KRC Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 At least for Bush the world suffered a major catastrophe in the Tsunami. That bought him at least a couple more months to try and find a legitimate reason for any of this. 222966[/snapback] Yeah, I imagine Bush is sitting in the White House saying, "whew, it is a good thing that over 200,000 people were killed. It takes th epessure off of me." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Before you attack those who disagree over the Iraq War II, remember this: Remember the Vietnam veterans, who either died or were scarred, maimed, or mentally damaged, who fought so valiantly in a terrible conflict that initially was concocted by a Gulf of Tonkin incident that never happened, when their government led them down a road that tore our country apart. Remember the Iraqi veterans, who either died, or were scarred, maimed, or mentally damaged, who fight so valiantly in a very dangerous conflict that was initially concocted by WMD that were never produced and a 9/11 connection that never existed, when our government led us down a path that not only split our country, but tore a hole through another country that may temporarily be free, but in the end may have a government more frightening and restrictive than anything under Saddam. Patriotism requires many different things... seeing men die under these conditions requires voices that challenge the notion that we are to blindly follow our government into the depths of destruction. Maybe the country would have a lot more willing recruits if we didn't act irresponsibly in the world... When you follow up a World War II and a Korean War with a Vietnam, or a Gulf War and Afghanistan with an Iraqi War II, that is what happens... every positive thing that we as service members stand for is tarnished by a couple of irresponsible wars. No matter how hard the fight is, no matter what good is done, the final analysis washes it all away, and to me, it is inexcusable!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Amen brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Let me clarify that...I'm saying amen to AKC's original post, not the dribble from those who disagree. I'm a 22 year Navy Captain who couldn't be more proud of our troops in Iraq fighting for democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillnutinHouston Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 It's one of the great American hypocrisies- the disgusting cowardice of the loud-mouthed elite. 222904[/snapback] Buffalo News = elite = cowardly liberal rag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Looks like those conservative elitists from major population centers/NYC aren't serving either....... 223006[/snapback] There aren't many of us....trust me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneida Lake Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 If the 75% voter turnout holds, and it appears it will, then we are seeing an election that brought out almost 15% more people than our own. And this with the threat of death at virtually every polling place. They can appear as trite words sometimes, but the right to vote, to express yourself freely, to live in a free society, are very powerful motivations. The Bush haters are out with their comments about "tsunamis saving Bush" and "peachy" and the more reasoned comments by other dissenters; but the US military can hold their heads very, very high today and should lift a toast to each other and their dead and wounded comrades for a job well done. With more to come. They have begun to change the dynamic in a region of our world where people are oppressed. The results of this day will not be known in 10 days but in 10 to 15 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 They have begun to change the dynamic in a region of our world where people are oppressed. The results of this day will not be known in 10 days but in 10 to 15 years. 223011[/snapback] Yes, that is the only thing that will, in the end, justify this whole conflict... the end result. I am very pessimistic about the future, but if it does turn out to be a positive outcome, I will be the first to admit I was horribly wrong, and the lesson will not be forgotten. However, if my fears do come to pass, then history will once again repeat itself, and we will be ever closer to a HUGE disaster in the Middle East. The proof will be in the pudding... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 However, if my fears do come to pass, then history will once again repeat itself, and we will be ever closer to a HUGE disaster in the Middle East. The proof will be in the pudding... 223030[/snapback] What history would repeat itself? The Crusades? Before this war, the Middle East was clearly an area of peaceful coexistence, with absolutely no possibility of spilling over to other parts of the world. Bush must be the biggest moron to rouse that area just to get the oil. When you make a statement like that, think of the comparison you're making. Do you honestly believe that the US would not be involved militarily in the region over the next 5-10 years if pre-emptive measures were not done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB27 Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 It's a disappointing phenomenon in this country- liberal elitists in the major population centers convince the residents of those same centers to keep themselves and their kids out of the military while small town America always supports our Armed Forces. In the current conflict it's our major population centers EXCLUSIVELY at threat- Middle Eastern Terrorists couldn't care about Bonesteel South Dakota while elite New York City is target #1- yet elite New York City sends the nationwide lowest percentage of Americans to the fight, instead allowing the kids from Bonesteel and other small towns to die protecting their elite centers. It's one of the great American hypocrisies- the disgusting cowardice of the loud-mouthed elite. I offer this opinion as a former enlisted member of our armed forces, an experience that offers me a first-hand perspective of who actually serves in our volunteer forces. 222904[/snapback] Dude, You hit the nail on the head with this one. The liberal's want all the freedoms that our military might affords us, but they think there way is the solution, and are not willing to contribute one bit when the majority (thats right, the majority) doesn't agree. God Bless America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 What history would repeat itself? The Crusades? Before this war, the Middle East was clearly an area of peaceful coexistence, with absolutely no possibility of spilling over to other parts of the world. Bush must be the biggest moron to rouse that area just to get the oil. When you make a statement like that, think of the comparison you're making. Do you honestly believe that the US would not be involved militarily in the region over the next 5-10 years if pre-emptive measures were not done? 223039[/snapback] OK, OK... I see what you mean.. let me clarify as my brain goes into overload here!! I mean as OTHER areas as an example... Vietnam being the best comparison. Governments not only have to be stable, but also ablt to PROTECT themselves from revolutions or revolts... If Iraq is incapable of holding together and falls apart after we leave, the government that takes its place (an Islamic Revolution as in Iran) would be FAR worse, as the Communist takeover of Vietnam was in 1975. I can only hope this does not happen... if it does, war with Iran is a lot more inevitable than it is now, and that means DEFINITE action. God help us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackur Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 we will never leave iraq.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 I probably am incapable of loving America Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the cat in portland Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 well isnt that just peachy 222897[/snapback] sour grapes you liberal dink! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Remember the Iraqi veterans, who either died, or were scarred, maimed, or mentally damaged, who fight so valiantly in a very dangerous conflict that was initially concocted by WMD that were never produced and a 9/11 connection that never existed, when our government led us down a path that not only split our country, but tore a hole through another country that may temporarily be free, but in the end may have a government more frightening and restrictive than anything under Saddam. Patriotism requires many different things... seeing men die under these conditions requires voices that challenge the notion that we are to blindly follow our government into the depths of destruction. Maybe the country would have a lot more willing recruits if we didn't act irresponsibly in the world... When you follow up a World War II and a Korean War with a Vietnam, or a Gulf War and Afghanistan with an Iraqi War II, that is what happens... every positive thing that we as service members stand for is tarnished by a couple of irresponsible wars. No matter how hard the fight is, no matter what good is done, the final analysis washes it all away, and to me, it is inexcusable!!!!!!! 222987[/snapback] Except that we and the administration did NOT act irresponsibly! Neither the 1991 nor the current War in Iraq were irresponsible. My final analysis will always be different than yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Except that we and the administration did NOT act irresponsibly! Neither the 1991 nor the current War in Iraq were irresponsible. My final analysis will always be different than yours. 223166[/snapback] The Gulf War in 1991 was COMPLETELY justified... so we agree completely. Vietnam never would have been our worst hour if Kennedy had been alive. I know we disagree on the third point... it is inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Vietnam never would have been our worst hour if Kennedy had been alive.223179[/snapback] had kennedy not been assasinated the only difference would be the initials in the chant: hey hey! jfk! how many kids did you kill today! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 had kennedy not been assasinated the only difference would be the initials in the chant:hey hey! jfk! how many kids did you kill today! 223180[/snapback] He did an interview in September, 1963, in which he was asked the following question: What will be our role in South Vietnam? He answered it by saying that any assistance that the government needed to help the United States would provide, and that meant ADVISORS only. He said that they would have to do it on their own! It was clear and to the point... I have it on DVD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 He did an interview in September, 1963, in which he was asked the following question: What will be our role in South Vietnam? He answered it by saying that any assistance that the government needed to help the United States would provide, and that meant ADVISORS only. He said that they would have to do it on their own! It was clear and to the point... I have it on DVD. 223183[/snapback] when kennedy was giving that interview in september 1963 my dad was in the army stationed in korea. even the enlisted grunts like him had a pretty good idea where the direction in vietnam was taking them i'm just glad my grandmother talked him out of re-enlisting in 64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 He answered it by saying that any assistance that the government needed to help the United States would provide, and that meant ADVISORS only Didn't we already have some "advisors" on the ground at that point, and didn't those advisors look an awful lot like regular soldiers? and of course if president said it, it must be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts