Politics – President Bush, prodding Congress to extend the Iraq war without calling troops home, said Monday that Democratic leaders owe it to veterans and their families to pass the war-spending bill he wants.
« < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > »
Heck yeah, give me the gun for the right reason. I would go off to war if necessary, however, if it leaves the country for losers like you all that supported Kerry. Heck, I would be far better served to stay here and defend the territory and the rights we have here from being destroyed by the likes of you. Either way, it is a war and I doing my part to defend the American way from getting socialized away.
I sometime feel wrong in defending Bush, and then I remember the losers that came so close to winning against even our current brainiacs president. Atleast he isn't a Gore or Kerry!
Excuse me Vulgar? Your president has been in power along with your party for 6 years. When you do ship your cowardly little butt out and fight the good fight in Iraq? What a self-serving little weasle of a coward you are. Take your yellow belly and go hide back under the rock you crawled out from under.
thx i served and helped to protect the rights that you are currently using. glad to hear my sacrafices are appreciated. as far as the country being better off with out us well believe what you want as non of you would get off you're as@@@ and defend this homeland because we can just talk to them and take care of all the problems it would fall from the world and be forgotten by those who wish us harm.
illigitamate war i remember it being passed and many dems voted for it making it a legal action of the united states sanctioned by the elected officials of this country.
Now you know how I felt about being shanghaied to go fight for the fortunate sons in an illegitimate war 40 years ago. You have my condolances.
Everybody seems to forget that the entire world had eyes on Vietnam. It was the first real war against communism. Had we just let Vietnam be taken over by communsits, the majority of the world would have followed suit. There was a secret war waging world wide both before and after Vietnam. It was the small arms war. We were heavily arming small nations with m-16s and other small arms. Russia however was arming others with the ak-47. Why? Because the more people we armed, the more allies against communism we had. The same can be said on the Russian side. In any event, everyone had their eyes and hands in Vietnam. We had tens of thousands of "advisors" in the area long before the war. Vietnam was an inevitable war, no matter what you think, we had to go to war. The downfall of U.S. troops in Vietnam, was the lack of a real weapon to fight with. The same with Iraq.
Can I point out the US fought how many years there and lost how many troops and for what, it still became a unified communist country. The problem is the US does not set realistic attainable goals, they just run in like a bull in a china shop.
we were winning.tet was misinterpeted.its the problem with seeing things thru western eyes.their own genrals admitted after the fact it was the last blow of a dieing man.this is a concept we have a problem understanding.
I'm not an expert on Viet Nam, and have no feet-down, in-country experience like many who post here. I have seen footage and talked to vets who chose to learn everything they could about their experiences from both sides. From what I've seen and heard, there were times we were close to causing major, even unrecoverable set-backs for the Viet Cong. In the process, we taught them our tactics on top of their own, centuries-old strategies, and recent (relative) experiences with the French. In the course of what I have gleaned from brothers who were there and the above-mentioned, we might have been "winning" at some point. But, the overwhelming public opinion to pull out that is blamed in part for a non-victory, seems to be a facade to cover the belief we couldn't win a ground battle against indigenous fighters who had no uniforms - only a mission. Sound familiar?
the down fall of of US troops in nam was whiners at home.
No, the downfall of troops in 'nam was getting in the middle of a civil war like the one in Iraq.
Try reading a book or two, then get back to us.
The troops in nam lost no major battles, yet the war is perceived as being lost. The lesson learned there, and one that is taught at all military schools around the world is that a war against a guerrilla insurgent force cannot be won without the total support of the native population.
Read a few military manuals, apply what you learn to Iraq and then get back to us.
"The downfall of U.S. troops in Vietnam, was the lack of a real weapon to fight with. The same with Iraq." Don't know quite what to make of that statement. Every meaning I can surmise of your intention is just silly.
My point, is that our troops were then, and are now being castrated by our own government. We are losing, not because we cannot win, but because people trying to advance their political careers, rather than doing what's best for America. The analogy was that in Vietnam, our soldiers had no automatic weapons to fight the communists with until the end. Even then, just for political reasons, Ordnance altered the ammo of the m-16s just to make it fail. Today, we have dems doing all they can to hinder our efforts, just because they want to make our President wrong. Even if it means harming America as well as the middle east region for years to come.
"The analogy was that in Vietnam, our soldiers had no automatic weapons to fight the communists with until the end." That's pure fantasy bullshlt. American GIs had WAY more firepower than the NVA or the VC. Almost every time they chose to stand and fight, they were soundly defeated.
"just for political reasons, Ordnance altered the ammo of the m-16s just to make it fail."
Don't know where you come up with this nonsense, but you are really full of crap and don't know what you are talking about.
It is now a military axiom that a fight against a guerrilla insurgency is unwinnable without the support of the local population. THAT'S what happened in Vietnam, not inferior weapons or nefarious political plots.
No, actually the m16 was not fully available until the 1969. Even when it was available, Ordnance changed the type of grains in the ammo simply because they knew it would cause the gun to jam. This was the reason why our gi's were taking up the ak's of fallen Vietcong. Which in turn was outlawed by our co's soley because the unique sound of the Ak attracted friendly fire. The jungle was so thick our troops aimed at the sound of the firing Kalashnikov.
For the record, Ordnance also falsified testing results of the m16 because they wanted their weapon to prevail, not the competitions. They took the weapon to Alaska for testing and altered it to make it fail. It was said when Eugene M. Stoner heard of the secret testing, he flew to Alaska immediatly. Only to be horrified by the condition of his weapon. The Ordnance testers had damaged the weapon so bad before the test, it never had a chance. This in part led to the downfall of Ordnance.
Whether we pull out by the date the Democrats propose or remain there for another 10 years the end result will remain the same! There will be a bloodbath, for the acrimony that exists between the Shi'a majority and the Sunni minority runs far too deep for it to be otherwise!
There might possibly have been a chance to ameliorate this outcome had Bush et al been willing to sit down with the other regional players who had/have a vested interest in Iraq, but that opportunity continues to slip through our proverbial fingers because of Bush's intransigence in talking with both Syria and Iran! There is no military solution for the problems that continue to plague Iraq, as our military leaders have stated time and again, only a political one and it's past time for Bush to get off his ass and seek one!
Iran is ready to sit down and talk peace? Syria is ready to sit down and talk peace? Peace at what cost? Under who's terms? Iran's and it's proxy Syria? That is a little naive don't you think? Ayatollah Ali Khamene'i, is the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution and has direct control over the armed forces, the internal security forces, and the judiciary. Hezbollah, The Islamic Extremist terrorist organization is financed and armed by Iran.
The Hojjatieh Society is governed by the conviction that the 12th Imam's return will be hastened by the creation of chaos on earth.
A September address to the U.N. General Assembly contained long passages on the Mahdi which confused Western diplomats and irked those from Sunni Muslim countries who believe in a different line of succession from Mohammed.
Sounds like a reasonable person to begin peace talks with? Perhaps a political perspective of who the world is dealing with is in order : Search term = Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
I see your problem, it's your incredibly superficial understanding of Iran. You really should to do a lot more reading and gain a far more deeper understanding of Iran and your president's policies before you post.
Ayatollah Ali Khamene'i, is not the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution? During the Revolution he didn't proclaim that his goal was a Islamic Caliphate throughout the middle east. The coming of the 12th Imam is not their belief? Perhaps you are thinking of a different Iran. Perhaps one that you have made up in your own mind. I am not talking about the people of Iran I am talking about the government leadership. Perhaps you can direct us to the "real" Iran leadership site and history of the Islamic Revolution led by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his peaceful intentions?
I take it from your remarks that you are a supporter of the supreme leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamene'i?
Don't you hate it when people try to make a point by asking a question? Don't they sound stupid? Aren't they so annoying you wish you could rip the keyboard out of their hands? Don't you wish you could tell them that their obvious clever use of the Socratic method is just a little condescending? Doesn't it seem like it's the latest way certain people try to manipulate and twist the truth?
Iran is ready to sit down and talk peace? Syria is ready to sit down and talk peace? Peace at what cost? Under who's terms?>>>>>
Look at these questions you're asking. How do you suppose you would get answers to them? By speculating? Given the possible consequences, do you think it's wise to speculate? There is another way, you know. TALK to them. How simple that is, don't you think?
Speculating? What rock have you been hiding under? There have been ongoing "peace" talks with Syria and Iran for the past 30 years in various forms. Are you saying the past 30 years of "TALKING" has brought about change or have been a complete failure? Please point out where the past 30 years of negotiations have been successful!
What ever talks there were, they were working much better than Bush's war policies and Bush's diplomacy (we will talk with Iran ONLY after they give up their nuclear program).
Please point out how they worked! You can't because they never have. And Jordan11 The questions I ask is because alot of people simply complain about something but offer no alternative suggestions. The same people blame Bush for Iran trying to build a nuclear bomb when the program started 20 years ago while we were TALKING.
The talks that Jimmy Carter engaged in were not quite as effective as the action that Ronald Reagan promised in free the Americans taken hostage.
Was that the same action that Reagan used in Lebanon?
Lebanon was a mistake. Unlike other posters here I'm ready to admit that my leaders are human and make mistakes.
Like other places in the sub-developed world, Lebanon was and is a place where either you go in very agressively or don't go in at all.
My point is, like many other politicians, Reagan was very capable of saying one thing and doing another.
Well, has Bush made any mistakes? Since he suddenly wants to follow Murtha's suggestion from May of 2004, should we, as taxpayer's give him unlimited financial resources without any guarantee of success? Would a business finance a project with a track record of failure, no end date, no real defined goals? Mr. Bush wants us to fund a project that has been unsuccessful to this point with no objectives or goals. My bank would tell me to take a hike and I couldn't blame them.
My suggestion is that if we give him the money he wants and he can't meet certain objectives with it, he should have to pay us back. It is time that the American taxpayer demands value for their investment in our government.
« < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > »
Not a member? Sign-up today!
mekhifranks1975
adamhowe1980
leeharris1969
uhexivy
yhovica
nuzalivo
koqezuca
icyvexu
bicysemu
yhuwazi
adivohy
jelofuki
ebypola
ugidaze
ygamote
ilotemu
gacewoti
elyjiwo
Raiderwall
rytujoza
wijahenu
paqivule
bexiwymu
miloqyka
rusakyno
hujeboxa
wekasonu
iworany
rofydepi
stwor
tanglang
ishmuga
AMATEUR
HonestlyNow
HonestlyTruly
rdkenr
rever
klpzilltiff
greeneyes
Matteu00
Rayman
doncatterson
DutchScot
Leemck02
RealTruth
Nowalive
Leonard77
Nixon7
dicklovelace
564)
i figure those who never had the courage to earn three purple hearts and a silver star have little ethical ground to condemn those that have.
you're a disgrace of a human being.
and certainly no American.
Yeah, lerch is courageouos enough to sit before congress and lie about his fellow troops. Just like he lied about his wounds. You are the disgrace. You are the one who will believe anything someone tells you, so long as they hate our President Bush too. It's a shame libs cannot stand up to their own party even when deep down inside, every intelligent American can tell they're wrong.