Debates
01 Nov 06
05 Nov 06
Originally posted by sasquatch672Gibberish? The Turks? Did they not allow the US to use the Fourth Division in the initial attack? No! That was about 20% of the US Army that wasn't allowed to be of use because Turkey changed their minds at the last minute. Shaviskhavilli was fired becasue he was a Clinton hack. Flexible?Gymnastics? What are you talking about? Where were those so-called arm chair Generals who are bitching now when the war started? They are running their mouths now because Bush is a lame duck president or they are retired. If the plan was so messed up then why didn't they resign. I guess they wasn't so convinced after all were they? To hell with Bush as a person. As president and commander in chief I have to support him. Didn't they teach you that in the Marines or the Army? I'm sorry if my way of thinking isn't to your approval. I'm sorry you lost your balls so I guess that makes us even.
Does it hurt? I saw your picture on RHP faces, and you don't look like the most flexible guy in the world to me. So I'm thinking that these gymnastic moves you're making in defense of Bush are quite painful indeed. (Tommy Franks, by the way, was one of the most incompetent commanding generals in the history of the U.S. military. And he became comman ...[text shortened]... und. I thought you were more intelligent than that. You've proven me wrong.
06 Nov 06
Originally posted by sasquatch672Clinton was impeached over a cigar and a woman and denying it. Bush sponsors Vietnam #2 and still has 40% approval rating.
What I am is angry.
I'm angry that over 2,800 of my brothers- and sisters-in-arms have died executing a mission that was severely flawed both in concept and in execution. Angry that in February 2003, I said to myself, "If the President of the United States said it, it must be true" when he asserted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Angry t ...[text shortened]... in a high enough position. He (and Cheney, and Rumsfeld) fills both roles.
How many years from now and how many lives lost and to what degree does Iraq have to meltdown more than it already has in order for someone to stop. Does congress/Senate have the power to disregard Bush and change courses in Iraq? And does that lead to more problems than we have now? ie. are we already in too deep to leave?
06 Nov 06
Originally posted by impatientCongress has the power to cut off the $$$ needed to pay for the war. Only problem .. congress is controled by the Republicans, that's what this election tomorrow is about .. if enough Dems win they can push out some Republicans then can gain control of the house.
Clinton was impeached over a cigar and a woman and denying it. Bush sponsors Vietnam #2 and still has 40% approval rating.
How many years from now and how many lives lost and to what degree does Iraq have to meltdown more than it already has in order for someone to stop. Does congress/Senate have the power to disregard Bush and change courses in Ir ...[text shortened]... And does that lead to more problems than we have now? ie. are we already in too deep to leave?
07 Nov 06
Originally posted by NemesioYou found something!
This sums up your position perfectly, actually. For you (and those like minded), it's not about
right or wrong; it's about 'winning.' You think it's better to be manly for an unjust cause than
to rightly run from something.
You're scarcely different than back when we were cavemen, and, very likely, it's people like you
who will very likely throw us back to the stone ages.
Nemesio
That wasn't there...what else is new.
I made reference to his defeatist attitude.
The only thing sumed up is that you don't
know anything...about me.
09 Nov 06
Originally posted by impatientVietnam #2!?! Has it already been 25 years? Have we seen over 58,000 lives lost? At least have a small sense of purportion.
Clinton was impeached over a cigar and a woman and denying it. Bush sponsors Vietnam #2 and still has 40% approval rating.
How many years from now and how many lives lost and to what degree does Iraq have to meltdown more than it already has in order for someone to stop. Does congress/Senate have the power to disregard Bush and change courses in Ir ...[text shortened]... And does that lead to more problems than we have now? ie. are we already in too deep to leave?
09 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672To answer your question. Yes I did support Clinton when he was in office. I didn't like the man but as my Commander in Chief I respected the office not the man. Just like I didn't care for Johnson, Ford, and Carter when they were President but I supported them due to their position. I don't support George Bush. I support the troops. This country has already had two cut and run wars. Korea and Vietnam. While I can't comment on Korea (Father could but he is deceased) I can sure comment on Nam. Coming back from there in 71 and seeing all of the "cut and runners" protesting left a bad taste in my mouth. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. I would have had more respect for the man if he hadn't lied and tied up the Government with his impeachment crap. As I have stated before I was never in favor of attacking Iraq. I felt we hadn't finished in Afghanistan and I also felt that Iran was a more important issue. We should have went into Iran. Whether he lied or not we'll never know. Clinton, Kerry, and most of the rest of the political hacks thought he had WMD's, along with most of the security agencies in the world. In your previous post you made me out to be some kind of idiot in my support of the war. As a Father of 4 sons who all have been to Iraq and Afghanistan along with 10 nephews also having been there I think I have more to lose than most people on this site. Yes even you. This cut and run policy will leave a bad taste in the mouths of veterans. Well it seems you will get your wish now that the election is over so my point is moot. I didn't appreciate your attitude with me saying I don't look flexible whatever that meant. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm still bitter about Nam. Perhaps I'm even a little jealous of you and the accolades you received from a grateful Nation on your return from your war. Like the soldiers currently over in Iraq unfortunately we didn't get an 100 hour war. Also I think you are thinking of Gen Shinseki not Gen. Shaliskavilli thatn retired when Bush was elected.
Hey by the personal accounts of Bush that I've read, were Bush not the singularly destructive force he's been proven to be, I could probably get on with him pretty well. Sounds like a hell of a person. What he is not is a competent leader on any level.
Why do you have to support Bush? Did you have the same slobbering support for Clinton when he grave situation - lying about a blowjob, or lying about a nonexistent weapons program?