Open letter to all.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Only to those who have bought into the two party system. You let the party heads control who you vote for.
-SW

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

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

[Toad]

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?

[Edbert]

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.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Toad
So you're going with a write in then?

I'm not accepting any nominations Toad!

[Horn]

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

[Edbert]

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?

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by demaw1
open letter.
           Most ,but not all democractic leaders and most,  but not all liberals dispise the military.

BS

[milnko]

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.

[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.

[Eagler]

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"

[Goth]

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.

[demaw1]

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

[jamusta]

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.

[-dead-]

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 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