PDA

View Full Version : Neo-conservative chickenhawks



Kirkus
10-29-2004, 04:07 PM
The illustrious military service of major players in the Bush administration or...
...How in the hell are these men qualified to lead our country in ANY war?

Player: George W. Bush, President
The War He Didn't Fight In: Vietnam
Reason: Lt. Texas Air National Guard

Player: Dick Cheney, Vice President
The War He Didn't Fight In: Vietnam
Reason: "Had other priorities". Four school deferments. One paternity deferment.

Player: Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
The War He Didn't Fight In: Korean
Reason: Princeton ROTC

Player: Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
The War He Didn't Fight In: Vietnam
Reason: School Deferment

Player: John Ashcroft, Attorney General
The War He Didn't Fight In: Vietnam
Reason: School Deferment

Sebastien447
10-30-2004, 03:33 AM
Many of the sheeple of this country, told by the media how badly the war in Iraq is going, actually believe that John Kerry is the answer. But if you want to discover the truth about our efforts in Iraq, you might want to ask a soldier.

October 27, 2004 -- SOLDIERS don't beg. But an old friend of mine who's still in uniform came close the other day. He badly wanted me to write another column before Election Day stressing that our troops are winning in Iraq.

He's an Army veteran of three wars. Now he's working to help Iraq become a democratic model for the Middle East. And he's worried.

Not about terrorists or insurgents. He's afraid John Kerry will be elected president.

"Kerry's rhetoric is giving the bad guys a thread to hang on," he wrote. "They're hoping we lose our nerve. They're more concerned with the U.S. elections than with the Iraqi ones."

My pal has been involved in every phase of our Iraq operations — dating back to Desert Storm. And he's convinced that the terrorists have risked everything to create as much carnage as they can before Nov. 2. Our troops are killing them left and right. The terrorists are desperate. They can't sustain this tempo of attacks much longer.

But Sen. Kerry insists that we're losing — giving our enemies hope that we'll pull out. No matter what else John Kerry may say, the terrorists only hear his criticisms of our president and our war.

Let's review what's actually happening in Iraq.

The terrorist stronghold of Fallujah is increasingly isolated. Night after night, precision weapons and raids by special-operations forces kill international terrorist leaders. Terrified, the local troublemakers are trying to play the negotiations card. They know the U.S. Marines are coming back. And this time the Leathernecks won't be stopped short. Allah's butchers are praying that they can bring down our president before terror's citadel falls.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi people have been revolted by the terrorists' barbarities. They may not want U.S. troops in their streets forever, but they do not want to be ruled by fanatical murderers. Kidnapping aid workers and lopping off heads on videotape horrifies decent Muslims. The slaughter of 50 unarmed Iraqi recruits did not win hearts and minds.

Every day, Iraqis are more engaged in defending their own country. Elections are still on track. The suicide bombings continue, but they haven't deterred Iraq's new government. Nor have they been able to stop the Coalition and Iraq's expanding forces from cleaning out one terrorist rat's nest after another.

Muqtada al-Sadr is quiet as a mouse. Najaf is being rebuilt. Two-thirds of Iraq's provinces are quiet. We never see any headlines about our Kurdish allies in northern Iraq — because they're building a successful modern society in the Middle East. Good-news stories aren't welcome in our undeniably pro-Democratic media.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/31117.htm

Kirkus
10-30-2004, 06:23 AM
But if you want to discover the truth about our efforts in Iraq, you might want to ask a soldier.

That's one soldier's opinion. And he certainly has the the right to voice it, as Ralph Peters and the NY Post have a right to bring it to the people.

The problem in using that as a response to the facts of the original post is that I could easily find a soldier who would have an opinion directly opposing that of... of... hmmm, I can't seem to find the soldier's name in this NY Post opinion piece.

Case in point, Al Lorentz, a soldier in Iraq begins his article...

"Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and naïve young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20 years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.

I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons. Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality. Full story: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz1.html

Plenty of "sheeple" are following the pretty pictures of the American occupation that this neo-conservative administration continues to paint with the blood of America's young soldiers. Only one, Gen. Powell, out of the seven major "players" has ever seen war on the ground.

And your wrong, Sebers about many of us believing John Kerry is the answer. Many of us don't know if John Kerry is the answer. But we do know that George Bush is not.

Sebastien447
10-30-2004, 07:23 AM
The problem in using that as a response to the facts of the original post

oh those facts ... OK, Bush was voted into office. Most Americans are aware of the job description of President of the US, and they chose him. That's how Bush qualifies to lead our country in time of war. Just as "qualified" as Clinton & Co were.


And your wrong, Sebers about many of us believing John Kerry is the answer. Many of us don't know if John Kerry is the answer. But we do know that George Bush is not.

We certainly have our political differences my friend.

But let me just say that I'd clearly be voting for Kerry if it were not for Iraq. I believe it is crucial for the job to be finished in Iraq. It is THE issue for this election because all of our interests are tied to it. I do know that Bush has the resolve to get that job done. I do not know that Kerry has the backbone to stay the course over there. In fact, I'm almost positive that he does not.

My choice in this election was difficult, yet clear-cut.

Kirkus
10-30-2004, 08:33 AM
oh those facts ... OK, Bush was voted into office. Most Americans are aware of the job description of President of the US, and they chose him. That's how Bush qualifies to lead our country in time of war. Just as "qualified" as Clinton & Co were.
Was he really "voted" into office? There's a whole weekend of debate available for that subject alone. But we've all heard it too much already. I will say that as "President", Bush must lead our country in this time of war. But I will argue that he is not "qualified".


We certainly have our political differences my friend.

I think only at this time, during this election. Otherwise I have a feeling we're pretty much on the same page.


I believe it is crucial for the job to be finished in Iraq. It is THE issue for this election because all of our interests are tied to it.
Ditto Ditto Ditto. I totally agree.

The difference between us is really quite simple. You don't believe Kerry has the backbone to stay the course in Iraq and you believe Bush does. I can't say loud enough that I understand and respect those beliefs. I also believe that Bush will stay the course... and I'm not entirely convinced that Kerry will. My problem is that I fear Bush is too aligned with the Wolfowitz Doctrine, and I'm looking years (many more than four) down the road. Generations, even. This country cannot continue this foriegn policy of pre-emption, breaking international law, separating ourselves from former allies all in the name of national security. I'm afraid if Bush is re-elected, four years from now will find us in Iran or Syria or BOTH. I fear that my children will live in an American that is despised by the world for domination instead of respected for it's ability to co-exist with less powerful countries.

I'm willing to risk a failed occupation in Iraq in exchange for an America that stops attacking countries that pose no threat to us.

meadfish
10-30-2004, 11:02 AM
But let me just say that I'd clearly be voting for Kerry if it were not for Iraq. I believe it is crucial for the job to be finished in Iraq. It is THE issue for this election because all of our interests are tied to it.

I agree, and I think it is unfortunate. Hypothetically if the Iraq war were not a factor... what factors would be deciding this election? Stem cells? The Budget? Employment or lack there of? These essential issues are taking a back seat because most undecideds are deciding based on Iraq War feelings.
:-/

3mlm
10-30-2004, 02:17 PM
Kirkus, you're so left wing that you think anyone further right than Ted Kennedy is a neocon ;)

But, seriously, let's retell Sebastian's joke:


Democrat vs Republican

Scene - A suburban city school in 'Somewhere'

A young woman teacher with obvious conservative
tendencies explains to her class
of small children that she is a Republican.
She asks her class if they are Republicans too.

Not really knowing what Republicanism is
but wanting to be like their teacher,
their hands explode into the air
like fleshy fireworks.

There is, however, one exception.
A beautiful girl named Lucy
has not gone along with the crowd.

The teacher asks her why she has decided
to be different.

"Because I'm not a Republican."

"Then," asks the teacher, "what are you?"

"I'm a Democrat."

The teacher is a little perturbed now.
Her face slightly red.
She asks Lucy why she is a Democrat.

"Well, my Mom is a Democrat,
and my dad is a Democrat,
so I am a Democrat."

The teacher is now angry.
"That's no reason," she says loudly.
"What about if your Mom was a moron,
and your dad was a moron.
What would you be then?"

A pause, and a smile.

"Then," says Lucy, "I'd be a Republican."

Why, even Seb might get a chuckle out of that one.

Sebastien447
10-30-2004, 11:14 PM
Why, even Seb might get a chuckle out of that one.


I certainly did! I'm an Independent. I'm able to laugh at politics! ;D

Well done 3m, very nice!

Kirkus
10-31-2004, 05:19 AM
Kirkus, you're so left wing that you think anyone further right than Ted Kennedy is a neocon
I'm really not, tho. You know how I feel about the death penalty and when I thought Iraq had WMD I argued with my "left-wing" friends justifying this pre-emption until I was blue in the face.

renegade711
11-01-2004, 10:52 AM
""The terrorist stronghold of Fallujah is increasingly isolated. Night after night, precision weapons and raids by special-operations forces kill international terrorist leaders. Terrified, the local troublemakers are trying to play the negotiations card. They know the U.S. Marines are coming back. And this time the Leathernecks won't be stopped short. Allah's butchers are praying that they can bring down our president before terror's citadel falls. ""

As for the situation in Fallujah, the body count back in April 2004 included over 600 civilians, 308 of them women and children. 129 of those were under the age of eight.

That's the count six months ago. I'm sure that "precision weaponry" has taken out a lot more by now. :P


renegade711
11-01-2004, 09:58 PM
::) Why are we in Iraq in the first place? Oh, yeah, to get the WMD's. Ooops, there weren't any. Should we apologize to the people of Iraq?

Heck, no, we're here anyway, let's kill 10,000 of their civilians, tear up their country, ruin the water supply, take away electricity and blow up their cities. They should be grateful for all that.

We have Afghanistan and if we get Iraq we can squeeze Iran. Then we have America- East. We can make it a resort area for all our senior citizens. They won't have social security, since we spend that on the war.

The only country in the whole region with WMD's is Israel. Should we attack them? Nah, we gave them the WMD's so they could protect themselves. And they did recycle! Anything weapon they couldn't use, they sold to Russia.

renegade711
11-02-2004, 02:11 AM
"Allah's butchers"

So that makes Timothy McVeigh God's little leatherneck?

Kirkus
11-02-2004, 03:52 AM
Furthermore....Kerry got two purple hearts, one for shooting a rock and one for shooting a bag of rice....both ricochetted off and hit him. He did that on purpose to get wounded.
That allegation depends on who you believe -- A group of veterans who never served a minute with Kerry, or a group of veterans who DID serve with him. And the allegation that he did that on purpose to get wounded is absolutely unprovable and nothing but a wild allegation.


Sorry but I think the US is handling most of the burden because we are the strongest power among all the allies.
The U.S. is carrying the burden because the U.S. didn't allow the time for diplomacy to run it's course nor did it provide the necessary proof that Iraq posed an "imminent" threat to world peace. I believe this President had plans to attack Iraq long before the Supreme Court appointed him president.


Furthermore Kerry takes cheap shots such as harping on that 350 tons of missing explosives when they actually distroyed 7,000 tons
With our soldiers being murdered on a daily basis with explosives is a good reason to "harp on" 1 ton of missing explosives, let alone 350 tons! If you're going to take over a country you have to secure it... ALL OF IT!


If it were up to Kerry Saddam would still be in power .....with over 7,000 tons of explosives and dealing with the currupt UN in order to build up more weapons stock pile. I think he had WMDs and they were simply moved.

It's very possible that Saddam would still be in power. And more than 1,000 American couples would still have their children alive, and more than 3,000 soldiers would still have their legs and arms. Is the world safer with Saddam out of power? Of course it is! Was it worth the lives we've lost? Absolutely not! Iraq was NOT the threat to this country that we were led to believe it was.

The president's own administrative officials have conceded that Iraq had no WMD.

Sebastien447
11-02-2004, 09:30 AM
Incendiary comments in reaction to one-sided reporting on Iraq are not productive renegade711. And arguing about a past which we cannot change will accomplish nothing.

What we can do to take a step in the right direction, is elect a leader who will stay the course in Iraq. And in this respect, John Kerry would be a very curious choice considering his anti-war voting record, negative comments about our troops' efforts in Iraq, and insistance upon passing some mysterious "global test."

Kirkus
11-02-2004, 11:44 AM
Incendiary comments in reaction to one-sided reporting on Iraq are not productive renegade711. And arguing about a past which we cannot change will accomplish nothing.

What we can do to take a step in the right direction, is elect a leader who will stay the course in Iraq. And in this respect, John Kerry would be a very curious choice considering his anti-war voting record, negative comments about our troops' efforts in Iraq, and insistance upon passing some mysterious "global test."

Unless you're so honestly discouraged by the fact that we are in Iraq in the first place and clearly 50% of the population refuses to see what a terrible mess this president has put is in, both internationally and here at home... in which case emotional comments based on frustration are completely justifiable.

renegade711
11-02-2004, 09:28 PM
8) Gee, Seb, did it occur to you when posting one man's view of the war in Iraq that perhaps the millions around the entire world who follow Allah might be incensed at the term equating their God with butchers?

Sebastien447
11-02-2004, 10:16 PM
renegade, I'm certain that those who follow Allah believe that persons who murder in the name of their God are wrong, and justifiably referred to as butchers.

renegade711
11-04-2004, 11:10 PM
8) The article posted was one soldier's opinion, and a career soldier if he was in three wars, there being about 14 years or so since Desert Storm. How about an article from the kids over there now? Maybe one of those 19 who refused their mission?

Why is is "crucial" to win the war in Iraq? What did the Iraqi people do to us? Saddam was a bad guy, granted. What justifies us attacking the people? The need to help them?

Over half the continent of Africa is starving. Viet Nam is still suffering the effects of Agent Orange sprayed over twenty years ago by our military. What are we doing to help them?