Ridiculous. Utterly baseless accusations. But then again, this is the group that thinks moveon.org and commondreams.org are legitimate information sources rather than socialist propaganda organs. Now as for a draft, it shouldn't happen again- ever. As someone with over 10 years active and 5 years reserve experience commanding troops as a sergeant, I can tell you that it is hard enough commanding with troops who want to be there. You have different personalities you have to deal with, dealing with fatigue, dealing with the tactical situation at hand and other problems. Those people signed on the dotted line and most want to be there. Add draftees to that and you're asking for disaster. You might even get these moveon.org weasels in front-line units. Do you think they'd fight in a war they did not "support?" They'd be the jackasses trying to get a medical discharge by any means necessary, even shooting themselves. I know the real reason why the left is whining about this- because they are looking for any way to stop this "immoral" war. The question is, would you allow yourself to be drafted? Don't bring me into that with accusations of "why aren't you there." I did my time. The question is, with a draft, would you do yours? I find it funny the same crew who whined and cried during Vietnam about the draft are the same ones who want it back! Kind of ironic.
Let's see how many College Republicans sign up for the Bush Cheney War of Errors. What's that silence - the sound of almost all the supporters of the war refusing to move an inch to fight in this war they say is the right thing to do. From what I've heard from the right, those Iraqis are welcoming us with open arms, there's nothing to worry about, take your soma, drink the kool aid, and it will be all right. And if you truly believed in this war - send your children, not ours.
As I said in the previous thread about the draft. If I was called up I would go, even to Iraq. I by all means don't want to go but I believe that a shared burden is important and if that's what my country wants from me I would do it. As for those moveon.org weasels going I would think you would be all for that. Wouldn't you feel better that they had been through an experience like yours so maybe they could understand your positions better?
As for those moveon.org weasels going I would think you would be all for that. Wouldn't you feel better that they had been through an experience like yours so maybe they could understand your positions better No, are you kidding. Bama much prefers a chickenhawk conservative like Dubya or Cheney to a battle experienced guy like Kerry. Hey, Bama, are you subjet to being recalled as an "inactive reserve"?
Fusion surgery on the veterbrae in my neck (thanks largely to a life playing contact sports and a bad helicopter crash at Camp LeJeune) permanently ended my military career and my chances of returning to the gridiron. The surgery resulted in me being medically discharged 5 years short of retirement. But the trade-off is that I no longer have bone chips scraping from a mangled disc floating around in my neck, which is painful! I'd much rather have Bush and Cheney because they are committed to fighting the war on terror, not cowering to the UN like Kerry will do if president. Why is it that you liberals got so bent out of shape when some called Clinton a draft-dodger, saying that it wasn't necessary to serve in order to be commander in chief, but now, it is a condition to serve? John Kerry is not a hero or do I consider his service honorable. He tried to go the PT-109 route like his fellow Massachusetts politician JFK and found that it didn't agree with him. He got a couple of pinprick, minor wounds and ran away at the first opportunity. Some bravery there. One of my gunnies in the Corps was wounded twice in Vietnam (I served under his direction waaaaay back in 1987) , once so severely that he nearly bled to death, yet.....the sonuvabitch went back for more! Now that folks is courage. John Kerry came home and told lies about the war, but more importantly, about his bretheren in uniform. He betrayed them to make a name for himself and that is unforgiveable. He was no different than the other scumballs in the anti-American, providing-aid-and-comfort crowd. I love that term, chickenhawk. Did you think of that one all by yourself? So if you don't serve, according to your logic, you shouldn't be allowed to send others off to war? Well, under your faulty logic, Clinton shouldn't have been able to send us to Haiti, eh? How about Kosovo, where your boy Wesley Clark established himself as one of the greatest bunglers of modern warfare and was later fired from his NATO post. We've seen what liberals do in charge (Carter and Clinton) and the results are not pretty (Iran hostage crisis, 9/11, Chinagate). Anyone who thinks of voting for that godawful long-faced liar should bear that in mind. We need Winston Churchill right now, not Neville Chamberlain and while Bush is no Churchill, he's a lot closer than Neville Kerry.
But BS, that's EXACTLY what Bush and Cheney have been doing in Iraq. Since they have no plan of their own and chaos is breaking out all over the damned place, they've had no choice but to turn to the UN. Remember Bush's press conference from last month, when they asked him who was going to run postwar Iraq? Here's the exchange: "Mr. Brahimini" refers to Lakdhar Brahimini, the UN envoy to Iraq. (note, his resume includes the rebuilding of Afghanistan...not unlike being navigator on the Titanic) I'm not sure if a better expression of the administration's cluelesseness and utter befuddlement on Iraq can be found anywhere. As John Stewart said about this issue (which is still completely unresolved, with just 6 weeks to go till the handover) "The baby is in the air!" And it's up to the UN envoy to catch. The Bush Administration has done a complete 180 on this issue in the past year...from "no UN involvement" to "let the UN figure out this damn mess". The rest of your post is just a bunch of caricature about how democrats are weak and republicans are strong; I don't care much to get into it at this late hour, but I've said it before and will say it again, history shows otherwise.
Yeah kinda makes you wonder what the hell were they thinking awarding him the Silver Star? Oh yeah it was charging into combat and saving his wounded troops. Its funny how critics of Kerry go on and on about trying to diminish his Purple Hearts yet I've yet to hear anyone question his Silver Star.
I dunno...I guess bamaslammer is qualified to tell us what constitutes brave and honorable service. For myself, being close enough to live gunfire to be hit more than once qualifies as pretty brave. But then I am a liberal wussy, who never served in the Military. Course one of my brothers best friends was in the service, and required Food Stamps...and he also felt compelled to move his marrage up quite a few months just so he could have some decent housing. I wish some of these...Keep the Military Strong bills that get passed by Republican congresses would find their way to the people doing the fighting instead of defense contractors.
So, what's wrong with this guy? I guess he hates America and loves terrorists. http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/9316830p-10241546c.html Atrocities in Iraq: 'I killed innocent people for our government' By Paul Rockwell -- Special to The Bee Published 2:15 am PDT Sunday, May 16, 2004 "We forget what war is about, what it does to those who wage it and those who suffer from it. Those who hate war the most, I have often found, are veterans who know it." - Chris Hedges, New York Times reporter and author of "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" For nearly 12 years, Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey was a hard-core, some say gung-ho, Marine. For three years he trained fellow Marines in one of the most grueling indoctrination rituals in military life - Marine boot camp. The Iraq war changed Massey. The brutality, the sheer carnage of the U.S. invasion, touched his conscience and transformed him forever. He was honorably discharged with full severance last Dec. 31 and is now back in his hometown, Waynsville, N.C. When I talked with Massey last week, he expressed his remorse at the civilian loss of life in incidents in which he himself was involved. Q: You spent 12 years in the Marines. When were you sent to Iraq? A: I went to Kuwait around Jan. 17. I was in Iraq from the get-go. And I was involved in the initial invasion. Q: What does the public need to know about your experiences as a Marine? A: The cause of the Iraqi revolt against the American occupation. What they need to know is we killed a lot of innocent people. I think at first the Iraqis had the understanding that casualties are a part of war. But over the course of time, the occupation hurt the Iraqis. And I didn't see any humanitarian support. . . .
I cast serious doubt on whether or not he deserved any of his medals. He's an opportunist, which is bad and a political one at that, which is far worse. Kerry wouldn't know what the truth was if it bit him the butt. I'd say that he didn't deserve a one of those medals. link link And as for this guy, he doesn't sound like much of a Marine to me. Something sounds very, very fishy. He sounds more like a peacenik moveon.org, ANSWER numbnuts than any Marine I ever knew. In fact, he sounds a lot like a certain presidential candiate I know after Vietnam. Accusing folks of war crimes is serious business.
I hate to say this about you because I always thought you might be an intelligent, reasonable conservative, but you are approaching the same ballpark as t_j. You are questioning the war service, purple hearts, and SILVER STAR (they don't just hand those out like flyers for hookers in Vegas) of someone who, despite a background of wealth and privilege, decided to go to Vietnam, refused a behind the lines job in favor of one that took him into combat, and by all accounts served valoriously (not just honorably, but with VALOR) while there. I can understand why you look down on his post war activities (even though nobody today disputes that Vietnam was an unjustified war that DESERVED to be protested), but you are way out to lunch on this issue. If there was a conservative candidate with war service running against a Democrat who took every opportunity to stay out of Vietnam, your tune would be 180 degrees different and that, my friend, is hypocracy.
Andy, I just don't buy it. He campaigned for those medals, which is unheard of. I oppose him because I think he's an ideological basket case and because he can't stop talking about Vietnam, a war that he wasn't exactly Sergeant York in. If I hear him say "When I was in Vietnam," one more time, I think I'll hurl. The real blame lies with his CO's who signed off on his medals. When this many people have said something publicly about his "bravery," I get suspicious. And as for your assertion that if the conservative candidate was a war hero, I'd be trumpeting that. The answer is no. Just because you served and did it well does not automatically merit my vote or the vote of any other veteran.
Nobody has even claimed that he "campaigned" for the Silver Star, the one that establishes him as a brave, valorious war hero. You have obviously not heard him speak much. The only time he talks about Vietnam is when he is directly questioned on it. He is not making it a campaign issue, the PRESS is doing that. You need to start listening and stop assuming. So, you are suspicious based on people saying that he "campaigned" for his medals and then when people come out to defend someone they think WAS valorious, you get suspicious because of THAT too? You are just biased and cannot think logically about those you consider "liberal." Then why all the trumpeting about Clinton's lack of service? Bama, What do you think about John Kerry's plan to fund the intelligence services MASSIVELY and then use covert operations to take out the terrorists when we identify them? That seems like the way to put fear in the hearts of these people. It is much more frightening to think that someone is going to cut your throat in the middle of the night than when you know exactly where the enemy is (like when they have a standing army and are fighting that way).
If this war is so important, enlist. If fighting and killing Iraqis is important to you, sign up and go over there. Today. Go to a recruiting office and enlist this afternoon. Oh, but you're too old, too busy, too comfortable, blah, blah, blah. If it's OK for others to die for your cause, then it should be OK for you to die for it. Otherwise, you're full of sh*t.
I strongly doubt he will fund them massively, he voted previously for massive CUTS in intel. He believes that we can be protected by the toothless bunch of corrupt, incompetent hacks known as the UN. He is no friend of an aggressive foreign policy that strikes the terrorists where they live. As for me being biased, Kerry is all about raising taxes. Kerry is not going to aggressively pursue any sort of war on terror. He's no friend of personal property rights (since he's in bed like all liberals with the kook fringe enviro-nazi movement) or economic liberty. He, like all liberals, think that money is best spent by Washington bureaucrats and a corrupt Congress, so he sees no need to give back to those who earned it more of what is rightfully theirs. I've heard him speak enough and it is almost laughable. He's a buffoon and you are still lapping up every word as if it were gospel. This whole "Anybody but Bush" thing is hilarious, but be careful what you wish for. I've seen what liberals (Carter, Clinton) do in office and the results are not pretty. First he bemoans a deal with the Saudis and Bush to drop oil prices in October, but now he says that Bush has not done enough to get all over OPEC's butt to cut price. What a moron! Much of what is going on today in regards to terrorism can be traced back to the stupid, rudderless foreign policy of Jimmy Carter, the next worst president besides Bill Clinton of the 20th century. Thanks Jimmy for letting Iran fall to the Mullahs. Thanks for giving away the Panama Canal needlessly despite public opposition. Thanks for calling tax cuts inflationary. Thanks for coddling dictators from North Korea to Haiti to Cuba. Thanks for negotiating a deal to give the North Korea wingnuts a nuclear reactor!? in exchange for their promises to "play nice." Thanks, but no thanks. Four more years of Bush, while not perfect, is a much better alternative than Kerry. Actually, I think my dachsund could do a better job than Kerry running our country.
I couldn't sign up if I wanted to, you moron. With that, you have seriously pissed me off. And to think I used to like you. Get your stupid ass over there and fight, you bum. Oh, that's right, like the rest of your lefty friends, its an "elective" war. Never mind that we've found WMD, confirming my worst fears. Never mind that Saddam was a threat to use them, be it on Israel or his own people (already had). By that rationale, your ass should have been over in Haiti and other turd-world sinkholes your boy Bill Clinton pissed away our military in by participating in bull**** "peacekeeping" ops with people.....who don't want peace. Peace only happens through victory. I at least am grown-up enough to realize that sometimes it is necessary to fight. You people would rather cower and hide like cowards while whining "why do they hate us?" Give me a break. But don't worry. While you guys cry and whine about "Bush scandals" and whacko conspiracy theories, the grownups will make sure you're not on the receiving end of some NBC weapons. Sleep well and thank God or whatever deity you pray to that there are people of my ideological bent to protect the "too-much-time-on-their-hands" bleeding heart crowd you clearly belong to. When will you people ever learn? I thought 9/11 would provide a wakeup, but instead, it's back to the same-old, same-old with you folks. No different than your attitude during the Cold War, which was won by our might, not by kissing the Soviets' asses and running around worrying that we'll piss them off and start WWIII.
So are you just refusing to believe anything that he says??? He specifically said (on Meet the Press a couple of weeks ago) that his "War on Terrorism" would continue through a massive increase in intelligence funding and covert operations to take out the terrorists we identify with said intel. His "votes to cut intel" also ALL came pre-9/11 AND many of those votes have been debunked as part of large spending bills with one or two line items regarding intelligence services. On the richest 1%. Everyone who makes under $50K pays NO federal income tax under his plan. You know this based on...your crystal ball...predictions by Nostradamus...a Tarot reading? Again, you are making assumptions and not listening to anything. But that seems to be par for the course with you and your crusade against those "liberal" windmills. Now you are generalizing and lumping entire classes of people together. As has been mentioned before, Bush has been the biggest spender in DC in a century. With him and the GOP congress, they will continue to bankrupt this country while you blather away about your "liberals." I believe that evaluating a candidates campaign promises is a necessary part of determining who I will vote for. You, on the other hand, start by assuming everything he says is a lie simply because he is a "liberal." I do not believe everything Kerry says, but I do think that the strategy he maps out for the war on terror will be MUCH more effective than the bungling of the current administration. You may have heard him speak, but you have obviously not actually listened to or evaluated any of the content of these speeches. I think that is because you know that if you did, you might *shudder* actually consider voting for him. I will admit that I was on the "anybody but Bush" bandwagon for a while, but having heard (and actually evaluated) his positions, I will be voting FOR Kerry and not against Bush. I think you are projecting again. Please point me to the statements you claim Kerry made. You have an extremely bad habit of taking statements made by people OTHER THAN Kerry and projecting them as if Kerry said them (like your insistance that Kerry touts his service in Vietnam at every opportunity). You would prefer that we were STILL propping up a dictator? You mean because of the treaty that we signed that said we would give up control of the canal? You would suggest that we break said treaty? Or would you prefer that we just invade and occupy Panama? And I think that either one of my mutts could evaluate a presidential candidate more effectively than you. You have such a blind hatred of "liberals" that you cannot even begin to look at an opposing viewpoint. You are so dead set against anyone left of Rush or Hannity that you cannot even admit that Kerry's plan for the war on terror will be MUCH more effective than the lunacy we have going on right now. Closedminded. Prejudiced. Hateful.
Wasn't directed toward you, dude. I'm talking about the chickenhawks who squawk for war, but run and hide when the sign-up sheet comes around. They want the fight, but they don't want to get dirty. Those are the people I'm talking about -- not you, who had the guts to fight for what you believed in.
Again you show your ignorance. Did you ever consider reading the article by Wesley Clark that addressed this very topic? http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77612 Read it and you might see the fallacy in the way the neocons are treating the war on terror versus the brilliance shown by the Reagan administration regarding the Cold War.
