wants to put the fate of our country and our young ones in the hands of countries like france.Our military is once again in harms way,then if you care about our military give them the cic they want. I guess my vote will cancel out yours,from there its up to the rest of the people. Tell me what has kerry done in all these years to help the military.
with respect demaw.
-
maybe skerry kerry would change the length of a TOD in Iraq to 4 months, ya know no longer than his "heroic" in country adventure was - LOL
sorry, no respect for the guy, don't care what he did or didn't do in nam
just as I have less respect for the real JFK once his behavior and that of his father joe/family has become clear through time regardless of what he did for his crew after he got his boat ran over in ww2 and he is 10x the man skerry (mini-jfk) will ever be...
since you seem to like websites, here's a site for ya Sceadu:
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/
-
Originally posted by Sceadu
No. And Kerry didn't say everyone was committing atrocities. I vividly recall the Mei Lai trial. Are you saying that it didn't happen? Atrocities did occur. More than just Mei Lai. Rampant? No. Did they happen? Absolutely. Does that mean that all vets committed them? No. Does it mean that atrocities were committed? Absolutely.
They weren't medals, They were ribbons. Join the military and discover the difference for yourself. Or go ask dad.
And, yes, I knew if before I posted. More questions for me?
As I said. It doesn't hurt to be informed. It certainly does hurt to be misinformed, especially in a representative democracy. When the ignorant vote, then the ignorant get elected. Case in point - Bush.
http://www.bushwatch.net
he said attrocitys were rampant and known of and condoned from one end of chain of command to other. YOU should read his testimony and stop wasting your time lying to us. and if things like my lai happened all the time you can bet there would have been pages of photos in many newspaper commies were not the type to waste such a propoganda oppourtunity. you are a liar plain and simple. "I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.
They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation.
-- John Kerry, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 22, 1971"
-
Originally posted by Sceadu
It never hurts to be informed. That should be the first thing one does before forming an opinion.
I'm a disabled vet. I served in the Navy before a lot of you were even born. As far as I'm concerned, the worst person to be commander in chief is a chicken hawk like Bush, who used his father's influence to avoid service in Vietnam, then avoided most of that "cush" berth too after he was grounded from flying for failing to achieve a required physical (public record here, folks, available for anyone to see). After being refused a transfer to Alabama twice, to a unit which didn't have the type of planes he was trained to fly, they finally granted the transfer after he'd ALREADY moved to Alabama anyway. No one at the base remembers seeing him, including both the CO and XO of the unit. His pay records reflect the fact that he was unpaid for that period. At no time after that did he ever regain flight status, after the first grounding, and despite having wasted thousands of taxpayer dollars to train him. Most notable during his supposed Alabama service was the fact that he went on an arranged date with President Nixon's daughter, and they sent the presidential chopper to pick him up (again public info, readily available to anyone with the guts to look). Again, no one else in the unit recalls this incident occuring on base - which is where he should have been. I'm pretty sure I'd remember if the president's helicopter came to my duty station. Who knows where Bush was actually picked up at the time? No one from the Alabama Guard unit, that's for sure. Where does Bush go next? He's transferred to an administrative unit based out of Denver, Colorado. Why? To make up lost time from his missing days, as required at the time. He never shows up in Denver for his administrative duty, either. He is, instead, already enrolled at Harvard Business School, and asks for an early discharge to attend school - after the fact. It is granted. No reason given for why. Here's a man, supposed to be serving make-up time for AWOL periods at an administrative unit which is known for just that purpose; and instead he's given an honorable discharge never having made up his AWOL time at all, as required by military rules at the time. Why? Hmmm, maybe because the most political of all military units is the National Guard? That is, of course, why it was famous during Vietnam for being the hiding place of the rich and powerful. Is it because daddy was at the time, first a U.S. Representative from Texas and then later the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N and a Special Envoy to China? Is it because Nixon was trying to marry W off to his daughter?
What does an experience like that do to someone who later in life wants to portray himself as being pro-military and gung-ho? I'd say it makes him dangerously gung-ho. It leads to severe cognitive dissonance. It leads to chest-thumping, jingoistic behavior that gets good people killed simply because they chose to actually serve.
Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather have someone who actually served his country rather than someone who avoided serving it. Because of that, I didn't support Clinton; and I'm not about to support Bush. And I'm not the only vet who thinks the same way - http://www.vetsforkerry.com
And if you really wish to educate yourselves about some of the truly horrific things that Bush is doing to the military and to veterans via his unfunded broken promises and under the table program cuts to support his tax cuts for himself and his rich buddies, like Cheney, then I suggest you visit the following sites:
http://www.vva.org
http://www.vfw.org
you were a Sailor? when and where? what was your job?
-
what i find puzzling about scedu is that every guy ive ever known who had to deal with va was convinced the biggest problem was the va itself. never heard a guy blame any president for how screwed up the va is.
-
DEAD.................FAITH
This is rich....You just have to tell me how just how you came up with unshakeable faith......from....me saying.... a little faith
wmd fiasco....what did rice have to do with that?...
Again....canada,france,england,italy,australia,bulgaria,germany,
new zealand,israel,jordan,egypt.saudi arabia,russia.iraq.....all said iraq had wmds.
Every hi profile democrat elected to the congress said saddam had wmd and said he was a danger to america and said that could not stand.....clinton...and all of his cabinet said saddam had wmds and we would have to take him out.
Russia told bush [just a few days before he gave go order ]their intell had info that obl...2nd in command was going to meet with saddam to discuss hitihg america.
Now the next time you say bush lied or missed lead about wmd, You sir will be a lier.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
DEAD.................FAITH
This is rich....You just have to tell me how just how you came up with unshakeable faith......from....me saying.... a little faith
wmd fiasco....what did rice have to do with that?...
Again....canada,france,england,italy,australia,bulgaria,germany,
new zealand,israel,jordan,egypt.saudi arabia,russia.iraq.....all said iraq had wmds.
Every hi profile democrat elected to the congress said saddam had wmd and said he was a danger to america and said that could not stand.....clinton...and all of his cabinet said saddam had wmds and we would have to take him out.
Russia told bush [just a few days before he gave go order ]their intell had info that obl...2nd in command was going to meet with saddam to discuss hitihg america.
Now the next time you say bush lied or missed lead about wmd, You sir will be a lier.
Try the sentence again: "Well your unshaken faith in Dr. Rice's fact-checking capabilities after the Iraqi WMD fiasco is admirable."
Sadly all that intelligence stuff is irrelevant to Dr Rice's fact-checking capabilities. The fact is that there have been no WMDs found. If the intel says there is, but the facts say there isn't, someone didn't check their facts.
Why pick on Rice? What did she have to do with the WMD fiasco? She's National Security Advisor - and the whole big thing about the non-existent Iraqi WMDs was that they were perceived as a threat to national security. So I assume she may have had something to do with advising the president on the WMD issue.
Perhaps her best known fact-check fiasco was the Niger uranium nonsense of which she said: "The president quoted a British paper. We did not know at the time—no one knew at the time, in our circles—maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery." Pretty much an admission that she doesn't check her facts.
Did I mention Bush? I don't believe I did. But FYI if Bush told people or gave them the impression that Iraq had WMDs when Iraq didn't, it doesn't matter a hoot what the CIA, MI6, the KGB or Nancy Reagan's astrologer told him about the WMDs - he did mislead people. What you seem to be trying to argue is that he didn't mislead people knowingly and deliberately. That's the $64,000 question, the answer to which we'll never know for certain. So that's a subjective opinion thing. But hey, he is a politician: that's already a strike against him on that count. ;)
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Again....canada,france,england,italy,australia,bulgaria,germany,
new zealand,israel,jordan,egypt.saudi arabia,russia.iraq.....all said iraq had wmds.
You sir will be a lier. [/B]
hehe... Iraq?
-
Dead ...interesting analysis...
I have no unshaken faith in any human being.
I have faith in some, little faith in others,and no faith in the rest.
No wmds found:
1. because we found many fighters underground and well covered ,the number of fighters we thought they had increased.
Is it more likely someone didnt check their facts....or that humans have not yet evolved the ability to see underground?
2. Did or did not saddam ever have wmd/did he ever use them?
3 because we have not found the wmds does that mean they never will be found?
4 is it possible any were shipped to syria?
Niger uranium:
1. it has been reported recently by all british newspapers[right and left] and I have heard from several places on short wave radio that there might be some truth to that story.
2, do we have to say for sure right now it all was false?
Subjective opinion verses common sense.
[fact]
1. saddam uses wmd in war and then against his own people.
[fact]
2 saddam is striving hard to build wmds
[fact]
3.saddom says he has wmd
[fact]
4 you are attacked
[fact]
5. osama b l says we will hit u with wmd
6.u look around to determin which country most likely to give wmd to him, most would say iraq.
7. to protect your country,family when would you ge in.
1 80/20 percent chance he has wmd
2 60/40
3 50/50
4 40/60
5 20/80
6 never?
Ok with a goofy belifs like these you would not be a lier if you said missed lead.......but if you ever said he lied then yes you would be a liar.
-
midnight......
Yes iraq, saddam said many times him self he had WMDs.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
open letter.
...I am not nieve,I as most of you do, know whats going on, but this was real because it is very possible that my 2 sons will be involved soon in this war .
Most ,but not all democractic leaders and most, but not all liberals dispise the military.
Well, you may not be naive, but you sure are misinformed. :)
I spent some time in the USN during the Vietnam era and most chief petty officers were far more liberal than the average bear.
I have no idea who will win the election. I believe both Kerry & Bush have the best interest of the country at heart. Based on past history, I have to believe banks will open, companies will operate in the black & etc. regardless of the outcome.
curly
-
Curly.....misinformed...
Misinformed about what?
It does not surprise me that some with military experiance have views to the left and that is their right.
Even in ww2 a s in all wars a certian percentage does.
After a while I had very left views on veitnam but not for the same reason the left did.
I dont give a darn about banks,storys,books.or anything else.If my sons are involved I want to have hope the president and sec,of defense wont stabb them in the back.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Curly.....misinformed...
Misinformed about what?
It does not surprise me that some with military experiance have views to the left and that is their right.
Even in ww2 a s in all wars a certian percentage does.
After a while I had very left views on veitnam but not for the same reason the left did.
I dont give a darn about banks,storys,books.or anything else.If my sons are involved I want to have hope the president and sec,of defense wont stabb them in the back.
Misinformed about members of the military and their political views.
I understand your concerns about your son and wish them safety and success. But, the opinions you are expressing concerning Bush/Kerry are out of whack. :)
Look at Bush's military record. Listen to him speak and express his ideas. He is a functional moron (barely.) Bush is so dumb, he fails to understand many basic ideas of effective government.
On the other hand, I do believe both Bush and Kerry are ok ... I don't think either would deliberately endanger the country. I can live with either of them being elected.
curly
-
Originally posted by anonymous
you were a Sailor? when and where? what was your job?
I'm kind of interested in this answer as well. :confused:
-
Curly..............misinforme d......
I am sorry I am still confussed..misinformed about their political veiws during vietnam or now?
I dont see how my opinions are out of wack, do you have an idea?
What do you base dumb and moron on? school..grades..speaches..clo thes etc.
If you are 51 or over answer this If not just ignore it....
Do you believe johnson and mc namara endangered the country?
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Curly..............misinformed......
I am sorry I am still confussed..misinformed about their political veiws during vietnam or now?
You stated Most ,but not all democractic leaders and most, but not all liberals dispise the military. That is inaccurate. The military is filled with political liberals, or at least the military was in the late 60s, early 70s.
I dont see how my opinions are out of wack, do you have an idea?
[/b]
For example, you seem to think Bush really supports the military and yet he chose not to serve on active duty during the vietnam era. Instead, he selected the national guard and disappeared his last year. Your belief that Bush will support the military seems out of whack with his past behavior.
What do you base dumb and moron on? school..grades..speaches..clo thes etc.
[/b]
His inability to express a single complex thought without convulsing the country with laughter. Even many republicans refuse to listen to him speak. Indeed, they will vote Bush in the coming election not because of Bush, but rather because they reflexively vote Republican.
If you are 51 or over answer this If not just ignore it....
[/b]
Certified old fart here, well past 51. :)
Do you believe johnson and mc namara endangered the country?
Oh my yes! Eisenhower and later JFK eased us into that mess in a advisory capacity, but LBJ, via the Gulf of Tonkin incident, was responsible for the US involvement. The Gulf of Tonkin, much like Bush's WMDs, was pretty much a fabricated event as a pretext to firing up the machinery of war.
curly
-
SFC
U.S. Army (Retired)
1975 - 1995
Airbourne Recon, Tunnel Rat, Commo/ Security/Intel/MI.
No Man or Woman prays harder for Peace than those that serve in the Military!
Free America! Vote!
:aok
-
Curly.....thanks.....
Thank you for your reasoned response, believe me you are one of the few, but we do disagree he he.
Yes you are right in 60s and early 70s there were a fair number of liberals........but a very great many were JFK. liberal....huge differance...Today, those I spoke of do dispise the military.
Bush and guard........
Ah right again...I will try to explain.....
I believe most upper class people,so to speak, either went into the guard or did nothing. Bush went into the guard, [a plus]
He choose flying, a number of brave men have said: when you jump into the cockpit of a fighter,most wives and girl friends do not realize, the chances of death, have just increased, by at least 35 percent..........he could have been a lawyer.
He has been a war cic for 2 years now, He has given our men and women everything short of nukes to use. Has not worried about enemy body counts, when we took a hill we didnt give it back 2..3 times.. didnt send our planes off with half ord. because might have to much damage. Nor does he care what france or germany thinks . I could go on and on. For someone who cant give great speaches he has done well as cic.
Somehow you think someone who spent 4 mo. in country, has more experance than bush now? Someone who has voted against every weapon system now in use, would support the military now? Did you ever hear of a place called mogadishu ?I cant even go into it , makes me to sick. Except for JFK. that was a typical, democrat presidents, response since FDR. No I dont have the disconnect, and I have so much more to lose. I wish Id known you could bug out after three little wounds.
Clinton could, and still can give great speaches, I would rather have a president that would have said, go get our men, use what you need short of nukes, I dont give a damn what the u.n. thinks. Just useing common sense, the ones who died in somalia, which one would they have chosen? BTW, I know who the ones in iraq would choose.
WMDs: I just cant go into it again, if you truly believe he lied about that...then so be it.
thanks demaw.
-
AW mac...
You were a tunnel rat?.......Your still alive.....WTG. SALUTE.
-
Originally posted by jamusta
You are basically saying that soldiers are expendable.
I hate to break it to ya bub... but if your military, you are expendable.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
I believe most upper class people,so to speak, either went into the guard or did nothing. Bush went into the guard, [a plus]
Upper class? We are a classless society. You must mean wealthy or had a father who was a congressman. Bush had both and chose to do nothing except national guard. However, you are correct about the wealthy and sons of congressmen. They uniformly took the easy way out. My recollection may be faulty, but I believe one son (out of all congress critters) served in Vietnam.
Don't fault Kerry for his service. Kerry was on a PBR boat. Life expectancy of PBR guys was right up there with BAR guys of WW2.
curly
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
You stated Most ,but not all democractic leaders and most, but not all liberals dispise the military. That is inaccurate. The military is filled with political liberals, or at least the military was in the late 60s, early 70s.
[/B]
Sorry Curly, most military liberals/Democrats I've come across over the last 18yrs usually don't say much because they are so out of place, they are few and far between now. Time's change and unfortunately, my experience is that Democrats are just plain bad for the military, and most of us are aware of that.
-
Originally posted by Horn
You realize don't you that your next two invasions will be substantially more bloody? Iran has not suffered 10 years of economic embargo, destruction of their air force and third party active military monitoring of over half their country. They've been increasing their military since the '88 war w/ Iraq:
.
h
Neither did Iraq prior to Gulf war I.
And if memory serves correct they had the 3rd largest military at the time
then it became the 4th
5th
6th
7th....And so on
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Did I mention Bush? I don't believe I did. But FYI if Bush told people or gave them the impression that Iraq had WMDs when Iraq didn't, it doesn't matter a hoot what the CIA, MI6, the KGB or Nancy Reagan's astrologer told him about the WMDs - he did mislead people. What you seem to be trying to argue is that he didn't mislead people knowingly and deliberately. That's the $64,000 question, the answer to which we'll never know for certain. So that's a subjective opinion thing. But hey, he is a politician: that's already a strike against him on that count. ;)
If Bush and the repulicans misled the people about Iraqs WMDs then so did the Democrates from Clinton on down.
BOTH sides claimed he had WMDs
BOTH sides claimed Iraq was a threat at one point or another.
The Democrates wanted to invade Iraq for exactly that reason during the Clinton era. Cinton for whatever reason chose not to.
the ONLY Difference between the two is Bush did Something.
So let knock it off already with the "Bush Lied" rhetoric.
Because if it was/is a lie.
They BOTH lied.
Just as if WMDs are finally found then they both would have been correct.
and BOTH will be clamouring for the lions share for the credit with "I told ya so's"
-
Curly, yes, Kerry does scare me. I see him giving away more nuclear materials to nations like Korea and Iran. I don't see him being firm in protecting American interests overseas.
Medals and ribbons are interchangeable. Throwing either in a fountain, lake, river, steaming pit of molten lava equals the same thing to me.
-
OK, they both lied.
Only Bush sent in the troops though. Hmmmmmm. I wonder which is worse, lying and not sending in troops, or lying and sending in troops?
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Sorry Curly, most military liberals/Democrats I've come across over the last 18yrs usually don't say much because they are so out of place, they are few and far between now. Time's change and unfortunately, my experience is that Democrats are just plain bad for the military, and most of us are aware of that.
Do you mean bad for the military or bad for the military industrial complex? Democrats aren't bad for the military, but they're considerably tougher on the military industrial complex.
curly
-
Originally posted by Goth
Curly, yes, Kerry does scare me. I see him giving away more nuclear materials to nations like Korea and Iran. I don't see him being firm in protecting American interests overseas.
Medals and ribbons are interchangeable. Throwing either in a fountain, lake, river, steaming pit of molten lava equals the same thing to me.
You mean like Reagan armed Saddam? We need less of protecting American interests overseas and more of protecting American interests at home. We need more of treating other nations with decency and respect.
curly
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Do you mean bad for the military or bad for the military industrial complex? Democrats aren't bad for the military, but they're considerably tougher on the military industrial complex.
curly
The short of it is, they will cut funding. Training suffers, maintenance suffers, and without a doubt, procurment of technology suffers. Further, you also risk things like... sending troops to dangerous places and not committing to the cause (=dead troops). Then of course there's the very real possibility of sending stuborn old bastiges like me somewhere and telling him to stick a light blue beret on his head and take orders from some commander from who knows what country.
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt... don't want to do it again.
Tumor
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
OK, they both lied.
Only Bush sent in the troops though. Hmmmmmm. I wonder which is worse, lying and not sending in troops, or lying and sending in troops?
bro
how can you lie when you base your action on what you believe is true at the time of your decision
you may be incorrect but you have not lied
and not only the US thought so but the entire would .. guess everyone was getting their rocks off "lying" about poor ole cheekbones saddam through the 90's eh?
-
Originally posted by Tumor
I hate to break it to ya bub... but if your military, you are expendable.
If you are in the military and believe that then you were not brought through the ranks with good leadership.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
bro
how can you lie when you base your action on what you believe is true at the time of your decision
you may be incorrect but you have not lied
and not only the US thought so but the entire would .. guess everyone was getting their rocks off "lying" about poor ole cheekbones saddam through the 90's eh?
Shhhhhhhh...
Just pointing out the stupidity of the "They both lied" argument.. don't let on.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
you were a Sailor? when and where? what was your job?
Sorry missed that question in all the other crap about a weasel and close-mindedness. My apologies.
I was a nuc MM. Between A school and nuc school in 1979, I was stationed on the San Diego (AFS-6) for a med cruise. I lost part of my hand in a losing argument with the reduction gear in shaft alley during sea detail coming out of Naples, and had the mangled portion amputated in the Navy hospital there after being flown back to Naples on one of the ship's two choppers. I finished nuc school, as an MM2; but ended up taking a medical discharge prior to shipping out for prototype school when it became obvious I was going to spend my intended career riding a desk rather than keeping a sub's power plant functioning. There's not a lot of call for a machinist mate, especially a nuc, who can't hold tools. :)
-
Sorry to hear man. :(
-
Drediock......Tumor....others ....
for get it it just is no use.
-
Originally posted by Sceadu
Sorry missed that question in all the other crap about a weasel and close-mindedness. My apologies.
I was a nuc MM. Between A school and nuc school in 1979, I was stationed on the San Diego (AFS-6) for a med cruise. I lost part of my hand in a losing argument with the reduction gear in shaft alley during sea detail coming out of Naples, and had the mangled portion amputated in the Navy hospital there after being flown back to Naples on one of the ship's two choppers. I finished nuc school, as an MM2; but ended up taking a medical discharge prior to shipping out for prototype school when it became obvious I was going to spend my intended career riding a desk rather than keeping a sub's power plant functioning. There's not a lot of call for a machinist mate, especially a nuc, who can't hold tools. :)
being a Sailor tell me getting a hook crossed your mind at least once. :)