# What the Democrats really think of the troops



## Monadnock (Oct 31, 2006)

John Kerry, Democratic Presidential Nominee in 2004, had the following to say about our troops:



> On Monday, Kerry belittled the educational level of US troops, when he said to the assembled students: "You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't you get stuck in Iraq."



http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/19822.html

We are so fortunate as to not have him as Commander in Chief. What a dirtbag.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 31, 2006)

Personally, I get enough smear ads on TV thanks.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 31, 2006)

Must get nation to stop thinking about election!

Must get nation to stop thinking about election!




			
				John Kerry said:
			
		

> We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?


----------



## crushing (Oct 31, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> John Kerry, Democratic Presidential Nominee in 2004, had the following to say about our troops:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Monadnock (Oct 31, 2006)

crushing said:


> Out of curiousity, do you really think anything would be very different?


 
Yes.



crushing said:


> Also, is Sen. Kerry's comment any less thoughful of the troops than doing stuff like slashing war related injury budgets?
> 
> http://www.vfw.org/resources/levelxmagazine/0610_Brain Injury Center Budget.pdf
> 
> http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2044177.php


 
You are not helping his case.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 31, 2006)

Yeah. Because we all know that its the ignorant, "rural", Christian, gun tottin', tobacco chewing, rodeo watching, red state Republican types that join the military.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 31, 2006)

I don't suppose anybody has some statistical data to support an assertion one way or the other, do they??


----------



## TonyMac (Oct 31, 2006)

Shame on you monadnock for pandering.


----------



## Monadnock (Oct 31, 2006)

The article in that link was very short. My appologies if it was taken out of context. If someone can put it into a _better_ context I am all ears/eyes.

No offense to the Dems on the board intended. Politics is just a silly game anyways. The Dirtbag opinion still stands though.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 31, 2006)

If I recall, Michael, the combination of the military raising the age eligibility for enlistment intersects nicely with your life. You seem to be a relitively educated guy. Maybe you could prove Senator Kerry wrong. 

http://www.goarmy.com/ChatIndex.do?redirect=true

EDIT - P.S. If I recall, at 42 years of age, I am still too old. Oh, yeah, and I oppose this war. - END EDIT.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 31, 2006)

Senator Kerry's response. 



			
				Senator Kerry said:
			
		

> "If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook.   I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.
> 
> I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq . It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.
> 
> ...


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 31, 2006)

After reading only that little snippet, even taken out of context as it may be, I don't see that as the Senator belittling the intelligence or education of our troops.  I think rather that he was criticizing the educational and millitary systems, and how they interact.  

The message that I got from those couple of sentences, was that if you get a good education, then you have more choices available, while if you don't get a good education, you have fewer choices available.  With fewer choices, you may not be able to get a good enough job to make a decent living.  Joining the military becomes an option, because it's a way to put a roof over your head, food in your belly, and hopefully, experience that can translate into a better job in the Civilian world once you get out.  But joining the military at this point in time, may well mean that you end up in Iraq.  So if you want to have choices that don't include the military, I think he was saying that students need to study hard and get the best education they can.

Come on, folks.  At least the senator showed up for his military service, served in a war zone, and was even wounded by enemy action.  I don't think he is one to belittle the soldiers, tho he can see the problems with the military system and the war debocle.

How many serving in the current regime served?  let me think...NONE!  Well, Dubya did put on his uniform a few times, but couldn't manage to show up for the duration even tho his unit never went overseas.  The others, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Co. managed to get deferals and such.  None of them served at all.  Chickenhawks, all of them.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 31, 2006)

Meh.  This isn't as revealing as it seems.  Anybody who has served knows about the stereotype about military intelligence.  I've seen it from all sides, though it's usually younger, less mature people who actually voice it.  

That's okay, though... the military has quite a few stereotypes about the silly-vilians too.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 31, 2006)

Barock OBama (spelling) pointed out in an interview today that there are a lot of histrionics in politics these days. This is one of those cases.:soapbox: 
Sean


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 31, 2006)

And it is better to be talking about histrionics, than the facts in Iraq. Where the Iraqi Prime Minister has demanded the the U.S. Military remove checkpoints from Sadr City. 

A United States Service member apparently, against regulations, married an Iraqi girl. While visiting his wife and in-laws, he was kidnapped by what many believe is a representative of the Mahdi Army. That is Al Sadr's militia.  

Al Sadr is a member of the Iraqi Government; part of the ruling coalition.

So, the United States military, under orders of the elected leader of Iraq, must withdraw and halt a search for what should be termed a P.O.W.



It is much better for this country to be challenging John Kerry's patriotism. Somebody might notice we've lost the war.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 31, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> And it is better to be talking about histrionics, than the facts in Iraq. Where the Iraqi Prime Minister has demanded the the U.S. Military remove checkpoints from Sadr City.
> 
> A United States Service member apparently, against regulations, married an Iraqi girl. While visiting his wife and in-laws, he was kidnapped by what many believe is a representative of the Mahdi Army. That is Al Sadr's militia.
> 
> ...


Amen.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 31, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> The article in that link was very short. My appologies if it was taken out of context. If someone can put it into a _better_ context I am all ears/eyes.
> 
> No offense to the Dems on the board intended. Politics is just a silly game anyways. The Dirtbag opinion still stands though.



Short?  Uh ... yeah, it's short all right.

Am I the only one who, when clicking on the link, pulls up three sentences of what amounts to a person's opinion sans any actual quote from Kerry?  

Does this remind anybody else here of the old game, 'Telephone'?  TCV says Kerry said it, but I don't see the quote.  

michaeledward, good find on Kerry's retort - one I happen to agree with.  Why didn't he have that much passion when he was running???


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 31, 2006)

One thing, even if you take Kerry's original comment as an insult to the men and women serving in the military is look at the military he served in.  It wasn't a well educated one.  That's very different today.

I remember in my first platoon among the enlisted men, there were four members with bachelors degrees and another two with masters.  That's not counting the NCOs and the LT.

Jeff


----------



## TonyMac (Oct 31, 2006)

The only thing I want to hear from a bonesman dem or rep is I quit, I was wrong and I'm sorry.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 31, 2006)

I'd just love to see it if a Republican said something like that... how fast the tables would turn


----------



## qizmoduis (Oct 31, 2006)

Who really supports the troops?

http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/10/iava-support-troops-rankings-for-senate.html

Every single Democrat has a better voting record regarding military support than every single Republican.  In reality, Republicans HATE the military and HATE our troops.  Probably the best way to determine what is a fact, is to ask someone like Bush, and believe the opposite.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 31, 2006)

There is a big difference between supporting the troops, and supporting the actions the politicians decide the troops should carry out.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 31, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> There is a big difference between supporting the troops, and supporting the actions the politicians decide the troops should carry out.


I completely agree.

Supporting your servicemen ... who follow orders they might not even agree with, using sub-standard equipment, fighting for people who are so hungry they will accept a bribe from the enemy to plant a road-side bomb ... is one thing.  I support them and want them home - yesterday.

Supporting the idea behind the action ... where is Osama again ... is another.


----------



## Monadnock (Oct 31, 2006)

shesulsa said:


> Short? Uh ... yeah, it's short all right.
> 
> Am I the only one who, when clicking on the link, pulls up three sentences of what amounts to a person's opinion sans any actual quote from Kerry?
> 
> ...


 
That's exaclty it. The major news media won't be carrying this quote anytime soon.

I wonder if Kerry came up with that retort, or if someone wrote it for him...


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 31, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> That's exaclty it. The major news media won't be carrying this quote anytime soon.
> 
> I wonder if Kerry came up with that retort, or if someone wrote it for him...


 
I saw the quote being discussed on Fox News ... what will it take for them to 'major news media'? 

What is interesting, according to reports I have seen, the language all around the quote in question was challenging the Presidents "smarts" in launching the war in Iraq. It was, reportedly, an obvious attack on the Commander in Chief. In that context, it is red meat to those present at the campaign rally. 

I have no doubt that Kerry's response was his own. He was burned by such tactics once before, wasn't he? You know, when he thought it would be best to not respond to obviously false information.


EDIT ... 

Here is what Kerry said today



> "You know, education -- if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."



Here is the language on Kerry's speech ... what he was supposed to say, according to an aide. Apparently, this language has been used in many campaign stops. 



> "I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq."



Take this for what it's worth.

END EDIT


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 31, 2006)

*



			"If he doesn't apologize we're going to beat him to death until he does..."
		
Click to expand...

*_- Rep. John Boehner - GOP Majority Leader to John Gibson on Fox News at 5.20pm ET_

When Dennis Hastert is forced to step down from his leadership position for his handling of Mark Foley, This representative is poised to be the leader of the Republican House Caucus.


----------



## jazkiljok (Oct 31, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> John Kerry, Democratic Presidential Nominee in 2004, had the following to say about our troops:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



again, we see an out of context comment taken to some ridiculous level of misleading and pointless accusation to reduce the discussion to name calling and personal attacks.

we may well be fortunate not to have him as Commander-in-Chief, we're also fortunate not to have Mel Gibson, Lyndon LaRouche, Donald Duck and Barney the Purple Dinosaur as Commander-in-Chief... but does that make us fortunate to have the incompetent bozos that we got now?

dirtbag? he served in vietnam, was decorated in battle, wounded, and made it back to become an american success story. boring, maybe, longwinded and uninspiring maybe... but i don't think you sum up a man's life based on one sentence that's meaning has been distorted by the press.

[and yes, it's true i did vote for Donald for president a number years ago, but that's before i saw this damning video.]


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3678613968559306238


----------



## Monadnock (Oct 31, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I saw the quote being discussed on Fox News ... what will it take for them to 'major news media'?
> 
> What is interesting, according to reports I have seen, the language all around the quote in question was challenging the Presidents "smarts" in launching the war in Iraq. It was, reportedly, an obvious attack on the Commander in Chief. In that context, it is red meat to those present at the campaign rally.
> 
> ...


 
Yes, I see the Democratic spin machine took no time in putting out this little fire. Cuz we all know Bush never finished High School. The joke seems so fitting. Chuckle.

You know, I'd almost expect this kind of "stuttering" from Bush, but if Kerry is going to go on a campaign of Bush bashing because he still can't accept he lost the election, maybe he should either write his own jokes or spend some more time reviewing his script. With a little work, maybe he could be in the next Michael Moore film.

For what it's worth, next to nothing, like Kerry at this point. If he's running in '08, I weep for the future.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 31, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> For what it's worth, next to nothing, like Kerry at this point. If he's running in '08, I weep for the future.


 
So, through your tears, tell us .... 

In what branch of the military did you serve? In how many elective offices have you served to better the community around you?


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 1, 2006)

If I did serve in the Military, I wouldn't throw my medals away.
If I did serve in Congress, I would attend the sessions.
I would not vote on anything that required raising taxes.
I would respect the 2nd Ammendment.
...and I wouldn't be a flip-flopper. (To put it lightly.)


But it's not about me is it? I didn't crack jokes about the military.

Spin, spin, spin away. It'll all be forgotten in a week. I'll be done with this thread much sooner.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 1, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> If I did serve in the Military, I wouldn't throw my medals away.
> If I did serve in Congress, I would attend the sessions.
> I would not vote on anything that required raising taxes.
> I would respect the 2nd Ammendment.
> ...


 
Near as I can tell, if you look at what he said as saying that it's Mr. Bush who's stuck in Iraq-it wasn't pointed towards the military at all. It's also worth pointing out that it's an election year, Hillary is touted as the next candidate for President, and he still wants to be-at this point, even negative attention is better for Kerry than the amount of attention he's gotten for the last two years. I wouldn't doubt that it was calculated to put him back in the public eye.

Lastly, though, I'd add that Bush is as big a flip-flopper as Kerry:

*1. Social Security Surplus*
*BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS...* "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]
*...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS* The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]

*2. Patient's Right to Sue*
*GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE...* "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]
*...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE...* "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]
*...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE* "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits &#8216;would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]

*3. Tobacco Buyout*
*BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM...* "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]
*...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS* "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]

*4. North Korea*
*BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM...* "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]
*...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM*"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]

*5. Abortion*
*BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE...* "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]
*...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE* "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]

*6. OPEC*
*BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES...* "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]
*...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS* With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]

*7. Iraq Funding*
*BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004...* "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]
*...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004* "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]

*8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony*
*BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'...* "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]
*...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY:* "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]

*9. Science*
*BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE...*"I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]
*...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE* "60 leading scientists&#8212;including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents&#8212;issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]

*10. Ahmed Chalabi*
*BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...*President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]
*...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE* "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]

*11. Department of Homeland Security*
*BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY...*"So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]
*...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY* "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

*12. Weapons of Mass Destruction*
*BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION...*"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]
*...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION* "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

*13. Free Trade*
*BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE...* "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]
*...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE* "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]

*14. Osama Bin Laden*
*BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE...* "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]
*...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA* "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

*15. The Environment*
*BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE...* "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]
*...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE* "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

*16. WMD Commission*
*BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE...* "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]
*...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE* "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]

*17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission*
*BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION...* "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]
*...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION* "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

*18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission*
*BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION...* "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]
*...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION* "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]

*19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony*
*BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR...* "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]
*...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY* "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]

*20. Gay Marriage*
*BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE...* "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]
*...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE* "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

*21. Nation Building*
*BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING...* "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
*...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDIN*G "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]
*22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link*
*BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM...* "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]
*...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT* "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

*23. U.N. Resolution*
*BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT...* "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]
*...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE* "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]

*24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict*
*BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS...* "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]
*...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS* "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]

*25. Campaign Finance*
*BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD...* "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]
*...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW* "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]

*26. 527s*
*Bush opposes restrictions on 527s:* "I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising [in McCain Feingold], which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import." [President Bush, 3/27/02]
*&#8230;Bush says 527s bad for system:* "I don't think we ought to have 527s. I can't be more plain about it&#8230;I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold." [President Bush, 8/23/04]

*27. Medical Records*
*Bush says medical records must remain private:* "I believe that we must protect&#8230;the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private." [President Bush, 4/12/01]
*&#8230;Bush says patients' histories are not confidntial:* The Justice Department&#8230;asserts that patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential." [BusinessWeek, 4/30/04]

*28. Timelines For Dictators*
*Bush sets timeline for Saddam:* "If Iraq does not accept the terms within a week of passage or fails to disclose required information within 30 days, the resolution authorizes 'all necessary means' to force compliance--in other words, a military attack." [LA Times, 10/3/02]
*&#8230;Bush says he's against timelines:* "I don't think you give timelines to dictators." [President Bush, 8/27/04]

*29. The Great Lakes*
*Bush wants to divert great lakes:* "Even though experts say 'diverting any water from the Great Lakes region sets a bad precedent' Bush 'said he wants to talk to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien about piping water to parched states in the west and southwest.'&#8211; [AP, 7/19/01]
*Bush says he'll never divert Great Lakes:* "We've got to use our resources wisely, like water. It starts with keeping the Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes Basin...My position is clear: We're never going to allow diversion of Great Lakes water." [President Bush, 8/16/04]

*30. Winning The War On Terror*
*Bush claims he can win the war on terror:* "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can." [President Bush, 4/13/04]
*&#8230;Bush says war on terror is unwinnable:* "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/30/04]
*&#8230;Bush says he will win the war on terror:* "Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/31/04]

You can see lots more Bush flipflops  here.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 1, 2006)

Boy Kerry's lips are flip flopping to get around this one .

"You know education if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well, if you don't, you can get stuck in Iraq." -Flipper

Now I was in the Army so I guess I aint so daggummed smart. But that seems pretty easy to understand to me. Stay in school and get smart otherwise youll wind up a stupid uneducated moron in the military. 

What other interpretation of that is there?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> What other interpretation of that is there?


 
The other interpretation includes the plural pronoun 'us' in the language. 



> I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq."


 
This language has a very different meaning. 

Here is a simliar quote, that didn't get nearly as much traction



> THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate the Secretary of Energy joining me today. He's a good man, he knows a lot about the subject, you'll be pleased to hear. I was teasing him -- he taught at MIT, and -- do you have a PhD?
> SECRETARY BODMAN: Yes.
> THE PRESIDENT: Yes, a PhD. (Laughter.) Now I want you to pay careful attention to this -- he's the PhD, and I'm the C student, but notice who is the advisor and who is the President.


 
But, as I posted earlier. 

It is so important to change the subject to Senator Kerry, after all, he is not even on the ballot this year. 

To think, we might have to be discussing why President Bush's military have *abandoned* their search for *a missing soldier* on the battlefield. Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki told us earlier this week, he was not 'Washington's man in Baghdad'. And he has proved it just yesterday, when he demanded that the United States military stop searching for the missing American, Ahmed al-Taei.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 1, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Boy Kerry's lips are flip flopping to get around this one .
> 
> "You know education if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well, if you don't, you can get stuck in Iraq." -Flipper
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, I took it as a slam at George Bush.


----------



## Kreth (Nov 1, 2006)

By no means am I a Kerry fan, but when I first read this I saw it as a slap at Dubya.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 1, 2006)

shesulsa said:


> I'm sorry, I took it as a slam at George Bush.



Pardon? Insulting the intellegence of troops is insulting Bush? How do you connect those dots?


----------



## elder999 (Nov 1, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Pardon? Insulting the intellegence of troops is insulting Bush? How do you connect those dots?


 
Bush is stuck in Iraq. He is, after all, Commander in Chief.

Of course, Bush did marginally better than Kerry did at Yale, and Kerry wound up "stuck in Viet Nam..." He is something of a putz.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 1, 2006)

elder999 said:


> Bush is stuck in Iraq. He is, after all, Commander in Chief.
> 
> Of course, Bush did marginally better than Kerry did at Yale, and Kerry wound up "stuck in Viet Nam..." He is something of a putz.



Does anybody but me watch those snippets on David Letterman of our illustrious leader speaking publicly?  No wonder they rarely put the man on television - he can barely talk and sometimes it's not even coherent!

And I agree with your statement above.


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 1, 2006)

"Staying the course" is not stuck. If he got on the news every week to repeat his plan saying, "We're trying to get out", I'd say he is stuck. But he is saying the OPPOSITE. He is saying we are STAYING THE COURSE. Meaning, he wants to stay in Iraq until we are finished.

I guess it is all relative. If you want to get out now, then we are stuck.

If you want to see this thing through, then we are staying the course, decidedly.


----------



## Kreth (Nov 1, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> "Staying the course" is not stuck. If he got on the news every week to repeat his plan saying, "We're trying to get out", I'd say he is stuck. But he is saying the OPPOSITE. He is saying we are STAYING THE COURSE. Meaning, he wants to stay in Iraq until we are finished.
> 
> I guess it is all relative. If you want to get out now, then we are stuck.
> 
> If you want to see this thing through, then we are staying the course, decidedly.


Or maybe the whole "stay the course" rhetoric came about because Dubya (or at least his speechwriters) realizes he's gotten us into another Vietnam.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 1, 2006)

Kreth said:


> Or maybe the whole "stay the course" rhetoric came about because Dubya (or at least his speechwriters) realizes he's gotten us into another Vietnam.


 
Or, perhaps, because he realized the opposition has been trying to make it fail like Vietnam since before we even crossed the border into Iraq?


----------



## Kreth (Nov 1, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> Or, perhaps, because he realized the opposition has been trying to make it fail like Vietnam since before we even crossed the border into Iraq?


Because they didn't believe the battle cry of "The sky is falling!" er.... "Weapons of mass destruction!" :idunno:


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> "Staying the course" is not stuck. If he got on the news every week to repeat his plan saying, "We're trying to get out", I'd say he is stuck. But he is saying the OPPOSITE. He is saying we are STAYING THE COURSE. Meaning, he wants to stay in Iraq until we are finished.
> 
> I guess it is all relative. If you want to get out now, then we are stuck.
> 
> If you want to see this thing through, then we are staying the course, decidedly.


 
Please, please, please. 

Tell me what *finished* will look like? 
Nobody seems to be able to tell me that. 
How will we know when we reach that point? 
Do we have something like those little meat thermometers that pop out of the chicken? 
Do we have any way to measure if we are moving toward the finish line, or away from it? 


Sure, we get O'Reilly challenging talk show hosts "Do you want American to win? Yes or No".   Joy Baher had a great response ... "Define Win".


Right now, we seem to be stumbling blindfolded, down a dark hallway, in a windowless basement, not even sure of what we are looking for.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 1, 2006)

Kreth said:


> Because they didn't believe the battle cry of "The sky is falling!" er.... "Weapons of mass destruction!" :idunno:


 
Now you're switching from "will it work" to "was it the right thing to do".  Different argument.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> Or, perhaps, because he realized the opposition has been trying to make it fail like Vietnam since before we even crossed the border into Iraq?


 
Please define 'opposition'. And what it is you think they are opposing? 

In a war, the 'opposition' is usually the army shooting bullets back at you. 

Opposition is not what you are describing. 

It is not those citizens in the nation who are trying to stop the soldiers from dying.
It is not those citizens who demand clear objectives.
It is not those citizens who discovered the truth behind the lies that started this war.
It is not those citizens who call for peace.
I define those who speak clearly to their government as Patriots.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 1, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Tell me what *finished* will look like?
> Nobody seems to be able to tell me that.
> How will we know when we reach that point?
> Do we have something like those little meat thermometers that pop out of the chicken?
> Do we have any way to measure if we are moving toward the finish line, or away from it?



1) We can get out of Iraq with their own government taking control.
2) murders/terrorism are reduced to a rate of other civilized nations.
3) we leave a form of government that is superior to the state before.

how can we tell? insurgents allow law to take hold. The local government is able to take control of the security in more and more of the nation. They request our departure because we are no longer needed to maintain security.

That simple enough?


----------



## Kreth (Nov 1, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> Now you're switching from "will it work" to "was it the right thing to do". Different argument.


Not really, the answer to both in this case is a resounding no.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 1, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Please, please, please.
> 
> Tell me what *finished* will look like?
> Nobody seems to be able to tell me that.
> ...


 
Finished means that there is a government in place in Iraq that is not antagonistic to the US or its own neighbors and will not allow terrorists to use its lands.

If you read bin Laden's original fatwa against the US, one of his biggest complaints about the US is that we had troops stationed on the "holy" Saudi peninsula.  These troops were in place to enforce the no-fly zone imposed on Iraq as a condition of the *cease-fire* of GWI.  That means, we have been at war for the twelve years between GWI and the 2003 invasion.  Bush didn't start a war, he ended one.  Having removed Hussein from power, there was no need to keep US troops in SA and they were removed in 2003.

I wonder if there were Americans in 1942 that complained about how we responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor by invading Tunisia?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> 1) We can get out of Iraq with their own government taking control.
> 2) murders/terrorism are reduced to a rate of other civilized nations.
> 3) we leave a form of government that is superior to the state before.
> 
> ...


 
Thank you. That seems to be a cogent answer. Do you think we are moving toward, or away from those goals? 

I think we are moving away from those goals, and that we do not have  sufficient plans, manpower, or political capital to reach those goals. We seem to be in a downward spiral away from those goals. And only a dramatic 're-declaration of war' is going to get us to be able to meet those goals. We need to 're-declare' war, with a goal of 'unconditional surrender' by all Iraqi's and then implement our own version of a government in order to reach those goals. 

The government that is in place now, is made up of militia leaders who seem to be supporting murders and terrorism, if not ethnic cleansing. The state of government in Iraq now, seems to be less effective and less stable than the government that came before. 

But, maybe I'm just not seeing things the way they are. 

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=220858&postcount=1


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 1, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> 1) We can get out of Iraq with their own government taking control.
> 2) murders/terrorism are reduced to a rate of other civilized nations.
> 3) we leave a form of government that is superior to the state before.


 
1 & 2, yes.  I don't see 3 as being a necessary condition.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> Finished means that there is a government in place in Iraq that is not antagonistic to the US or its own neighbors and will not allow terrorists to use its lands.
> 
> If you read bin Laden's original fatwa against the US, one of his biggest complaints about the US is that we had troops stationed on the "holy" Saudi peninsula. These troops were in place to enforce the no-fly zone imposed on Iraq as a condition of the *cease-fire* of GWI. That means, we have been at war for the twelve years between GWI and the 2003 invasion. Bush didn't start a war, he ended one. Having removed Hussein from power, there was no need to keep US troops in SA and they were removed in 2003.
> 
> I wonder if there were Americans in 1942 that complained about how we responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor by invading Tunisia?


 
I have not read bin Laden's fatwa. Although, I will point out, bin Laden was no where near Iraq. Nor did he have any relationship with Hussein. And, I think his declaration was against US Troops in Saudi Arabia. The United States has largely acceeded to that request - the vast majority of troops that were in Saudi Arabia have been removed. 

In 1942, Our Congress, acting on its constitutional responsibility, Declared War on Japan, which cause Japanese allies Germany and Italy to declare war on the United States, to which we responded with similiar declarations of war, later adding delcarations of war against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.  All the declarations of war led to invasions across the globe. 

Of course, from Pearl Harbor to Victory in Japan, has taken less time than we have been mired in Iraq since President Bush invaded in March of 2003. Apparently, he hasn't done a very good job of, how did you put it, ending a war.



P.S. And if you don't think the current government in Iraq, under al Maliki is antagonistic to America, why the hell has he demanded we stop searching for our missing soldier? How would you define 'antagonisitic'?


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 1, 2006)

The people we are fighting in the middle east are EXTREMELY well-funded and spending-prudent.  They have been warring for longer than we've considered them a problem and will keep right on warring until we're dead and gone - this will never be over.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 1, 2006)

How is telling students "get an education or YOU will get stuck in Iraq" a slam at Bush? You libs are really reaching here.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2006)

shesulsa said:


> The people we are fighting in the middle east are EXTREMELY well-funded and spending-prudent. They have been warring for longer than we've considered them a problem and will keep right on warring until we're dead and gone - this will never be over.


 
I don't consider that a given. 

I believe, with different policies, and some wisdom, we could reduce significantly the size of the problem, to where it would be considered insignificant. 

Let me back up a bit ... they need not be warring against us. 

Will the Shia and the Sunni's continue their battles .. perhaps. But that does not mean the disputes among Islam need to spill over into bloodshed against Christianity, Judeism, or Hinduism. Seems to me the Catholics and Protestants spent a couple of centuries ravaging Europe before reaching the relative equinamity experienced now.

But, as long as we are painting ourselves at war with 'Radical Islam', we are helping to create a religiously motivated war, which demands deepening of belief structures, which in turn feeds the wars. It is a vicious cycle that can not be broken by might.

Instead, we might be able to find a way through these conflicts if we adopt the ideas of Lao Tzu or Ghandi. Of course, that, we will never try.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 1, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> How is telling students "get an education or YOU will get stuck in Iraq" a slam at Bush? You libs are really reaching here.



Its hard for me to see that connection. Depends on the color sunglasses you prefer to wear...

What gets me is that Kerry is refusing to apologize for it. A Republican do something like that, Dems start calling for removal from office.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 1, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> How is telling students "get an education or YOU will get stuck in Iraq" a slam at Bush? You libs are really reaching here.


Once a person graduates from high school and has been rejected from many colleges and universities because their grades were too low, they have two choices, essentially: 1. work a **** job or four to pay for some community college and hope to get in after 2 or 3 years or 2. join the military.

Many join the military in an effort to go to college at some point and to get some carreer experience to fall back on.  Hardly anyone joins the military because they believe in it or because they WANT to go to war.  And alas, there they are ... at war ....

I've rarely met an 18 year old who had a sound enough mind to not be swayed by recruiter tactics if they feel they don't have another good choice.

Stay in school.  Get good grades so you don't have to go into the military and go where somebody like Bush decides you should go.

He's placing the fate of these young men and women squarely on the shoulders of our president ... which is right where it should be.


----------



## Kreth (Nov 1, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> You libs are really reaching here.


I think Bush is a moron and Kerry is a liar. How does that make me a "lib"? Or do you prefer to label anyone who doesn't agree with you? :idunno:


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 1, 2006)

shesulsa said:


> Once a person graduates from high school and has been rejected from many colleges and universities because their grades were too low, they have two choices, essentially: 1. work a **** job or four to pay for some community college and hope to get in after 2 or 3 years or 2. join the military.
> 
> Many join the military in an effort to go to college at some point and to get some carreer experience to fall back on.  Hardly anyone joins the military because they believe in it or because they WANT to go to war.  And alas, there they are ... at war ....
> 
> ...



Never met a sound minded 18 year old? You let them drive at 16. Let them vote at 18. Let them decide which college they want to go to. Let them work when younger than 18. Can't allow them to make their own decisions about the military? Sure, recruiters do their job, but so do college recruiters, people you date, colleagues/coworkers, etc.

I know alot of kids that joined the military in order to go to college. they can't afford it themselves, so they go for 4 years, get the GI bill, make some money, and go to college when they are done. When they are finished, they don't have a load of debt.

so, when they are in the military, have they been to college yet? nope, but nothing to say they won't in the near future.

you gave three options 1) a low paying job 2) community college 3) military.
I sure did not hear him disparage working at McD's. Nor did I hear him criticize those going to community college.

This part bothered me a bit:


> Stay in school. Get good grades so you don't have to go into the military and go where somebody like Bush decides you should go.



We have a commander in chief. When Bush is done, we will have a different one. A soldier follows orders. Just like cops do. If you don't want to follow the orders of Bush, feel free to leave the military. If you don't like your orders as a cop, feel free to leave law enforcement. Here is the problem though. I don't know anyone who has never had to do something unpleasurable at their job. If you are a boss, you still have to do unfavorable things, such as pay taxes, deal with bad employees, pay for their social security, etc.. Its part of living. You are always going to have to do what other people ask you to do.

I also don't like the insuation that you only go if you don't have a choice. One of my best friends is a PhD, DVM and signed up shortly after 9/11. Still in the military and is convinced its one of the best things he has ever done.  I don't see him as only being able to flip burgers as an option to military service. There are ALOT of people out there that love their country and are glad to be serving. If not, they have the right to leave. Its a volunteer army.

Don't like Bush? OK, then get out and start making a difference in 2008. We live in a democracy, get your voice heard.



> Hardly anyone joins the military because they believe in it or because they WANT to go to war.


Wonder why a draft was not needed for WW2? Wonder why we don't have a draft now? The military are meeting their recruiting needs, and I think will continue to do so.

We went to war shortly after 9/11. Thats been 5ish years now. normal enrollment period last 4 years, I imagine that depends on your contract. At this point, I would believe everyone is aware that going to war is a reality. Those scared of potential combat should have had plenty of time to get out by now.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> How is telling students "get an education or YOU will get stuck in Iraq" a slam at Bush? You libs are really reaching here.


 
Kerry mis-spoke. No doubt about it. 

As I understand it, and as I have posted in this thread - maybe I'm on Hunka's ignore list, so he's not seeing it - Kerry has used language throughout his campaigning stops that played this joke against Bush many times.  

"Get a good education, or you'll get *us* stuck in Iraq".

Of course, it is so much better to assume the worst of Senator Kerry. 

The real irony of this all is that President Bush is the king of all malaprops. 
"Fool me once, shame on you .... Can't get fooled again."
"Put food on your family" 
I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein."
"One has a stronger hand when there's more people playing your same cards."
"I was not pleased that Hamas has refused to announce its desire to destroy Israel."
"I aim to be a competitive nation."
"We're spending money on clean coal technology. Do you realize we've got 250 million years of coal?"
​Just as long as we aren't talking about Iraq. Increases in attacks against US soldiers. Weapons bought and paid for by the US Taxpayer missing and unaccounted for (why the hell are we buying weapons for a country where everyone already owns a gun?).

Don't look 'Over There".


----------



## crushing (Nov 1, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Kerry mis-spoke. No doubt about it.
> 
> 
> The real irony of this all is that President Bush is the king of all malaprops.


 
Given your very low opinion of Bush, I'm surprised you don't hold Kerry to a higher standard than Bush.

Actually, my main reason for responding is to jump on and include one of my favorite quotes:

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."  -President Bush

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040805-3.html


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 1, 2006)

A desperate cry for 'halp'.  LOL


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 1, 2006)

You guys forgot my personal favorite!

"The problem with the French is they don't have a word for entrepeneur."

President George W. Bush


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 1, 2006)

Kreth said:


> Because they didn't believe the battle cry of "The sky is falling!" er.... "Weapons of mass destruction!" :idunno:


 
In reality, the whole "weapons of mass destruction" was a facade.

George W. Bush is an insipid puppet. The people within his administration --- including Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, and others --- are all signatories for a neo-Reaganite thinktank that calls itself Project For The New American Century (PNAC). The stated goal of the PNAC is to create and maintain what they call a "Pax Americana" by dramatically increasing military spending and the military expansionism of the United States throughout the world.

Iraq was just a staging ground in the minds of these people. The actual rationale or reasoning for invading Iraq is irrelevant, as the PNAC has written documents declaring an intention to militarily occupy Iraq as far back as 1997 (actually, a letter from some of the signatories to the Israeli government in 1992 suggests a join effort to occupy Iraq). Their purpose for being in Iraq is as a sort of regional "base of operations" to secure the entire Middle East under American leadership.

This has nothing to do with terrorism, 9/11, WMD's, "spreading democracy", or anything else like that. The people in the Bush Administration have wanted to occupy Iraq for well over a decade. It has everything to do with military imperialism.

May your choices be good ones on November 7th.


----------



## Kreth (Nov 1, 2006)

The whole build-up to the war would have made a great Abbott and Costello sketch with Abbott as Bush and Costello as a reporter.

Abbott: OK, now because of these terrorist attacks, we're going to invade Iraq.
Costello: But, I thought the terrorists were mostly Saudis.
A: Nonsense, Saudi Arabia is our ally. The terrorists were members of <cue evil music> al-Qaeda.
C: But isn't the leader of al-Qaeda hiding in Afghanistan?
A: Yes, but we're already bombing them. We have <cue dramatic music>intelligence indicating that Saddam Hussein is closely tied to al-Qaeda.
C: Hussein?
A: Yes.
C: Hussein what?
A: The leader of Iraq.
C: Who's the leader of Iraq?
*fade*


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2006)

crushing said:


> Given your very low opinion of Bush, I'm surprised you don't hold Kerry to a higher standard than Bush.


 
President Bush can be held to a higher standard, because he is 1 of 1. Whereas Senator Kerry is 1 of 100.  President Bush is responsible for much more than Senator Kerry.

And, I, like most Americans, I think, am a pretty forgiving guy. The guy screwed up. He clarified what he meant. And moved forward. Certainly, there has to be a measure of respect for that.

How about President Bush and his "Stay The Course" ... "We've Never Been Stay The Course" ....Has he clarified what he meant there, yet? 

Are we on course, or off course, in Iraq?


----------



## HKphooey (Nov 1, 2006)

So now the story is it was meant as a joke.  Why didn't Sen. Kerry Just say that right away (and if he did, I missed it).  

When it comes down to it, I think everyone supports our troops.  It would be political suicide to bad-mouth the military.


----------



## bydand (Nov 1, 2006)

What I see here is the Kerry stuck his foot in his mouth.  The Democratic party didn't issue a statement to this effect, so I think the title of the thread is wrong.  God help me I thought I would never come to the defense of the Dems. but that is like saying everything that comes out of Bush's mouth is the gospel of the Republicans.  Everybody says stupid things once in a while, the difference is that we don't have cameras stuck in our faces when we do(thank God.)  If Kerry has issued a apology or statement to clear it up, then we need to look at the real issues and stands the 7th.  Do I like Kerry, not really, but then again I don't really care for Junior who is in office right now either.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 1, 2006)

It WAS meant as a joke.  If you actually listened to the recordings of the speech, he said it in a joking manner, and the audience laughed.  When I heard the speech, I understood that he was joking about _*the president getting us stuck in Iraq*_, not that he was insulting the troops.  I laughed, too. It was a stupid un-necessary comment, and he mis-spoke.  But if you heard the few sentences before the statement and after, it was clear what he was referring to.  The media chose to portray it differently, because it's briefer, easier, and got a rise out of people.

What's really disturbing is that 100 Americans died in October in Iraq.  An American soldier was kidnapped in Baghdad, and the Iraqi Prime Minister *ordered* US forces to abandon the roadblocks they had set up to help find the soldier.  Now our troops are taking orders from...who???  The Shi'a?  That's what should be on the news.


----------



## matt.m (Nov 1, 2006)

Wow, I have been a democrat for all of my voting age.  I have been voting since the Clinton era.  I have a relative that is the former secretary of state for the state of Missouri, under the umbrealla of the Democratic party.  

By the way, I have been in combat on 3 continents and one island.  I am here to tell you I was happy to be in the Marine Corps during the Clinton era, I left active duty a Sergeant.  I must have done ok considering most of the military was nothing but cutbacks, frozen promotion fields and base closings.  I will tell you that under no circumstance would I have joined under the current administration.

It seems like the Republican war machine is at work in full force, take snipits...put them in a light so people think of them in the uncorrect context and rely on getting votes off sound bites etc.

A lot of people, especially those who never wore an active duty uniform confuse supporting a war and supporting the troops.  However, it is patriotic to illegally invade a country on false pretense and then pardon yourself of war crimes under a bill that you yourself sign off on.

The Democratic party has always been for a greater society where people had the help they need and a greater quality of life.

I know in Missouri that Talent went against better, more reinforced body armor for the troops.  Bush and his folks have made cuts to V.A. funding for those of us that got banged up really good.  It is ridiculous.  I have friends that I went to boot camp with that are still on active duty.  They all have absolutely nothing for the Republican party.  People that are serving know more than the general public about foreign policy and its consequences.

That is a huge problem that we Americans are generally bad at....making decisions off snipits of information and no research to follow through with decision making.

I hate all the political slander, however I guess that is the name of the game.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> That's exaclty it. The major news media won't be carrying this quote anytime soon.
> 
> I wonder if Kerry came up with that retort, or if someone wrote it for him...


 
http://mediamatters.org/items/200611010009

*Broadcast networks all led with Kerry's "botched joke," entirely ignored Bush's statement that a Democratic victory means "terrorists win and America loses"*



> Speaking during a campaign appearance in Statesboro, Georgia, as noted on the weblog Talking Points Memo, Bush said, "*However they put it, the Democrat [sic] approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses.*" The statement received no coverage on the October 30 and 31 broadcasts of the network news programs, yet what Kerry admitted was a mangled joke was the lead-off story for all three networks on October 31.


 
I suppose, I could start a new thread with the Title ... 'What the President really thinks of his constituents' ... .eh? 

I'm so glad he's a United and Not a Divider ... 

What action might he take if he were the reverse?


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 1, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> http://mediamatters.org/items/200611010009
> 
> *Broadcast networks all led with Kerry's "botched joke," entirely ignored Bush's statement that a Democratic victory means "terrorists win and America loses"*
> 
> ...


 
It appears that at least two entities agree with this assessment: Iran and Syria. Taranto posted this analysis of an AP article yesterday:



> *The Arabs and the Midterms*
> 
> "Arab governments are looking for change in U.S. policy in the Middle East after the midterm elections," the Associated Press reports:One thing they hope for is that a politically weakened President Bush would talk with Iran and Syria. They also hope he would show greater interest in the Palestinians and find a way out of the crisis in Iraq.​So if you want a politically weakened president cutting deals with terror-sponsoring dictatorships, vote Democratic on Nov. 7.


 
From: Best of the Web 10/31/06


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 1, 2006)

The only reason this made news was because it became a tit for tat, hair pulling cat fight.

Given the audience, yet another University, where young minds go who probably have no intention of joining the Armed Forces, or a few of them already did, his comment seemed quite directed and intended. I'm sure it drew quite an applause, after the laughter.

He didn't immeditately correct himself.
He didn't immediately appologize.
Maybe some psych weanie could say, "Freudian slip"?

No-one cared unless they were a Republican or actually respected the Military. I heard while everyone was laughing, he let out a giant Howard Dean YYEEAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> The only reason this made news was because it became a tit for tat, hair pulling cat fight.
> 
> Given the audience, yet another University, where young minds go who probably have no intention of joining the Armed Forces, or a few of them already did, his comment seemed quite directed and intended. I'm sure it drew quite an applause, after the laughter.
> 
> ...


 
Oh, please. 

The ****ing President has accused me of wanting the terrorists to win. And he wasn't joking. And he hasn't apologized. 

How about this .... 

Soldiers who died because of Senator Kerrys botched Joke = 0

Soldiers who died because of President Bush's "Those Weapons Of Mass Destruction have to be around here, somewhere" joke = 2,814

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/WhoShouldApologize.wmv


EDIT --- 

By the way, I have I mentioned that our Commander in Chief has allowed our military to abandon a missing soldier behind enemy lines at the request of a foreign government. The US Military search for US Service member al-Taei has been withdrawn at the request of Iraq Prime Minister al-Maliki. .... WTF ????

END EDIT


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 1, 2006)

Your numbers are wrong. Nobody dies from someone telling a joke. I'm sure you've heard that old sticks and stones line...being a Democrat tormented by the President of the United States and all.

Then again, nobody ever died from being called a baby-killer either, so that must be OK in the Democrat playbook too.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 1, 2006)

HKphooey said:


> So now the story is it was meant as a joke. Why didn't Sen. Kerry Just say that right away (and if he did, I missed it).
> 
> When it comes down to it, I think everyone supports our troops. It would be political suicide to bad-mouth the military.


You missed it because they didn't include the first jest about the president which would put this in context; you have only heared the second part of a two part joke. Its all quite shameless on the part of the conservatives.
Sean


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 1, 2006)

This probably won't be popular...but...maybe John Kerry was right...joke or not.  Perhaps the current design of the American Military Industrial Congressional Complex is that it does just what Mr. Kerry suggested.  That would indicate why many people found it funny.  Irony is like that.  A quick look at the demographics of the military would answer this little query.

Edit - I place this link as Exhibit A for this case...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40946

Economic opportunity and education go hand in hand and the lack there of isn't always limited to the poor.

This is where the military comes in...

Anyway, back to arguing what we think that Mr. Kerry meant...


----------



## jazkiljok (Nov 1, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> This probably won't be popular...but...maybe John Kerry was right...joke or not.  Perhaps the current design of the American Military Industrial Congressional Complex is that it does just what Mr. Kerry suggested.  That would indicate why many people found it funny.  Irony is like that.  A quick look at the demographics of the military would answer this little query.
> 
> Edit - I place this link as Exhibit A for this case...
> 
> ...



Kerry was making a dumb joke about a dumb president in a dumb manner and then botched it so it sounded like he was talking about our troops being dumb. it's all dumb. the republicans hatchet patrol is making the most of it cause that's what they do well, in fact, it's the only thing they do well. the Big Dick Cheney is about to be let off the chains so he can tear some flesh out of this cause it's all he's ever done well.

but if folks are so dumb that some dumb joke badly told by some guy who isn't even running for office is so darn important that they'd let it effect how they vote then all i can say is... dum dum dum dum dum.

peace.


----------



## HKphooey (Nov 2, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:


> You missed it because they didn't include the first jest about the president which would put this in context; you have only heared the second part of a two part joke. Its all quite shameless on the part of the conservatives.
> Sean


 
Yes, but why wouldn't Kerry's camp push that out to the press more (I am asking this a a "curious" question).   I personally do not think he meant any disrespect.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 2, 2006)

HKphooey said:


> Yes, but why wouldn't Kerry's camp push that out to the press more (I am asking this a a "curious" question). I personally do not think he meant any disrespect.


 
My thoughts on this are that the press wasn't buying. 

From the time of my first post on this thread, there was ample evidence on various blogs what was said, what was supposed to have been said and the Senator's reaction. 

That hasn't stopped the media from playing Tony Snow's demand for an apology some 15 times during a White House press brief. 

It was a gaffe ... but, the 'Liberal Media' sure didn't play it as such, did it? I wonder what that means. Hell, even John Stewart bypassed the important news from earlier this week, to vamp for 8 minutes on this. 

It's deja vu all over again, isn't it? 



Must not focus on Iraq. Must not focus on Iraq.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 2, 2006)

I wonder what the troops thought he meant...

​


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 2, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> I wonder what the troops thought he meant...​


 
That photo sums it up, IMO - kudos to those troops who made it. His words were (Senator Kerry's) condescending, inappropriate and unkind. No other way to spin it.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 2, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:


> That photo sums it up, IMO - kudos to those troops who made it. His words were (Senator Kerry's) condescending, inappropriate and unkind. No other way to spin it.


 
I find it hard to believe that you actually think Senator Kerry meant what you are accusing him of. It seems exceedingly disingenous. What Kerry meant to say has been published. The intention was published. You just want to lie about what he said for a political points or to justify your own intolerant point of view.

Of course, the troops don't have access to unbiased news sources. As many of that which some call 'liberal' are blocked by access. 

Use it for your fundraiser. Use it to drive voter turnout. 

But, to insinuate that a decorated veteran is condescending or unkind to the military is lying to yourself. It must be getting pretty desperate in Republican land ... having to re-live the '04 fight. 


I suppose it beats talking about the Iraqi Prime Minister giving orders to the American military.


----------



## Carol (Nov 2, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:


> That photo sums it up, IMO - kudos to those troops who made it. His words were (Senator Kerry's) condescending, inappropriate and unkind. No other way to spin it.


 
As one of Senator Kerry's constituents, that is my reaction as well.   I'm not at all happy that my senator did this.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 2, 2006)

Agreed. He let his personal politics get out of control. IMO, to answer the post's question, The Dems feel like all of us, we love them and want them safe. They are sons and daughters, relatives, neighbors, etc.. of all of us. None of us want them insulted, hurt, maimed or killed. It's just sad that election time always gets down to these things for all sides involved.

God bless the troops and keep them well. :asian:


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 2, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I find it hard to believe that you actually think Senator Kerry meant what you are accusing him of. It seems exceedingly disingenous. What Kerry meant to say has been published. The intention was published. You just want to lie about what he said for a political points or to justify your own intolerant point of view.
> 
> Of course, the troops don't have access to unbiased news sources. As many of that which some call 'liberal' are blocked by access.
> 
> ...


 
I just voted straight Democratic by absentee ballot (first time in my life that I've voted straight ticket for any party), so I don't have any idea where you're coming from. Nothing to do with "intolerance" or "misunderstanding", it has to do with appropriateness and common sense. He blundered. Case closed.


----------



## Carol (Nov 2, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> Agreed. He let his personal politics get out of control. IMO, to answer the post's question, The Dems feel like all of us, we love them and want them safe. They are sons and daughters, relatives, neighbors, etc.. of all of us. None of us want them insulted, hurt, maimed or killed. It's just sad that election time always gets down to these things for all sides involved.
> 
> God bless the troops and keep them well. :asian:


 
I agree.  I don't agree with a lot of what the Democrats, or the Republicans are putting out there...but...the blue team as a whole doesn't deserve to take a hit for this.   

There are many other Democrats that were upset with Senator Kerry and his comments.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 2, 2006)

Absolutely true Carol! Unfortunately it's the "game" of politcs, and all the forces of each side get the individual's stupidity to represent the party affiliated. Truly stupid. It's should be about the real ideas and issues.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I find it hard to believe that you actually think Senator Kerry meant what you are accusing him of.



Mike, While I am pretty sure he blundered at a chance to make a funny on King George, remember that politics has become little more than marketing, and there is one big truth in marketing...

Perception = Reality.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 3, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:


> I just voted straight Democratic by absentee ballot (first time in my life that I've voted straight ticket for any party), so I don't have any idea where you're coming from. Nothing to do with "intolerance" or "misunderstanding", it has to do with appropriateness and common sense. He blundered. Case closed.


 
I guess I can't see a 'blunder' as being 'condescending'. 




			
				Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> the blue team as a whole doesn't deserve to take a hit for this.


 
One needs to be careful with a reference like this. For instance ... http://www.steeleformaryland.com/
You might not guess that this candidate plays for the 'red team'. (Gee I wonder why he's so blue?)



			
				Cryozombie said:
			
		

> remember that politics has become little more than marketing, and there is one big truth in marketing...


 
I guess that is the mind set that bothers me so much. I don't believe politics is marketing. I believe politics is the most important thing in our society. It directly impacts each and everyone of our lives. It indirectly impacts all of our daily activities.  

I suppose, if I allowed myself to downgrade politics to marketing ... e.g. what kind of laundry detergent will clean my shirts best ... then such a gaffe becomes relevant.  But, because I see signficance behind the sound and fury, intent becomes relevant. And human foibles are forgivable; not substance or distraction.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I guess that is the mind set that bothers me so much. I don't believe politics is marketing. I believe politics is the most important thing in our society. It directly impacts each and everyone of our lives. It indirectly impacts all of our daily activities.


 
Mike, as a guy who has worked for several campaigns and has seen a little of inside workings, I can say that what Cryo says is true.  Local politics aren't as bad as people are more informed, but, from what I've noticed, it becomes increasingly superficial.  

It is really sad because politics ARE everything you believe they are.  Yet, over the last 40 years, the electorate has changed and the candidates have changed in response.  

If you don't believe me, look and listen to the politicians of old and listen to their words.  We have NOTHING like that now.  All of the issues have been compressed to soundbytes and real debates on issues do not exist.

Further, modern American election managers are well trained in psychological techniques of manipulation.  The voter is "conditioned" to a message, not swayed by reason.  This is why candidates repeat their slogans again and again.

How does this apply to what John Kerry said?  It applies because his words have been repackaged and recast as an anti-slogan.  

And, anyway, I'll say it again, for the heck of it, maybe there is a little truth to those words...


----------



## Lisa (Nov 3, 2006)

*Moderator Note:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Super Moderator*


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I guess that is the mind set that bothers me so much. I don't believe politics is marketing. I believe politics is the most important thing in our society. It directly impacts each and everyone of our lives. It indirectly impacts all of our daily activities.



I agree thats what it SHOULD be... its a shame it no longer is.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 3, 2006)

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 3, 2006)

Stupid Soldiers: Central to the Left's Worldview



> The average American enlistee is more educated&#8212;not less&#8212;than the average young civilian. Wartime recruits also come from wealthier neighborhoods than their civilian counterparts, on average. And the force has been trending towards wealthier troops and smarter troops since the war in Iraq began in 2003.





> The Facts About Today&#8217;s Soldiers
> 
> The average reading level of new soldiers is roughly a full grade level higher than their civilian peers&#8217;.
> 
> ...



Its also a convenient way for the typical "non-military" college graduate liberal to feel better about himself for never having served. "Hey I was smarter than those dopes". While deep down I believe he feels less of a man for having not done so.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 3, 2006)

LOL!


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 3, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Its also a convenient way for the typical "non-military" college graduate liberal to feel better about himself for never having served. "Hey I was smarter than those dopes". While deep down I believe he feels less of a man for having not done so.



Not sure if thats the case, but this was a nice find...


----------



## jazkiljok (Nov 3, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Stupid Soldiers: Central to the Left's Worldview
> 
> 
> 
> ...




1) i agree that some of the smartest folks we got are in the military-- some of my friends, family served over the years-- each had their reasons, each as bright and engaging an individual you could meet.

2) the news story is the recent possibility of having to go lower on the IQ pole to get enough recruits... which means that since we have had a volunteer military, that it's been THE OPPOSITE. that we have a highly educated military. 

3) you have to keep in mind that the left has been energized recently by returning vets-- very smart folks who've seen and fought in the mess that is iraq, seen the ineptitude of so-called civilian leadership and realize the incredibly ridiculous expectations placed on the military. having our troops be focused killing machines fighting a vicious war against a very determine insurgency, the switch that off on a moment's notice and become culturally sensitive experts in the traditions of shias and sunnis and kurds, then wander the streets in enemy territory  to act as a benevolent police force, bring good cheer to school kids while battling those same kids relatives later that day... 

i also believe the next generation of leaders for this country will come out of this war. and they'll probably all be democrats- and better politicians than John "funnyman" Kerry.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=24093


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 3, 2006)

jazkiljok said:


> 1
> i also believe the next generation of leaders for this country will come out of this war. and they'll probably all be democrats- and better politicians than John "funnyman" Kerry.



1)next generation of leaders: yep!
2) all democrats: nope! Go poll the military. they overwhelmingly vote Republican. Wonder why Gore was desperate to not get the overseas military vote in Florida counted? He knows the statistics.
3) better than Kerry? Hard to be much worse, at least IMHO.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 3, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Not sure if thats the case, but this was a nice find...


 
Considering all his data came from the Heritage Foundation, I would take it all with a grain of salt. It's like getting your science information from the Discovery Institute.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 3, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> 2) all democrats: nope! Go poll the military. they overwhelmingly vote Republican. Wonder why Gore was desperate to not get the overseas military vote in Florida counted? He knows the statistics.


 
Be that as it may, the veterans returning from Iraq that are running for office have almost universally run as Democrats.

That tells us something, I think.


----------



## jazkiljok (Nov 3, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> 1)next generation of leaders: yep!
> 2) all democrats: nope! Go poll the military. they overwhelmingly vote Republican. Wonder why Gore was desperate to not get the overseas military vote in Florida counted? He knows the statistics.
> 3) better than Kerry? Hard to be much worse, at least IMHO.



you need to read the link i posted. here's another. and i don't disagree with you about the majority of the military being more conservative but we're speaking of leaders and leaders are not necessarily born of majority opinions.

Besides, the military represents a large population-- even 1/3 who profess more democratic leaning, represents hundreds of thousands of folks.  

Kerry just can't connect with people in general- most in the last election voted the ticket, not the man.



http://www.fighting-dems.com/


----------



## crushing (Nov 3, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Be that as it may, the veterans returning from Iraq that are running for office have almost universally run as Democrats.
> 
> That tells us something, I think.


 
I think it's a good idea for the Democratic Party to recruit and run veterans for office.  It helps dispell the perception that the Democratics don't necessarily understand the military or out of touch with the troops.

This article is from a year ago, so I don't know if the same people are still running, plus primaries change things.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2005/10/iraq_vets_running_for_congress.html


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 3, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Be that as it may, the veterans returning from Iraq that are running for office have almost universally run as Democrats.
> 
> That tells us something, I think.



Could be telling us something... here are a few possibilities

1) Republicans might have a stronger tendancy to stay in the military, while democrats that are fed up with the war might be more willing to come home and leave the military

2) the democrats may be actively recruiting ex-military to try to make a stronger statement about defense (any idea if active recruitment is happening?). Dems in the military may be so upset about thigns that they are willing to run, while Reps are not as upset, so not seeing a desperate desire to get into politics.

3) republicans in the military may be content with those republicans in office, therefor show no strong desire for administrations to change. democrats in the military may think they would have a better shot at getting office than other democratic candidates

anyways, just a couple of possibilities.


----------



## jazkiljok (Nov 3, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Could be telling us something... here are a few possibilities
> 
> 1) Republicans might have a stronger tendancy to stay in the military, while democrats that are fed up with the war might be more willing to come home and leave the military
> 
> ...



well, the problem is that everyone is pro war on terror, not everyone is willing to say the same about iraq. conservative generals beleive it was a cluster**** caused by inept politicians, who all happened to be Republicans. you know they prefer change of politicians if not party (but Gen. Clark did change sides he was so ticked off.)

Keep in mind you didn't see any conservative (dem or repub) singing their pro-war praises by the late 60s. Just bad politics. Nixon himself came in with the secret peace plan.

and who knows, a fiscal conservative war vet with conservative social values but a rage against the incompetent bush/cheney/rumsfeld/hastert/ regime could have opportunity to seize the party in some near future scenario. kick out the bozos, bring back true goldwalter/reagan vision.

what is odd is that the military votes republican yet republicans do absolutely nothing for them after they get home from war. social care is all democrat territory and republicans could careless about "entitlements."


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 3, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Stupid Soldiers: Central to the Left's Worldview


 
The military doesn't just accept everyone.  In many ways, they are like a private school.  The overall trends are not representative and are the product of artificial selection.



Blotan Hunka said:


> Its also a convenient way for the typical "non-military" college graduate liberal to feel better about himself for never having served. "Hey I was smarter than those dopes". While deep down I believe he feels less of a man for having not done so.


 
Considering that I make twice as much, have better benefits, can actually raise my kids, and don't have to get shot at for stupid causes that have nothing to do with "protecting America" and everything to do with lining the pockets of the elite, this liberal feels no shame for his decision.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 3, 2006)

Whatever you have to tell yourself dude.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 3, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Whatever you have to tell yourself dude.


 
Let me tell you a story...

When I was 15 years old, I told my grandfather that I wanted to join the army and be a soldier.  I was in the Boy Scouts.  I was a member of the Sons of the American Legion.  I volunteered at the VFW.  I did all of this because so many in my family are veterans and because these organizations were fun.  

Anyway, my grandfather didn't say much when I told him this.  Instead, I loaded me up into his pick-up and we drove down the dusty road to the VA hospital.  There, I got to see just how much people in this country care about the troops.  Men of all ages were confined there.  They had all sorts of injuries from missing limbs, to brain damage, to PTSD, etc...and my grandfather seemed to know everyone.  

The general pallor of the place was a hopeless green that did little to hide the overall misery of the place.  

Together, we sat down at a table in the lunchroom.  A few of my grandfather's friends were there playing cribbage.  My grandfather explained to them what I told him and they all smiled patiently at me.  Then my grandfather explained to them how smart I was, how well I did in school, and he told his friends how proud he was of me.  

"Look around, son," one man told me, "you don't need this.  You have a better life ahead."

I took that advice.

The bottom line is this...the military is just another job.  There is nothing special about it other then the fact that you can be blown up for stupid things that have nothing to do with protecting this country...like Iraq.  And then there is the special fact that you can come home alive and in peices and be totally forgotten, even to the point of having your benefits cut by the very people who sent you to be blown to bits.  

One of my grandfather's friends was partially blinded by a hand grenade in Italy.  He lived below the povery level on a fixed income and he waited THREE YEARS for a pair of eyeglasses.

I took the advice of the old men who had been there and done that.  And gosh darn it if they weren't right.

Anyway, so what the heck did John Kerry say again?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 3, 2006)

> The man who does nothing cuts the same sordid figure in the pages of history, whether he be a cynic, or fop, or voluptuary. There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of great and generous emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder. Well for these men if they succeed; well also, though not so well, if they fail, given only that they have nobly ventured, and have put forth all their heart and strength.
> 
> It is war-worn Hotspur, spent with hard fighting, he of the many errors and valiant end, over whose memory we love to linger, not over the memory of the young lord who "but for the vile guns would have been a valiant soldier."




"CITIZENSHIP IN A REPUBLIC" 
Speech at the Sorbonne 
Paris, France 
April 23, 1910
Theodore Roosevelt
26th President of the United States


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 4, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> "CITIZENSHIP IN A REPUBLIC"
> Speech at the Sorbonne
> Paris, France
> April 23, 1910
> ...


 
BH

I hate to take this to a personal level, but who says I do nothing.  And why assume that soldiers actually do anything for society?

In fact, I would argue that the purpose of a standing professional army is conquest.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 4, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> BH
> 
> I hate to take this to a personal level, but who says I do nothing.  And why assume that soldiers actually do anything for society?
> 
> In fact, I would argue that the purpose of a standing professional army is conquest.



Wow! 

Soldiers do nothing for society? They join knowing that the purpose of a standing army is conquest?

Let me be blunt. You have never served. You have never been part of the thin line between the barbarians and your children sleeping the rest of the innocent.

I read your story about your grandfather. You fail to understand how people think and how they would react.

I have done many, many stupid things in my life. When my children ask me what to do, I will tell them my mistakes and advise them not to repeat them.

I joined the military. I went for infantry. My father, who served in WWII, tried to get me to either stay out or go for something other than 11 bang bang. I guess I was just stubborn. Years later, I see that he was right in saying that my skills were better served elsewhere. As it turned out, I spent more time in the S2 section than a foxhole. But I do take a certain amount of pride in putting myself in harms way when given the chance.

And I respect those that have had to experience what I have not. I remember that on September 11th 2001 (Japan time) I drove home from class and saw the rescue folks setting up alongside the Tone river. We had just had a typhoon go through and they were going to spend all night preparing for the possibility of the river overflowing. I thought to myself that they would spend the night wide awake so that me and my family could sleep safely. And I gave a little prayer of thanks as I crossed the bridge. Of course, as I was taking a late dinner the news from America came through and I did not get much sleep.

So I think you should look at the way you have belittled the contributions that _others_ have choosen to go through to realize just how they react to you. Not one person I know of in any country I have been in thinks that they joined their countries' military to conquer other countries. And some of the Japanese guys I have met were most certainly part of an army of conquest and not defense. But they did not think that. They were led by their leaders into thinking that they were defending something vital, something worth laying down their life for. Even the scum bags in al queada think that they are defending the word of God.

Think about that when you say that the purpose of an army is conquest and that there are much better ways to live your life. You have _never_ made the choice to put yourself between a bullet and a child. Every person I served with thought that they were there to die if needed in order to keep someone else from taking the same bullet. They made the choice to die if needed. They do not look at your choice to take a salary and teach kids in the same light.

So your grandfather was quite correct in saying what he did from his perspective. But from someone who has made a choice to sacrifice his life if needed, your looking down on him does not go over well. You saying that you do something for society pales in comparison to that. And hey, I am a teacher just like you. As someone who has been a soldier as well as someone who teaches kids, I can say that your talking about how you do something for others kind of is not quite in the same level as a soldier who knows they may be asked to die so that others may live.

Think about that and understand how you sound.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 4, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> BH
> I hate to take this to a personal level, but who says I do nothing.  And why assume that soldiers actually do anything for society?
> 
> In fact, I would argue that the purpose of a standing professional army is conquest.





> The bottom line is this...the military is just another job. There is nothing special about it other then the fact that you can be blown up for stupid things that have nothing to do with protecting this country...like Iraq. And then there is the special fact that you can come home alive and in peices and be totally forgotten, even to the point of having your benefits cut by the very people who sent you to be blown to bits.



Perhaps this is what Democrats really think of troops? Being a soldier is not just another job. Your average McD's worker, or manager of the local Walmart is not daily putting their life in danger to protect your life and insure your future. Previous generations have not died in vain, nor has their sacrifice been "ordinary". My grandfather, a POW and double amputee did not spend years in Europe and not see my dad for the first two years of his life for "just another job". He did it to secure his future, to ensure that our country is going to survive in the manner he wanted it to. Most of the people in Iraq are thinking along the same lines. As I posted earlier, most of those that think opposite have already left (been 4+ years since 9/11).

I think Dems have a hard time believing there is evil in the world other than Republicans. Maybe this is the root of the issue here...

For Don and Blotan, respect :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 4, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Wow!
> 
> Soldiers do nothing for society? They join knowing that the purpose of a standing army is conquest?
> 
> ...


 
Don, while I believe that by joining the military, you did put yourself in harms way, but I do not think that it had much to do with protecting America.  In fact, I would say that the Average LEO does far more then any soldier in that regard.

I know that people who have served have had it drummed into their heads that they are serving some larger purpose, but IMHO, I do not believe that it is the purpose in which they believe.  You talked about this very thing in your post right here...



> And some of the Japanese guys I have met were most certainly part of an army of conquest and not defense. But they did not think that. They were led by their leaders into thinking that they were defending something vital, something worth laying down their life for.


 
The bottom line is this...every standing professional army ever created, throughout all history, was used for conquest.  Soldiers that were used for the defense of countries were more like our modern day national gaurd or they were mostly conscripts.

I don't think that this opinion belittles anyone, although, I can see why people who have served would find it upsetting.  I will not, however, give a soldier anymore respect then anyone else for choosing to do what they did, nor will I buy into the myth that they are ultimately protecting America through their actions.  I realize there are some exceptions, but overall, its a myth.

IMHO, the soldiers that are fighting and dying in Iraq are being misled.  They signed up for one thing, like you did, with good intentions and ended up doing something far different from that intention.  And that, in my mind, is truly tragic, because I hate seeing the young lives and youthful idealism and the will to help people go to waste.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 4, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> The bottom line is this...every standing professional army ever created, throughout all history, was used for conquest.



And if you consider yourself a typical member of the opposition, then we have a good idea into the mentality of them.

But some of us think that our soldiers are there to defend us. And we look at ideas such as yours about the military and conclude that if people like you are in power you will rip away those that we believe will defend us from people that hate us for worshiping the wrong god.

Sometimes we need that thin line between us and the barbarians. But when I look at the mentality behind what you wrote above about *every* professional army being used for conquest, then I have to conclude that people that think like you would take apart our proffesional army in the hope that North Korea, Iran and Osama Bin Laden will decide to be nice to us. I don't think they will and so I THINK your mentality is a direct danger to my children.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 4, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Perhaps this is what Democrats really think of troops?


 
I'll only speak for myself.  



> Being a soldier is not just another job. Your average McD's worker, or manager of the local Walmart is not daily putting their life in danger to protect your life and insure your future.


 
A soldier who is part of an all volunteer professional army is not protecting America.  They are enforcing American hegemony...and that is it.



> Previous generations have not died in vain, nor has their sacrifice been "ordinary". My grandfather, a POW and double amputee did not spend years in Europe and not see my dad for the first two years of his life for "just another job". He did it to secure his future, to ensure that our country is going to survive in the manner he wanted it to.


 
Both of my grandfathers served in WWII.  One of them stormed the beaches of Normandy and ended up in Berlin.  The other was forced fought in Buna and ended up on Guadelcanal.  Both of these men and your grandfather protected America from outside threats, but they are unlike the soldiers of today.  Most of these guys were conscripts, or they volunteered for this duty when the threat arrived.  They were not part of a standing professional army scattered across the globe draining away our national wealth.



> Most of the people in Iraq are thinking along the same lines. As I posted earlier, most of those that think opposite have already left (been 4+ years since 9/11).


 
I realize that they may think that they are serving in ways similar to our grandfathers, but I do not believe that they are.  The truth is that they are part of a standing army that is attempting to politically reshape the middle east for our national interest...and that interest has very little to do with protecting this country.



> I think Dems have a hard time believing there is evil in the world other than Republicans. Maybe this is the root of the issue here.


 
I won't speak for other democrats, but I will speak for myself.  Evil is in the eye of the beholder and is most often just an excuse.  All we need to protect this country is the national guard, the air national gaurd and the coast guard.  And, if I had my way, I would disband everything else.  

How is that for a tax cut?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 4, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> And if you consider yourself a typical member of the opposition, then we have a good idea into the mentality of them.


 
Most democrats do not believe this.  This is why I do not consider myself to be a democrat.  These are my beliefs and my beliefs alone.



> But some of us think that our soldiers are there to defend us. And we look at ideas such as yours about the military and conclude that if people like you are in power you will rip away those that we believe will defend us from people that hate us for worshiping the wrong god.


 
Sigh.

Muslim extremists are not fighting us because we worship the wrong God.  Most, in fact, know that we actually worship the same God.  Anyway, instead of listening to the propaganda, why not ask a muslim and find out why they hate us?

As far as what I would do if my opinions were more popular...

If I were in power, I would disband the professional army and rely on the national guard and the coast guard to protect this country.  Then, I would give most of the tax money we used to pay for those things back to the people...keeping back a small fraction for things that would make a difference for most Americans - education, health care, good infrastructure, etc.

I would also use some of that money to craft a self sufficient energy policy for the US.  In the long run, this would do more to protect our country from extremists then anything the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing.




> Sometimes we need that thin line between us and the barbarians.


 
I take exception to words like barbarian.  They are ultimately rooted in hatred.  And, ultimately, they are part of an easily manipulated black/white moral system.



> You may think that you do as much as they do. But you have never made a conscious choice to put yourself between a bullet and a innocents life.


 
How do you know?  And why do you believe that you did?



> Every person I know in the military thinks about that before they sign the papers. From where I sit as someone who does the same job you do and has also signed those papers, you seem to be trying to justify not taking a hard choice and putting down those that did.


 
This is a common attitude for people who have served in the professional army and it is my belief that it is a myth.  I do not believe that soldiers serving in a professional army have anything to do with protecting America.  It is my belief that they are putting themselves in harms way for the sole purpose of enforcing American hegemony.  

From where I sit as someone who does the same job as you and as someone who decided not to be a soldier, I am content.  Being a soldier in a professional standing army is not something is not something I considered to be a worthwhile use of my life.  

You can choose to believe what you wish, but this is what I believe and I do not think that it belittles or "looks down upon" anyone just because our beliefs happen to be different.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 4, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> A soldier who is part of an all volunteer professional army is not protecting America.  They are enforcing American hegemony...and that is it.


In part, I will agree. I do believe a standing army is  required for defense. As the last remaining super power in the world, we do assert alot of influence. The UN is a powerless body, so most of the world turns to us if things are really needed. Not just war, but relief in emergencies, support, money, etc...



> Both of my grandfathers served in WWII.  One of them stormed the beaches of Normandy and ended up in Berlin.  The other was forced fought in Buna and ended up on Guadelcanal.  Both of these men and your grandfather protected America from outside threats, but they are unlike the soldiers of today.  Most of these guys were conscripts, or they volunteered for this duty when the threat arrived.  They were not part of a standing professional army scattered across the globe draining away our national wealth.


Both of my grandfathers actually. The amputee was 2nd day Normandy. Got liberated by Patton... neat stuff 

Do you not think the threat has arrived? At what point do you think a threat arrives? The enemy has changed, from driving tanks and planes to a more mobile, agile enemy. Still an enemy though.

We are not the only nation with a standing army. We did not have much of one before WW2, and our complaicancy cost us. Took a while to get the war engine moving. As we are in a state of war, there is no excuse to call for the armed forces standing down.



> I realize that they may think that they are serving in ways similar to our grandfathers, but I do not believe that they are.  The truth is that they are part of a standing army that is attempting to politically reshape the middle east for our national interest...and that interest has very little to do with protecting this country.


your opinion. I see things drastically different, as do many of those serving in our armed forces.



> I won't speak for other democrats, but I will speak for myself.  Evil is in the eye of the beholder and is most often just an excuse.  All we need to protect this country is the national guard, the air national gaurd and the coast guard.  And, if I had my way, I would disband everything else.
> 
> How is that for a tax cut?



again, your opinion... Isolationism is not going to work in this world, at least not any more. Doing this is effectively isolating ourselves, and admitting we are no longer a super-power. Personally, I'm not ashamed that we are.

tax cut? there are other forms I'd like to see tax cuts take... thats for another thread though. I'd not like to see that as an excuse for dismanteling our armed forces...


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2006)

The United Nations is not a powerless body. The United Nations is not a fighting force. It was never intended to be a fighting force. It was meant to be a deliberative body to resolve conflicts among nations through negotiations. 

Too many of our fellow citizens are unaware of the roll the United Nations plays in the world. They are a convienent scapegoat for 'isolationists'.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 4, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> The United Nations is not a powerless body. The United Nations is not a fighting force. It was never intended to be a fighting force. It was meant to be a deliberative body to resolve conflicts among nations through negotiations.
> 
> Too many of our fellow citizens are unaware of the roll the United Nations plays in the world. They are a convienent scapegoat for 'isolationists'.



The resolutions they issue are powerless. If negotiations fail, there is no real means through which to enforce their mandates. All they can really do is sit around and claim "Bad country! Bad!".

Having countries with veto powers ensure that if you are friendly with one of those countries that no serious harm will befall you. Its a system in dire need of repair, if it should survive at all.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 4, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> In part, I will agree. I do believe a standing army is required for defense. As the last remaining super power in the world, we do assert alot of influence. The UN is a powerless body, so most of the world turns to us if things are really needed. Not just war, but relief in emergencies, support, money, etc...


 
Michael addressed some of the points that I would make regarding the UN.  As far as the thought regarding the US and its role in the world, however, let me ask you this...Do you think that it is fair for the US taxpayer to subsidize all of these other tasks and assume the responsibility from all of these other countries?  In my opinion, I would rather pull back and let others share the burden of being a world citizen.



> Both of my grandfathers actually. The amputee was 2nd day Normandy. Got liberated by Patton... neat stuff


 
Nasty stuff, actually.  I feel sad that they were forced to make that sacrifice.



> Do you not think the threat has arrived? At what point do you think a threat arrives? The enemy has changed, from driving tanks and planes to a more mobile, agile enemy. Still an enemy though.


 
I believe that the current "threat" is largely self-inflicted.  I believe that the best solution is political and not martial.  I think that we can largely diffuse the anger against our country by changing what we are doing at home.

I do not believe the current war in Iraq or in Afghanistan is going to ultimately protect our country.  I do not believe that either of those military actions were designed to protect this country.  I think that the "War on Terror" is actually a war to maintain or hegemony throughout the world and I would vote for any candidate that would extract us from this mess as quickly as possible.



> We are not the only nation with a standing army. We did not have much of one before WW2, and our complaicancy cost us. Took a while to get the war engine moving. As we are in a state of war, there is no excuse to call for the armed forces standing down.


 
Take a look at this...

http://www.truemajority.org/oreos/

Ben is thinking much how I think, but I would go much further.  I think that cutting military spending down to levels that are competitive with other countries is entirely appropriate.  We lose so much be having the priorities that we do.

Take a look at my signature.



> your opinion. I see things drastically different, as do many of those serving in our armed forces.


 
These are just my informed opinions and I realize that they are unpopular.  I think that I can safely say that everything that I am saying right now will never actually become reality in this country.



> again, your opinion... Isolationism is not going to work in this world, at least not any more. Doing this is effectively isolating ourselves, and admitting we are no longer a super-power. Personally, I'm not ashamed that we are.


 
There are many ways to reach out to the rest of our global citizens.  It bothers me that our country is only really prepared to do so militarily.  I would change that if I could.



> tax cut? there are other forms I'd like to see tax cuts take... thats for another thread though. I'd not like to see that as an excuse for dismanteling our armed forces...


 
IMHO, disbanding the professional standing army would probably be the type of tax cut that would make the most difference in our lives.  I view it as a drain on our national wealth and a grand mis-allocation of our resources.

We could do so much better, IMHO.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 4, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> The resolutions they issue are powerless. If negotiations fail, there is no real means through which to enforce their mandates. All they can really do is sit around and claim "Bad country! Bad!"


 
Again, why shouldn't other countries be required to share the burden of being the global cop?

I don't think its fair and I think that most of the world resents the fact that have positioned our country as such.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 4, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Again, why shouldn't other countries be required to share the burden of being the global cop?
> 
> I don't think its fair and I think that most of the world resents the fact that have positioned our country as such.



Simply put, they don't have a standing military any where near comperable to ours. We have superiour technology and the best trained fighting force.

If other nations want to start taking up and dealing with some of the world problems, go right ahead. I'm fine with that. However, I don't see that as a call for us to disarm, rather for those nations to become armed. That requires (GASP!) a standing army! That requires military expenditures, which means taxation.

I personally don't care if the rest of the world resents us for our military. Our countries primary goal should not be to appease other nations, and lay down arms because other nations don't have enough. Sorry, that does not fly with me.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 4, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Michael addressed some of the points that I would make regarding the UN.  As far as the thought regarding the US and its role in the world, however, let me ask you this...Do you think that it is fair for the US taxpayer to subsidize all of these other tasks and assume the responsibility from all of these other countries?  In my opinion, I would rather pull back and let others share the burden of being a world citizen.


If other nations want to start taking a part, feel free... read my previous post, should be just above this.



> Nasty stuff, actually.  I feel sad that they were forced to make that sacrifice.


If all the other kids in the global sandbox decide to play nicely, I would agree! The world was under attack by evil men with evil intentions. Laying back, letting Pearl Harbor slip by and letting Europe fall under the hands of hte Nazi's is NOT the right solution. Sitting back and letting evil men with evil intentions destroy national landmarks, kill our civilians in NY and DC is NOT the right solution. Sorry, I'm not willing to let that happen, and I am thankful our national leaders are not either. We can argue about the methods, but if you argue that we should lay back and let tyrants dominate our lives and country, we have some SERIOUS issues.



> I believe that the current "threat" is largely self-inflicted.  I believe that the best solution is political and not martial.  I think that we can largely diffuse the anger against our country by changing what we are doing at home.
> 
> I do not believe the current war in Iraq or in Afghanistan is going to ultimately protect our country.  I do not believe that either of those military actions were designed to protect this country.  I think that the "War on Terror" is actually a war to maintain or hegemony throughout the world and I would vote for any candidate that would extract us from this mess as quickly as possible.


Once they start blowing up our civilians, I start to differ about the political process. Does not sound like they are interested in sitting down and negotiating.



> Ben is thinking much how I think, but I would go much further.  I think that cutting military spending down to levels that are competitive with other countries is entirely appropriate.  We lose so much be having the priorities that we do.
> 
> Take a look at my signature.


Again, those countries are not living up to what we are doing. You want them to take a bigger part in the global scale? OK, but they need to up their expenditures. I'm guessing thats not on their agenda.



> There are many ways to reach out to the rest of our global citizens.  It bothers me that our country is only really prepared to do so militarily.  I would change that if I could.


Politics is a nice way to reach out, I'll agree. Military solutions are the last resort, but are NOT to be rules out, especially when faced with imminant danger (Nazism, Fundamental Islamics, etc)



> IMHO, disbanding the professional standing army would probably be the type of tax cut that would make the most difference in our lives.  I view it as a drain on our national wealth and a grand mis-allocation of our resources.
> 
> We could do so much better, IMHO.


We could, if we lived ina perfect world..

Why do you train in martial arts? Alot of people train for self defense. You spend alot of money training. Lets say you go to a bar and a fight starts. You start kicking butt, because you have spent alot of time and money training, becoming the best you can be. Would you call this unjust because everyone else in the bar has not spent the amount of money you have, or spent the time to dedicate themselves to self-defense? Hardly...

So, whats the difference at the global level? Is our nation not doing the same thing? You are not running around the office beating up people with your new found and finely honed skills, but you are likely to defend yourself if the situation arises, or if your family/friends are threatened. Is this not the same thing?

Instead of lowering yourself to the training of the common man, I appaud you for doing so well! If you win a fight, I'd say "good job!", assuming it was just (which can be argued one way or the other of course, but thats a different issue).


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> The resolutions they issue are powerless.


 


mrhnau said:


> If other nations want to start taking a part, feel free....


 
It seems that statements like this show an incredible lack of what the United Nations actually does. It is the actions it takes, of which the resolutions are a part. I would guess that the resolutions you are referring to are a very small part. 

I think your assertions would be akin to stating that Reverend Haggerd's religion represents all of America.

I pointed out that, currently, there are approximately 100,000 blue helmeted Peacekeepers serving in many countries around the globe. And that about 650 of those are Americans.  Other countries are taking part. They are putting their people in harms way for the greater good. 

Here ... why not spend a couple of hours taking a look yourself.

www.un.org


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 4, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> That requires (GASP!) a standing army!


 
Not necessarily.  A joint UN police force could easily be composed of an amalgamation of citizen soldiers who go back to their normal lives when their service is done.



> That requires military expenditures, which means taxation.


 
Correct.  I believe that they should share the burden as global citizens.



> I personally don't care if the rest of the world resents us for our military. Our countries primary goal should not be to appease other nations, and lay down arms because other nations don't have enough.


 
I believe that we are global citizens who are no better then anyone else and I think that if the world resents us for our assumptions, that really is a big deal.  I believe that everyone on this planet is connected by a common thread and that we are all responsible for each other.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 4, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> It seems that statements like this show an incredible lack of what the United Nations actually does. It is the actions it takes, of which the resolutions are a part. I would guess that the resolutions you are referring to are a very small part.
> 
> I think your assertions would be akin to stating that Reverend Haggerd's religion represents all of America.
> 
> I pointed out that, currently, there are approximately 100,000 blue helmeted Peacekeepers serving in many countries around the globe. And that about 650 of those are Americans.  Other countries are taking part. They are putting their people in harms way for the greater good.



I think part of my issue stems from the organization of the UN. With veto power, any veto nation can stop action. In the food for oil issue with Iraq, of course Russia, France and Germany are going to protest an organized assault with Iraq.  Same thing happens when any nation is being naughty. If they have powerful friends (visible or not), then they have some degree of protection. I'm not seeing the UN ousting Saddam, dismanteling the Taliban, searching for Bin Laden, creating peace in Korean, Vietnam, Mogadishu (sp). When do they put themselves seriously into harms way? I see other nations helping our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I don't see alot of blue helmets there.

Your definition of "greater good" is decided by a committee... who is to say it is for the greater good? If we don't like it, we veto. If Germany does not like it, they veto, etc, etc... Its an aggrevating process.



> Here ... why not spend a couple of hours taking a look yourself.
> 
> www.un.org



Wish I had a couple of hours to waste  I'll look when I get done with this chunk of work (ie next week hopefully).


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 4, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> If all the other kids in the global sandbox decide to play nicely, I would agree! The world was under attack by evil men with evil intentions. Laying back, letting Pearl Harbor slip by and letting Europe fall under the hands of hte Nazi's is NOT the right solution. Sitting back and letting evil men with evil intentions destroy national landmarks, kill our civilians in NY and DC is NOT the right solution. Sorry, I'm not willing to let that happen, and I am thankful our national leaders are not either. We can argue about the methods, but if you argue that we should lay back and let tyrants dominate our lives and country, we have some SERIOUS issues.


 
In several places in this post, you make the connection between Nazi Fascism/Japanese Imperialism and Islamic Fundementalism.  The above section illustrates this.  I contend that these are not similar at all.  9/11 was not another Pearl Harbor because the "enemies" behind each event are totally different.



> Why do you train in martial arts? Alot of people train for self defense. You spend alot of money training. Lets say you go to a bar and a fight starts. You start kicking butt, because you have spent alot of time and money training, becoming the best you can be. Would you call this unjust because everyone else in the bar has not spent the amount of money you have, or spent the time to dedicate themselves to self-defense? Hardly...


 
I have no problem with self defense.  In think it's important.  I have a problem with allocating 10 times more then what we need for self defense...calling that self defense...when it really is for offense.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 4, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Its an aggrevating process.


 
That is how compromise works.  We need to learn how to do this.  The road to tyranny begins with a country that demands that it always gets its way...


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> I think part of my issue stems from the organization of the UN. With veto power, any veto nation can stop action. In the food for oil issue with Iraq, of course Russia, France and Germany are going to protest an organized assault with Iraq. Same thing happens when any nation is being naughty. If they have powerful friends (visible or not), then they have some degree of protection. I'm not seeing the UN ousting Saddam, dismanteling the Taliban, searching for Bin Laden, creating peace in Korean, Vietnam, Mogadishu (sp). When do they put themselves seriously into harms way? I see other nations helping our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I don't see alot of blue helmets there.
> 
> Your definition of "greater good" is decided by a committee... who is to say it is for the greater good? If we don't like it, we veto. If Germany does not like it, they veto, etc, etc... Its an aggrevating process.
> 
> ...


 
Are you willing to surrender the United States veto power, if the other side surrenders their veto power? Or will 'Might Make Right'. 

There are no blue helmets in Iraq because in the eyes of the world, it is an illegal war. Despite the original twisted rational presented by the Bush adminstration, the United Nations was performing the tasks assigned by inspecting Iraq for forbidden armement. The President of the United States order the United Nations out of Iraq so that he could launch his war. 

Looking toward Afghanistan, currently, it is under authorization of NATO. I think it is quite probable that the UN would have an authority and security roll if we decided it was appropriate. I'm not sure we ever asked. 


Your use of the term 'waste' in describing a review of UN activities describes a predisposition. Minds are like Parachutes, eh?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 4, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I hate to take this to a personal level, but who says I do nothing. And why assume that soldiers actually do anything for society?
> 
> In fact, I would argue that the purpose of a standing professional army is conquest.


 
And the red marks start flying...

These are my informed opinions, CZ, not insults.  You taking them as such is akin to a Christian claiming that an athiest insults them because they do not believe in God.

Anyway, I'm sorry if you took it as such.

Let's try not to confuse this anymore...


----------



## airdawg (Nov 4, 2006)

Get the US out of the UN. No other country should have any say in what our American troops risk there lives for. It's a republic. The majority wanted our current president. He, along with Congress decide what happens. Not the UN. Unfortunately, blue helmets make great targets, especialy when the troops wearing them are not aloud to load there firearms.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2006)

airdawg said:


> Get the US out of the UN. No other country should have any say in what our American troops risk there lives for. It's a republic. The majority wanted our current president. He, along with Congress decide what happens. Not the UN. Unfortunately, blue helmets make great targets, especialy when the troops wearing them are not aloud to load there firearms.


 
The United States military and the United States participation in the United Nations are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## airdawg (Nov 4, 2006)

I apologize if I was a little heated in my post, but I don't feel that the US needs any support or permission from the UN for any endeavor.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2006)

airdawg said:


> I apologize if I was a little heated in my post, but I don't feel that the US needs any support or permission from the UN for any endeavor.


 
Demonstrating your great understanding of the endeavors undertaken by the United Nations. 

The United States is the world's 800 pound gorilla, and therefore should can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, where ever it wants with complete disregard for the remaining 95% of the human population on the planet. 

Might Makes Right! Woo Hoo - Wave them flags behind the Newscasters!


----------



## airdawg (Nov 4, 2006)

Might does not make right. Virtue victorious. I do not agree with most lethal conflicts. My point is, the US is a democratic republic, not a democracy. 

Democratic Republic= on election day, we vote for someone to represent us. 

Democracy=we all sit around all day every day, starving, waiting for every legal citizen to vote on the issue of weather or not we are aloud to eat. 

Any one brave enough to put on a uniform to protect the citizens of our country have my respect and deserves the respect of every couch potato not being shot at that day. Just because the majority of the people support one man who decides to convince our nation to go to war does not make it right, but that is the way our government is set up.

Do I believe it is a good idea to aid other countries when they need military support. Absolutely! but it's not charity if you have been forced to give it. 

Also. Where have you obtained your numbers sir? I am a fiend for information.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2006)

airdawg said:


> Also. Where have you obtained your numbers sir? I am a fiend for information.


 
All numbers are secret ... 

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. 




If you promise not to tell, you could probably start here : www.un.org

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/surge2006.pdf


----------



## airdawg (Nov 4, 2006)

Big brother is watching.


----------



## Arizona Angel (Nov 4, 2006)

airdawg said:


> Big brother is watching.


That use to terrify me when I was growing up.  I have come to terms with that these days, and relize there is no place to hide.


----------



## airdawg (Nov 4, 2006)

Especialy from this big brother. HAHA!


----------



## Arizona Angel (Nov 4, 2006)

airdawg said:


> Especialy from this big brother. HAHA!


lol, always wanted a big brother.  At least I trust this one.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2006)

So, the lead Republican in the country today said ... 



			
				Presdient Bush said:
			
		

> The Only Way We Can Win Is To Leave Before The Job Is Done




How dare the President disparage the military ... accusing them of being unable to win if they stay in Iraq. I suppose he's just pissed that the military has issued a 'no confidence' vote on the Great Shield - Donald Rumsfeld. 

Maybe the troops would be able to win, if the President and SecDef sent them into battle with the tools the troops wanted, and not the tools the troops had. 

Oh, Well.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 4, 2006)

Amazing how the administration never drew similar scrutiny for the "People are fungable!" comment.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Nov 4, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> So, the lead Republican in the country today said ...
> 
> Originally Posted by Presdient Bush
> The Only Way We Can Win Is To Leave Before The Job Is Done




Source?

What he said was "And I believe that one day Iraq will be a government of, and by, and for the people, unless we leave before the job is done. The only way we can lose is if we leave before the job is done." (emph mine)


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:


> Source?
> 
> What he said was "And I believe that one day Iraq will be a government of, and by, and for the people, unless we leave before the job is done. The only way we can lose is if we leave before the job is done." (emph mine)


 
Check the YouTube from Colorado ... I think the rally was in Greely? Greenly?

Sure, you are looking at a scrubbed transcript. But, we know what he really means. He's lost the war, and now he needs to blame it on some one.


----------



## jazkiljok (Nov 4, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> So, the lead Republican in the country today said ...
> 
> [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
> 
> ...



the only victory that could be in iraq is that are soldiers are given the tools to protect themselves during their time served there. 

i'm not sure what winning means anymore. one assumes that means the iraqi's fight their own battles against insurgents and the US departs free of the responsiblity. of course that opens the door to civil war. insurgents equal sunnis-- new army/police equal shiites. kurds sit up north ready to battle either that attempts to meddle in their business.

corruption and anarchy rule the day. joblessness and dysfunctionality exist to the extent that the professionals are leaving in droves and none of the expatriates who left during saddams reign feels safe in returning.

bush claims progress but can't point to any example. the entire gov't of iraq is sequestered behind the wall of protection in the green zone. travelling to or from the airport is consider a dangerous thing to do.

no contractor/u.s. gov't officials walk the streets without weapons or body guards.

if rice,rumsfeld,bush,cheney want to visit baghdad-- they sneak in and out the backdoor.

same in kabul.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:


> Source?
> 
> What he said was "And I believe that one day Iraq will be a government of, and by, and for the people, unless we leave before the job is done. The only way we can lose is if we leave before the job is done." (emph mine)


 

http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/97751226.html



> So our strategy is to help this young democracy survive.  And we'll help them politically.  The 12 million people -- nearly 12 million voted and said, we want to be free.  I believe there will be a government of, by and for the people.  They've got good resources, and we'll help them get their feet on the ground after years of tyranny.  And we're going to help train -- continue to train Iraqi troops so they take the fight, so they're capable of defending this country.  No doubt -- let me say to you, if you've got a relative in the military, I wouldn't have your loved one in the theater if I didn't think we'd win.  (Applause.)  I can't look at the mothers and fathers and husbands and wives of those who wear our uniform who may be in Iraq, and say, it's noble, but not think I can -- we can win the -- *the only way we can win is if we leave before the job is* -- I mean, the only way we can lose is if we leave before the job is done.  That's the only way.


 
This is an un-scrubbed transcript. I saw the video earlier. Looks like it may have been scrubbed from YouTube too .... I suppose "It's Good to Be the King". 

Now, of course, President Bush didn't *mean* to say that. But he *did *say it. I'll be watching for two days worth of news cycles trying to parse it all out. I'll be watching for all of those on *this* thread that wouldn't toss a benefit of a doubt toward Kerry to justify this gaffe.


----------



## Mariachi Joe (Nov 5, 2006)

Kerry's just bitter he lost to someone he thinks he is smarter than.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 5, 2006)

Video currently available here ..

http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=942

I wonder why I am not seeing this every 5 minutes on Fox News?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 5, 2006)

Not saying he didn't say that, it certainly sounds like his voice. 

But is it just me or does the sound track appear not to match what his lips are saying in this poorly edited clip?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 5, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:


> Not saying he didn't say that, it certainly sounds like his voice.
> 
> But is it just me or does the sound track appear not to match what his lips are saying in this poorly edited clip?


 
Tinfoil hat much?


----------



## crushing (Nov 5, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:


> Not saying he didn't say that, it certainly sounds like his voice.
> 
> But is it just me or does the sound track appear not to match what his lips are saying in this poorly edited clip?


 
Yeah, it does sound like him and it does look like him, but the sound is way off from the video.  It wouldn't surprise me that there is an audio clip of Bush misspeaking, his gaffes are well known.  He immediately corrected himself, so I don't know why it would get repeated play on any news channel.

I don't really get the tinfoil comment directed at you.  Maybe if you wear a tinfoil hat the video and audio will match up nicely?  Who knows?

One thing's for sure.  After that video, I won't be voting for President Bush on Tuesday.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Nov 5, 2006)

_ He immediately corrected himself, so I don't know why it would get repeated play on any news channel_

This is why the comparison to Kerry is an apples/oranges comparison.  It sounds like at worse that Bush mangled his words away from his intention,which happens.  It sounds like Kerry did not misspeak his words but his intended words did not come across quite as he had hoped. which also happens.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 5, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:


> This is why the comparison to Kerry is an apples/oranges comparison. It sounds like at worse that Bush mangled his words away from his intention,which happens. It sounds like Kerry did not misspeak his words but his intended words did not come across quite as he had hoped. which also happens.


 
Well, the script from which the Senator was speaking has been available since Tony Snow's discovery of the gaffe. It has not been a secret. One can choose to remain willfully ignorant. Perhaps it is best to do so, lest the evidence upset a paradigm.

Then again, maybe it is all just my perception ... 

It seems that some on this thread extend the President a pass - because we all know he is incapable of structuring cogent English sentences, but  are unable to accept any explanation of Kerry's verbal gaffe; to the point of accusing a transcript, and a video of being doctored.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 5, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:


> But is it just me or does the sound track appear not to match what his lips are saying in this poorly edited clip?



Yes, and you can hear the cut in the audio too.


----------



## crushing (Nov 5, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Well, the script from which the Senator was speaking has been available since Tony Snow's discovery of the gaffe. It has not been a secret. One can choose to remain willfully ignorant. Perhaps it is best to do so, lest the evidence upset a paradigm.
> 
> *Then again, maybe it is all just my perception ... *
> 
> It seems that some on this thread extend the President a pass - because we all know he is incapable of structuring cogent English sentences, but are unable to accept any explanation of Kerry's verbal gaffe; to the point of accusing a transcript, and a video of being doctored.


 
Sir, that's sounds very introspective.  Take the political ads on TV and in mailers.  The loyal partisans of each party see their candidate as talking about the issues while the opposing party's candidate is engaged in a nasty smear campaign.  It probably isn't all just your perception, but that probably plays a large part.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 5, 2006)

crushing said:


> It probably isn't all just your perception, but that probably plays a large part.


 
And yet, I see very few of those who lambasted Kerry's gaffe making comments like this ..



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Now, of course, President Bush didn't *mean* to say that.


 
And, as to whether an add is a nasty attack ad, or an appropriate issue ad, there are indeed third party organizations that can make those assessments. Isn't there a saying somewhere, something like .... "Facts are Not Neutral"


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 6, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> And why assume that soldiers actually do anything for society?
> 
> In fact, I would argue that the purpose of a standing professional army is conquest.


 

Well, one could suggest that soldiers make society itself possible. Primitive history is the history of marauders and looting. Professional soldiers made society and Civilization workable.

The idea of not having a standing army was fine during the immediate post-Colonial period. However; the invention of the steamship made the concept of raising an army only when needed no longer practical. An enemy could literally be at the gates before a Militia was raised to fight them.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 6, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> If I were in power, I would disband the professional army and rely on the national guard and the coast guard to protect this country.



And can you imagine what the world map would look like now if you were president back in the late 30s and early 40s?!?!

There is a quote that is currently back in vouge where the guy talks about when they came for various groups he did nothing because he was not part of those groups. It ends with the comment that when they came for him, there was no one left to stop them.

The lesson of course is that if you look the other way when bad men do evil things to others, then they will not stop and someday you may be the victim. Another way of putting it that we can either all hang together, or all hang seperatly.

It amazes me that people can use this logic when we talk about giving extra scrutiny to young arabs in airports, but not to international relationships. Instead the alliences we make are portrayed as efforts at hedgemoney and are refered to as "entageling alliances."

Well, there are bad men out there. They will not go away if you look the other way and if enough nations go down instead of standing together against these modern barbarians, then when they come for us there will be no one else to stop them.

Some folks think we need to be liberated from our economic system for the greater good. Others think that we need to be liberated from conspiracies involving jews and need to get back in the good graces of Allah. Yet others look back on ages when they were the center of their known world and everyone bowed to them with nostaligia. Whatever the reason, someone somewhere will start moves against other nations and if they win, they will go on getting stronger and keep on conquering other nations.

And you expect to let this all go on and stop them when they finally get to our shores? 

_When they came for the Japanese, we did not help because we were not Japanese.
When they came for the Isrealis, we did nothing because we were not Isreali.
When they came for the Armenians, we did nothing because we were not Armenain.

And when they came for us, there was no one left to stop them._


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 6, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Demonstrating your great understanding of the endeavors undertaken by the United Nations.
> 
> The United States is the world's 800 pound gorilla, and therefore should can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, where ever it wants with complete disregard for the remaining 95% of the human population on the planet.
> 
> Might Makes Right! Woo Hoo - Wave them flags behind the Newscasters!



And have you realized that very few of those people represented in the UN actually chose their leaders?

Aside from the fact of why America should put itself at the mercy of anyone, even a majority of the population, there is the very real fact that many of the nations that expect us to follow the vote of the majority of the UN council actually were not put there by a vote themselves.

When you talk about the 95 of the population, you really are talking about nations ruled by people like Bashir, Mugabe and Han Sen. How many elections are there in China, one of the nations that hold veto power? For that matter, along with Russian, two of the premenent members of the UN security council would not pass even close to a western democracy with a minimum of rights for their people. 

And this is the foundation that you would leave the security of the US with?

It is not just that. Your idea of what is needed to protect a country is not in accordence with a good look at reality.

The UN does do a job from time to time in putting itself between two opposing nations. If one nation tries to attack, they have to go through the UN forces and open up the battle with other nations.

But you could have ringed all of Afghanistan with blue helmets and 19 guys with box cutters would still have killed all they did. The view of guys on the ground to fend off tanks as defence died on 9-11.

What keeps most nations from attacking is the idea that even if they did do something like what Osama did, they would end up like the Taliban. For that you need an army that can _attack_ and defeat another nation to make their leaders accountable for their actions.

We don't do that with the UN. We could never pull it off. The Taliban would still be in Kabul today and they would still be debating it in the UN if we tried. You may have forgotten that a lot of Arab nations did not want us to attack Afghanistan for various stated reasons. They might have locked things up with their petroleaum pull if we had left it to the UN.

Aside from  trying to get multiple nations to pull something like that off succesfully, there is the very basic problem of the nature of the UN. As I mentioned, a lot of the nations that make up that body are not there due to the will of their people. And every nation puts its own interests and benefits above the concerns of justice for other nations. It is like politics at every level. People just do not do the right thing because it is right, they do things only if it is in the own self interest.

And before anyone says that the above is silly, take a look at Darfur. China and Russian have business deals with Sudan. There  has been an estimated *four hundred thousand* people who have died as a result of the goverment's actions in Darfur. And the two veto holders on the security council won't even let us use the term "genocide" when refering to the conflict.

Oh, and you want to turn our security over to this type of group?

Let us say that we turn over our security concerns to the UN. Then America gets hit with a smallpox attack. Millions die in weeks. The Americans provide proof that the smallpox originated in Iran and even provide various peices of evidence that Iran developed the germs and spread it by passing it along in diplomatic pouches.

And China, dependent on Iranian oil, vetoes any sort of action stating the need to gather more evidence of a better nature.

Is this the type of thing that anyone wants? If China will not let anything happen as hundreds of thousands of people are killed by a goverment they buy oil from, what makes you think they will take the hit to do the right thing for America?

And that is just one possible scenario involving one possible nation. You may argue over the possibilities of one single scenario, but the underlying points are sound.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 6, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> If I were in power, I would disband the professional army and rely on the national guard and the coast guard to protect this country. Then, I would give most of the tax money we used to pay for those things back to the people...keeping back a small fraction for things that would make a difference for most Americans - education, health care, good infrastructure, etc.


 
If you will go here:
http://www.martialtalk.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=random&cat=15725&pos=-437

you will find a photo of me in uniform on patrol with the U.S. Coast Guard. I volunteered after 9/11 and served four years as a volunteer. I love the Coast Guard and everything it stands for. However; I recognize that it is NOT designed to stand up against a modern professional Navy in open warfare - not EVEN in Coastal Defense.

Please be realistic here. You're losing me. If it were not for Standing OpSec Orders (Operational Security), I could go into more details. BTW, my grandfather fought in WW2 and did NOT want me to serve in ANY capacity. In fact, he talked me out of enlisting in the USAF after high school. However; a few years after 9/11 the topic of casualties not related to enemy fire came up and MY opinion was the only one he was interested in.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 6, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> And can you imagine what the world map would look like now if you were president back in the late 30s and early 40s?!?!


FDR stopped catastrophic tectonic plate shifts?



> There is a quote that is currently back in vouge where the guy talks about when they came for various groups he did nothing because he was not part of those groups. It ends with the comment that when they came for him, there was no one left to stop them.
> 
> The lesson of course is that if you look the other way when bad men do evil things to others, then they will not stop and someday you may be the victim. Another way of putting it that we can either all hang together, or all hang seperatly.


Pity it's taken so long for the country to wake up to the illegal misappropriation of executive powers. We're at the gates as it is. 



> It amazes me that people can use this logic when we talk about giving extra scrutiny to young arabs in airports, but not to international relationships. Instead the alliences we make are portrayed as efforts at hedgemoney and are refered to as "entageling alliances."


It's not either/or. Gotta think of WWI as well as WWII. 



> Well, there are bad men out there. They will not go away if you look the other way and if enough nations go down instead of standing together against these modern barbarians, then when they come for us there will be no one else to stop them.


What exactly is the modern equivalent of a river freezing over?



> Yet others look back on ages when they were the center of their known world and everyone bowed to them with nostaligia.


 Yes, I see quite a few letters like that in the local paper. (They're usually raging about the restrictions on monkeying around with other nations brought on in large part due to the Iran Contra scandal.)


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 6, 2006)

Marginal said:


> FDR stopped catastrophic tectonic plate shifts?



Thanks. I can always tell when someone makes a great point that the other side can't deal with by the way they try extreme distortions of the original post to try to get some sort of witty comment off. I can't remember any of my posts being so well written that someone had to go to that extreme to try to make light of it, but now one has.

And  I noticed this clip on Youtube and thought about this thread. I hope everyone takes it in the spirit I offer it in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7phct3aKuFQ&mode=related&search=


----------



## Marginal (Nov 6, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Thanks. I can always tell when someone makes a great point that the other side can't deal with by the way they try extreme distortions of the original post to try to get some sort of witty comment off. I can't remember any of my posts being so well written that someone had to go to that extreme to try to make light of it, but now one has.


The rest of my post must've been impossible to refute, so you avoided it entirely with this wit instead by that logic.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 6, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> And can you imagine what the world map would look like now if you were president back in the late 30s and early 40s?!?!


 
We don't live in the 30s and 40s.  Times are quite different from then.



> Well, there are bad men out there. They will not go away if you look the other way and if enough nations go down instead of standing together against these *modern barbarians*, then when they come for us there will be no one else to stop them.


 
600,000 people have died because of our actions in Iraq.



> Some folks think we need to be liberated from our economic system for the greater good. Others think that we need to be liberated from conspiracies involving jews and need to get back in the good graces of Allah. Yet others look back on ages when they were the center of their known world and everyone bowed to them with nostaligia. Whatever the reason, someone somewhere will start moves against other nations and if they win, they will go on getting stronger and keep on conquering other nations.


 
Who will protect the world from US?



> And you expect to let this all go on and stop them when they finally get to our shores?


 
We live in a changed world.  The military we have created is a large and bloated dinosaur of yesteryear.  IT has been a determining factor in our foreign policy...in that since we have it, we think we can do what we want.  This has destroyed our standing as global citizens and has ultimately made us one of the more despised nations worldwide.  

In this new type of world, this image will matter more then anything else in the future.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 6, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:


> you will find a photo of me in uniform on patrol with the U.S. Coast Guard. I volunteered after 9/11 and served four years as a volunteer. I love the Coast Guard and everything it stands for. However; I recognize that it is NOT designed to stand up against a modern professional Navy in open warfare - not EVEN in Coastal Defense.


 
The Coast Guard would have to be retrofitted for this new task.  So would the National Guard and the Air National Guard.  The bottom line is that I would slash military spending so that it was competitive with what other countries at the top were spending.  We would use our military for what most other countries use their martial abilities.  And we would play on equal footing as global citizens.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 7, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> We don't live in the 30s and 40s.  Times are quite different from then.



What I said was as applicable to our time as any other. You can go back to Genghis Khan and his dynasty. You can go back even farther to Alexander the Great. You can go even further back to the ancient Chinese. Some groups will keep on taking over other countries until they are stopped. And each country they digest can help feed them and prepare them for the next conquest. 

So we can either all hang together and have military alliences with countries like Japan and Europe as well as others, or we can sit by while someone at sometime carves up the rest of the world and then gets ready to take us out. That is one reason we have troops here in Japan rather than let the Chinese and North Koreans call the shots in Asia. For that we need a standing military and not a beefed up border patrol.

Oh, and Marginal, the rest of your post was not on topic and not worth dealing with the thread drift to bother with.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 7, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Oh, and Marginal, the rest of your post was not on topic and not worth dealing with the thread drift to bother with.


 
Uh huh...

I just never saw an anti facist saying misappropriated so wildly with no intended irony before.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 8, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> And can you imagine what the world map would look like now if you were president back in the late 30s and early 40s?!?!
> 
> There is a quote that is currently back in vouge where the guy talks about when they came for various groups he did nothing because he was not part of those groups. It ends with the comment that when they came for him, there was no one left to stop them.
> 
> ...


 
Kudos. Thank god some people here are NOT calling the shots out there. They really give meaning to this threads title. Ive met and know people who fought in WWII. It was NOT that long ago and can absolutely happen again. I hope we never unlearn how close we came to the brink in the 1940's.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 8, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Kudos. Thank god some people here are NOT calling the shots out there. They really give meaning to this threads title. Ive met and know people who fought in WWII. It was NOT that long ago and can absolutely happen again. I hope we never unlearn how close we came to the brink in the 1940's.


 
This is nothing but the conservative penchent for living in the past.  The times have absolutely changed.  Our defense capabilities are so far beyond what they were in 1940, that any comparison is ludicrous.  We will NEVER have a world war like we did in the early part of this century for the simple fact that any power that we would fight has the Bomb.  Even Don Rumsfeld understood this and this is why he was so driven to rebuild the military...changing it from a force of big guns and tanks to one of lighter equipment and precision weapons.  

Even this model, IMHO, is flawed.  Look at Iraq to see how well it is working.  Generals from across the world in countries that are weaker and unfriendly are working on insurgency plans that would weaken any invading army to the point that continuing a war would be too expensive to continue.  Again, look at Iraq.  $1,000,000,000,000 dollars and counting and none of it has been added to the national debt.  Sooner or later Americans are going to wake up to this fact and DEMAND that we leave no matter what the cost.  

Why?

Because it puts our children's future at stake.

Logically, all of this begs the question.  If pre-emptive, offensive, warfare is so expensive, ineffective, and ultimately futile, why do we continue to make this a budget priority?  Why can't we rethink our strategy for defense and actually make it for defense only?  Why can't we reshape our military in order to be good global citizens and not the global cops?

In order to do all of this, we need to stop putting our soldiers on pedastals and start thinking about them in the context that they belong.  IMHO, the ideal soldier does their duty when called and then finds other, more productive ways to contribute to society.  In this modern world, this is all that we need.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 9, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> This is nothing but the conservative penchent for living in the past.  The times have absolutely changed.



No they have not. Not like that. You can argue and speculate about how things have changed. But every time someone has declared something fudemental as changed, they are proved wrong. WWI was originally declared the war that would end all wars. That did not last long. And your idea that we could nuke the entire world if backed into a corner is just not worthy of mention. You would put the future on the line because _you think_ that the world is different, or at least you want to believe something like that so hard that you would risk us being able to stop armies at our shores. Until there is a case in history to prove what you say, I ain't willing to risk it.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 9, 2006)

Hmmm....Maybe a good Idea. Fortress America. We pull out of everywhere we are and return to our own borders. Then all of the "bad guys" will come out of hiding, take over, where ever they are, and give us a real target to go after, instead of hunting for them, in every nook and cranny.... Plus, it let's the troops spend time patrolling our borders, thereby securing them, and clearing out those that don't belong here, fixing our infrastructure, helping to police, etc... Makes some good sense. I think everyone should be on board for that, seeing that we, and our policies are such a nuissance, and we really aren't needed, because the world isn't as we see it, that's just propaganda for imperialism.

Seriously, all sides of the Aisle love our troops, and want them home. We all wish that it was really propaganda, and that the terrorists didn't really exist. None of us wanted this. 

God bless the troops.


----------



## Carol (Nov 9, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> Hmmm....Maybe a good Idea. Fortress America. We pull out of everywhere we are and return to our own borders. Then all of the "bad guys" will come out of hiding, take over, where ever they are, and give us a real target to go after, instead of hunting for them, in every nook and cranny.... Plus, it let's the troops spend time patrolling our borders, thereby securing them, and clearing out those that don't belong here, fixing our infrastructure, helping to police, etc... Makes some good sense. I think everyone should be on board for that, seeing that we, and our policies are such a nuissance, and we really aren't needed, because the world isn't as we see it, that's just propaganda for imperialism.
> 
> Seriously, all sides of the Aisle love our troops, and want them home. We all wish that it was really propaganda, and that the terrorists didn't really exist. None of us wanted this.
> 
> God bless the troops.


 
:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 9, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> No they have not. Not like that. You can argue and speculate about how things have changed.


 
I don't need to speculate, Don.  All I need to do is look at Nagasaki and Hiroshima to see how effective a Nuke is when it comes to stopping global conflict.  Don, do you know what a 32 megaton weapon can do?  Why in the world would anyone risk THAT!



> But every time someone has declared something fudemental as changed, they are proved wrong. WWI was originally declared the war that would end all wars. That did not last long.


 
True, but those were different times.  And now, we live in different times again.  The military is outdated and in need of a substantial rethinking.



> And your idea that we could nuke the entire world if backed into a corner is just not worthy of mention.


 
We would never be backed into a corner, Don.  Someone who can send nukes to the farthest reaches of the Earth has a tactical advantage that supercedes any invasion.  With our satallite technology, we would see anything like that before they even hit the water. 



> You would put the future on the line because _you think_ that the world is different, or at least you want to believe something like that so hard that you would risk us being able to stop armies at our shores.


 
You are the one who is putting our future at risk by refusing to accept that the world is different.  Our children will pay for this unfunded program with their blood sweat and tears and it, ultimately, will make it harder for them to acheive their dreams.  And then there is the simple fact that any of our greedy leaders could pick up this tool and use it for some really nasty stuff.  If Iraq and PNAC wasn't evidence enough for you, I don't know what is.  

Don, the only one that could really precipitate another world war in this world is us.  WE are the only country that has that ability.



> Until there is a case in history to prove what you say, I ain't willing to risk it.


 
Open your eyes.  You live in a place where the point was proven.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 9, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I don't need to speculate, Don.  All I need to do is look at Nagasaki and Hiroshima to see how effective a Nuke is when it comes to stopping global conflict.




In case you have not noticed, global conflicts still go on. There are still attacks on the US. If you don't believe me, let's meet at that restraunt at the top of the world trade center to discuss things. 

Yes, I live in Japan and I think the Japanese would be aghast at your attitude and plans for America. To say it is overly simplistic and lacking in reality is like saying the Titanic had a little problem.

You have said that the troops in Afghanistan are not really there for anything other than our dreams of global hedgemony and talk more about the PNAC than the Taliban. You have even taken the side that high explosives and not Al queade took down the WTC. So I guess that you really don't think about how the only option we would have had after 9-11 for Afghanistan would have been to kill millions of people by nuking them if we followed your vision of America.

Or if pirates off the coast of Somalia attack a US Cruise ship, we nuke Somalia. If we find information on terrorists creating the smallpox virus for an attack on us in Pakistan, nuke Pakistan. I can go on with tons of examples of how you could only nuke a nation if you put into practice what you desire.

We would have to pull everything and everyone we have back to our borders and set up a fortress America. Then we could watch as all the rest of the world falls and threaten to kill everyone on the planet if they attack us.

My God, do you really want that to happen?

You mention Japan. Well, if it was not for the US seventh fleet here, millions of Japanese would either starve, or jump to the tune laid out by Beijing. The Japanese can't feed their own people without food shipments from outside of the country. The agriculture they have is dependent on petroleum for everything from planting to transportation to refrigerated storage. Your plan of disbanding the US military and telling our allies to go jump in the lake would make them face the choice of bowing under to North Korean and  Chinese military power or starve.

And that is just one example of how things would go to hell in a handbasket if we do what you want. I have trouble believing anyone could be serious about what you propose.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 9, 2006)

In rebuttle, Don, this is what I've got to say...

Why We Fight

All of the things that you were talking about are not the sole responsibility of the US.  The entire world has a stake in all of that.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 9, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> All of the things that you were talking about are not the sole responsibility of the US.  The entire world has a stake in all of that.



Oh, and giving up responsibility to them is a good thing? We go back to the old debate about do we trust the folks who do not even hold elections to determine how the world shall be run and assure our security. And I am talking about free countries, when countries like China would be running their own agenda with America as a very distant concern.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 9, 2006)

Well...

If I may be so bold...

_*If the attitudes presented in this thread are any indication*_, we know what they really think of the troops and those who served before.

​


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 9, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Oh, and giving up responsibility to them is a good thing? We go back to the old debate about do we trust the folks who do not even hold elections to determine how the world shall be run and assure our security. And I am talking about free countries, when countries like China would be running their own agenda with America as a very distant concern.


 
The real question is can we trust ourselves?


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 9, 2006)

The real question for those opposed to our policies, is what should be done? If not "fortress America" as I posted, then what? The only other alternative is to deal with the world. If we have to, I say again, what should be done?


----------



## Marginal (Nov 10, 2006)

Fortress American and Invadotron/Secret Prison American aren't the only models. Neither model is good in fact. 

It would seem to me that embracing globalization and actively deflating notions of nationalism at home and aborad would to much more to perpetuate global stablility in the long run.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 10, 2006)

Marginal said:


> Fortress American and Invadotron/Secret Prison American aren't the only models. Neither model is good in fact.
> 
> It would seem to me that embracing globalization and actively deflating notions of nationalism at home and aborad would to much more to perpetuate global stablility in the long run.


 
And how do you deflate notions of nationalism abroad without participating in what Tez3 described elsewhere as the US's inclination to tell others what to do?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 10, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Well...​
> 
> If I may be so bold...​
> _*If the attitudes presented in this thread are any indication*_, we know what they really think of the troops and those who served before.​


 
This thread is just another example in a long line of this type of stuff for some posters.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 10, 2006)

BTW. Happy Veterans day.


----------



## airdawg (Nov 10, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> And how do you deflate notions of nationalism abroad without participating in what Tez3 described elsewhere as the US's inclination to tell others what to do?


 
It is not the Us' responsibility to tell anyone what to do. We "should" lead by example through charity, not forced into a conflict by spineless world organizations.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 10, 2006)

airdawg said:


> It is not the Us' responsibility to tell anyone what to do. We "should" lead by example through charity, not forced into a conflict by spineless world organizations.


 
Wasn't implying that it was.  Marginal speculated that globalization and lowered feelings of nationalization would lead to global stability.  Problem is, that only works if everybody plays along.  If all but one person in the room drop their weapons, you don't have peace - you have one person in charge.  So his theory only works if everybody drops their nationalistic feelings.  But we can only urge our own citizens to do so, otherwise here we are again, the ugly Americans trying to shove our values down everyone elses throats.  

Say there's a leader of some ultra-nationalistic little country in the middle of BFE.  If all the big guys are lowering their weapons voluntarily, what is his incentive to do the same?  Do you really think that acts of charity have any sway with such a person?


----------



## airdawg (Nov 10, 2006)

no, I just dream of world led by more than mere men. If I were standing in that room, I would lower my weapon, but I would never lay it down. Due to hard learned lessons.


----------



## airdawg (Nov 10, 2006)

Looking at this from a nationalistic point of view, we have too many issues that need attention "here", to go crusading around the world. If they attack us, take care of the threat. What force is necessary to stop the threat?

If the US wanted to, we could probably conquer the world. Has that ever been good for any "empire?" 

what is the deference, if the "empire" is a group of countries that meet in NYC under the guise of peace. It simply cannot last without becoming tyrannical. The power needs to return to the people. 

We need a change.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 10, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> Wasn't implying that it was. Marginal speculated that globalization and lowered feelings of nationalization would lead to global stability. Problem is, that only works if everybody plays along.


 
As long as the bulk play along, it's the outsiders vs the entire world in essence. Mutual protection, not pacifism.

To answer your other question, there's a difference between leadership and telling others what to do. I beleive the US can lead without having to dictate if it provides a good example, and makes following such a path profitable. (Which it seems to be.)


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2006)

I believe that we can have a new strategy for national defense that does not propagate the constant state of militarism that developed after WWII.  I think the world is a changed place after the fall of the Soviet Union and we need to change directions or we risk turning into everything we've fought against.  

The unwarrented influence of the military industrial complex is the *ONLY* thing that threatens our freedom and the world's security in this new world and *I believe that it should be dismantled*.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 10, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> The unwarrented influence of the military industrial complex is the *ONLY* thing that threatens our freedom and the world's security in this new world and *I believe that it should be dismantled*.



And I have said it before, and will say it again... once your sword is beaten into a plowshare and you have been subjugated by those who kept their swords... dont turn to me looking for help.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> And I have said it before, and will say it again... once your sword is beaten into a plowshare and you have been subjugated by those who kept their swords... dont turn to me looking for help.


 
There is a difference between beating all of your swords to plowshares and beating some of your swords to plowshares.  I have never said that we should completely destroy the defense establishment.  I have only stated that we should reshape it.  Right now, not only is our military power absolute, we have a defense establishment in place that demands that it be used.

I think that we should spend an amount on defense that is competitive with other countries.  Spending an amount that is more then all other industrialized countries combined is not only morally obscene in terms of our national priorities, it risks tyranny.  

I think that we should focus on defending our country and NOT extending our hegemony across the earth.  I think that we need to be good global citizens and participate in the UN when it comes to matters that we all have a stake in.  I reject the role of the US as a world cop and so does the rest of the damn world.  

IMHO, we are our own worst enemies.  The military industrial complex is the greatest threat to freedom, democracy, and stablity in the world and we MUST dismantle it if we are going to survive as a nation we espouse to be.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 10, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I think that we should spend an amount on defense that is competitive with other countries. Spending an amount that is more then all other industrialized countries combined is not only morally obscene in terms of our national priorities, it risks tyranny.


 
As a martial artist, do you train only so much as to be competitive with whomever you might encounter, or do you train to win?  Would you feel as secure walking down the street knowing you were 'as good' as any potential assailant?  If we were to use other countries' defense budgets as a benchmark for our own, we risk the possibility of losing a war when other factors come into play - luck, surprise, intelligence, or whatever.  

We could step down from being the big dog, like England before us.  But somebody will always be ready to fill the void.  Who would you prefer?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> As a martial artist, do you train only so much as to be competitive with whomever you might encounter, or do you train to win? Would you feel as secure walking down the street knowing you were 'as good' as any potential assailant?


 
I often ask myself this question as I train.  I know that I could devote 100% of my time to training and that I could probably attain a level of skill that where I know that I could defeat just about anyone.  However, I have other priorities.  I have a career.  I have a family.  I have other hobbies.  All of those would have be put on the back burner while I focus on turning my body into this ultimate machine.

And then, once I acheived my goal, there would be the temptation to use it.  How do I know I am the best?  How can I prove this to myself?  There certainly is alot of trouble I could find for myself...and some of it may actually do some good, but who knows.

And then there is the fact that I couldn't keep it up forever.  Eventually, things would start to breakdown and things would get so expensive that it would not be possible for me to continue training at such a pace.  What would I have when I couldn't train like this anymore?  I've put all of my other priorities on the back burner and literally have nothing...

This is a good analogy as to where the US is now.  We are in debt up to our eyeballs.  Our infrastructure is falling apart.  The average Joe is wondering why they have less and less every year.  

Our military budget is entirely out of sync with what it actually would take to defend this country and that needs to change or we will lose this country.



> If we were to use other countries' defense budgets as a benchmark for our own, we risk the possibility of losing a war when other factors come into play - luck, surprise, intelligence, or whatever.


 
I don't think so.  Our current technology basically ensures that no one could mount a massive attack against our country without us knowing.  It also ensures that we could take out any such attack before it would even move toward us.  We don't need massive standing armies that span the entire earth.  We don't need to tempt our leaders to use them for their own greedy purposes.  We don't need to sacrifice our freedom or global stability for that.



> We could step down from being the big dog, like England before us. But somebody will always be ready to fill the void. Who would you prefer?


 
I would prefer that everybody took an equal role in the world's security.  I think that if the US played by the rules of the UN, this would happen on a larger scale.  

As it stands now, we occupy the position of the big dog, but if you look at what has happened to all of the other worlds big dogs, one will realize that this isn't a good position to be in.  A time will come where this power threatens the very fabric of this country.  A time will come where this power erodes our ideals steals our liberty.  A time will come where this power will become the single most dangerous and destabilizing force in the world.  

This time may very well be upon us.  This happened time and time again in the past and it will happen again, if we dare tread this path.  That is why I say we must dismantle the military industrial complex.  

We need to do it before it destroys our nation and threatens the world.


----------

