0
   

Die fighting for US ... Bad. Die Fighting for UN ... Good.

 
 
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 02:20 pm
I'm sure this will be labeled "propaganda" by some on this board, simply because of who wrote it. In doing so, I'm sure they will completely ignore the real concerns raised with Kerry's approach to US sovereignty. But if this doesn't sum up the most important issue of this election, I don't know what does ....



DIE FIGHTING FOR AMERICA ... BAD. DIE FIGHTING FOR THE UNITED NATIONS ... GOOD.
Thursday, October 21, 2004

My God, folks. What has to happen here? Do you have to be hit over the head by an anvil? Do you have to be slapped across the face with a shovel?

Have you heard the latest from The Poodle? John Kerry has a 20-year record in the United States Senate, along with two decades of public statements to go with it, but so far the press has given him a complete pass on his comments regarding the use of American armed forces outside our borders. The media continues to toe the Democratic company line that The Poodle went to Vietnam, got a few medals, and that means that he's fully qualified to be the Commander in Chief. That liberal record in the Senate and his history of public statements are just small footnotes.

The Washington Post ran a story yesterday about John Kerry's approach to foreign policy. Here's one paragraph from that article:

"Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, 'If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.' "

Read it again, folks. Then read it again after that. This isn't some ancient yammering from Kerry back in the 1970's. This is contemporary Kerry. This is Kerry after having served a decade in the Senate. This is Kerry saying that it OK for Americans to die fighting for a cause ratified by the United Nations, but not OK for American soldiers to sacrifice their lives just fighting for the United States ... fighting for their country. America is not worth dying for. Dying for the United Nations is.

This is a virtual repeat of Kerry's statement in the 1970's that it was his belief that U.S. troops should only be deployed outside of the United States with the permission of the United Nations. Oh, to be sure ... he's tried to back off from that statement during this presidential campaign, but I have this nasty tendency to believe what people tell me when they're not running for office, rather then when they're fishing for my vote. Now we see that Kerry reiterated his feelings just ten years ago!

Put these statements together with some other favorites .. the famous "global test" line for instance. Can it be any more clear? Kerry is, as I have been warning for six months, soft on sovereignty. Kerry, as president, would feel compelled to play a grandiose game of international "Mommy May I?" before he takes steps to protect this country and its citizens. Oh ... and don't forget that Kerry feels that terrorism was just a mere nuisance prior to September 11th. Tell that to the families of the Marines who died in the Khobar towers, the families of sailors killed on the USS Cole, and the families of those who died in the first attack on the World Trade Towers.

And did you hear Kerry yesterday? He was addressing the question of whether or not he would have removed Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. He says he would have, but only if he had been able to develop the appropriate international coalition. That means France and Germany. Well, there was no way in hell France and Germany were going to participate in dethroning their Sugar Daddy ... so that means that if it had been Kerry's call, Saddam Hussein would still be running the show in Iraq today. But wait! There's more! Please remember that Kerry also voted against removing Saddam from Kuwait! The reality is that if the great and wonderful John Kerry had been making the decisions Saddam would today be ruling over both Iraq and Kuwait .. and God only knows what else.

What does it take to make you Democrats understand? What does it take to make those of you with those Kerry / Edwards bumper stickers and yard signs understand the danger that this man presents to our country? Do you really believe that the American Commander in Chief should seek some sort of global permission, or the blessings of the United Nations before he can act in the defense of our homeland and our neighbors? Do you really believe that it OK for Americans to die in battle, just so long as they're fighting under the flag of the United Nations?

You hate Bush? You hate his swagger? You despise his smirk! You think he stole the election? Fine! Is that hatred strong enough for you to jeopardize the safety of our country just to wipe that silly grin off his face? Is that burning hatred so strong that you can sit back and say "well at least Bush isn't the president" after the next terrorist attack on our homeland?

Look at this man! I used to think that he was just an empty political vessel. Not so. John Kerry is a dangerous politician bent on granting to the majority of Europeans that which they desire so strongly, a weakened United States. He denigrated our servicemen and women when he returned from Vietnam, and he dishonors them and all that they stand for now by saying that while it is OK for them to die for the United Nations, their lives should not be put on the line for their own country. This is a man who truly believes that the United States is little more than a member "state" of the great and exalted UN.

This country's salvation may lie in you having one quick pang of consciousness when you walk into that voting booth on November 2nd. When you stand there ready to cast your vote you'll have the spirit of international Islamic terrorism on one shoulder trying to guide your hand toward a vote for John Kerry. On the other shoulder will be the ghosts of the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole and of 9/11 urging you to set your petty hatreds aside and vote for the only man who you truly know will take the fight to the Islamic terrorists ... regardless of whether or not Kofi Annan approves.

Generations of Americans are depending on you to do the right thing.

-Neil Boortz


http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,426 • Replies: 31
No top replies

 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 02:30 pm
Very funny!

Thanks for posting this.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 02:35 pm
Thanks for the positive feedback ... but, no ... it's not funny at all.
0 Replies
 
limbodog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 02:39 pm
Hrm... nope. Makes me think Kerry's on the right track. "Global test" means it has to be truthful. I consider that a valid test.

The chicken-little line that Kerry wants to hand the keys to the white house over to the UN is just a way to scare little republican babies into eating their veggies.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 02:40 pm
Warms my heart to see another Boortz fan...
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 02:47 pm
Ticomaya - I'm one that's always thought Kerry hasn't changed his stripes since his "testimony" days and is and has always been an internationalist. His many references to the UN throughout his career and in recent times just reinforces my opinion on this.

I think on this point we can relax. People do see what Boortz sees and will vote their conscience.

The closer it gets, the calmer I'm becoming. (As long as I stay away from anything to do with polls LOL).
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 02:55 pm
I will go AWOL before I let some foreign general call the shots for my service. I didn't pledge to protect the UN I pledged to protect the US. If I were to die under the UN flag I would see that as the largest shame in my life.
0 Replies
 
Armyvet35
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 03:38 pm
Letting the UN decide is very dangerous indeed.

Even when germany, france and Russia supported the gulf war, they only sent 300 soldiers in support of desert storm between all three countries.
Germany sent 33, France sent around 280.

That is the coalition he talks about and I find that appalling... Kerry needs to serve on a UN Mission to understand why soldiers refused to wear the UN Colors on Missions...We are not the UNs personal war machine.... with all the corruptness going on now in the UN... I wouldnt dare vote to elect someone that would put oyur soldiers at the beck and call of those countries I listed and a few others....
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 03:59 pm
Just FYI Armyvet 35, France provided a LOT more than 350 troops.

Here is a breakdown of the troop contributions of various nations during the first Gulf War:

Afghanistan: 300 mujahedin troops
Argentina: 1 destroyer, 1 corvette, 2 air force transport planes
Australia: 1 guided-missle destroyer, 1 frigate, 1 supply ship, 2 surgical teams
Bahrain: 3,000 troops
Bangladesh: 6,000 troops
Belgium: 1 frigate, 2 minesweepers, 2 landing ships, 1 supply ship, 6 C-130 transport planes
Canada: 2 destroyers, 1 supply ship, 12 C-130 transport planes, 24 CF-18 bombers
Czechoslovakia: 200 chemical-warfare specialists
Denmark: 1 corvette
Egypt: 40,000 troops, including 2 armored divisions and 5,000 Special Forces paratroopers
France: 18,000 troops, 60 combat aircraft, 120 helicopters, 40 tanks, 100 armored vehicles, 1 missile cruiser, 3 destroyers, 4 frigates Greece: 1 frigate
Hungary: 40 medical personnel
Honduras: 150 troops
Italy: 2 corvettes, 3 frigates, 1 supply ship, 4 minesweepers, 10 Tornado ground attack aircraft
Japan: medical personnel and supplies
Kuwait: 11,000 troops
Morocco: 1,700 troops
The Netherlands: 2 frigates, 1 supply ships
New Zealand: 3 C-130 Hercules transport planes, 1 medical team
Niger: 500 troops
Norway: 1 Coast Guard cutter, 1 transport ship
Oman: 25,500 troops, 63 airplanes, 4 Exocet-armed ships
Pakistan: 7,000 troops
The Philippines: medical personnel
Poland: 2 rescue ships
Portugal: 1 naval logistics ship
Qatar: 1 squadron of Mirage F-1E fighter planes
Romania: 360 medical personnel, 180 chemical warfare experts
Saudi Arabia: 118,000 troops, 550 tanks, 180 combat planes, 8 frigates
Senegal: 500 troops
Sierra Leone: 30 medical personnel
Singapore: 35-man medical personnel
South Korea: 5 C-130 Hercules transport planes, 150-man medical team
Spain: 1 frigate, 2 corvettes, 1 supply ship, 1 C-130 transport plane
Sweden: field hospital and medical personnel
Syria: 17,000 troops, 300 T-62 tanks
The United Arab Emirates: 40,000 troops, 80 combat planes, 15 ships, 200 tanks
The United Kingdom: 43,000 troops, 6 destroyers, 4 frigates, 3 minesweepers, 5 support ships, 168 tanks, 300 armored vehicles, 70 Tornado and Jaguar combat jets
The United States: 540,000 troops, 6 aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, 2,000 tanks, 2,200 armored personal carries, 1,700 helicopters, 100 warships, 1,800 airplanes

Link

Just trying to keep the facts straight on who and how many.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 04:02 pm
The First Gulf War - wasn't that the one that Kerry voted against ??
0 Replies
 
Armyvet35
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 05:37 pm
Um Fedral Smile I just checked your "source" a web page with a bunch of "Numbers and letters on it"


These figures are approximate. They have been compiled from various sources, including the Center for Defense Information, Reuters, The New York Times, and the U.S. Department of Defense.

this is where they got their info from? Hmmm Excuse me while I laugh at that one....

Let me make a little suggestion here... those numbers you quoted..l. Are actual total numbers of each contries certain military strength NOT total allies support and Strength during desert storm.

So if that web page is correct we had 877,495 US and allied forces on the ground during Desert storm? Sorry but that isnt true at all.....
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 06:10 pm
JustWonders wrote:
The First Gulf War - wasn't that the one that Kerry voted against ??


No. That was the one where we had an exit strategy before we jumped in.
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 06:18 pm
Armyvet35 wrote:
Um Fedral Smile So if that web page is correct we had 877,495 US and allied forces on the ground during Desert storm? Sorry but that isnt true at all.....


It's pretty well spot on.

Quote:
Some 697,000 active duty service members and activated National Guard and Reserve unit members served in the Persian Gulf theater of operations during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield. The majority of troops were deployed to the Gulf theater of operations before the air war began on January 16, 1991, and more than half of the deployed troops were withdrawn from the area by the first week of May 1991. However, an additional 250,000 individuals have been deployed over the ensuing five years, with several thousand U.S. military members currently serving ashore and afloat in the Gulf region.

VA


The US then deployed 700,000 troops in Gulf War 1, then another quarter million, even if they were the same troops there is no problem reaching the 870,000 figure. How's that 'not true', when a five-second Google search could confirm or deny it's validity?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 06:37 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
JustWonders wrote:
The First Gulf War - wasn't that the one that Kerry voted against ??


No. That was the one where we had an exit strategy before we jumped in.


Yes, Kerry did vote against the first Gulf war. It is a matter of record.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 07:49 pm
limbodog wrote:
Hrm... nope. Makes me think Kerry's on the right track. "Global test" means it has to be truthful. I consider that a valid test.

The chicken-little line that Kerry wants to hand the keys to the white house over to the UN is just a way to scare little republican babies into eating their veggies.


"Global test" means truthful.

"American test" does not?

Who, by the way, decides the results of the "Global Test?"

The UN?

The UN Oil for Food Scandal is proof positive of the corruption of the UN. So is the fact that Sudan was recently reappointed to a seat on the UN Human Rights Counsel.

France? Russia? China?

The three nations that profited the most from the Oil For Food program?

One can assume that you are of the mind that dismisses the votes of the 30 or more nations in the Coalition of The Willing and so it would seem that only nations that can prove through their habitual opposition to the US that they are thereby worthy of a vote will get to cast a ballot.

But no, the governments of the Coalition nation were acting against the wishes of their people: unlike, for example, Iran, China, Sudan, Libya, etc.

So, the only way to have a valid "Global Test" is to put it to a vote of the world's population!

Let's set up an internet polling site that anyone in the world can access.

First we'll ask the World if we should withdraw from Iraq.

Then we can ask the World what we should do about Iran and North Korea.

Then we can ask the World if we should surrender our riches to the World.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 07:58 pm
Re: Die fighting for US ... Bad. Die Fighting for UN ... Go
Quote:
'If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.' "


Note the presumption by Mr Kerry that a UN effort is noble and that a unilateral US effort is base.

In Kerry of Vietnam's mind, his own country, the nation that he seeks to lead for the next four years, cannot be trusted to go it alone and must be reigned in by the rest of the world.

But then maybe his whole attitude on this subject will change once he is calling the shots.
0 Replies
 
Armyvet35
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 07:59 pm
Actually Mr still water you are not correct. Go to the defense Almanac for the correct info on this. The Desert Storm war total is as follows:

From 1990-1995 just over 600,000 soldiers served in 10 on going operations that were party of the Gulf War. Not all those soldiers served in all Campaigns and phases of that war. I myself served in 3 of those out of the 10. Some units only spent 2 months there ... others like mine spent 11 months there. The 600,000+ soldiers are the Total Force numbers of soldiers that were used in 10 different campaigns in a 5 year period.

Those missions were Operation Provide Comfort, Northers Watch, Southern Watch, Desert Strike, UNSCOM, UNIKOM, Viligent Warrior, Liberation of Kuwait, Desert Storm and Desert Shield

All those missions were done at different times, different areas, by different soldiers. By no means was there 600,000 troops in Iraq at the same time. The cease fire was signed on 11 APRIL 1991 and the UN didnt step in until HUmanatarian missions for the tent Cities were established in June of 1991.

The High peak of allies in Desert storm was in June 2001 when the peak of allies was numbered at 21,547 allied troops. That is when the UN took over the humanatarian Mission. That was well after the war.

As I was stating... I looked at the source that was quoted and Germany doesnt appear anywhere on that list and they sent 33 pilots for desert storm... so that in itsself is inaccurate....

More facts to follow shortly......
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 08:13 pm
Armyvet - looks like Mr. Stillwater's numbers are right. The balance of the sources are bearing him out.

You may prefer to phrase it differently - but
Quote:
The Persian Gulf Veterans Coordinating Board was established in January 1994 to work to resolve the health concerns of Persian Gulf veterans, including active duty personnel and reservists with Gulf service. The board, headed by the Secretaries of the Departments of Defense (DoD), Veterans Affairs (VA), and Health and Human Services (HHS), is coordinating government efforts related to research, clinical issues and disability compensation.
seems to know who the U.S. had on the go.

(the reference he provided)
0 Replies
 
Jens8611
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 09:18 pm
I agree totaly that Kerry's willingness to put foreign interests over our interests is a very bad idea.

If im not crazy, isn't the job of the President, among others, to serve the nations best interest, and the congress should be the negotiator, among other things again.

I want a president who thinks of us first, the world later.
0 Replies
 
Armyvet35
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 10:10 pm
Ehbeth... actually that is vague and not detail oriented. His source is the VA health and services. and after reading the source he gave me through the VA link, I can say that they did not go into specifics nor did they say how many troops served where and when and in what capacity> What they did discuss was Gulf War syndrome and not in great detail either.

---------------------------------------------------------
"The majority of troops were deployed to the Gulf theater of operations before the air war began on January 16, 1991, and more than half of the deployed troops were withdrawn from the area by the first week of May 1991."
-----------------------------------------------------------

The majority and more than half? What exactly does majority mean and more than half? How about some accurate numbers instead of lump summing?

-----------------------------------------------------------
Gulf theater of operations
-----------------------------------------------------------
10 missions over 5 years in the same theater of operations. Those missions were Operation Provide Comfort, Northern Watch, Southern Watch, Desert Strike, UNSCOM, UNIKOM, vilegent Warrior, Liberation of Kuwait, Desert Storm and Desert Shield. Many soldiers only served in one of those campaigns, out of 10, for 2 months tops. it is covered under the Southeast Asia Defense Service medal which was awarded to everyone whether they went in country or not.

Another thing I find a bit odd about this VA link
source is My unit is actually listed as exposed and I am on the registry and have been through all those tests as well through the VA for Gulf war Illness. Why are they not stating all the facts, and numbers on that one page?


877,495 US and allied forces is what one website says and 697,000 active duty service members is what another says. That is quite a stretch considering the 180,095 were allied troops which actually isn't the case as stated by the Center for Defense information, Department of Defense, General Accounting office, and the Defense Almanac. Those are my sources for actual numbers. The most allies in country were 21,547 (the peak number in 5 years) troops after june 1991, because the UN took over humanitarian aid tent cities.

-----------------------------------------------------------
The US then deployed 700,000 troops in Gulf War 1, then another quarter million, even if they were the same troops there is no problem reaching the 870,000 figure. How's that 'not true', when a five-second Google search could confirm or deny it's validity?
---------------------------------------------------------
What was the source you used for that 870,000 figure? My sources are the Center for Defense information, Department of Defense, General Accounting office, and the Defense Almanac. And they say TOTAL US forces that participated was just over 600,000 to include all 10 campaigns in 5 years. 186,000 soldiers were stationed in different parts of the world at the time and did not participate in any of those campaigns. if you do the math that means almost the entire military conus and oconus was deployed to Desert storm, that leaves no room for medical holds, medical profiles, and many other reasons why over 130,000 soldiers are non deployable at any given time....

I don't mean to be so picky about numbers but I don't like generalizations and quotes from the NY times to distort the facts.

There was actually 350,000 soldiers on the ground before the airstrike and ground war... mid Febuary alot of those people started tearing down and going home, by may most were home... essential units that did stay and were replacing other units were medical, MPs and some infantry.

Most of the National guard and reservists were called up but never sent. The ones that were sent were some medical, transportation, and MP units. Others filled the role of taking over active duty jobs here in the states. Those units utilized for those missions had national guard armourys less than an hour from post, and they rotated out every 30 days.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These figures are approximate. They have been compiled from various sources, including the Center for Defense Information, Reuters, The New York Times, and the U.S. Department of Defense.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Center For Defense Information says no such thing nor does the DOD. The NY times did say that and as do various sources that remain un named.....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Die fighting for US ... Bad. Die Fighting for UN ... Good.
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/18/2024 at 08:25:12