This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - jeffislouie
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49  51 52
« on: December 17, 2007, 11:11:49 AM »
"you know nothing about julie, asswipe.
and no one can reasonably question making fun of gump.
just say no to drugs, baby."
What I know about Julie is the following:
She hates Bush.
She hates the war in Iraq.
She ignores valid points and uses ad hominem to attack those who disagree with her.
She is more than happy to spew anti-bush rhetoric.
She thinks that anyone who doesn't think like her is on drugs or stupid.
Bush bashing is not cool anymore doll. Quite the opposite. It's rather childish and silly and indicitive of the sort of person that most folks ignore and laugh at behind their backs.
So keep it up. You're only two or three years behind the times.
You represent everything that is wrong with our country. Sure, in the heydey of spitting on soldiers you would be a popular chick, but nowadays? You are pathetic.
Arguing with you is like arguing with a 4 year old. You just don't get it and no matter how many times I explain it, you just keep saying the same things.
Good for you. You've closed your mind and made a decision to hate our President.
« on: December 17, 2007, 11:06:48 AM »
So you have leukemia that was caused by a chem in Desert Storm? What kind of chem? Where did you encounter it? What unit were you in? It's taken 16 years to show up? That sure is a coincidence and hard to believe given the topic here. I'm calling BS on that one.
Furthermore, all of the problems you named are at the core a lack of manpower on our part. I can tell you assumed I meant how many troops are actually in country at any given time. That's not what I meant. I meant we can't fight OIF and OEF, fight the GWOT in other areas such as the HOA, fight the drug war in South America, maintain the security of South Korea, maintain our commitments in Europe, be ready to respond to an attack on Taiwan, AND guard our borders effectively with the small amount of personnel we have available today. This is not 1991, sir. Tell the Army Staff Sgt. who hasn't seen his wife in 15 months and has deployed to various locations 5 times in the last five years that we don't have a manpower shortage.
Moreover, I'm not talking about the short-term troop surge and how effective that has been in Iraq. It has certainly helped. But that will only work as long as we can keep troops at that level in the country. Since we have very, very, very few troops left at home, we can't keep them at the levels they need to be to get the Iraqis deprogrammed enough to make them stop wanting to kill each other. You say our men and women are not asking for more troops. Partially right. The generals aren't asking, because they've been told that such requests will be denied. So they don't ask. That's how the military works. Frankly, that comment shows that don't know what's really going on over there. Your comments are a laundry list of talking points that sound like they came off talk radio.
Just so you know, I'm a conservative Republican who voted for Bush the first time. Not the second. I've worked at the operational level of war, and I know these issues much better than you do. So why don't you stop your BS and go serve your country.
And by the way, geez, dude, do you even know what the Rules of Engagement are? Probably not since they're classified. I can say that there were some overly restrictive ROE during the Fallujah mess but that's been resolved. What the heck are you talking about?
Don't believe me.
It didn't take 16 years, it took about 12. They aren't sure what the chemical was and I couldn't tell you where I encountered it.
I was a humvee driver in country.
It's pretty clear that your unwillingness to accept what is a sad fact illustrates your own contempt for your fellow soldier.
Frankly, I'm starting to think your story is BS.
Here I am, a vet who is suffering and you are calling me a liar.
Good for you.
Sleep well at night.
So others can see how full of *&^% you are, there are currently close to 1.4 million active duty military personnel. Around 10% are in Iraq as we speak.
Nice try, bucko. Seems to me our military has plenty of people. Your argument is silly and while creative, you are making up facts to support your conclusions.
90% of the US military forces are anywhere BUT Iraq.
Next time, when you decide to make up facts, do some research before opening that angry mouth.
I'm off to chemo.
Wish you the best.
« on: December 17, 2007, 10:57:54 AM »
I wish you the best healthwise, jeffislouie.
The problem is insane rules of engagement, limited political support, general malaise of the american people, and a very vocal anti-war segment of the population.
How did these things lead to trouble in Iraq, exactly? What "insane rules of engagement" would you change, for instance?
BTW, I still think you owe me and other leftists an apology.
Well, thanks for the well wishing. That is kind of you.
The limited political support, malaise, and vocal anti-war segment of the population all contribute to the issues in Iraq. The men and women over there are the only ones who really know what is going on, not the bozo politicians who pretend they do.
There is a serious morale issue right now that comes directly from this anti-war, anti-soldier crap. When Kerrey implies that all troops are stupid it hurts them. When Murtha declares innocent men guilty of war crimes, that hurts them. When those soldiers are cleared of all charges and Murtha doesn't apologize, that hurts worse. It is not an easy thing for anyone to understand how someone can claim they support the troops, yet talk about them like they are blind, brainless murderers and constantly threatens to withhold funding and equipment. To a soldier, these stupid funding packages the left in this country delays and chops up into smaller bites means the potential for a lack of armor, a shortage of bullets, smaller food rations, and generally worse conditions. When the democrat side of Congress withholds funding and puts off defense spending bills, the troops start to wonder if they are going to be shot at and killed because the left doesn't care about them.
It's really that simple.
A friend of mine, an ex-marine now states attorney, just sent his kid back to Iraq for his second tour. I asked him how he is holding up with all the nastiness coming out of washington.
He said what every soldier I know would tell you:
"They have to ignore it because if they paid attention to the morons in Congress, they'd be dead. Hesitation and distraction can kill even the best soldier. They are there to do a job, so they ignore what they can and make fun of what they can't."
So the anti-war crowd pressures the democrat party to withhold funds and force a retreat while claiming it's for the soldiers while the soldier wonders when he's going to run out of bullets, get hit without armor, be riding in a vehicle that is all but scrap, etc.
Like it or not, if the left wants out of Iraq, they shouldn't be playing the game this way. Which is why I don't think the left really wants out - they just want to hurt President Bush. That's why I am not a democrat anymore. I think when politics become a game, people get hurt and not always the people being targeted.
The rules of engagement? Well, it is not terribly well known that returning fire requires a checklist.
In days of old, if you were shot at, you returned fire immediately. Naturally, this caused some fear in the enemy - if a few of them fired on a large squad of marines, they would most certainly be dead within seconds. But now? Well, now there is a checklist that all soldiers in combat must go through before they can return fire. Basically, the new ROE takes away a soldiers right to self defense by limiting how he or she can react. This causes more deaths in country than anything else.
Here's a primer from an informed source: http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/13/the-ncos-speak-on-rules-of-engagement/
So yeah, I don't think our men and women should have to second guess themselves in a combat situation. Hesitation is a killer in battle.
As for an apology to people on the left? Well, I'm sorry if it upsets you that I don't agree with you.
Marxism is a fantasy that even Marx knew wasn't reasonable.
Soft socialists and soft communists go against everything the United States stands for - freedom, capitalism, individualism, and courage. Naturally, as a libertarian leaning moderate conservative, it upsets me to listen to leftists talk about utopia in the face of all the failures of marxism, communism and socialism in history.
This nation isn't marxist. It is democratic. Technically, it is a representative republic with economic capitalism.
That's what this country is. That's why marxism may attract you, but has no place in our government or social structure.
So if I have offended or upset you because of my distaste for leftist viewpoints, well I am sorry.
But just as you have the right to believe in marxism, I have the right to believe in our country and democracy.
What I hope is that you understand that what we disagree with each other about is not a reason to hate each other.
Now more than ever, people take this stuff too personally and get angry or upset over what amounts to a difference of opinion.
I believe our nation is good and well intentioned. I believe we do plenty of good in the world. I believe that our great nation, while not perfect, remains the greatest the world has ever known.
We are free to think, speak, and act. We encourage innovation.
But is there really a need to apologize for my views? They come from an individual - one who has no intention of taking away any of your rights even though your ideology limits mine....
Marxism sounds good on paper, but is too open to corruption in practice.
Marxists belive that socialism can be accomplished only through class conflict and violent revolution. Marxism strips away liberty, religion, the right to property, and free trade. Sure it SOUNDS nice to think that we are all equal and should all share, but someone has to administer government, money, trade, freedom, etc.
In the former Soviet Union, this made some higher ups very wealthy and resulted in the mostly poor population waiting for hours in a bread line. The subway systems were paved in gold, but the people who rode the subway had nothing to their names and lived in cramped apartments with their entire family.
Marxism is a complete failure as a political idea.
But you have the right to think and believe as you see fit. Maybe one day you'll change your mind. Maybe one day, you'll convince us all that we are wrong.
To be clear, moderate democrats and moderate republicans aren't that different. I have no issue with either.
The bile spewed by both extremes disgusts me (and I suspect you as well).
Abortion, for instance, is not a conservative issue. The religious right made it one. One extreme drove policy for an entire party.
The war isn't a liberal issue. The far left is working to make it one. No one likes war. I don't. You don't. My wife doesn't.
BUT, when faced with a choice of do something that may help or do nothing and let things in this world become unmanageable, I will always side with whomever thinks that being proactive might result in some real benefit.
Understand - I don't dislike you because you are a marxist or a lefty or a democrat. I disagree with you.
Only the nutbags like Julie Fern decide who is acceptable as a human being based on their perception of that persons political beliefs.
That's why Julie is so lonely. And spends so much time trying to rile up members of a law school discussion message board.
You seem like a nice enough person and I wish you no harm.
Julie Fern? Well, I don't like her very much. I'd rather she not spend so much effort making fun of a sitting President during a time of war. I'd rather she didn't talk down to people who believe in our current role in the war. I'd rather she stopped trying to classify people as this or that based on her distaste of our President.
She could probably be working a little harder at solutions rather than wasting her time here.
I especially don't like the idea that someone who has never served and knows nothing of the war could criticize others when she suspects that they've never served.
Service doesn't qualify you or disqualify you from an opinion. Julie likes to use this flawed logic as a way to demean people without realizing how hypocritical she is.
To Julie, if you haven't served but believe in the war you have no right to say what you think. BUT if you haven't served and are anti-war, well you are good to go.
If you have served and are against this war, well that gives creedence to your beliefs in a way. But not serving and being against the war? How is that any different that not serving and being for the war? It isn't. Which is why I have no respect for Julie or people like her.
Rather than telling people to serve or shut up, why not just be smart enough to listen and debate without trying to diminish other people's opinions?
Because that's no fun for Julie.
I don't think I'll be posting much on this thread anymore as I realized last night how silly it is for me to spend what limited time I have left of this planet trying to convince people who don't care enough to listen that their opinions, while well meaning, are off base.
I'd prefer to live the rest of my life thanking god for the blessings he has given me.
Best of luck to you.
« on: December 16, 2007, 11:39:58 PM »
Well, you care quite a bit to have written out such a response. However, I do think there is something wrong with someone who has such a passionate pro-war view who hasn't signed up to go back. Yes, it's a volunteer military. But it's a volunteer military less than 1/3 the fighting strength of the Desert Storm military. One of the reasons it was incredibly stupid to attack Iraq when we did was because of this fact. Our main problem is manpower shortage. So, I have to be a little suspicious of someone who says they want the war to succeed but isn't currently doing something to help out besides jawboning. Victory isn't possible in Iraq because people like you make excuses as to why you haven't signed back up to fight and ignore the real lack of manpower and force projection that we have. So no, saying thank you isn't enough anymore. Your story about the kid in the restaurant was great and all, but that was back in the salad days of our military strength. We can't afford that anymore. Think about WWII. In WWII, that kid you mentioned would have been deeply shamed by his community for not signing up to join. And likewise, I'm deeply ashamed of you that you spend your time on the Internet instead of helping us out. Time to cowboy up and re-up, buddy.
Lastly, you wouldn't find my attitude embarrasing if you had actually served any time in OIF/OEF and understood the issues. A great many wonderful, brave guys and gals over there feel the same way. So, stop living in the past and join us in today's military. Welcome to reality, pal.
Oh, and you made my point very clearly - you don't care when it comes right down to it. Thanks for stating that very well. People like you don't really care deep down. It's all about you, and not about the country and the service to people like you. So yep, I'm deeply ashamed of you.
What I don't care about is the insane ramblings of an internet message board flamer.
I'll make sure to tell my wife and kids about your educated opinion though.
The reason I am not there right now is because I was diagnosed with leukemia. The doctors think that it may have been a reaction to chemical weapons when I was in country. They aren't really sure if I have leukemia. First came the splitting headaches, then the general pain and discomfort. Then I went to see a doctor, who said I should be dead by now. As it stands, I might not see my kids off to their first day of school.
What I don't care about is your insane assumptive reasoning and fallacious logic.
You didn't even consider the fact that there may be a valid reason that I am not there. Nope, in typical message board bravado, you assumed I wasn't there because I am a spoiled brat.
And the reason we are having trouble in Iraq isn't because of a manpower shortage and you know it.
That, sir, is a bald faced lie.
We have plenty of troops in country right now.
The problem is insane rules of engagement, limited political support, general malaise of the american people, and a very vocal anti-war segment of the population.
Our men and women aren't asking for more troops, though the democrats seem generally opposed to increases in troop levels no matter what (see the resistance to the surge). I guess you might have missed the fact that the democrats opposed the surge that resulted in real progress and a decline in attacks.
The problems we have there right now revolve around a corrupt iraqi infrastructure, which is sadly the biggest problem the iraqi's face. Their leaders take money to look the other way.
When I'm in chemo tomorrow, I'll make sure to ask my doctor if he thinks I'm fit to serve.
If I am lucky enough to see my kids grow up to reach 18, I'll be there encouraging them to serve their country.
You'll be, what, blabbing about things you know nothing about and attacking a vet who served and is dying because of his service?
« on: December 16, 2007, 08:05:27 PM »
I'm a vet of OIF/OEF, and a former Air Force captain. You sound like you know a lot about the war, but I have to ask - have you served? If you are such an ardent supporter of it, why aren't you over there right now helping out?
You're heart's in the right place, but if you'd rather passionately plaster internet message boards rather than put your passion into action downrange, then I think most of us vets would rather you just shut up. You're not helping. Telling troops "thank you" and wearing a ribbon isn't nearly enough if you want us to win. In fact, it smacks of extreme cowardice. We have a severe manpower shortage, and if you truly want victory, PM me and I'll hook you up with some recruiters in your area.
Yes I have served, not that it should matter.
I was in Desert Storm. When we left, me and my buds wondered why the hell we were leaving and why we were leaving without Saddam.
But what does that matter exactly? Do you mean to imply that those who have never served have no right to support our efforts, our troops, and our country?
I'm not sure where you are going with this, but I can tell you that your attitude is not in line one bit.
Frankly speaking, I would rather see the youth of today be AT LEAST willing to open their mouths in support, even if they aren't willing to put themselves in danger.
Let's not forget, ours is a volunteer army. Serving doesn't give you the right to tell others how to show their support either.
Frankly, as a vet who did take the time to discuss the issue, I find your attitude embarrassing and the fact that you appear not to support the action in iraq suspicious.
Maybe I have you pegged wrong. Maybe you were one of the guys we made fun of who was there, but was against the war. Who knows, but I thank you for your service.
When I came back from Desert Storm, I was on leave and home visiting Chicago. My dad picked me up and drove me to meet the family at a restaurant. I was in uniform still.
Ten minutes into the meal, a kid that looked to be 21 walked over with a shot from the bar, interrupted our meal and thanked me for my service. He hadn't served. He told me that even though he never had the guts to sign up, it pissed him off when people trash talked the war and our jobs. He told me that he feels like he at least owed me and those of us in uniform a voice to combat the morons who trash talk the soldiers and spout off about the war.
I thanked him, gave him my best 'you are welcome' I could muster, and did a shot with him.
It meant the world to me.
I would rather come here and see a few more like him than the anti-war crowd that seems to come out to party here.
I'm sorry you don't feel like I am 'helping'.
But I also don't care.
« on: December 16, 2007, 04:43:11 PM »
I'm not using left in the strict sense of being communistic, more government control, etc.
I'm using it in the broader sense of being, at the time period I was fairly involved in politics at my school and outside of it, of being entirely reactionary to the right. By "right" I mean Bush and the political leaders that followed his coattails.
What I mean by "entirely reactionary" is being against what the right did solely because Bush was for it--without evaluating its relative merits. This to me is wrong.
On the other hand, the extreme right does this also. We had fairly hardcore republicans at my school, and they held a reactionary attitude as well.
Please also keep in mind that I am making extreme generalities. Also, it is quite possible that my experience with people (i.e., anecdotal evidence) is not indicative of the population of which we are speaking.
I believe you said you're "far-left." What are your views, if you don't mind me asking?
(Like you, I'm not being antagonistic. I'm curious to hear what you have to say!
This sounds more like what people mean when they say "partisan." I would say, at a minimum, "right" or "left" should refer to the political program of its adherents. I think you are saying that the majority of Democrats are more anti-Bush than they are pro-anything, right? Being leftist has to involve being pro-something, whatever that might be.
I am a Marxist. This means a lot of things to different people and I don't really feel like getting into it here. Suffice it to say I support public ownership; because I am a reformist at heart, I think state control of energy and healthcare would be good starts.
Well, I at least admire your honesty in the matter even though I couldn't be more in opposition to your views.
« on: December 16, 2007, 04:40:07 PM »
you want respect, forrest, earn it.
absolutely, we should leave. fix it? that like dropping egg on floor and asking julie how fix it. murder, death, and mayhem mostly coming us, dipshit.
julie not believe one second you and your ilk care two shits about iraqis. you really should make more effort learning about origins your own side's mythology.
and no one could believge that crap without being on drugs or its equivalent.
so, shoot up again if want to.
See, that's why internet message boards are a joke. You don't "earn" respect in a message board. You post your opinion and discuss things. The difference between you and me is that I believe that every human being deserves at least BASIC respect until they warrant otherwise. As you have ascribed drug use to me (and you know nothing about me), and continue to show blatant disrespect, I no longer feel any for you.
So, fruitcake, I'll go right ahead and enjoy the fact that you are completely unable and unwilling to consider that your broad brush might be missing a few threads.
Here's the deal, moron (yes, I've decided that you don't deserve any respect anymore): Not all conservatives think alike.
Just as you are wrapped in your hatred for our President, you are a warped, cynical hate-filled neo-hippie - that is you are all talk and no brains.
Let me break it down for you. You either love this country and believe that while we make mistakes, we are generally a noble nation that tries to do good in the world OR you HATE this country and believe that we are THE problem in the world.
I know which side of that equation I am on. Do you?
You are allowed your opinion. I'm okay with yet another lefty without a brain or a conscience spouting off their mouth and exposing themselves for the blathering, drooling moron they are.
I believe that the war was just.
I believe that our troops are doing their best job.
I believe that we went in with the full approval of congress. Even your precious little angel Shrillary voted for the action.
I also am not a neo-con. I do not love Bush. I don't think he is perfect but I also don't allow the things I disagree with him on to drive a deep seeded hatred. Only fools and the hyperemotional do that sort of thing.
We made plenty of mistakes in Iraq, the worst of it is that we are still there. BUT, unlike you, I actually understand what might happen if we leave Iraq now. A power void. Power voids breed corruption like rancid buttermilk breeds bacteria. Iran can further influence Iraq and the taliban and al qaeda can spread their message unabated.
You may not believe that I care about Iraq. You may not believe that Conservatives care about Iraq. But that's why you are a lefty - you think you know it all.
Sort of like Darfur. You lefties whine and cry about how bad it is there, but you know damn well you are not interested in doing a damn thing about it but whining and crying.
your leftist platform prohibits doing anything as that would require comittment and resolve. Lefties don't even know what those words mean.
Leaving the region only announces a loss and guarantees the defeat of all the progress we've made.
To a leftie, that means a solution. Lefties like to forget what happened when we did likewise in afghanistan, leaving the afghani's without support and causing a young, pro-american leader in that war to hate the US and create a terrorist organization called al qaeda, who's aim it is to topple the US.
Lefties like to forget that we could have won the Vietnam war had we NOT listened to the democrats in congress and let the military run their war. Recently, a Vietnamese general involved in commanding the viet-cong in that war made it absolutely clear - the US was on the verge of victory and at the crucial moment when victory was at hand, the liberals pulled back our troops and surrendered a war that was less than a week from being a victory. Additionally, he talked about how great it was for their troop morale to hear that US leftists were on THEIR side. What better propaganda is there than that? The enemy hates THEMSELVES! Smart.
But that brings us back to Iraq, a young nation working for democracy.
If we leave, we create a nation of enemies and tell every single muslim that we don't give a *&^% about them. We're more than happy to roll in and depose your cruel dictator, but we just don't care enough to help nations stand themselves up in a secure, democratic nation.
It's not our business, right?
Nah, lefties are far more concerned with legalizing 16 million alien invaders and trashing our sitting President.
Hey, while you are at it, why not burn a few flags and start a few conspiracy theories?
The reason you can't grasp the basic idea is that you assume that all republicans agree with Bush - they don't. Bush spends like a democrat. Bush is a terrible public speaker. His communication skills have been horrendous. By all accounts, the public image he has created by accident or on purpose is NOTHING like he is in real life. He has made some bad choices.
But he's made choices. The democrats rallied behind the battle cry "Look how low Bush's approval ratings are!", yet seem unaware that since taking over the majority of congress, their own ratings are the lowest in the history of the approval ratings.
That means that the new, 'ethical' congress holds the title for the least approved of congress since that measurement has been taken. It's even lower than President Bush.
Yet I don't see many comments by you discussing Congress' role in things.
You are the guy who blames republicans for high gas prices, while your democrat run legislature refuses to even discuss temporarily cutting the massive taxes they have managed to latch on to every gallon of gas. Want to see gas below $2 a gallon again? Stop collecting taxes on it for a little while.
I asked you to discuss a solution and the best you could come up with was that we should give up and quit.
That's what a neo-hippie would think....
When things get tough, quit. When you can't figure out a better way to handle a situation, give up. When things get hairy, throw in the towel.
When the going gets tough, the tough get going. And the lefties start running.
I can see why so many people don't like you. You are a quitter.
Since this is the law school discussion board, I assume you are interested in law school.
Allow me to give you a warning - people don't like lawyers who quit and cry when things aren't fair. Perhaps you should consider a more fitting occupation. I hear teachers are encouraged to indoctrinate their students rather than teach them these days. Perhaps you could be a teacher? seems perfect for you, now that I think of it. People would be afraid to argue with you, you can feel smart no matter how stupid you sound, and you could always sleep comfortably knowing that if it gets too hard, you can always call your union rep....
People like you make me sad.
But glad as hell to be studying law.
PLEASE tell me if you pass the bar (I know it will be a challenge so you might not show up - or perhaps you'll show up for the test, get upset because it is taking too long, and run home halfway through....) so I can move to whatever state licenses you and do my pro-bono female dog slapping you in court.
That is all.
« on: December 14, 2007, 06:12:48 PM »
Dude, Julie Fern is a schtick. Google it and see what it means. He/She/Its goal is to anger people.
While I agree with a lot of your general ideas, there's also no need to caricature the entire left.
Fair enough, although I couldn't find anything about Julie Fern on google.
Understand that I don't think the average Democrat is a far leftie - just the most vocal group, and it looks to me like the main political players seem to think that every democrat feels the same as the far left people do.
Hence, when I talk about the left, I am talking about the very people that made me rip up my democrat registration card.
Now, instead of being a moderate democrat, I am a left leaning Republican.
I am speaking of the soft-socialists who are interested in income redistribution.
I am focusing on the hard core liberals that think that the governments function is to control nearly every aspect of our lives, from how much we are allowed to earn to whether or not we can or are forced to have health insurance.
To be specific: I don't think abortion is murder, provided the baby is not viable yet (up to the middle of the second trimester), but I also believe it is a states rights issue. The states should be allowed to dictate the legality of abortion, then the people who care that much about it can live in those states or not based on their viewpoint. Being as abortion is, in my view, difficult to discuss and legislate, it should be a states rights issue.
More liberal states can apply whatever standard they feel is justified and states that are more conservative should have the right to decide to ban it if that's what the majority of the citizens desire.
I guess I am a constitutionalist and our constitution put a great deal of power in the states hands. The current crop of Democrats want to to further damage that idea and put nearly all social issues in the hands of the federal government, making leaders of this country more of a king or queen that gets elected to 4 or 8 year terms than the founding father could have been comfortable with.
Forgive me if I sound a little too much like Hannity, but it still stings to me that the democrat party turned their backs on the moderates that make up most of the base. Sadly, far too many moderates are wooed by the idea of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) and seem unwilling to consider the idea that Bush is a decent human being who may have made choices that they disagree with, instead choosing to paint him with the devils paintbrush.
Any chance you have any more info on Julie Fern being a schtick?
I couldn't find anything....
« on: December 14, 2007, 03:04:18 PM »
so, you willing share your drugs, or what?
How disrespectful, but this is a message board, so it's not like you have to face me...
I get it. You don't like the war.
So what are the alternatives to finishing what we started? There is only one thing we can go besides stay, and that is leave.
I will say it again, since you seem to attribute what I said to drugs - when one nation invades another and doesn't bother to stick around to fix what was broken, murder, death, and mayhem is the result.
Vietnam - we had all but won the war. Thanks to the Democrats, we pulled back when we had the viet cong with their backs against the wall. We had cut off their supply lines and morale in the viet cong was the lowest it could have been.
Then the anti-war lefties pulled our men out. The Viet Cong won, then set about slaughtering over one million vietnamese.
That's a fact.
In Afghanistan, we stepped in with support to help them fight their war against the USSR. Then we pulled back and watched them lose. Thousands of Afghanis lost their lives. Al Qaeda formed as a result of this action. I know, I made that up. OR, it is exactly what OBL claims.
I know, to a youngster like you, history is meaningless unless you can use it as an excuse to slam our President or prove a conservative priciple to be lacking, but REAL history should teach you that you can't jump into war, then jump out and expect any good to come of it.
That said, the only options we have in iraq are: Stay and stand up the nation OR leave and watch it crumble.
We are there, helping train them and fighting alongside them against terrorists and foreign influences. If we leave, they will be over run. We will once again lose a potential ally and be stabbing all the people who believe in us over there - and there are plenty of them.
The problem here is that your filter is based, no doubt, on the MSM, who misreports virtually everything in an effort to please their democrat masters.
Study after study proves out that the MSM is heavily liberal in it's reporting, yet the left continues to claim a vast right wing conspiracy.
It was reported that our pressuring Iran was working - who stopped the pressure? The left. Who withheld that information? The left. Who wants nothing BUT Bush's failure? The left.
It scares me because too many college students are indoctrinated into thinking that the left is always right, especially when they are wrong.
So, you've trashed the war and all - give me your solution.
And when Iran invades and declares it part of their nation, what then?
And when Al Qaeda creates a taliban style government, then what?
I would love to hear your ideas as to how to solve this problem, because so far all I see is the same empty talk that the democrat party used to wrestle control of Congress, then do nothing but trash our country, our president, and secretly laugh at those of you who wasted their votes for a party interested in power only, not what is best for our nation at home and abroad.
So share with the class your plan for Iraq. OR, shut up until you have one. Whining is very unattractive- just look at Shrillary Klinton.
« on: December 14, 2007, 10:10:17 AM »
The Iraq war is not a lost cause. If you look back at the wars our nation has been involved in, it isn't until recently that we started hitting hard and getting out as quickly as possible.
While I am generally against war, it is because I believe that we should do everything reasonable to avoid it. The fact is, we did that with Iraq. People like to forget (many by accident) that we didn't rush into this war - we put pressure on the UN to up the weapons inspections and virtually all intelligence, as well as statements made on the floor of congress by both democrat and republican alike, supported an invasion.
Now we are there, we cannot simply walk away.
The question isn't should we get out or not. The question is what happens when we DO pull out while a nation is struggling for stability?
The answers lie in history.
How did Iraq get to the point that we have to now be there? Bush I went into Iraq after Hussein's army went into Kuwait. He was determined to prove that we can be involved in a military action and be in and out quickly. He understood that Americans are weak willed to a fault when it comes to the resolve neccessary to complete longer wars. Our culture is built around ease and speed. If we can't get that cup of coffee in under 60 seconds, we act like whiny bitches. The same is proving true now. When Bush I pulled out, he didn't do it because the mission was complete, he did it because he wanted to be out quickly. We were in and out in 6 months or so, and had attacked with over half a million american troops.
The problems came when we left, leaving Hussein in charge. Part of the invasion was encouraging the people to fight Hussein. So Hussein took some of his chemical weapons and bombed his own people.
He cracked down hard on anyone who opposed him.
He became and even worse tyrant. So bad, in fact, that the Iraqi court system sentenced him to death for his actions following the Gulf War.
By some estimates, close to half a million Iraqi's were killed after the US left by Iraqi troops.
In Vietnam, which we had all but won (a Viet Cong general recently released a book in which he alluded to the same - we could have won had we had the resolve necessary and ended the war well before we pulled out and ran), pull out resulted in a slaughter that took the lives of around a million vietnamese.
These were mistakes.
Now, we are in Iraq. There is little to no fighting with Iraqis. Most of the fighting occurs between insurgent groups made up mostly of foreign operatives. The Iraqi people are finally starting to actively fight on our side. We are training their military, their police, and their extremely corrupt government.
We need to remain until the Iraqi people are able to protect themselves, govern themselves, and improve their own position.
It isn't our involvement that is queering the deal either. Only the naive believe we are doing any real harm there. Corrupt politicians in Iraq are taking bribes, ignoring problems, and not following through on their duty. This is how democracy grows, with mistakes, corruption, and confusion. It is natural. When our country was first established, we had similar problems.
So I believe that we must remain.
Most democrat leaders do as well.
Don't delude yourself into thinking that the democrat party actually wants us out of Iraq. They know better. BUT, there is a portion of their base that is telling them that we need to get out.
Many of these people are anti-war to begin with.
Some are just anti-america.
Others are anti-democracy.
The truth is, the biggest difference between the left and the right on this issue is that the right is doing what they believe is correct and the left is doing what they think the most vocal protesters want because they think all democrats are alike. They are not.
I am a registered democrat. I voted for Kerrey. I voted for Gore.
But I'm glad they both lost.
Want to see the democrats restored? Get rid on Howard Dean. He is a vindictive, evil, angry man who blew the election and decided his hatred of Bush should be the mainstay of the democrat party.
Pelosi is a moron. Murtha is worse. Reid is braindead. This is your leadership. Know why? Because Dean knows they hate Bush as much as he does. Almost.
Why do you think the two front runners in the presidential race are so supremely under qualified to lead anything?
A woman and a black man.
Dean wants you to believe that they are more diverse. Clinton is a carpetbagger from Illinois who married a man destined for greatness. She was a terrible lawyer who barely missed censure and disbarrment. There are records of her incompetance.
Add to the fact that she is billed as a smart woman, yet was the only person in this country who didn't know her husband was sleeping around.
Obama has zero leadership experience.
He's never run anything.
His wife runs his house.
He has potential, but as a newly elected junior senator, his only qualification was that he was black. And a democrat.
I believe that the American people should elect Presidents with some executive experience. Senators aren't part of the executive branch - they are legislators. Senators work 3 day weeks. That's a president?
The left knows they have and have had the power to end the war. They just refuse to do it. They are afraid that if they force withdrawal and are wrong, they will suffer.
Again, they do what they think will keep them in power, not what is right.
Bush isn't perfect. No President is.
But Bush is no Carter.
That's okay with me. I'd rather have a cowboy who sticks to his convictions than a farmer who does nothing and hopes words are enough. With Bush, we are stuck in Iraq. With Carter, our citizens sat in Iranian prisons for 444 days while other people tried to fix the problem.
Face it, we're stuck there.
The best we can hope for is a gradual withdrawal.
We should have gone in with 500,000 troops and flattened Iraq.
Then, we should have secured their borders with our troops while we set up a government. Then, we should have told the Iraqi people that if their leaders don't step up, we'll leave and they won't enjoy the daily bombings from terror groups and Iran.
Then we could have pulled out the majority of our troops, leaving a sovereign Iraq.
BUT, we didn't do that. We did something else.
Only a lazy american would make a mess then leave, tail tucked between our legs.
Cut and run creates far more hostility than staying until things are right. That's how Al Qaeda started.
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49  51 52