# democrats and their disdain of the military



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

DEMOCRAT DISDAIN FOR THE MILITARY

http://wvgazette.com/News/200804070734

I know I'm a day late with this one ... but I'm certainly not going to ignore it just because some of my colleagues have already addressed it.

West Virginia Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller was being interviewed the editorial board of the Charleston Gazette. During that interview he uttered this gem:

"McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they (the missiles) get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."

First of all ... I rather seriously doubt that our military was using laser-guided bombs during the Vietnam War. Also, the aircraft that McCain was flying in Vietnam was not to drop bombs from 35,000 feet. It would seem that Senator Rockefeller has a rather limited understanding of our military's mission, tactics or capabilities ... but that's beside the point.

The real point here is what we witnessed is just another in a long string of statements and actions that vividly illustrate the disdain (if not outright hatred) that so many Democrats feel toward our military. There's Hillary using the Marine Corps to serve canapés at White House functions - then scrambling to get on the Senate Armed Forces Committee as soon as she's sworn in. Why? To mend fences - to show how much she loves our men and women in uniform.

Then there's that sap John Kerry and his false stories about our men in Vietnam. Do you remember the words? He said that U.S. forces in Vietnam were guilty of systematic war crimes, including rape, murder, mutilation and pillage with the full knowledge and complicity of their entire chain of command. Some Naval aviators felt that Kerry's actions in leading protests on his return the U.S. resulted in extended stays in North Vietnamese prisons.

Then there's Jack Murtha talking about U.S. Marines killing innocent civilians in Iraq "in cold blood." Those marines were later exonerated.

There's a reason why the vast majority of people serving in our military vote Republican. These people understand who is on their side and who is not. They understand that Democrats hold them in near-contempt. They understand that Democrats would much rather spend money on vote-buying programs than on beefing up our military.

Do you folks remember the aftermath of the 2000 election in Florida? Do you remember that the Democrat Party sent hoards of Democrats to Florida during the recount imbroglio with orders to do whatever they could do to make sure that military absentee ballots were not counted? How's that for respect for our military ... engaging in an overt effort to disqualify military votes in an election? Remember ... if the networks hadn't called the election for Bush in 2000 one hour before the polls closed in the military-rich Florida panhandle there would never have been a recount fight. The estimates are that Bush lost 13,000 votes there when military voters went home thinking that the contest was in the bag.

So ... Jay Rockefeller later apologizes. BS. He's only apologizing because the story became radioactive. He's doing what he has to do to calm the storm. We heard what Rockefeller really thought when he was talking to that editorial board. 
End quote

the republicans are a huge dissapointment but how anyone could vote for this guy is beyond me uke:


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

Choice: Disapointing or Disgusting?


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

It is sad. Those people we were and are now fighting would kill your family and be happy about it. These Dems make me sick.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

People said:


> It is sad. Those people we were and are now fighting would kill your family and be happy about it. These Dems make me sick.


Yeah ..sometimes I like to think of a democrat as someone with a disease and just can't help it. Like an alcoholic that needs tough love and intervention of some sort :sniper: 
But some are like the sheep and just follow blindly.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> But some are like the sheep and just follow blindly.


That might be the most hypocritical statement I've read in a long time.

You guys, who for some reason, blindly trust a government that has proven to falsify their justifications with lies, and who continue to lead us in the wrong direction...are really the biggest sheep we have in the US today.

I'd try to reason with you, but for some, you'd rather just continue to go on with your heads in the sand.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

What lie would you be referring to :roll: .

I'm really fed up with the republicrats and the demicans they both are self interested crooks playing all of us against each other as they get rich without regard for the country.

However the comments by Rockefeller, Kerry and elected Dems in general about the military, which was the topic of this thread, do in fact showcase how they have felt about the military since the 60's.

And that is unjustified.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> I'd try to reason with you, but for some, you'd rather just continue to go on with your heads in the sand.


For someone that swallowed hook line and sinker the cooked up story there are two al-Qaeda's you have little room to talk.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

I have little room to talk? This coming from someone who believed the cooked up story that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. Or who believes we are fighting "terrorists" there.

In Iraq, we aren't fighting the people who attacked us. Those people are safely getting ready to attack us again in Pakistan.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> Or who believes we are fighting "terrorists" there.


Nahhh, No terrorists in Iraq!!!!!  :eyeroll:


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

In the first place I don't recall anyone on this forum stating those responsible for 9/11 were in Iraq so where does that comment come from? Second place as everyone knows we went into Iraq because the world, again that's the world as in all leading nations thought Saddam had WMD's. After we were there al-Qaeda, who by the way had been there before, came in full force because they thought they had a chance to turn the Muslim world against us and create a blood bath. Didn't work out that way for them but they are still there and we are fighting them.

What ever fantasy world you have beaming your information to you needs to be changed because you certainly haven't a clue. Even our own intelligence would not make a 100% certain claim that Bin Laden and his henchmen are in Pakistan. Give them a call, I'm sure they can use all that secret information you undoubtedly have access to.


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

I've heard this over and over. "Bush lied, that's why we went to Iraq and that's why we're still there." See above, we went because of the danger of WMD's. Did he have them? Well, he used a bunch on his own people. But I don't guess that counts, because he obviously used them all up. 
Yeah, right. uke:


----------



## CuttinDaisies (Nov 15, 2007)

djleye said:


> > Or who believes we are fighting "terrorists" there.
> 
> 
> Nahhh, No terrorists in Iraq!!!!!  :eyeroll:


Nope, just insurgents. I.E. people who don't want us in their country but who aren't planning to kill us.

What would happen if a country invaded the United States, you would want them dead too.

These people didn;t attack us.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

CuttinDaisies said:


> djleye said:
> 
> 
> > > Or who believes we are fighting "terrorists" there.
> ...


Ya know, Germany didnt attack us. German "Insurgents" attacked our soldiers and other Germans well through the 1960s. Tell us how this is any different.


----------



## goldhunter470 (Feb 25, 2005)

sdeprie said:


> I've heard this over and over. "Bush lied, that's why we went to Iraq and that's why we're still there." See above, *we went because of the danger of WMD's*. Did he have them? Well, he used a bunch on his own people. But I don't guess that counts, because he obviously used them all up.
> Yeah, right. uke:


Alright. Taking this as the gospel, and knowing that Iran is possibly plotting towards WMDs, do we invade Iran too? North Korea has nukes. Do we invade them? Just curious as to your thoughts on this.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> do we invade Iran too?


It very well may come to that in the end. You can bet your life's savings Israel will.



> North Korea has nukes.


That's true but one nation is a communist regime that looks for power and self interest while the other nation is made up of religious fanatics bent on suicide as the ultimate reward. One wants you dead, the other just wants what you have.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Matt Jones said:


> I have little room to talk? This coming from someone who believed the cooked up story that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. Or who believes we are fighting "terrorists" there.
> 
> In Iraq, we aren't fighting the people who attacked us. Those people are safely getting ready to attack us again in Pakistan.


We know how the democrats were all against the war :wink: 
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

CuttingDaisies, I wish you would check out history. These people did attack us, on many occassions. They just didn't come in under any banners. These people are the fanatical Islamic Jihadists who do want you dead. That is not to say all Muslims are the same. There are 2 main factions with many smaller less well defined groups. We would like to support the more reasonable Muslims who are willing to live in tolerance. The insurgents (Terrorists) are NOT willing to tolerate any infidels, anywhere. Wake up.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> Matt Jones said:
> 
> 
> > I have little room to talk? This coming from someone who believed the cooked up story that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. Or who believes we are fighting "terrorists" there.
> ...


Good point. As a country, we all supported going into Iraq...or almost all. Hell, Bush had a 90% approval rating at the time!

I guess I should have said, someone who _still_ believes the cooked up stories we've been fed along the way.

I have a great deal of respect for our armed forces. My disdain is for the people who are commanding them right now.


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

I've said it before, I'm tired of hearing how we were lied to which led us to being in Iraq. If we were lied to, it wasn't by Bush. Every intelligence agency in the world said the same thing. Too many people think we can't afford to be in Iraq, but not enough people recognize we can't afford to lose in Iraq. Aw, never mind. I'm tired of hitting my head on a brick wall.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

> I guess I should have said, someone who still believes the cooked up stories we've been fed along the way.


I would say way before GWB was in office check snopes.com link.
Oh by the way Saddam really wasn't there either.....oh yeah... they found him where? :wink:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Matt Jones said:


> Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:
> 
> 
> > Matt Jones said:
> ...


Just remember UNITED WE STAND, *DIVIDED WE FALL *:wink:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> Just remember UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL


"Fall" against what, exactly? An attack from Iraq?

Oh, now I understand.... you still think that the war in Iraq has something to do with 9/11 and GWB's War on Terror[ism].


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> Matt Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:
> ...


No matter where we go,what we do,how long it takes,how much it costs, or how many of our solders get killed. :lost:

We should all be united like a bunch of Lemmings following GWB over the cliff. :koolaid:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

KEN W said:


> Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:
> 
> 
> > Matt Jones said:
> ...


I'm glad You and Hillary were there taking all that sniper fire for *us* in combat... so *WE *were in* it *together.....THANKS AGAIN for your *UNITED *support! :eyeroll:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Just keep drinking the...... :koolaid: We are getting closer to the edge of that cliff. :shake:

Hillary who????


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

KEN W said:


> Just keep drinking the...... :koolaid: We are getting closer to the edge of that cliff. :shake:
> 
> Hillary who????


And there ya have it "democrats and their disdain of the military" if the democrats would have shown a little more RESPECT for the military, Gore could have beat Bush in Florida...that's how close it was ..... the military absentee ballot pushed GWB over the top....condescending attitudes towards the military have been killing the democrats...Kerry's comment referring to if your not smart enough in school you end up in Iraq. YEP just keep up that condescending approach it's really helping out your socialist brothers.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

You have a one track mind.....I have just as much respect for our military as you do.....maybe more,since I really don't know you.

Just because Democrats don't want our troops in an endless war between 2 groups of religious fanatics doesn't mean we don't support a strong military.The Sunni's and Shiites will fight this out in the end no matter what we do there.

I support our troops in Afganistan.After 911 that was definitely needed.We have absolutely no reason to be in Irag.Just because I don't support The Idiot in the White House who got us in this everlasting mess doesn't mean I don't support our military in the right situations.You however don't seem to care where we send them,or what it is doing to our country.

We need to start realizing we are not the world's policemen.This situation isn't a whole lot different than Vietnam.We eventually didn't support that one blindly either.History will repeat itself once again.

LIke I said,keep drinking the :koolaid: .......We will just keep spending money we need here at home and get more of our men and women killed for nothing.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

> I support our troops in Afghanistan.After 911 that was definitely needed.We have absolutely no reason to be in Iraq.Just because I don't support The Idiot in the White House who got us in this everlasting mess *doesn't mean I don't support our military in the right situations*.You however don't seem to care where we send them,or what it is doing to our country


I put part of your post in bold, Ken because it underscores exactly what this thread is about. Many crying on your side voted to go to war. They looked at the situation and the polls and went OH MY! WE HAVE TO VOTE YES, WE DO NOT HAVE THE BALLS TO VOTE A POSITION! So they used the military as a pawn to maintain or gain power! The Yes vote on going to war was at the time the right situation for many of them because of the polls!!!!!!!!!

Now the polls switch and the military once again is a pawn of the left. Nothing more than a filler in the road used to smooth out their drive in an attempt to gain the White House!

The issue is no longer Ken if we should or should not have went into Iraq! The issue is what do we do forward and what plan of action has the most positive long term outcome for the nation. I do not see a time table withdrawal being anything any different than watching the helicopters leaving the Embassy in Saigon with people jumping from the top of the fence in an attempt to grab the legs of a helicopter.

Do you remember the fall of the Shaw of Iran? Another case where a Dem demanded immediate change that was impossible to do and ran away! How did that work out for the US and the region?

So while Bobs brush may have been a bit broad Ken, you came on with your last post and validated his opinion!


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Very well put Ron. I wish I had your talent at expressing myself. I don't think we have a idiot in the White House. I believe we have a man in there that looked into the future and saw a terrible head on collision coming down our side of the highway called Islamic terrorist. Did he misjudge and handle it poorly? He certainly did that but his decision to handle the situation on our terms was the right one.

There will come a day when we will will draw down from Iraq with only a token defense force in place such as we have in other countries. That day is not as far off as some would believe. But, and the big but is if people think that is the end of the threat they are sadly mistaken. We are in a kill or be killed situation now and wherever the enemy goes next we will have to follow if that country is not capable of driving them out themselves.

The only other option we have is to accept a life such as the Israeli's live, with suicide bombers blowing up our shopping malls and school buses. This has nothing to do with policing the world but everything to do with guaranteeing our own future. It's called survival Ken, and we won't survive by ignoring the problem or believing it will simply go away.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

goldhunter470 said:


> sdeprie said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard this over and over. "Bush lied, that's why we went to Iraq and that's why we're still there." See above, *we went because of the danger of WMD's*. Did he have them? Well, he used a bunch on his own people. But I don't guess that counts, because he obviously used them all up.
> ...


My intention isn't to pick on you in this post goldhunter, but to bring people into the past to see today more clearly.

Like Iraq in the past nearly every country thinks Iran is making WMD's now. With out Iraq experience we will be much more cautious about Iran. Perhaps more cautious than we should be. Because of all the Bush lied people died mantra that we hear from the liberals we may be so cautious that we will be to late. 
What could possibly trigger us into going into Iran. Certainly the majority of the countries of the world thinking that WMD's will be made shortly isn't enough. What president would go in on world intelligence after the experience GW has faced? Would you? 
I wonder if a democrat (Obama) is elected and has to go into Iran if the republicans will say Obama lied people died? I know true conservatives would not endanger the military so casually. Not only have liberals endangered our soldiers, given hope to the terrorists, and prolonged the war in Iraq, but because we are now so cautious we are endangered in the future. Forget which party you see yourself affiliated with and ask yourself: is political power more important than American survival? Is your Bush lied people died bottom (button, button, darn spell check) more important than a 19 year old American in Iraq today? Everyone of us by what we say are somewhat responsible for what happens in Iraq. We can bicker among ourselves when this is over, but what do you do today? Do you support our soldiers, or do you support advantage over GW who isn't even running this term? 
Each of us will have to decide our loyalties, and if country or political party are the most important. My loyalties are God, family, country -------- political party don't make it on the list. I don't owe a political party anything. I resist some political schemes because they endanger the top three on my list.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Support for our military has been the ***** in our Armor for many years and until we unite it will continue to be our weakness. Lack of support gives the enemy HOPE and they intensify their attacks with HOPES of us tucking tail and running.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Ron.....the Democrat leading the race and the one most likely to be on the ballot voted no on starting this war.Obama did not support it from the start.So he isn't useing it as a pawn and never did.

I do remember the pullout of Saigon.....which incidently was under the directtion of a Republican,not a Democrat.In fact it is just the opposite of this war.....Democrats started the troop build-up there and Republicans pulled out when even they saw it as a loser.Although Eisenhower really started the Vietnam war and eventually got us out of Korea.

Any blindman can see when the people of this country won't support the action,except Bush.Even his father knew going into Bagdad was a hopeless cause.Because Hussein was a buffer against Iran....now both countries will probably wind up extremeist whether we stay for 1 year or another 10.

My main point here is I'm tired of seeing conservqative Republicans saying Demiocrats don't support our military.We do just as much as Republicans do.We are not diseased or lioke alcoholics just because we see no gain in staying there and having more Americans killed for nothing.

We just don't feel every out of the way place in the world needs us looking over their shoulder and trying to make them just like us.As I said above ......Afganistan neede a full scale invasion after 9/11.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> the Democrat leading the race and the one most likely to be on the ballot voted no on starting this war


Now how can that be? Obama hadn't even been elected to office when the Iraq war started.



> I do remember the pullout of Saigon.....which incidently was under the directtion of a Republican,not a Democrat.In fact it is just the opposite of this war.....Democrats started the troop build-up there and Republicans pulled out when even they saw it as a loser.


Wrong again. The pull out of Saigon was a result of the Democrat congress cutting all funding for the war. "Historians have directly attributed the fall of Saigon in 1975 to the cessation of American aid. Without the necessary funds, South Vietnam found it logistically and financially impossible to defeat the North Vietnamese army. Moreover, the withdrawal of aid encouraged North Vietnam to begin an effective military offensive against South Vietnam."

You may be tired of hearing it but history has proven in the past and is repeating itself today that the Democrats in Washington do not support the military.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> ust because I don't support The Idiot in the White House


Ken, Who are you to call the president an idiot? Do you actually feel you are superior to him? I don't agree with the President, or do i like many of the things he has done. Unlike you I would not call him an idiot.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Yeah g/o, let's stand up for Bush. How dare someone call him an idiot!

Yet it's fine for people to routinely call Obama the anti-christ or Osama or to refer to Hillary as a ****, evil bytch, etc. on these forums.

No bias there.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

cwo points out that Obama was not in the Senate at the time. He did not have a chance to vote on the war authorization bill. He has since voted to spend the money to finance the war.

Ken I am well aware that there are people who want the war to end and now. Now Ken, I will ask you the same question I have asked others who want an immediate pull out! Tell me what you do when the country and regions explodes? Tell me and others do we go back in and calm it down? Stay out and allow Syria and Iran to take over. Look at Lebanon as an example of Syrian influence!

I want to know what you would do! We know what Obama said he would do! He stated he would go back in! Spill blood to regain the ground we once controlled and walked away from!

Do your views line up with Obama? Do you have another plan or idea!

Remember that " We should not have been there in the first place! " is not an answer. Nor is the Pres lied, or any of the stuff that keeps being regurgitated.

We are there regardless of the reason. So what is the plan of action if the worse case scenario happens, give us an idea of how we deal with it and if it requires more troops and more deaths would this then be a position you would support because it is now Obama idea?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Ron.....no where did I say I wanted an immediate pullout.In fact I don't recall saying anything about a pullout at all.But I will now......A serious timetable with a gradual pullout would give the Iraquis notice that if they want a free country,they better get their act together.This will not go on forever.

I mainly said we shouldn't be there and that just because Democrats want us out of there in a resonable amount of time with a deadline,doesn't mean we don't stand behind our military.

I was wrong about Obama voting no.....but then again he hasn't voted yes either.And this doesn't make him a traitor to his country as some here have said.

And G/O since we have free speech here.....I can call GWB an idiot can't I?Look at the garbage name calling of both Obama and Clinton on this Forum and the snide jokes almost daily for over a year.Ron even calls our 3 Democratic Senators and Representative the Three Stooges.He and you have the right to do that......But heaven forbids someone calling our current President something.Well I have that right alsld "Mission Accomplished George" deserves what he is getting.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I mainly said we shouldn't be there and that just because Democrats want us out of there in a reasonable amount of time with a deadline,doesn't mean we don't stand behind our military.


You know, I have often wondered: has Bush given Iraq a timetable? If he told the whole world that they had a timetable then the terrorists would know they only have to hold on until that time passes. If I was going to give them a timetable, it would be in private so that I would not contribute to that scenario. It would be tough to do that and have all the people back home demanding something you have already done, but unable to tell them because it would cost American lives. 
Is it possible, sure, probable, who knows? Many things happen in this world that none of us have any idea about. I do know one thing. Those guys that go to Washington sure appear to age fast. They couldn't get me to do that job for all the money in the world. No matter what they do some armchair quarter back (me included some times) is going to second guess them. 
This Iraq thing is more complicated than any of use could even guess ---- I would guess.  Ya, I know.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Ron....let me ask you a question......how long should we stay there?Forever,no matter how many soldiers are killed?When do we say enough is enough.Time to go home and let them work it out.Put a timetable in place telling them we will not be there forever and we don't have a bottomless pit of money to spend there.

Plainsman.....your'e right,we probably don't know.But we do know that this "looks like it could go on forever."And the majority of Americans want us out of there.Or at the very least let them pay for it themselves.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Give me a break Ron...you're asking others for a plan? What's the plan now?

While you're backing McCain you ask other's for their plan? What's his plan again? Oh yeah, it's to keep dumping money down a rathole indefinitely while trying to achieve his goal even though he has no idea if that goal is even possible of achieving. His goal is an independent and democratic Iraq. We need to ask ourselves if this goal is even possible.

Unless you have a plan to fund the war without borrowing money, then to me...you don't have a plan.

I truly believe that all we're doing right now is delaying the inevitable. When you have two groups of people who aren't rational and who have been trying to kill each other for 1400 years over stupid religious beliefs...there is no way for us to magically make them rational and diplomatic enough to sit down and unite to form this shining beacon of democracy in the middle east, that everyone is hoping for. We're naive to think it is even possible.

These people are going to kill each other whenever we leave. So why stay there indefinitely while we waste $billions and lose troops and weaken our country? If they're going to fight (and they are) then let's let them fight.

The new President's plan should go something like this after being elected;

1. Meet with leaders around the world about our status in Iraq. Most of them are behind seeing the US withdraw from Iraq (since most were against seeing us go in there in the first place). Once you have made a public campaign openly discussing withdrawing from Iraq with these leaders on record behind you, you then move on to step 2.

2. A full-scale withdrawl within 18 months. Leaving only enough troops to protect embassies and diplomats. You tell the Iraqi government it's time to sink or swim, and that we're gone. IMO this is the only way the current government might actually do something. If we continue to be there, they will continue to do nothing.

3. Shyte will most likely hit the fan. Unless the government miraciously swims (which is highly unlikely) Iraq will erupt into chaos with the Sunnis and Shiites fighting for control of the country. This is going to happen when we leave...whether it's next year or in 50 years.

4. Someone will take power. It might take years of chaos, but it will happen. When you have some form of government, even if it is another dictator like Saddam, there is at least someone at the top running the country who we can _Directly_ deal with.

_5._ _If_ the fighting spreads and the surrounding countries can't contain it, which is possible but not probable IMO, then you are forced to go back to Iraq. BUT, this time...we won't be going back alone. Since other world leaders supported the withdrawl and it didn't work, they too are now obligated in fixing the problem. If we utterly must be there as a stabilizing presence, at least it won't exclusively be at our cost and it won't bankrupt our country this time around.

Radical enough for you? 

Hey, at least I have a plan!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ken, Thats right I forgot you taught school for how many years? That gives you the right to call someone an idiot. :eyeroll:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Nope has nothing to do with it.I was born an American citizen......that gives me the right.

So are you saying it is OK to read all the name calling of every Democrat runnng for office here but the president is exempt????


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Someone will take power.


That is correct, and it will be someone supported by Iran, Syria, or both.



> If the fighting spreads and the surrounding countries can't contain it, which is possible but not probable IMO, then you are forced to go back to Iraq. BUT, this time...we won't be going back alone. Since other world leaders supported the withdrawl and it didn't work, they too are now obligated in fixing the problem.


I think that is dreaming. They through the United Nations were supposed to help more now. What was it 18 resolutions? We can meet with them as you mentioned, so that the rest of the world knows we respect their opinions but they will not help anyway. Everything is always up to America, and that is why I don't have much respect for some of the countries in the UN. I respect Britain, Australia, and others I suppose, but France, Germany etc. are just a bunch of leaches waiting for us to do what they should.

I think we need to be a little more secretive about how we do this withdrawal. I have no problem with a deadline, but I do have a problem with telegraphing our intention to the terrorists. I also have a problem pulling out and leaving a token force to guard our embassy. They would be dead men.

None of us have enough information for a serious plan, but what I would like to see done:
Go to the Iraq government and say ok we have paid enough. You can pay us in cash or oil if you want us to stay. No cash, no oil, we are gone within three months. Pay for the cost of the war and we will give you a year to be able to take care of yourself. We freed you from a tyrant, and your freedom was purchased by the American taxpayer and the blood of our children. We expect you to be grateful. We also expect some reimbursement for the money and blood we spent for your freedom. We also expect that you will be our ally in the future. If you become an American security problem after we leave we are coming back with the gloves off. I would not tell anyone of the agreement for fear of endangering our soldiers, even if the media back home tore me to pieces.

The gloves off will require that we politically shut down the panty waist liberals that cry over radical Muslims more than our soldiers. If we have to go back don't take their guns and send them home, shoot any resistance where you find them. Then we don't have to listen to crying about prisoners in Abu something or other while ours have their heads cut off and drug in the streets.

All of us here want the same thing, but we sure see different paths to that same objective. Some are kind people trying to hold out a hand of friendship to crazy people, while those like myself believe all they understand is force. There is no doubt they deserve another Sadam. The only problem is the liberals will start to whine the first time he gases another 50,000 of his own people.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Nope has nothing to do with it.I was born an American citizen......that gives me the right.
> 
> So are you saying it is OK to read all the name calling of every Democrat runnng for office here but the president is exempt???


Yes as always Ken you are correct, I just thought for one minute you were above those things. Keep calling people names, thats what your good at.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

g/o said:


> > Nope has nothing to do with it.I was born an American citizen......that gives me the right.
> >
> > So are you saying it is OK to read all the name calling of every Democrat runnng for office here but the president is exempt???
> 
> ...


I learned from an expert. :bowdown:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Matt you want a plan? There is a reasonable plan in place that we are currently following. Troop reductions as the situation allows. This comes about as more and more Iraqi forces become field tested in handling the situation. With this success will come the political stability that is needed for this nation to be self sustaining in its security and governing body.

This nation as with Afghanistan and others in the region will require a learning period in which trust of those whom you have opposed or who have oppressed others can be obtained. Japan for example after WWII had a long history of rallying around an emperor. We allow his as a figurehead to remain, that option was not viable in either Iraq or Afghanistan. There is no central figure as of yet to rally the people around or for them to receive direction from.

This is causing a protracted rebuilding process and self governing ablity.

Now how do we pay for it? Simple, cutting waste and benefits for illegals in this nation would result in the war costs being paid for as well as providing an additional $20 billion a month in money for domestic projects or simpler yet debt reduction. I will not accept the argument that the war is to costly when more spending and taxation is all that is being offered from the Dem side of the aisle. I am not opposed to Iraq starting to foot the bill themselves as once it is there money being spent it will speed up the desire to move forward in my opinion as well.

Which brings us back to the question I asked Ken, what is the plan when the region explodes? Do you simply walk away or are we now back into the fray spilling blood to regain ground we controlled and left?

We saw the result of poor planning after the military portion of the war was over. Is it not prudent to have a plan and for the people to know that plan before we change from a course that is working?

I have no issues as I said before with people who want the war over. Just make sure and tell the people what you plan to do if the pull out does not work!

Remember Matt it is not that enough money is not coming into Washington, it is the fact that the people in Washington are not being proper stewards in regards how they are spending it!

A million here and a few million there soon adds up to real money.


----------

