Elk -
Of all the posts I’ve ever seen on this forum, I have to say that you have the most mature and well thought out responses here. Keep up the good posts man. RLTW
rangertab75
Elk -
We have agreed to disagree with each other for the last several months. It don’t bother me if it don’t bother you.
It’s actually fun to see if I can draw you out, and vise/versa - Kind of like a cyber whack-a-mole game.
Although the subject matter we discuss is serious - I think it’s great that we have the freedom to enter such discourse.
Elk,
I noticed you didn’t mention Colin Powell.
For that matter, Rumsfeld. (He was a Naval Aviator in the 50’s)
Zell Miller?
John McCain?
How about the myriad of other Naval/Army/Air Force/Marine active and retired members?
Many of these people had a hand in the discussions and decisions leading up to the War in Iraq.
Do you question their committment? Are they all paid off? Does Halliburton bribe all of them?
Are you one of those people who thinks W. is ignorant?
If you do, where does his ability to inspire loyalty come from?
Maybe H.W. Bush pays everyone off?
Is it possible that there are extremely brave and committed people who think your stand against the war is dead wrong?
You going to try to question their patriotism? How about their sacrifice?
You made reference to talking to people in the service/retired on base. What’s the percentage of people who agree with you? About 5% sound fair?
Did you support the Bosnian War? Haiti?
Please answer these questions,
Thanks,
JeffR
JeffR-
In all honesty I feel you are a child. All of your views are in a very childish black and white view. I gave my honest opinion on the matter, nothing more nothing less. I don’t have to prove anything to you! Don’t you have some Bush rally or Ashcroft sing along to attend?
Elk,
I think you are a hypocrite of the first order.
You rail against Bush for priveldge and not going to Vietnam. Yet, you voted for Clinton twice.
Thanks for not answering the questions.
Your silence speaks volumes.
Thanks,
JeffR
JeffR-
You are a big strong boy and if you’re good at the Bush rally tonight Mommy and Daddy will give you warm cookies and milk before bedtime! Now run along little Jeffy and let the grown ups talk.
ELK - “I realize Kerry came from the lap of luxury as well, but a fundamental difference is when he could have easily pulled a Bush, Cheney, or Clinton, with ease he went to the shit-storm and anyone who is going to voluntarily enter a combat zone whether its for four months or four years has my respect!”
In the typical liberal fashion, this statement is not true yet spoken as truth.
- Kerry filed for a differment but was denied.
- Kerry then joined the navy into the swift baots who at the time were safely patroling the coastal areas away from major combat. Only weeks after Kerry was in did they get repositioned inland in the tributaries.
- Kerry then proceeded to injure himself and or seek purple hearts for minor injuries so he could get the hell out of dodge. If he was so brave, he would have stayed in after his 3rd purple heart.
Nice way to not answer JeffR’s questions, all of them you could easily answer if you actually thought about what you were saying. We all know that isn’t the case.
(BTW, that was a great post Elk.)
Boston
You are correct, a conspiracy theory is exactly how you described, and we do spy on other allies and yes politician do form and join think tanks…unfortunately your thinking happens to be somewhat flawed on this particular issue.
First of all if we’re talking conspiracy theories I’m well aware of the many involving the Trilateral Commission. I think you may have interpreted my answer to assume I buy into all the crap about the Trilateral Commission. Also by reading your post, I would have to assume you largely dismissed the info on PNAC by tossing it straight into the “conspiracy theory pile” without consideration of content. At least you cleared up the mystery of why there are still people willing to vote for Bush. (sorry, couldn’t resist)
How could you possibly dismiss “Project for the New American Century” as a conspiracy theory besides just not wanting to know? The report called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” was written by them. The link to the report was on THEIR actual web site. And this:
So the 3 key people in this “think tank”: Vice President- Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense- Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense -Paul Wolfowitz…who wrote the following, does not concern you!?
–Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars (as a GOAL mind you)
-Withdraw from arms control treaties to allow for the development of a global missile shield, the deployment of space-based weapons, and the production of a new generation of battlefield nuclear weapons, especially so-called “bunker-busters” for penetrating underground fortifications.
–Raising the U.S. military budget to at least 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, with annual increases of tens of billions of dollars each year.
–CONTROL THE NEW “INTERNATIONAL COMMONS” OF SPACE AND “CYBERSPACE” and pave the way for the creation of a new military service “U.S. Space Forces” with the mission of space control.
Then there is this report that should scare anyone of sound mind:
http://www.gsinstitute.org/gsi/docs/vision_2020.pdf
“The most important new component of this offense is to be the “full spectrum dominance” afforded by complementing America’s land, air, and sea forces with a full-fledged Space Force.”
Of course applying Occam’s Razor in this case would mean they want to control the world.
“Scenarios” would be nice…alas no, there all preemptive…“regime changes” they called em.
So of course they lay out all these “great” plans in 2000 but they realize they’ll never get support for it without some “catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.” (direct quote)
Lo and behold…
Of course a “think tank” group with a goal of multiple preemptive wars and permanent military bases throughout the world and a “Space Force” who happens to be in direct control of our nation and military, would never have perpetrated 9/11 to advance their cause…that’s ridiculous.
Luckily for the terrorists they were able to pull off this magnificently coordinated stunt over the most heavily guarded air space in the world at a time when we already knew they were “determined to strike” inside the US and the “normal” fighter intercept time was under 15 minutes. These same terrorists, who up until and after 9/11, could not come up with a plan much greater than a suicide car bomb, somehow managed to catch the FAA and NORAD on a really bad day and flew for almost two hours into their targets. Of course miracles do happen thank goodness, since before the planes hit their targets, many passengers on the doomed jets were able to make one last cell phone call to their loved ones even though that technology was not yet available -“Travelers could be talking on their personal cellphones as early as 2006. Earlier this month [July 2004], American Airlines conducted a trial run on a modified aircraft that permitted cell phone calls.” (WP, July 27, 2004)
I agree.
But in this lunatic, alternate universe we now live in,
the more important question is, what did John Kerry do 30 years ago in Vietnam…
Wow, veg, you sappy little shit stain, so now you’re a naval historian! Your endless areas of expertise never fail to astound me. Now take another hit from your bong and go back into that altered state you love so much. Chow!
How does you’re last post there even remotely begin to defend your stance on the issue you stated earlier of why you love John Kerry.
You should thank me for showing you that you love a man for reasons that are not true. Instead you insult me and call names. How very mature of you. I am so impressed with your character, strength, charisma, charm and witty comments that I am shitting myself.
You are obviously just posting here to get a rise out of people and really have nothing of signifigance to contribute to political debate.
Veg,
I could honestly give a shit what you think of me. I reserve my feelings of what people think of me for people that I respect and you are not one of them!
As for as explaining to you why I support (read support) John Kerry it would be a complete waste of time… kind of comparable to talking to a rock.
For all of your talk of expanded horizons and God and elevated conscience you seem to have a narrow little pampered mind. One last thing be confident in your support of Bush-league and don’t let my opinions bother you… In fact you shouldn’t even read my posts if they bother you its pretty easy, give it a try!
[quote]smk67 wrote:
I support the mission in Iraq, I am a scientist, and I have never served in the armed forces. I would go if it was necessary or I was drafted. [/quote]
I don’t think he is honestly suggesting that if you support the war you should go. He is simply trying to say to these young, testosterone filled, able-bodied men in here to either put up or shut up.
What you say makes total sense, but you take him too literally. His complaint is that people who are not favorable of the war are ostracized (at least in here), and called anti-patriotic. They also spout a lot of tough talk, like our wannabe cowboy president. Your last point really drives the point home though. YOU would be willing to go if duty called. When duty called for Bush, he did not have the character that you have… He ran and hid.
Roy,
Your going over old ground again. Here is a summary of Bush’s service in the guard from the Federalist:
George Bush’s political handlers are readying themselves for salvos from the Kerry hacks specializing in the “politics of personal destruction.” First up, Kerry’s minions and their Leftmedia mouthpieces warmed up old charges about President Bush’s service as a fighter pilot with the Texas ANG, and complained about missing records. “Bush did not serve honorably,” protested Democrat Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who, as you may recall, launched the whole “Bush was AWOL” assault last March. McAuliffe, for his part, must not recall the serious charges about John Kerry’s embellished military record that subsequently came from some 250 of his closest swift-boat colleagues.
Said retired Major General Paul Weaver, a former head of the Air National Guard, “One of the downfalls back then was that not everyone wanted to be chief of staff of the Air Force. They just wanted to fly or maintain airplanes. So the record keeping could have been better.” Gen. Weaver added that the “missing” documents may have never been filled out in the first place.
We remind you, President Bush did not make his service as a fighter pilot in the National Guard the centerpiece of his campaign. But, for the record, George Bush joined the Texas ANG in 1968. He spent the next 80 weeks in flight training. After qualifying in the F-102, he racked up hundreds of hours in this fighter-interceptor in the years that followed. It is worth noting that sending the kin-folk of Americans elected to national office (like Rep. George H. W. Bush) to Vietnam, where they might become POWs, was frowned upon.
In May of 1972, Mr. Bush asked for permission to work on a Senate campaign. Such requests were often granted notes Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. “In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots. The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”
Among the records McAuliffe is not parading in front of the media are Mr. Bush’s annual evaluations. In 1970, the evaluation noted he “clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot” and is a “a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.” In 1971 he was “an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot” who “continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further.” In 1972, the year McAuliffe claims Mr. Bush was AWOL, he is evaluated as “an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.”
McAuliffe did manage to find, and make available to CBS’s “60 Minutes,” records that contradict the evaluations above. Unfortunately for McAuliffe, and Dan Rather, those “newfound” records contain one peculiarity that none of the forensic experts we talked with can explain: superscripts – characters that are native only to current computer word processing programs, not 1970 vintage typewriters. Neither McAuliffe nor Rather have returned our calls with an explanation for the superscripts.
Despite the fact that President Bush received an Honorable Discharge in 1973, McAuliffe, who has never served his country in any uniform, insists the AWOL accusation is “going to be on the table from now until November 2nd,” insuring that the Swiftees will open up an even wider lead for President Bush in the next seven weeks.
LUMPY’s potty mouth is really irritating. I think most of the conservatives on this forum are glad to have an intelligent exchange with any liberal. If LUMP would show a little maturity, he’d have an easier time. I am a very patient person, but I think if I were to have a face to face conversation with Lump, he probably would be on the ground coughing blood within 5 minutes.
Elk,
Let me get this straight. You think I’m a weiner so you refuse to debate issues with me? If I post sensible arguments to your stance on an issue you will continue to avoid responding and instead just insult my intelligence, mock me and just be an all around dink?
Very impressive!
I know you don’t care if I think you are impressive but alas if I idolize you enough maybe some day I will gain a shred of the integrity, honesty and good character that you have.
Have a Nice Day!
Who posting here has military experience? How many years? What did or do you do?
Me Solomon Grundy
Been serving for 5 years now, 11B.
rangertab75
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
I am a very patient person, but I think if I were to have a face to face conversation with Lump, he probably would be on the ground coughing blood within 5 minutes.
[/quote]
Mr Chen:
You are wasting your efforts as a scary Internet Tough Guy! Time to mount up and put your Gung Ho attitude into action, on the front lines in Iraq!
What are you waiting for, Tough Guy? You and the ultra-Macho JeffR need to mount up NOW!!!
Chickenhawk? n.? A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person?s youth.
The Chickenhawk Database:
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks
MOUNT UP, CHICKENHAWKS!
Jeez Lump, who would bother trying to scare you. Even if we could scare you, it wouldn’t be any fun, because we can’t see your face.
You’re getting more and more rabid as the election draws closer. Hey, maybe you could find a gym by your house and take some of your frustrations out in the weight room.
Let’s end this thread with this: If you want to participate in the global war on terrorism by combating terrorism first hand, then enlist. If that doesn’t suit you, then show your support for the effort by living you life according to the ideals that the title “American” is built upon. Not everyone is meant to serve, but that doesn’t mean they can’t have a voice in the issue. RLTW
rangertab75
[quote]PtrDR wrote:
I AM in and ready to go. Could be this winter.
So, I have ALREADY put my money where my mouth is and I CONTINUE to support my COMMANDER IN CHIEF!
hows that lympy and fellow t-wussies?[/quote]
PrtDR,
You are a DOCTOR in the AIR FORCE. So you will never GO TOO FAR into HARM’S WAY. Please try not to BREAK YOUR ARM while you are PATTING YOUR OWN BACK.
Todd