The wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time

Frank Probity said:
So what is the point in pointing out this manipulated, bias driven film clip put together by a neo-con website?
Click to expand...




To point out the contrast between the two greetings -- the troops know who despises them. They also know who is spending unprecedented amounts of our money on worthless bailouts and pork projects while cutting the defense funding budget.

0bama can't make the years that the BDSers spent denigrating our troops, our President, and their missions go away.

He and his party aided and abetted the enemy, which most likely prolonged the war.

He just spent a week slandering his country and the troops in Europe.

To pretend that the majority of troops respect and admire the anti-American community organizer more than President Bush is so much spin.

And can you explain what you mean by manipulated, and why are you so sure the vid it was created by that website? There were at least 3 other instances of it. :shrug:
 
Cerise said:
To point out the contrast between the two greetings -- the troops know who despises them. They also know who is spending unprecedented amounts of our money on worthless bailouts and pork projects while cutting the defense funding budget.
Click to expand...

Yes, Bush despised the troops and originated the bailouts. When most of the troops have wanted to withdraw from Iraq for quite some time now they know that Bush was ignoring them and Obama is not.

0bama can't make the years that the BDSers spent denigrating our troops, our President, and their missions go away.
Click to expand...

Nobody was denigrating the troops, the last president deserved it, and even most of the troops know that we shouldn't be in Iraq.

Now your denigrating the president and you're not going to make that go away easily. ;)

He and his party aided and abetted the enemy, which most likely prolonged the war.
Click to expand...

No Bush and his party aided and abetted the enemy. Instead of going after the enemy he invaded Iraq which has increased terrorism. His administration's incompetence no doubt prolonged the farce which was the Iraq invasion.

He just spent a week slandering his country and the troops in Europe.
Click to expand...

Nope.

To pretend that the majority of troops respect and admire the anti-American community organizer more than President Bush is so much spin.
Click to expand...

To pretend that we should remain in Iraq when the majority of the troops want us out is not supporting the troops at all. It takes some serious spin to portray it any other way.

And can you explain what you mean by manipulated, and why are you so sure the vid it was created by that website? There were at least 3 other instances of it. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Obama has received a warm welcome from the troops and chants of "we love you". I wonder why that wasn't in your vid. ;)
 
Cerise said:
1. He and his party aided and abetted the enemy, which most likely prolonged the war.

2. He just spent a week slandering his country and the troops in Europe.
Click to expand...

1. only in your twisted interpretation. and, shit, for you, the enemy is everyone who is not exactly like you.

2. bullshit. utter bullshit.
 
Gato_Solo said:
You obviously don't know about the tradition of the 'rent-a-crowd'. I've been 'voluntold' to go out and support the Pres for just over 20 years. Of course we applaud. To not do so would bring down the ire of our upper management...i.e. officers looking for that next big promotion.

Lets see...Spain...Germany...Japan...no longer threats, and not resentful of the US. Britain...Canada...South Korea...friendly...

Now that that is out of the way, lets look at this statement..." tries to kick the bajezeezus out of someone"...This is what happens when you fight wars for political gain instead of to win. What we have is a Congress who is unwilling to commit to a military response that is unfettered. In other words, we haven't had a war since WWII. Korea , and just about every action since, was a UN mandate.

And where, exactly, in the Constitution does it mandate giving money to the non-working? In a war, you'd best do something to keep the enemy populace in check, or you'd wind up with massacres in every city. You win wars with bullets, you make peace with dependence.

You may be correct, but what if you get slapped first, and the threat of more slapping remains? Diplomacy is an amazing thing if done correctly, but diplomacy is never done correctly. Every war that has ever been fought has only been delayed because of diplomacy. If the parties are in disagreement, then they are in disagreement. If its something one side holds dear, then there is going to be a fight.
Click to expand...

thanks for an interesting, worthwhile-to-read post.

so clapping troops are perhaps sometimes like me going to the mandatory office holiday party, where i smile, exchange pleasantries, and try to get the fuck out of there at the earliest possible non-rude occasion.
 
jimpeel said:
They see a president who would rather sit at a round table with the enemy and appease them, while surrendering, than to take the fight to the enemy. He loathes the military as much as Clinton did.
Click to expand...


Oh, you mean like Bush took the war to Afghanistan and then didn't finish the job so he could invade Iraq? Yep. Good logic there.

Since jimpeel is so adpt at posting websites containing trivia, this should be easy. Where or when did President Obama ever say he hated the military?
 
nah it was his daddy that helped the jihadis in afghanistan, and later failed to "finish the job" in iraq.

lousy republican pussies.
 
Gato_Solo said:
You obviously don't know about the tradition of the 'rent-a-crowd'. I've been 'voluntold' to go out and support the Pres for just over 20 years. Of course we applaud. To not do so would bring down the ire of our upper management...i.e. officers looking for that next big promotion.


The upper echelon of management might tell you to clap but they don't tell you how hard or how much enthusiasm to put into it.

Lets see...Spain...Germany...Japan...no longer threats, and not resentful of the US. Britain...Canada...South Korea...friendly...

Oh? Like we had a choice to negotiate with Germany and Japan. And Spain? That was one-hundred eleven years ago. OH! Britain! WOW! Well, let's see. The last time we were engaged in war with the U.K. was 1812. And at war with Canada? Try to use something a little more recent and similar to the circumstances of the world situation today.

Now that that is out of the way, lets look at this statement..." tries to kick the bajezeezus out of someone"...This is what happens when you fight wars for political gain instead of to win. What we have is a Congress who is unwilling to commit to a military response that is unfettered. In other words, we haven't had a war since WWII. Korea , and just about every action since, was a UN mandate.

When mentioning wars fought for political gain you are if course, referencing Bush when he invaded Iraq. And it looks like President Obama is left picking up the pieces and finishing what G.W. couldn't do in seven years.
Korea? There was no mandate by the U.N. There was a recommendation from the U.N. Security Council. Big difference.


And where, exactly, in the Constitution does it mandate giving money to the non-working? In a war, you'd best do something to keep the enemy populace in check, or you'd wind up with massacres in every city. You win wars with bullets, you make peace with dependence.

Oh great! Another one of the, "let's throw in the Constitution as a reason" people who only use it when it is convenient but the rest of the time run roughshod over it. Cute little homily there about winning wars with bullets. Not necessary if you ward off the enemy before bullets fly.

You may be correct, but what if you get slapped first, and the threat of more slapping remains? Diplomacy is an amazing thing if done correctly, but diplomacy is never done correctly. Every war that has ever been fought has only been delayed because of diplomacy. If the parties are in disagreement, then they are in disagreement. If its something one side holds dear, then there is going to be a fight.

And most wars are never done correctly. Just like the ones we are involved in now. In Afghanistan, we literally quit before we won, but this has already been mentioned. So, the diplomacy thing doesn't work and your answer is to just go in and kill the ones you disagree with so you can on with your life. Don't even try to establish the ground rules or settle the disagreement, just say f**k it and start shooting. Or drop a bomb. Yea. Right.
Click to expand...
.
 
Gato_Solo said:
You obviously don't know about the tradition of the 'rent-a-crowd'. I've been 'voluntold' to go out and support the Pres for just over 20 years. Of course we applaud. To not do so would bring down the ire of our upper management...i.e. officers looking for that next big promotion.....
Click to expand...

This, and this only has anything to do with YOUR actual experience Gato. The rest of it is YOUR personal political opinion, and not necessarily any more true or valid as his or anyone. Unless it is, that you have been involved in the leadership of this nation, over say the last 75 years? Don't give us some kind of bullshit about how "I've studied this stuff for years...." because there are plenty of other folks who have too, who's opinions differ from yours none the less.

Look I have respect for the job you or anyone does as a member of the armed forces, and I am glad and grateful you do it. This does not mean though, that I find it any less annoying or pathetic when such members spout political opinions about related issues and then act as if they are right because they know. Granted, when it comes to actual conditions and what they see fighting a war, they do know, but when it gets into political talk and talk about politicians and government level decisions, neither you, nor any low level enlisted man or officer knows shit more than any other citizen who is as informed on such things as you, and perhaps less since we can get news from independent sources, and you know it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top