Author Topic: Finally..."W" takes the gloves off...  (Read 2136 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31313
  • Gender: Male
Finally..."W" takes the gloves off...
« on: November 11, 2005, 11:29:07 AM »
Veteran's day speech today..I guess the Prez decided to start fighting back against the demoncrats lies.
   He told, among other things that many of the demoncrats with the same intelligence reports he had voted with him to chastise Saddam Hussein..Then the demoncrats "yellow-out" and try to say the Pres lied and act as if it were totally hs idea to make war..as if he were a loose cannon.
   The only thing loose was what the demoncrats  were doing with the truth !!

  Go get 'em "W"...get out your political saw-gun and give those liars a good hosing...
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline .308

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 489
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2005, 11:34:18 AM »
Finally, It's about time, and way overdue, IMHO. :D

Offline rockbilly

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3367
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2005, 12:14:25 PM »
:roll: My dad use to tell me, "Son, the acorns don't fall far from the tree."  Lot of truth in that statement.  Daddy lied about the Iran Contra deal, and I, personally think that a majority of what comes from little w's mouth is half truths or out right lies.

I support the troops and their efforts, but like Viet Nam, this is a war we CAN'T win short of eliminating every muslin in the world.  I think an all out attempt to locate and kill every terrorist is a worthwhile effort, but we are not a world police agency, we do not have the resources to invade and make every country in the world a "better place."  Why didn't Boosh use the special warfare personnel to locate and erase the terrorist?

Believe what you like about Boosh, but like Texas, he will leave this country in a sad state of affairs when he leaves office.  I think anything he does or says from this day forward is only an attempt to salvage everything possible for the Republican party.  When members of his own party start bailing out on him, you know he is in trouble.  Some powerful members of Congress have distanced themselves from Boosh due to agenda, Trent Lott R-MS for example, His crooked friend Tom DeLay has even pulled away.

The hand writing is on the wall,  if a strong Republican party member doesn't come out of the wood work to take over, then I am afraid we will see a demo in the White House after next election.  What I would really like to see is a strong, level headed, and honest Independent, but I don't know who that would be.  The only honest President that I am aware of during my lifetime is Jimmy Carter.  Peanut was too honest, that was the downfall of his political career.  

Hummm.....I guess to be successful in government you have to be able to stretch the truth a bit. :oops:  :oops:  :oops:

Offline jh45gun

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4992
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2005, 02:57:11 PM »
Rockbilly if your a fan of the peanut farmer than any of the statements you make about Bush is suspect to me. The only other President of modern times that was about as bad was Ford.
Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use it.

Offline jhm

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3169
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2005, 03:10:59 PM »
Why would I or any other red blodied american believe anything coming out of the mouth of somebody who doesnt even know or have enough respect for the President of the United Stated to properly SPELL his name correctly, what has this country coming too?  Shame/Shame/Shame. :(    JIM

Offline nomosendero

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5760
  • Gender: Male
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2005, 05:14:50 PM »
Former President Jimmy Carter was & is a pitiful wimp! He made us as a
Nation appear weak due to his weakness & bleeding heart liberalism.  I was very ashamed of the hostage situation, very humiliating. He deceived many by indicating that nothing could be done about it. When Pres.
Reagan was elected, it did not take the ragheads long to change their
minds. Then he gave away the Panama Canal that many Americans died
from Malaria & other causes to build. He told us we did not need it, "truth
huh" but the Chinese felt like it would be good to have. Hmmmm!!
Then he bad mouths the current Commander-in-Chief during war time to the Socialist Europeans so he can get his worthless UN-Nobel prize.
And yes, Pres. Carter told us many lies about the state of the union & by
telling us we would be better off by collecting more of our money. Any President that says that is not being truthful! He wined and dined Fidel Castro & came back & said that Cuba could not be a threat.

President Bush does things that I don't agree with, & yes a strong independent would be nice, but I don't see that happening. It appears that
a small awakening is occuring with Rep. & they are about to finally kick
up their heels, I think! To me, they are too soft, but I don't even want to
hear the names mentioned of modern day DEMOCRAPS! They are a joke
& the joke is on us!!!
You will not make peace with the Bluecoats, you are free to go.

Offline mrlizzzard

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 211
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2005, 05:49:13 PM »
The generaly republican banks did the number on Carter.Plus the military using Navy choppers in that desert was a huge error.Carter commanded a nuke sub,our president crashed a segway and a bicycle.

Offline fe352v8

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • Gender: Male
  • Evolve or become extinct
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2005, 09:36:11 PM »
The presidential wreath laying ceremony, at Arlington, on Veteran’s Day, may not serve any real purpose, but as the elected leader of the country the President’s participation in the ceremony, is a symbol of our nation’s acknowledgement of and a show of respect to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of our country.  

But on this Veteran’s Day, this president, did not have time for the dead.  He could not be bothered to take the time on the one day out of the year, that we set aside to honor the fallen, he relegated this duty to another, while he gave what was in essence, a political stump speech.  

What a speech it was, while “Hail to the Chief” played in background, there was the President, standing at the podium, giving a speech reminiscent of the last presidential campaign, and behind him there was a Humvee and a banner that proclaimed Strategy For Victory, it was almost as inspiring as when he landed on an aircraft carrier, and stood in front of that other banner, the one that proclaimed, Mission Accomplished, while wearing a flight suit

Perhaps we should rename Veteran’s Day, to reflect more accurately what it seems to have become.  Maybe something like:

Politicking Photo-op, Banks are Closed, Lets Have A Sale, And If You’re Not Too Busy, Honor The War Dead Day.

Congratulations Mr. President

Life is no joke but funny things happen

Jon
life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

Offline mrlizzzard

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 211
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2005, 03:00:56 AM »
Jon,
                    That sure was an accurate and honest post.
thank you,

Offline NYH1

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1695
  • Gender: Male
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2005, 06:03:06 AM »
Quote from: fe352v8

But on this Veteran’s Day, this president, did not have time for the dead.  He could not be bothered to take the time on the one day out of the year, that we set aside to honor the fallen, he relegated this duty to another, while he gave what was in essence, a political stump speech.  
We celebrate Veteran's Day to honor all of our veteran's. We celebrate  Memorial Day to honor those who died in the service of their country.
"ROLL TIDE". . .Back To Back. . .Three In The Last Four Years "GO GIANTS"  "YANKEES"

Offline .308

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 489
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2005, 06:26:08 AM »
Oops. :oops:

Offline Brett

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5148
  • Gender: Male
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2005, 06:34:51 AM »
Quote from: fe352v8
The presidential wreath laying ceremony, at Arlington, on Veteran’s Day, may not serve any real purpose, but as the elected leader of the country the President’s participation in the ceremony, is a symbol of our nation’s acknowledgement of and a show of respect to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of our country.  

But on this Veteran’s Day, this president, did not have time for the dead.  He could not be bothered to take the time on the one day out of the year, that we set aside to honor the fallen, he relegated this duty to another, while he gave what was in essence, a political stump speech.  

What a speech it was, while “Hail to the Chief” played in background, there was the President, standing at the podium, giving a speech reminiscent of the last presidential campaign, and behind him there was a Humvee and a banner that proclaimed Strategy For Victory, it was almost as inspiring as when he landed on an aircraft carrier, and stood in front of that other banner, the one that proclaimed, Mission Accomplished, while wearing a flight suit

Perhaps we should rename Veteran’s Day, to reflect more accurately what it seems to have become.  Maybe something like:

Politicking Photo-op, Banks are Closed, Lets Have A Sale, And If You’re Not Too Busy, Honor The War Dead Day.

Congratulations Mr. President

Life is no joke but funny things happen

Jon


Hay Jon;
It is Memorial Day that we honor the dead not Veteran's Day!  Veteran's Day is the day we honor all Veteran's living and dead.   :D

Ooops... I just now saw my reply is a little late.  :oops:
Life memberships:  <><, NRA, BASS, NAFC

Offline nomosendero

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5760
  • Gender: Male
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #12 on: November 12, 2005, 06:39:22 AM »
New York Hunter

You are 100% correct, Veteran's day is for Veterans! What a screw-up but
it figures.

BTW, I am glad that Pres. Bush is the only person we know who could have a bicycle wreck. I actually think I could but unfortunately I cannot
fly a Jet like he could.

Let's divert the fact that Carter was the weakest President in the history
of our nation, shall we.
You will not make peace with the Bluecoats, you are free to go.

Offline fe352v8

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • Gender: Male
  • Evolve or become extinct
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2005, 08:09:50 AM »
You are correct of course, Memorial Day, is when we honor the dead, and Veteran’s Day, is a day to honor both.
So denigrate as you will, but it is obvious that the president choose the setting for his Veteran’s Day speech because the tombstones of Arlington would have only served as a reminder, of the consequences of his “Strategy for Victory”.

President Eisenhower signed the bill that officially changed the name to Veteran’s Day, and issued the following proclamation

Veterans Day, 1954
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
3071

Whereas it has long been our customs to commemorate November 11, the anniversary of the ending of World War I, by paying tribute to the heroes of that tragic struggle and by rededicating ourselves to the cause of peace; and

Whereas in the intervening years the United States has been involved in two other great military conflicts, which have added millions of veterans living and dead to the honor rolls of this Nation; and
Whereas the Congress passed a concurrent resolution on June 4, 1926 (44 Stat. 1982), calling for the observance of November 11 with appropriate ceremonies, and later provided in an act approved May 13, 1938 (52 Stat. 351) , that the eleventh of November should be a legal holiday and should be known as Armistice Day; and

Whereas, in order to expand the significance of that commemoration and in order that a grateful Nation might pay appropriate homage to the veterans of all its wars who have contributed so much to the preservation of this Nation, the Congress, by an act approved June 1, 1954 (68 Stat. 168), changed the name of the holiday to Veterans Day:

Now, Therefore, I, Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United States of America , do hereby call upon all of our citizens to observe Thursday, November 11, 1954 , as Veterans Day.

On that day let us solemnly remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly, on the seas, in the air, and on foreign shores, to preserve our heritage of freedom, and let us reconsecrate ourselves to the task of promoting an enduring peace so that their efforts shall not have been in vain.

I also direct the appropriate officials of the Government to arrange for the display of the flag of the United States on all public buildings on Veterans Day.

In order to insure proper and widespread observance of this anniversary, all veterans, all veterans' organizations, and the entire citizenry will wish to wish to join hands in the common purpose.

Toward this end, I am designating the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs as Chairman of a Veterans Day National Committee, which shall include such other persons as the Chairman may select, and which will coordinate at the national level necessary planning for the observance. I am also requesting the heads of all departments and agencies of the Executive branch of the Government to assist the National Committee in every way possible.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and cause the Seal of the United States of America to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington this eighth day of October in the Year of our Lord nineteen hundred and fifty-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and seventy-ninth.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER

I guess my idea of “solemnly remember” , does not include a political stump speech or a photo-op.

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon
life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

Offline nomosendero

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5760
  • Gender: Male
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2005, 08:22:58 AM »
Does anyone know the Socialist Democrap "Strategy for Victory"?

Didn't think so.
You will not make peace with the Bluecoats, you are free to go.

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31313
  • Gender: Male
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2005, 10:39:17 AM »
Let's see; the Democrats plan for "pacifying" Muslim countries...
 
 1) Make sure abortion clinics are opened throughout the Muslim world.

 2) Get laws passed that allows little girls to visit those clinics freely, so they can abort their parents grandchildren..on their teacher's say-so.

 3) Do their best to get the guns taken away from citizens in those countries..and pass laws to keep folks from EVER owning any guns..

4) Pass laws forbidding citizens from referring to God while in school or any other public place.

 5) Pass laws that punish people for what some judge thinks they are thinking, call such voodoo punishments "penalties for hate crimes".

 6) Since most terrorists don't have jobs and don't intend to get any, start  providing these terrorists with food stamps and meals on wheels.

 7) If there are any citizens that the terrorists failed to completely blow to pieces and are living in a "vegitative state"...finish them off by starving them to death.

  8) Close down all their military camps for ecology reasons...after all they may be endangering the spotted brown sand spider..

  9) As soon as any industries get up on their feet and start operating...do your best to tax them back out of business.

10) Promote a "National Endowment for the Arts", whereby the govt. can pay certain depraved "artists" to ridicule the people's faith and values..

 11) Make sure all citizens use "politically correct" speech..Certain groups have a RIGHT..not to be offended


     Now; taking those ten points and applying them to a country..do you really think that will "pacify" a nation ?

No ?  ...Well, that's just what the Democrats have been doing in THIS country...

   And then they wonder why noone but the mentally challenged back them anymore!!

  Perhaps the only place where the Libs and the terrorists find agreement is in their mutual " war on Christians ".
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline nomosendero

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5760
  • Gender: Male
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #16 on: November 12, 2005, 11:00:28 AM »
ironglow

Very well stated, Sir!

Thanks
You will not make peace with the Bluecoats, you are free to go.

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31313
  • Gender: Male
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #17 on: November 12, 2005, 12:13:07 PM »
ROAKABEELY...
   
  I'm using your method of spelling Bush to spell your call name...LOL

   Yes, an acorn doesn't fall far from the tree..G.H. Bush was a hero in WW2, flying the Grumman TBF "Avengers" in what was the closest thing we had to the opponents "Kamikaze" pilots. Those TBF pilots often took off to attack the warships of Nippon, and sometimes whole flights didn't return.. Bush sr. was shot down and rescued by a submarine.
   
 GW. Bush flew f-102 fighter aircraft for the NG..one of the most difficult of all jet fighters to fly. Just flying these aircraft, was AT LEAST as hazardous a duty as that of support troops in a war zone..
..And don't forget, then as now the NG was "on call" at any time..
 
   I find it remarkable that you find time to condemn these two Presidents that served HONORABLY in the combat arms of our military !

  At the same time you seem to ignore the President that not only AVOIDED serving, but has written statements  declaring that he LOATHES the military.

  Then you go on to accuse GH Bush of "lying" in the Iran-Contra affair...I submit that you are simply repeating a lie when you say that ! That claim is a complete fabrication and anyone with the slightest historical astuteness knows it !
   
   If you want to experience a CLEAR CUT example of a President LYING , not only to congress and the courts...but to the whole American people..
   
try, " I didn't have sex with that woman...".

     Then you point out Jimmy Carter as a sterling example of a President !

  You can't be serious..he is just about the most INCOMPETENT president we had in the 20th century.
  Under Carter's leadership we had 20%...that was both the interest and inflation rates..
  He claimed to be a "born-again" Christian...but backed his party's line on the slaughter of the pre-born boys and girls..isn't hypocrisy the same thing as lying ?

   Under Carter, seven (7) nations slipped into the Iron Curtain camp; under his successors, Reagan & G H Bush..THE IRON CURTAIN CAME CRASHING DOWN..

   Carter whined, " The country is suffering from a state of 'malaise'. "

  Reagan, his successor said, " We are doing great, ..and..you ain't seen nothin' yet ! "

  Carter saw every businessman as " the enemy" and nothing but misery everywhere..

  Bush saw the US as a " city set on a hill".

  FE352...
  You think that the memorial day speech by a president that was a fighter aircraft pilot...was a photo-op ?

  What do you think of a man that "loathes the military" taking a walk on Normandie beach, conveniently finding a small pile of pebbles (where none are normally present)...and forming a small cross, in memory of the military that he "loathes".?

   This by a man that doesn't seem to have any great regard for the cross either !

  Combine that, with a man that stood before all Americans..shook his finger at us and LIED...,

      Do you enjoy your sojourn in La La Land ?
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline fe352v8

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • Gender: Male
  • Evolve or become extinct
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #18 on: November 12, 2005, 12:32:37 PM »
The "Strategy for Victory", and the President will accept the responsibility, regardless of how many casualties it takes.

"lest we forget"

2063 US fatalities (as of 11-12-05, includes 6 awaiting official Dod notification)
15,568 wounded (as of 11-05-05 per DoD)

jon
life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31313
  • Gender: Male
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #19 on: November 12, 2005, 12:38:54 PM »
Sendoro;  
   The Social/Liberal Democrats plan for victory ? You must be kidding...victory, when used in the context of warfare is anathema to them !
   After all, if we were to be victorious over the terrorists...we could be charged by the world "community' of being INSENSITIVE !...LOL
 
   The only places they thirst for victory are:

 1) Taking our guns away

 2) Getting grade school kids to use condoms

 3) Aborting people's grandchildren without informing an adult family member.

 4) Letting sodomites infest (and destroy) our military

 5) Cutting the funds for, and the pay of ..our military.

 6) Promoting filth and blasphemy in the arts (with our tax money).

 7) Preventing a lying, promiscuous, predatory President from facing censure.

 8) Shutting down hunting grounds, and using "ecology" laws to restrict our freedom.

 9) Protecting the 1st amendment rights of Hollywood's perverted film makers.

 10) Destroying 1st amendment rights of Christians.....
       
    ( what part of " nor prohibit the free exercise thereof"..don't they understand ?)

    .....Now that's just for starters...there are a thousand more "twisted victories" they savor !...

 
  But here's your chance Dem/Libs .....
   
   If you or any of your ilk have ANY ideas of how to procure victory over terrorism...tell us...I challenge you !!!

   Now guys...how long do we have to wait for an answer ?
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline fe352v8

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • Gender: Male
  • Evolve or become extinct
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #20 on: November 12, 2005, 03:43:18 PM »
The administration’s plan as outlined at a senate hearing in February 2003

Mr. Wolfowitz, then Deputy Secretary of Defense, when asked about then, Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki’s belief, that it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraqi, said it could be done with a much smaller force, because their was no history of ethnic strife like in Bosnia and Kosovo, and that the Iraqi people would welcome an American led liberation.  He even added, "I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction".

Regarding the cost of the war, he argued that estimates of $95 billion were too high, and dismissed the idea of reconstruction costs running even higher, because Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion, he closed with another bit of insight, "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong".

At about the same time Secretary Rumsfeld was holding a press conference with Afghan’s President Karzai at the Pentagon, when asked about General Shinseki’s testimony, "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point — something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers — are probably, you know, a figure that would be required", Rumsfeld replied, "The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark".  When asked about costs Rumsfeld stated that the factors influencing cost estimates, made even ranges imperfect.  When asked if it might be useful so as to have a public discussion, he replied, I've already decided that. It's not useful."

Either you commit the necessary resources or our losses will continue to grow.  We will all be dead before the Iraqis can maintain the foundations of democracy we have laid for them, without US troops.  The other part of the plan might be to try telling the truth, this administration seems to have difficulty with that.

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon
life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

Offline nomosendero

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5760
  • Gender: Male
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #21 on: November 12, 2005, 04:11:49 PM »
jon

I would still like to hear the Socialist Democrap plan, this would be a good time for the Socialist Democrap Military experts like Bar. Boxer, Nancy P., Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hil. Clinton, Robert KKK Byrd or the other wonderful nut cases that represent the Democraps to introduce good
alternatives instead of running down our troops.

LET'S HERE THE PLAN BOYS!!!!!
You will not make peace with the Bluecoats, you are free to go.

Offline Nightrain52

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 814
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #22 on: November 12, 2005, 05:25:21 PM »
My, My, how quickly some of us forget the images on the tv screens on the morning on 9/11. The planes hitting the targets the terrorists had chosen. The smoke and the Twin Towers crashing down, the gaping hole in the wall of the pentagon, the hole in the ground in Pennsylvania where some brave american people wrestled control of the plane away from the terrorists and crashed to the ground without hitting the intended target. HOW QUICKLY WE SEEM TO FORGET! I will never forget the images of that fateful day. The outright murder of over 3,000 american citizens whose only mistake that day was getting up and going to work. The brave policemen and firefighters that gave their lives trying to rescue people from the twin towers. These images I will never forget. :cry:
FREEDOM IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR-ARE YOU WILLING TO DIE FOR IT--------IT'S HARD TO SOAR LIKE AN EAGLE WHEN YOU ARE SURROUNDED BY TURKEYS

Offline fe352v8

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • Gender: Male
  • Evolve or become extinct
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #23 on: November 12, 2005, 06:08:01 PM »
I guess that makes any who would criticize the conduct of the war, guilty of running down the troops and by extension a “Democrap”.

This will probably come as a surprise to

Former CIA Director Tenet
General Colin Powell
General Shinseki
General Franks
Senator McCain
Senator Hagel
Senator Santorum

Generals Powell, Shinseki, and Franks have all voiced concerned over the conduct of the war and planning for post war Iraq, Powell resigned as Secretary of State, Shinseki retired after Ruumsfeld announced his successor over a year before his scheduled retirement, and Franks choose retirement over promotion to Army Chief of Staff.  Director Tenet resigned after repeated clashes between the Pentagon and the CIA over intelligence responsibilities.

Senators McCain, Hagel, and Santorum are far from socialists or liberals, all have expressed deep reservations over the conduct of the war and the planning for peace, as well as the use of and the intelligence provide and controlled by the administration.

From the outset virtually any opinion that differed from the preconceived opinions of the President and his advisors was dismissed and the holders of such opinions were marginalized and eventually replaced.

How we got to where we are is less important than where do we go from here.  I think it is rather obvious that the current prosecution of the war is not producing the expected results, and that there continuation will not alter the results we are currently receiving.   It is time to either increase our troop deployment to the levels envisioned by General Shinseki in 2003, or in accord with the “Powell Doctrine” as developed during the first gulf war, or send everyone who thinks “staying the course” is working over there along with their children and grand children and let them share in what is slowly becoming a war of attrition.

The following was written by General Powell and appeared in Foreign Affairs, winter 1992

To help with the complex issue of the use of "violent" force, some have turned to a set of principles or a when-to-go-to-war doctrine. "Follow these directions and you can't go wrong." There is, however, no fixed set of rules for the use of military force. To set one up is dangerous. First, it destroys the ambiguity we might want to exist in our enemy's mind regarding our intentions. Unless part of our strategy is to destroy that ambiguity, it is usually helpful to keep it intact.
Second, having a fixed set of rules for how you will go to war is like saying you are always going to use the elevator in the event of fire in your apartment building. Surely enough, when the fire comes the elevator will be engulfed in flames or, worse, it will look good when you get in it only to fill with smoke and flames and crash a few minutes later. But do you stay in your apartment and burn to death because your plans call for using the elevator to escape and the elevator is untenable? No, you run to the stairs, an outside fire escape or a window. In short, your plans to escape should be governed by the circumstances of the fire when it starts.
When a "fire" starts that might require committing armed forces, we need to evaluate the circumstances. Relevant questions include: Is the political objective we seek to achieve important, clearly defined and understood? Have all other nonviolent policy means failed? Will military force achieve the objective? At what cost? Have the gains and risks been analyzed? How might the situation that we seek to alter, once it is altered by force, develop further and what might be the consequences?
As an example of this logical process, we can examine the assertions of those who have asked why President Bush did not order our forces on to Baghdad after we had driven the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. We must assume that the political objective of such an order would have been capturing Saddam Hussein. Even if Hussein had waited for us to enter Baghdad, and even if we had been able to capture him, what purpose would it have served? And would serving that purpose have been worth the many more casualties that would have occurred? Would it have been worth the inevitable follow-up: major occupation forces in Iraq for years to come and a very expensive and complex American proconsulship in Baghdad? Fortunately for America, reasonable people at the time thought not. They still do.
When the political objective is important, clearly defined and understood, when the risks are acceptable, and when the use of force can be effectively combined with diplomatic and economic policies, then clear and unambiguous objectives must be given to the armed forces. These objectives must be firmly linked with the political objectives. We must not, for example, send military forces into a crisis with an unclear mission they cannot accomplish -- such as we did when we sent the U.S. Marines into Lebanon in 1983. We inserted those proud warriors into the middle of a five-faction civil war complete with terrorists, hostage-takers, and a dozen spies in every camp, and said, "Gentlemen, be a buffer." The results were 241 Marines and Navy personnel and a U.S. withdrawal from the troubled area.
When force is used deftly--in smooth coordination with diplomatic and economic policy--bullets may never have to fly. Pulling triggers should always be toward the end of the plan, and when those triggers are pulled all of the sound analysis I have just described should back them up.
Over the past three years the U.S. armed forces have been used repeatedly to defend our interests and to achieve our political objectives. In Panama a dictator was removed from power. In the Philippines the use of limited force helped save a democracy. In Somalia a daring night raid rescued our embassy. In Liberia we rescued stranded international citizens and protected our embassy. In the Persian Gulf a nation was liberated. Moreover we have used our forces for humanitarian relief operations in Iraq, Somalia, Bangladesh, Russia and Bosnia.
All of these operations had one thing in common: they were successful. There have been no Bay of Pigs, failed desert raids, Beirut bombings or Vietnams. Today American troops around the world are protecting the peace in Europe, the Persian Gulf, Korea, Cambodia, the Sinai and western Sahara. They have brought relief to Americans at home here in Florida, Hawaii and Guam. Ironically enough, the American people are getting a solid return on their defense investment even as from all corners of the nation come shouts for imprudent reductions that would gut their armed forces.
The reason for our success is that in every instance we have carefully matched the use of military force to our political objectives. We owe it to the men and women who go in harm's way to make sure that this is always the case and that their lives are not squandered for unclear purposes.
Military men and women recognize more than most people that not every situation will be crystal clear. We can and do operate in murky, unpredictable circumstances. But we also recognize that military force is not always the right answer. If force is used imprecisely or out of frustration rather than clear analysis, the situation can be made worse.
Decisive means and results are always to be preferred, even if they are not always possible. We should always be skeptical when so-called experts suggest that all a particular crisis calls for is a little surgical bombing or a limited attack. When the "surgery" is over and the desired result is not obtained, a new set of experts then comes forward with talk of just a little escalation--more bombs, more men and women, more force. History has not been kind to this approach to war-making. In fact this approach has been tragic -- both for the men and women who are called upon to implement it and for the nation. This is not to argue that the use of force is restricted to only those occasions where the victory of American arms will be resounding, swift and overwhelming. It is simply to argue that the use of force should be restricted to occasions where it can do some good and where the good will outweigh the loss of lives and other costs that will surely ensue. Wars kill people. That is what makes them different from all other forms of human enterprise.
When President Lincoln gave his second inaugural address he compared the Civil War to the scourge of God, visited upon the nation to compensate for what the nation had visited upon its slaves. Lincoln perceived war correctly. It is the scourge of God. We should be very careful how we use it. When we do use it, we should not be equivocal: we should win and win decisively. If our objective is something short of winning--as in our air strikes into Libya in 1986--we should see our objective clearly, then achieve it swiftly and efficiently.
I am preaching to the choir. Every reasonable American deplores the resort to war. We wish it would never come again. If we felt differently, we could lay no claim whatsoever to being the last, best hope of earth. At the same time I believe every American realizes that in the challenging days ahead, our wishes are not likely to be fulfilled. In those circumstances where we must use military force, we have to be ready, willing and able. Where we should not use force we have to be wise enough to exercise restraint. I have finite faith in the American people's ability to sense when and where we should draw the line. ...
I think he had a plan too bad nobody listened.

jon
life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

Offline AlaskaHippie

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #24 on: November 12, 2005, 06:26:58 PM »
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
Gun control means using BOTH hands....

Offline jh45gun

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4992
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #25 on: November 12, 2005, 06:32:31 PM »
Quote from: AlaskaHippie
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials



So your comparing Bush to Goering????????? Your too young to be called a hippie so call a spade a spade and tell us your a dang liberal?
Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use it.

Offline nomosendero

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5760
  • Gender: Male
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #26 on: November 13, 2005, 06:02:06 AM »
TM7

I agree with part of those for sure, I sure would like to see something done about our Borders. But if anything is done at all, it will be because
of pressure from the more Conservative Republicans (the only Conservatives in our National Gov.) that may force Pres. Bush into action.

It won't come from the pinkie side across the hall. They are clueless, that
is why we hear no alternatives on this or ANY National problem.
You will not make peace with the Bluecoats, you are free to go.

Offline fe352v8

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • Gender: Male
  • Evolve or become extinct
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #27 on: November 13, 2005, 07:44:15 AM »
I wonder if the lemmings, that follow one another over the edges of cliffs, every so often, find it odd that other species are not anxious to join them?  Oh well happy landings Bushies!

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon
life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

Offline nomosendero

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5760
  • Gender: Male
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #28 on: November 13, 2005, 08:26:57 AM »
(1) The Nazi boys attacked first, if I recall

(2) If Europe sees us that way, shame on them if they are that stupid, not
     shame on us. We cannot worry about other's ignorance because that
     would make it impossible to ever retaliate against terrorism, wheher
     correctly or incorrectly.
You will not make peace with the Bluecoats, you are free to go.

Offline nomosendero

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5760
  • Gender: Male
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #29 on: November 13, 2005, 08:46:14 AM »
TM7
Yes, unfortunately that is happening to industry, but I am sure you see
my point, to heck with perception, do what is right.

Ooops, time to get on a Deer Stand!  :D
You will not make peace with the Bluecoats, you are free to go.