Let's Take A Look At The Military Records

[Fly]

Bill Clinton quote:

"I firmly believed we should not march into Baghdad ...To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant, into a latter-day Arab hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war."*

Saddam Hussein quotes:

"Today's friend is tomorrow's adversary."*

"I feel ... millions of [people] I'm never going to meet ... say my name to the Almighty every day and ask him to help me."*

"I could not be [in power] if I did not believe in a divine plan that supercedes all human plans."*

"I believe God wants me to be [in power]."*

"Government should welcome the active involvement of people who are following a religious imperative..."*

"[They] built [huge houses] while letting schools decay... [they] built up armies and weapons while allowing the nation's infrastructure to crumble..."*

George W Bush quotes:

"If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses be in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?"*

"We will pursue them until they lose their nerves... Now that they have indulged in their evil and crimes, they will suffer a defeat."*

"We will chase [them] to every corner at all times. No high tower of steel will protect them against the fire of truth."*

* The Bill Clinton quote is actually a George Bush Sr quote. The George W Bush quotes above are actually Saddam Hussein quotes, and the Hussein quotes are actually GW Bush quotes.

 

[atabuy]

If someone drops a jar of tomato sauce in aisle three, are you going to fire the president of Safeway Supermarkets? Put it in perspective. "The buck stops here" argument doesn't work, not in Abu Graib, and certainly not in this article.

[post="196764"][/post]​

757,
Common sense dictates that when the world is trying to defend against terror, the first thing you want to take away from the terrorists is high grade explosives.
There is a very good chance that these explosives have been killing our young men and women in Iraq.
Getting Sadam was the easiest part of the war. Finding and destroying terrorists and their capability to kill our solders is the hardest part. Bush knew this going in and still went ahead and put many of our people at risk, to avenge on old grudge.
We are running low on troops over there, and they are doing 2 and 3 tours.
I am talking about National guard troops who never should have put in this position in the first place.
The hardships placed on their families are really tough.
If we continue on this tract, we are going to have to re-institute the draft to secure peace there.
JMHO

 

[USAir757]

We are running low on troops over there, and they are doing 2 and 3 tours.
I am talking about National guard troops who never should have put in this position in the first place.
The hardships placed on their families are really tough.
If we continue on this tract, we are going to have to re-institute the draft to secure peace there.

If we don't keep on this track, then we concede defeat and let the terrorists win. Which would you rather have? I disagree that Iraq alone will require the institution of a draft, but unfortunately we will be forced to do what we have to do... to win this war, it will not come free. And when/if my son gets the call to go, I'm going to make sure the guy in office is one that will tell him that this is the war for our lives, the war for our freedom and democracy. And you are going for noble reasons. Your principles mean nothing unless you stick by them even when they are inconvenient. Yes, there are hardships. But, as they say, freedom doesn't come for free.

 

[KCFlyer]

If we don't keep on this track, then we concede defeat and let the terrorists win. Which would you rather have? I disagree that Iraq alone will require the institution of a draft, but unfortunately we will be forced to do what we have to do... to win this war, it will not come free. And when/if my son gets the call to go, I'm going to make sure the guy in office is one that will tell him that this is the war for our lives, the war for our freedom and democracy. And you are going for noble reasons. Your principles mean nothing unless you stick by them even when they are inconvenient. Yes, there are hardships. But, as they say, freedom doesn't come for free.

[post="197043"][/post]​

USAir757..it's not just our sons who will be drafted, but IMHO, it will be our daughters as well who will be drafted. And I'll already place the blame where it belongs...George W Bush. I might feel differently if Bush maintained the war on terror against the terrorists who conducted 9/11 instead of Saddam Hussein. IMHO, we have already conceded defeat in the war on terror when the administration decided that Osama bin Laden "wasn't that big of a deal" and focused instead on Saddam Hussein.

Your principals are a danger to the country when you stand by them, not only when it's inconvenient, but when they are wrong as well.

 

[WO/drone]

USAir757..it's not just our sons who will be drafted, but IMHO, it will be our daughters as well who will be drafted. And I'll already place the blame where it belongs...George W Bush. I might feel differently if Bush maintained the war on terror against the terrorists who conducted 9/11 instead of Saddam Hussein. IMHO, we have already conceded defeat in the war on terror when the administration decided that Osama bin Laden "wasn't that big of a deal" and focused instead on Saddam Hussein.

Your principals are a danger to the country when you stand by them, not only when it's inconvenient, but when they are wrong as well.

[post="197046"][/post]​

Back to the original thread, using the Kerry doctrine,we should not have been in Korea even with the huge allied help. And I do not beleive that FDR wasin the armed forces but he made some good decisions, even if they were a little late for milions of europeans and soviets. like any good Dem he waited untill we were attacked at home......just my opinion.

 

[NWA/AMT]

If we don't keep on this track, then we concede defeat and let the terrorists win.

[post="197043"][/post]​

I disagree. This presupposes that there is only one track to defeat terrorism with all other possible tracks leading to defeat. Changing your attack is not the same as conceding defeat, it is simply an admission that there may be a better way to attack.

I'm going to make sure the guy in office is one that will tell him that this is the war for our lives, the war for our freedom and democracy.

Is it? I recall being told that exact thing in 1966.

Your principles mean nothing unless you stick by them even when they are inconvenient.

Changing your tactics, or your leader, is not the same as abandoning your principles.

 

[FredF]

Changing your tactics, or your leader, is not the same as abandoning your principles.

[post="197074"][/post]​

When the leader you change to does not share those same principles, then yes it does mean abandoning them.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Back to the original thread, using the Kerry doctrine,we should not have been in Korea even with the huge allied help.

[post="197073"][/post]​

Actually, we would have. The American presence in South Korea is a vestige of the UN forces that stopped the North Koreans and Chinese in 1953.

And I do not beleive that FDR wasin the armed forces but he made some good decisions...

Actually, he served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy during World War I, but did not serve directly in the armed forces.

even if they were a little late for milions of europeans and soviets. like any good Dem he waited untill we were attacked at home.

That's why he was providing massive aid, before Pearl Harbor, to those very 'europeans and soviets'. The aid was provided over the objections of those in the US Congress who favored neutrality and argued that the war 'wasn't our fight', the Republicans.

 

[FredF]

John Kerry October 8, 2002

I believe that with respect to Sa'dam Hussein and the threat that he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question. Why? It's clear that in the four years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Sa'dam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the last four years with the result that key aspects of this program -- R&D, production and weaponization -- are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing, weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States itself. Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program, probably now consisting of a few dozen scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia or other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, we know they are developing unmanned, aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents which could threaten their neighbors as well as American forces in the gulf.

 

[atabuy]

John Kerry October 8, 2002

I believe that with respect to Sa'dam Hussein and the threat that he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question. Why? It's clear that in the four years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Sa'dam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the last four years with the result that key aspects of this program -- R&D, production and weaponization -- are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing, weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States itself. Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program, probably now consisting of a few dozen scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia or other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, we know they are developing unmanned, aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents which could threaten their neighbors as well as American forces in the gulf.

[post="197086"][/post]​

Ok Fred,
Everyone went on information supplied to them through the intelligence agency.

Now it is 2004 and in 2003 explosives were discovered and the US was told about them and did nothing.
It could be the sons and daughters who have been there since that time who were killed,and more in the future will be killed with those explosives.
It is equivilent to giving a child a loaded gun and expecting him to stay safe.
I think we are spread way to thin to be effective anywhere, and we are increasing the chance of putting our guys in harms way.

 

[MrAeroMan]

Meanwhile, the Ohio case is not exactly what has been reported here, as is evident from the Cleveland and Cincinnati papers:


Apparently the criteria used by the Republicans to determine which voters were eligibile and which weren't was whether Republican mailings sent to those voters were returned by the post office, which hardly meets the prima facie requirements to qualify as voter fraud.

[post="195882"][/post]​

But believing what was reported by papers in Cleveland and Cincinnati meets those same requirements?? OOOOOOH KAAAAAAY!! :huh:

 

[NWA/AMT]

But believing what was reported by papers in Cleveland and Cincinnati meets those same requirements?? OOOOOOH KAAAAAAY!! :huh:

[post="197382"][/post]​

The papers weren't alledging voter fraud, were they? The Republicans were, but failed to make their case in court. OOOOOOH KAAAAAY? :blink: