Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKIron on April 08, 2008, 05:31:21 PM
-
about swiftboating.
He was willing but the execution was lacking. I give a him 1 for effort but ultimately label him as clueless.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/08/rockefeller-apologizes-for-saying-mccain-doesnt-care-about-lives-of-war-bystanders/
-
Another West Virginia Democrat shows his true colors.
-
For those allergic to Fox News:
“McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit,” Rockefeller told the newspaper, which published the article on the interview Tuesday. “What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn’t know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues,” he is quoted saying.
-
For those allergic to Fox News:
“McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit,” Rockefeller told the newspaper, which published the article on the interview Tuesday. “What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn’t know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues,” he is quoted saying.
This is almost retarded....
Most of the bombs dropped in McCain era were dumb bombs with no guidance below 15,000 feet.
Id venture to say that very few bombs/missiles of any kind were dropped above 25,000 feet from fighters. Maybe some Arc Light strikes from B52s reached up to 35,000 feet however.
Did McCain ever even fire a laser quided missile?
What the real stinker is tho is the fact that its not is job to think about what those bombs and missiles do. He was given an order to drop this ordnance on this location. Why is not important to him and it shouldnt be. McCain did what every other pilot does in the military, followed orders without question.
Strip(er)
-
I don't think they were laser guided, But that's beside the point.
I thought he was shot down early in the war because cuddlinghunk LBJ was announcing our attack 8+ hours early because the numbnuts didn’t take into account the time difference. And the Viet Kong where waiting. This great American war hero spend years being tortured.
-
Incredibly stupid and arrogant thing to say---we lost THOUSANDS of pilots because dive-bombing was the only effective way of putting ordnance on target. Merely QUESTIONING Murtha's statements caused a leftist firestorm, as he was a Marine/reservist for decades. I'm sure this won't go anywhere (To Rockefeller's credit, he sought out McCain and apologized to him, after someone apparently told him what a effing stupid thing he had just said)
I read a fascinating book called "Thud Ridge" written by a Colonel F-105 pilot, who was later court-martialed for egging a Sam site which was under construction---until they went operational, they were hands-off, then they would kill his comrades (Afraid of killing Russian engineers) THATS what happens when people like Jay Rockefeller prosecute wars....'whiz-kid' wannabe. IF you are going to have a war, fight it all out and WIN IT--don't let the aggressor country forget for one minute what they are involved in. The folks in Hanoi scarcely knew anything was going on for YEARS, due to ROE. Berliners could not say the same
-
IF you are going to have a war, fight it all out and WIN IT--don't let the aggressor country forget for one minute what they are involved in.
Exactly! We need to fight wars like we want to win them! Like the Republicans have been doing for the past five years in Iraq!
:rofl
-
Because a Democrat would have given up already? :aok
-
Exactly! We need to fight wars like we want to win them! Like the Republicans have been doing for the past five years in Iraq!
:rofl
Alas, the only way to apply afore-mentioned doctrine here is to whack Damascus and Tehran :( Too bad they didn't hire Petraeus in 2004, would have saved many lives)
-
Because a Democrat would have given up already? :aok
I think that was Nixon that gave up in Viet Nam, but in fairness to Tricky Dick he inherited a real mess. But anyway, I'm agreeing with you- if we're going to go to war we need to fight to win the damn thing ASAP. The only two examples I've seen where one party has an exclusive on how to wage war are Iraq (managed by the Republicans) and WW2 (managed by the Democrats).
The Democrats didn't quit- and sooner or later the Republicans will.
-
I think that was Nixon that gave up in Viet Nam, but in fairness to Tricky Dick he inherited a real mess. But anyway, I'm agreeing with you- if we're going to go to war we need to fight to win the damn thing ASAP. The only two examples I've seen where one party has an exclusive on how to wage war are Iraq (managed by the Republicans) and WW2 (managed by the Democrats).
The Democrats didn't quit- and sooner or later the Republicans will.
I agreed with you until the last sentence...Dems have been trying to declare defeat and leave since 2005--last fall, Hillary even preemptively warned General Petraeus not to lie to her and tell her things were going better. I can't think of a single Dem, save maybe Lieberman, who thought we were anything but defeated, and the surge, a plan designed by non-political, professional military people, would do nothing but kill our boys at an even faster rate. As the thing approached, they grew apoplectic in their claims that our guys had lost the war and we needed to get out NOW (before the 'surge' started) as the remote possibility of something which looked like victory would be problematic in the fall of 2008
-
I doubt the Dems of the 40s would side that much with the Dems of today.
-
I think that was Nixon that gave up in Viet Nam, but in fairness to Tricky Dick he inherited a real mess.
It was Ford and more like Congress cut funding and forced it to be over...
-
Congress cut off South Vietnam after Nixon lost whatever power he had, was death knell for many over there (was matter of time anyhow, but could have been done in a better way)
-
about swiftboating.
He was willing but the execution was lacking. I give a him 1 for effort but ultimately label him as clueless.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/08/rockefeller-apologizes-for-saying-mccain-doesnt-care-about-lives-of-war-bystanders/
I laughed as hard at this as I did the whole "Kool-aide screaming Obama fans" a couple months back:
“Why does Sen. Obama refuse to personally condemn this type of despicable attack? Sen. Obama has run for president on the basis that he represents a new kind of politics, yet every day there is another smear that Obama refuses to repudiate,” McCain spokesman Tucker Bonds said in a written statement.
Well DUH! He's just another typical politician, except this one talks a good line, has NO experience, and had a racist mentor for 20 years.
It's awefully quiet out their on the polysci's of the internet these past 3 weeks, the liberal's have quietly hid in their closets (like they want the US to do with Terrorism) due to the embarassment of these two senators duking it out, one associated closely with a racist, the other a liar.
Gee, who was that guy in the AH OT a few months ago that said America was not ready to elect a black man or a woman? Hmmm.....
-
I think that was Nixon that gave up in Viet Nam, but in fairness to Tricky Dick he inherited a real mess. But anyway, I'm agreeing with you- if we're going to go to war we need to fight to win the damn thing ASAP. The only two examples I've seen where one party has an exclusive on how to wage war are Iraq (managed by the Republicans) and WW2 (managed by the Democrats).
The Democrats didn't quit- and sooner or later the Republicans will.
You're older than I am dude. Were you hitting the Thai stix too much back then? Nixon campaigned in '67-'68 to pull OUT of 'Nam. Unfortunately it took him longer to do so than originally planned.
-
Nixon campaigned in '67-'68 to pull OUT of 'Nam.
But yet invaded Cambodia.
-
But yet invaded Cambodia.
DUH. They were using Cambodia as safe harbor to kill our boys. Ignoring such things would have cost us WW2. There IS no antiseptic war
-
But we invaded Cambodia, and it still cost us South Vietnam. Its like invading Iran or Syria to save Iraq.
-
But we invaded Cambodia, and it still cost us South Vietnam.
One has naught to do with the other--if NVA are using Cambodia as safe harbor, you BOMB Cambodia---If most of North Vietnam hadn't spent most of the 60's blissfully unaware that a war was on to the south, South Vietnam would have lived---If you're gonna have a war , HAVE a frikkin war :aok
-
The Nixon Admin decided to invade Cambodia rather than to attack North Vietnam.
Cambodia was attacked in 1970...The Linebacker Raids started in 1972.
Sorry to Hijack.
-
You're older than I am dude. Were you hitting the Thai stix too much back then? Nixon campaigned in '67-'68 to pull OUT of 'Nam. Unfortunately it took him longer to do so than originally planned.
Yup- Nixon and Humphrey both made campaign promises in 1968 to end the war in Viet Nam...if there was ever a Tweedle Dee-Tweedle Dum choice for Prez, 1968 was it.
And then Nixon was reelected with the same campaign promise, only amended to read "peace with honor" and that was enough to defeat McCarthy, who was percieved as "too extreme" (sounds like Obama) by the voting public...There were even rumors he experimented with LSD.
So Nixon has the dubious distinction for being the only President elected twice because he made the same campaign promise in both campaigns, 68 and 72- to end a war that ultimately lasted longer than any war we'd ever been in.
That's the past, Rip- the present is we're five years into Iraq, and the future is maybe five years from now it'll be your kids putting their life on the line over there.
Will you be OK with that five years from now?