WRONG TIME, WRONG PLACE, WRONG WAR

The contention that you'd get a UN resolution to impose sanctions on Iran is ludicrous. Oil is climbing rapidly to $70 a barrel. Even if there were to be sanctions imposed, you'd just end up with another oil-for-food scam. Of course, the Shrub's buddies would love that--Americans ripped off the Iraqi oil-for-food program faster than anyone else, and such a program with Iran would give the energy industry an entre which they do not currently enjoy.

Impose sanctions on Persian petroleum? Get real . . .

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I can't help but notice this consistant drone about how anyone that supports the war should be over there or sending their sons and daughters in their stead. Is this what passes for liberal thought these days?

Maybe not all of it, but it's an interesting test.

The war was very popular when there were few boots on the ground and lots of big bangs on TV.
It's less popular now- ask the recruitment officers.

It's even less popular among Washington suits when anyone suggests their relatives should show personal commitment to the military's allotted tasks.

Nothing much changes.

But it's a seriously retarded test.

Many of our leaders have served in the armed forces. Many of their children serve or have served in the armed forces. It's voluntary and the idiotic demand that more of their children should serve is just that. Idiotic.

It's just more Bush hating pure and simple. When you can't make a cogent arguement, go for the kids...

0 Replies

Good leadership is done by example, unlike this admnistration that's all blather and empty rhetoric.

"Bring them on!"

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
i keep wondering, since israel is in violation of u.n. resolutions regarding their posession of nuclear weapons, when we will be invading tel aviv.

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." - president george w. bush

i've always been pro-israel, but hey, fair is fair.

Replace the word "free" with "responsible" and you'll just about have it

don't tell me, tell george. it's his rap. :wink:

seriously, j.w., it only makes the usa look hypocritical to wag our fingers and spank some countries, like iraq, iran, n.k. and libya for nuking it up while coddling others like israel, pakistan and india. they've all been acting up. in fact, our pal, mushareff, just tested out a new cruise missle capable of delivering a warhead 300 miles. where's the white house remonstrations on that one ?

you can see why some think that we play favorites right?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

But it's a seriously retarded test.

Many of our leaders have served in the armed forces. Many of their children serve or have served in the armed forces. It's voluntary and the idiotic demand that more of their children should serve is just that. Idiotic.

It's just more Bush hating pure and simple. When you can't make a cogent arguement, go for the kids...

...I haven't seen anyone asking any of the leaders who have served to grab a rifle...only requests of the war hungry conservatives to sign up and ship out.
If you are over here beating the war drum, you may as well be over there firing off a few rounds to speed up the peace process.
It's not a retarded test...it just makes sense that if you think so highly of this war, and you are an able body....enlist.
Period.

What's retarded about that?

0 Replies

Modern-day Republicans think it is retarded that anyone besides the lower classes should be affected by our wars in any way, Candid. The insinuation that they themselves should put their life on the line if they believe in our Foriegn policy objectives so strongly is frankly insulting to them, you see.

No rationing. No mentioning the war effort and the money it is costing. No gas rationing or recycling efforts. No, there's no impact on the society whatsoever, as far as the Republicans are concerned; and how dare anyone say it should be different?

Our children will pay the price for their foolishness.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

No, I meant for Iran to do defensive nukes. I see it to start with. Good gravy, can no one in the US even picture being anyone other than us?

it would probably be really hard to do that as an american if you haven't been abroad or live in an area with a huge number of foreigners. i don't mean one of the cities that has chinatown or whatever. i mean deep immersion in foreign culture. ya still don't get the whole picture, but at least there's exposure to the concept that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth.

0 Replies

Re: Pat Buchanan: Is this Iran crisis for real?

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Is this Iran crisis for real?
Posted: August 15, 2005
By Patrick Buchanan

Are the Iranian mullahs close to acquiring the bomb? Has Iran violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty by restarting its conversion of yellowcake into uranium hexaflouride? The answer to both is no.

By a recent U.S. intelligence review, Iran may be 10 years away from a bomb. And under the NPT, Iran is allowed to enrich uranium for use in her own nuclear power plants. ....If the council then rejects sanctions, but America and her NATO allies impose them, the world will be divided between Russia-China-Iran on one side and the United States and its backers on the other. ...

There is another consideration. Iran's response to any U.S. strike is unlikely to be to go limp like a peacenik demonstrator...

What could Iran do? Plenty....In short, a U.S. attack on Iran could lead to war across the region .....But just as 9-11 united Americans behind President Bush, attacks on Iran might unite the Iranian people behind the mullahs' regime,...

President Bush should think long and hard before yielding to the War Party a second time. Iran is a nation three times the size of Iraq and with three times the population. This would be no cakewalk.

buchannon highlights several things i mentioned on the "bush insanity thread".

now does the point of view have any weight with our conservative pals ?

what he says is logical. it's about the only thing that i agree with the guy on.

he certainly shows us the difference between an uber-conservative and a neo-con.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Modern-day Republicans think it is retarded that anyone besides the lower classes should be affected by our wars in any way, Candid. The insinuation that they themselves should put their life on the line if they believe in our Foriegn policy objectives so strongly is frankly insulting to them, you see.

No rationing. No mentioning the war effort and the money it is costing. No gas rationing or recycling efforts. No, there's no impact on the society whatsoever, as far as the Republicans are concerned; and how dare anyone say it should be different?

Our children will pay the price for their foolishness.

Cycloptichorn

I think it's telling that only those on the left believe soldiers to be "the lower class". I would never think that, much less say it. My family is the result of a military family. My father grew up in West Virginia and turned down a football scholarship to UWV to join the Air Force because of the opportunity the military presented. Just like people today do. I find this idea that only "the lower class" fights to be strictly a liberal idea and I remain appalled by it.

Are you suggesting that all the cadets at West Point and the Air Force Academy are "the lower class"? That every infantry person serving in Iraq is "the lower class" I am sure if you asked them, they would tell you what they thought of your feelings.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I can't help but notice this consistant drone about how anyone that supports the war should be over there or sending their sons and daughters in their stead. Is this what passes for liberal thought these days?

you bet your sweet bippy it does when the last 2 decades have been nothing but conservatives beating their chests about defense and war and kill the bad guy.

but, as usual, they screwed it up. instead of being straight up and going after the real bad guys, those with the swinging twig brigade decided that if one war was good, two would be better. and even in plain view of the idiocy of their desires, they are stomping around pointing and yowling (while ignoring north korea ) about iran.

only, they sure as hell don't put their buttinsky on the line.

chickenhawks...their role in the whole thing ain't changed a bit...

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/2004/10/2-22.jpg

0 Replies

Yeah, like the military isn't like 75% conservative... Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

No, I meant for Iran to do defensive nukes. I see it to start with. Good gravy, can no one in the US even picture being anyone other than us?

Hehehehe! Here's my limited claim to fame: got it with your first post!

I agree that it would make sense for the Iranis (Iranians?) to have defensive nukes. It's easy enough to follow the news, isn't it?

country with no nukes -> Americans attack
country with nukes -> Americans don't attack

Now, would you rather desire to follow the Iraqi example, or the Korean one? Or look at Pakistan, India and China: not exactly setting an example, but hey, they are called "important powers" or "our allies" by the Americans, right? WMD and proliferation? Not an issue with Pakistan!

Seriously, if I was Syrian or Iranian, I'd probably see quite some potential in the whole WMD business.

0 Replies

Quote:

I think it's telling that only those on the left believe soldiers to be "the lower class". I would never think that, much less say it. My family is the result of a military family. My father grew up in West Virginia and turned down a football scholarship to UWV to join the Air Force because of the opportunity the military presented. Just like people today do. I find this idea that only "the lower class" fights to be strictly a liberal idea and I remain appalled by it.

Are you suggesting that all the cadets at West Point and the Air Force Academy are "the lower class"? That every infantry person serving in Iraq is "the lower class" I am sure if you asked them, they would tell you what they thought of your feelings.

Amazing to me how you jumped from my phrase, the 'lower classes' who are the PRIMARY group recruited to be in the Military, as you well know, to calling the military 'lower class.' Real classy move, there.

Do you have kids, McG? Have you encouraged them to sign up and fight? Presumably you are too old/disabled/busy/rich to do so, so it seems you should feel it appropriate to continue the military tradition in your family...

West point/other academy branches provide a very small amount of the total number of soldiers in wartime; they are immaterial to the discussion.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

So, let me get this straight, if the bully down the street tells you if he catchs you with his girlfriend he'll kick your ass, you would try your hardest to be around her?

Yeah.... that makes sense... sure... Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
I think it's telling that only those on the left believe soldiers to be "the lower class". I would never think that, much less say it. My family is the result of a military family. My father grew up in West Virginia and turned down a football scholarship to UWV to join the Air Force because of the opportunity the military presented. Just like people today do. I find this idea that only "the lower class" fights to be strictly a liberal idea and I remain appalled by it.

Are you suggesting that all the cadets at West Point and the Air Force Academy are "the lower class"? That every infantry person serving in Iraq is "the lower class" I am sure if you asked them, they would tell you what they thought of your feelings.

Amazing to me how you jumped from my phrase, the 'lower classes' who are the PRIMARY group recruited to be in the Military, as you well know, to calling the military 'lower class.' Real classy move, there.

Do you have kids, McG? Have you encouraged them to sign up and fight? Presumably you are too old/disabled/busy/rich to do so, so it seems you should feel it appropriate to continue the military tradition in your family...

West point/other academy branches provide a very small amount of the total number of soldiers in wartime; they are immaterial to the discussion.

Cycloptichorn

I will encourage my children to make the decision of what to do with their lives as they choose. If they choose to join the military, I will indeed support them in that decision. If they choose not to, I will support that decision as well. That's how it works, see? My feelings and opinions on the war are not my childrens. They are mine. I support the war, I[/i] do not need the left's permission to support the war or to support my president.

That's why this incessent drone about senators sending their children is retarded. It's not up to them.

West point and the other academies are VERY important as they represent the future officers and leaders in the armed forces. You seem to think that only poor farm boys join the military and I am here to tell you how wrong you are. A good friend's son just signed up. He just graduated from Cornell university and he is signing up into the Army to be a grunt. Perhaps you should send him a card explaining why you consider him to be "lower class".

0 Replies

McG, as a former grunt in the US Military I suggest to look at socio-economic status of all enlistees currently serving in the US Military (as of date of enlistment) although I doubt very much you are interested in such facts.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Yeah, like the military isn't like 75% conservative...

don't be obtuse. you know i'm talking about the leadership.

2004 Democratic Ticket

Senator John F. Kerry
Lt., U.S. Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, 3 Purple Hearts.

Senator John Edwards
No military service.

Prominent Democrats

Former President Bill Clinton
No military service.

Former President Jimmy Carter
U.S. Navy, Naval Academy graduate, submarine officer, 7 years active duty.

Former Vice President Al Gore
U.S. Army journalist, Vietnam.

Former Vice President Walter Mondale
U.S. Army, 1951-1953.

Wesley Clark, presidential candidate
U.S. Army, 1966-2000, West Point, Vietnam, Purple Heart, Silver Star. Retired 4-star general.

Hilary Rodham Clinton, Senator (D-NY)
No military service.

Richard Gephardt, Congressman (D-MO)
Missouri Air National Guard, 1965-71.

Tom Daschle, Senate Minority Leader
1st Lt., U.S. Air Force, Strategic Air Command, 1969-72.

Ted Kennedy, Senator D-MA)
U.S. Army, 1951-1953.

Tom Harkin, Senator (D-IA)
Lt., U.S. Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.

Fritz Hollings, Senator (D-SC)
U.S. Army officer, World War II, Bronze Star, 7 campaign ribbons.

Charles Rangel, Congressman
Staff Sgt., U.S. Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.

Max Cleland, Former senator
U.S. Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam.

Gray Davis, Former Calif. governor
U.S. Army, Captain, Vietnam; Bronze Star.

Chuck Robb, Senator (D-VA)
U.S. Marine Corps, 1961-70, Vietnam.

Bob Kerrey, Former senator
LTJG, U.S. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.

George McGovern
U.S. Army Air Corps, WWII, Silver Star, Distinguished Flying Cross.

Prominent Independents

Ralph Nader, Consumer advocate
U.S. Army.

Jesse Ventura, Former governor, actor
U.S. Navy, SEAL Team.

2004 Republican Ticket

President George W. Bush
Pilot, Texas Air National Guard, 1968-1973.

Vice President Richard Cheney
No military service.

Prominent Republicans

Former President Gerald Ford
U.S. Navy, WWII, Lieutenant Commander.

Former President George H. W. Bush
U.S. Navy, pilot, WWII. Shot down by the Japanese.

Former Vice President Dan Quayle
U.S. Army, Indiana National Guard.

Tom Ridge, Director Homeland Security
U.S. Army, Vietnam, Bronze Star for Valor.

John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General
No military service.

John McCain, Senator (R-AZ)
U.S. Navy, Naval Academy, Pilot, Vietnam POW, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.

Jon Kyl, Senator (R-AZ)
No military service.

Chuck Hagel, Senator (R-NE)
U.S. Army, two Purple Hearts, Bronze Star, Vietnam.

Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House
No military service.

Tom Delay, House Majority Leader
No military service.

Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
No military service.

Rick Santorum, Senator (R-PA)
No military service.

Lindsey Graham, Senator (R-SC)
U.S. Army lawyer, National Guard.

Jeb Bush, Florida governor
No military service.

Bob Dole, Former senator
U.S. Army, WWII, Italy campaigns, two Purple Hearts, Bronze Star Medal.

Rudy Giuliani, Former NYC mayor
No military service.

Michael Bloomberg, Mayor New York City
No military service.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor Calif.
1-year service with the Austrian Army (main vocation was bodybuilding).

there's several such lists, but this is a partial from this one;

azcentral.com

0 Replies

President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. He received a bachelor's degree in history from Yale University in 1968, and then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. Also served as Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces 2000-present.

Secretary Rumsfeld is responsible for directing the actions of the Defense Department. Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989.

General Richard B. Myers entered the Air Force in 1965 through the Reserve Officer Training Corps program. His career includes operational command and leadership positions in a variety of Air Force and Joint assignments. General Myers is a command pilot with more than 4,100 flying hours in the T-33, C-37, C-21, F-4, F-15 and F-16, including 600 combat hours in the F-4.

Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr. serves as the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In this capacity, he is a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Nation's second highest ranking military officer. Admiral Giambastiani is the seventh officer to hold the position.

Lieutenant General Raymond T. Odierno grew up in northern New Jersey, attended the United States Military Academy at West Point, and graduated in June 1976 with a Bachelor of Science Degree. Later, General Odierno attended North Carolina State University and the Naval War College, receiving Masters degrees in Nuclear Effects Engineering and National Security and Strategy, respectively. General Odierno is also a graduate of the Army War College.

General Michael W. Hagee graduated with distinction from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1968 with a Bachelor of Science in Engineering. He also holds a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School and a Master of Arts in National Security and Strategic Studies from the Naval War College. He is a graduate of the Command and Staff College and the U.S. Naval War College.

These are the people in charge of the war. They have more than enough military experience.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

McTag wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I can't help but notice this consistant drone about how anyone that supports the war should be over there or sending their sons and daughters in their stead. Is this what passes for liberal thought these days?

Maybe not all of it, but it's an interesting test.

The war was very popular when there were few boots on the ground and lots of big bangs on TV.
It's less popular now- ask the recruitment officers.

It's even less popular among Washington suits when anyone suggests their relatives should show personal commitment to the military's allotted tasks.

Nothing much changes.

But it's a seriously retarded test.

Many of our leaders have served in the armed forces. Many of their children serve or have served in the armed forces. It's voluntary and the idiotic demand that more of their children should serve is just that. Idiotic.

It's just more Bush hating pure and simple. When you can't make a cogent arguement, go for the kids...

I guess the request for an open casting call for conservatives to enlist is only "retarded" when the left makes it...you, however, have in the past found it prudent to ask if I am doing my part in practicing what I preach.

If "doing our part" entails acting upon one's beliefs, then it necessarily follows that one should get off the couch and fight the fight....whichever side of the fight you're on.

0 Replies

One minor correction on GWBush:

President George W. Bush
Pilot, Texas Air National Guard, 1968-1973. Went AWOL.

0 Replies

WRONG TIME, WRONG PLACE, WRONG WAR

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know