The Stab a Soldier in the Back Act 2007

Gonz said:
Spoken like one who's never worn the uniform.
Click to expand...

BLAH BLAH BLAH.

did you wrap yourself in a flag to type that one?

it's a NON-BINDING resolution, so in some ways, it is superficial bullshit. sending those soldiers over there with insufficient resources is NOT superficial.

sticks and stones will break my bones, but words...

so, wait, you think the soldiers over there are wimps, too, and their feelings will be hurt?

get real. post something real, don't just pick a nit.

and FYI, i did try to join up and serve, and was rejected for a minor medical issue... how about you?
 
Non-binding... if they want to "support" the troops, they can stop funding it...or would that be political suicide? They need to be leaders, not poll sitters.

Honorable Discharge (also medically related)
 
Could be. I ain't gonna blame him for every wrong thing in the country though. There was ample time to supply them with what they need(ed). Their country let them down. I just hope it's the only time we do.
 
"...and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender....our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price"."
Ronald Regan 10-27-64


Are these the same voices that voted for the war before they voted against it? http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html


spike said:
This war was for political interests and obviously not any threat to the US.
Click to expand...

Exactly what are the "political interests" you're talking about?

Could you please list them?


Thankfully folks are paying attention now which is why most US citizens are against sending more troops to Iraq.

Yay, congress is listening to what the people want. :toast:
Click to expand...

The care-free days Pre 9-11 are just a memory; running away will only encourage our enemies---who will grow in strength as we "redeploy" in weakness.

Do you think "the people" will get behind Murtha's new war-ending strategy? He is on the march to prevent the additional troops needed for an ONGOING operation. He might as well be stopping shipments of ammuntion and food as well.

A Slooowww Bleeeeed: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2751.html


The "party of defeat" has spoken. The dems want the President to lose at every turn---too bad it's at the country's expense. The "nonbinding resolution" tells the world that we need to abandon Iraq and surrender to terrorism. That we don't have the stomach for the fight. The "nonbinding resolution" is a but stepping stone for the party of cut and run in their lust for political gain.
 
The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat.
Click to expand...

First Korea, then everywhere else :(
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
It's a good thing Canadians don't get a vote on our military practices.

I agree that there have been mistakes made. Plural. But I submit that some of them came about from political hand tying. Is President Bush 100% correct in this matter. Not only no but hell no. Show me a leader who ever has been. And unlike some, I prefer to try and do something over doing nothing. Change is an active process, not a passive one.

This could have been a done deal over a year ago. It isn't. That's a mistake. Give the military the go ahead to end this and they will.
Click to expand...

Don't shoot the messenger...

Gonz interpreted the message one way, I interpreted the message another.

IMO..they should've finished the job in Afghanistan (you know...the 9-11 people) first and then taken it to Saddam if it was still warranted, instead of forgetting all about Bin Laden and going all out over Saddam.
 
There is one factor in this process that I have yet to see discussed, by either polar side in the debate. It is so glaringly obvious that at first I didn't feel the need to mention it. Now, after reading thread after thread of the same tired rhetoric from both factions, I mention it. It is not intended as an excuse, accusation, carte blanche, get out of jail free card, or anything of the sort. Just thought I'd bring it up.

We can sit in our warm homes and read whatever news best suits our fancy all we like. We can follow every Congressional vote, analyze every talking head on any network, listen to zealots from Rush to Franken until our ears bleed. We can pay as much or as little attention to the situation as we decide it merits. None of that equals this one little thing.

Not one of us, nor one of the news readers, nor any analyst, knows what is truly going on. Information is filtered, like it or not. For all we know, there may have been decisions made that we ridicule that were made for reasons we know nothing about. The safety of a key intelligence operative. The threat on an embassy that wasn't leaked. Who knows what else.

Until we sit in that chair in that office, we have no idea what the tale really is. All we do is Monday Morning Quarterback. I for one think that regardless of whose ass it is in that chair, this deserves the benefit of the doubt in matters of this importance. I admit to my share of criticism at times, but war is a different beast. Given the sensitive information that passes on and off that desk, can any of us truly say what should or should not be done?

I anticipate certain someones reply of "it's a matter of trust and I don't trust Bush". And that holds a certain amount of validity. But...how much? I suggest that it holds very little. I'd like to know of a national leader, outside a dictator, who never made decisions that he/she personally didn't favor, but made them because they were the best option available given all the information in play. Hindsight being better than foresight, it makes me wonder why anyone would want the office in the first place.

Go ahead and discuss it all you like. Just be aware that we do so with less than 100% of the facts.

Seem pointless yet?
 
nope.

I would guess most intelligent people, and i include you here, would take that as a starting point...
 
SnP said:
Seem pointless yet?
Click to expand...

Acting out against the President, or the troops, has never been a just cause. It's acts from members of Congress, as in the point of this thread, or accusations by those who don't have the whole story that get my panties in a bunch. Al Franken, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, Nancy Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, among countless other, including our own spike & flavio, can't, or won't, allow a natural conclusion to this.

They have undermined the efforts at every turn. They have forced doubt into every decision. They have ridiculed & cajoled & intimidated & derided until the general public has thrown up its hands in disgust & walked away. They, those who claim support while showing animosity towards our military, have weakened US morale while enhancing the enemys. They have given aid & comfort to thsoe who wish us harm (including our destruction). They have decided their political preferences outweigh the safety of our soldiers.

Afghanistan, like Iraq, was only a battle in a much larger war. Iraq is a linchpin, both physically & regionally, to stabilizing the entire region. With threatened victory came the outsiders. Iran is a serious threat to us & to the energy needs of the world. Yet, as long as we have people willing to degrade our decisions & repeatedly question the efforts, Ahmadinejad knows that he is safe to provide arms that harm our troops, as well as develop a full scale nuclear weapon program that will prove to be a major power shift in the world.

GW Bush told us. We heard him. We agreed. Now we're tired yet the enemy is still growing fat off our detractors. In WW2, we fought the Germans. We fought them in France & in Egypt & in Poland. It wasn't until the end that we fought them in Germany. The current enemy has no homeland. Why do you think we're fighting them everywehere while trying to provide a single battlefield?

Peace at any cost is not peace. It's surrender.
 
Gonz said:
It's acts from members of Congress, as in the point of this thread, or accusations by those who don't have the whole story that get my panties in a bunch.
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you, but you don't have the whole story either. Neither does Rush, Boortz, or Savage.

I guess it's just me. I gave a particular issue many months of thought and concluded that I didn't have enough facts. I sought them, and still don't have them all, but I have more than most. That search taught me something I didn't set out to learn though. Or rather, reaffirmed it.
 
Gonz said:
Afghanistan, like Iraq, was only a battle in a much larger war. Iraq is a linchpin, both physically & regionally, to stabilizing the entire region. With threatened victory came the outsiders. Iran is a serious threat to us & to the energy needs of the world. Yet, as long as we have people willing to degrade our decisions & repeatedly question the efforts, Ahmadinejad knows that he is safe to provide arms that harm our troops, as well as develop a full scale nuclear weapon program that will prove to be a major power shift in the world.

Peace at any cost is not peace. It's surrender.
Click to expand...

There it is, right there.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
All we do is Monday Morning Quarterback.
Click to expand...

i appreciate your thoughts, however...

it's fair game to criticize when a gazillion dollar commitment was made by an administration either unwilling to share the full facts about 'the plan,' or comfortable making that commitment based on a comic book understanding of the way the world works.

yep. a gazillion dollars. and about 500,000 pounds of dead american flesh (you do the math) so far.

hmmmph. if theyda had yer attitude, maybe they woulda been smart enough to decide to either not do it, or pour in more resources from the get go, to mitigate "unknown unknowns."
 
2minkey said:
hmmmph. if theyda had yer attitude, maybe they woulda been smart enough to decide to either not do it, or pour in more resources from the get go, to mitigate "unknown unknowns."
Click to expand...

My preferred outcome, as I have stated from day one. Blow a hole, make it deep and wide, and be done with it. Put up a sign in about 83 languages on the rim of the crater that asks, "Who's next?" We have the fire power, we have the man power, and we have the delivery system, all funded by we the taxpayers. Use 'em. If we had, I wager we would never have heard of half these sand fleas who fancy themselves as important today.

But we didn't. I will assume there was a reason, maybe more than one. Since I don't know them, I stop there.
 
BB said:
wasn't that ol saddam's line with the Kurds?

(barring the stopping there part)
Click to expand...

Which is part of the bigger picture. Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out is one way to win a war. Probably the only way to decisevly win one. However, after witnessing the destruction of the 40's, folks are trying to have kinder, gentler wars.

It ain't working.

Civilization & warfare do not mix well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top