| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Retiring Republican Congressman Blasts Iraq War | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 19 2004, 08:57 AM (666 Views) | |
| gvok | Aug 19 2004, 02:05 PM Post #46 |
|
Unregistered
|
Admiral and Minuet, I simply asked a question. If the Admiral does not feel like answering it then that's the end of it. I don't know what all the hostility is about. (Quote from Minuet)
My definition of uninformed includes both lack of information and being informed with incorrect information. |
| ^ | |
| ds9074 | Aug 19 2004, 02:27 PM Post #47 |
|
Admiral
|
Indeed that why I dont lend my support to anti war parties like Respect (as well as the fact that they are hard-line socialists). Its leader called on British troops to mutiny. Thats wrong in my opinion. The party I support opposed the war but when the troops where committed and the actions taken they gave their support to our forces. They stopped shouting loudly that the war was wrong and should be stopped, instead they said we are now going to make sure we hold the Government to account about the post-war situation. We are going to accept our responsiblities in Iraq but we are still going to press the Government over the way they sold the war. That is sensible opposition. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Minuet | Aug 19 2004, 02:33 PM Post #48 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
I wasn't being hostile
|
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 19 2004, 02:56 PM Post #49 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I wasn't being hostile either. I am, however, frustrated . |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| gvok | Aug 19 2004, 03:04 PM Post #50 |
|
Unregistered
|
If I can return to the topic, I find it hard to believe that everyone who disagrees with the war in Iraq is uninformed (especially the Republican Congressman from Nebraska). |
| ^ | |
| 24thcenstfan | Aug 19 2004, 03:36 PM Post #51 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
|
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 19 2004, 03:47 PM Post #52 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I never said anything about the congressman from Nebraska. I was talking about posters on this site. So we still aren't on topic. Hang on a minute and let me get us back on topic. Chuck Hagel, not exactly a Bush supporter, even though he is a Republican from Nebraska, said this: "The reality is that we have 141,000 Americans fighting and dying in Iraq, and we must support them." |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| gvok | Aug 19 2004, 10:50 PM Post #53 |
|
Unregistered
|
Chuck Hagel's quote has nothing to do with the judgement of the administration that sent the 141,000 troops to die there in the first place and has everything to do with why Kerry will get my vote in November. |
| ^ | |
| ImpulseEngine | Aug 19 2004, 11:33 PM Post #54 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ I agree with you there Gvok. I have a really hard time believing the Bush cares about those troops when a) he's busy cutting Veterans benefits back at home, b) extending the original active duty enlistment of many soldiers - leaving their spouses at home without their income for that much longer, and c) recalling former soldiers. These people have lives, as if he cares. He ought to be recruiting NEW soldiers if more are needed. And if he can't recruit enough NEW soldiers for what he needs, then he should have thought about that before he insisted that we can go it alone... |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| doctortobe | Aug 20 2004, 01:07 AM Post #55 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
And THIS from the people who support the candidate that voted against the $87 billion dollars that amoung other things, would have included $300 million dollars for body armor for 40,000 troops. I guess Kerry wants to make sure that there is a new generation of triple purple heart recipiants. Or perhaps he expects soldiers to just dodge the bullets? The $87 billion dollars would also have given additional combat pay and health benefits to reservists called to combat. Yep, Kerry sure supports the troops, vocally at least. If you actually ask him to put that support into a physical form that would benefit soldiers though, he's all against it. Now, I could somewhat accept it if Kerry merely voted against the bill. But not only did he do that, he also tried to make sure that the money had no chance of being approved by repealing the Bush tax cuts in the process knowing that Republicans would never accept the bill in that form. Kerry's spokesman said "John Kerry opposed a red inked, blank check on Bush’s failed Iraq policy." It seems that Kerry traded one red liquid for another, the blood of our soldiers. Nice that this candidate holds the lives of our troops in so little regard that he would place them in further danger over a political squabble over tax cuts. So, it would seem that Kerry is no friend of the troops, what about Bush?
This is true to the extent that Bush continued a policy enacted by the Clinton administration. This is a legitimate gripe.
As I mentioned, part of that $87 billion was to go to extra combat pay for soldiers in Iraq. Kerry made sure that this money would never get to the families of those soldiers. And another thing, perhaps we would not have to keep soldiers over there longer if a CERTAIN Arkansas President hadn't cut the military forces down in the first place. It takes time and money to bring an army back up to force. Time that we didn't have and money that Kerry refused.
Again, if a certain womanizer hadn't taken money from the military, perhaps this wouldn't have happened. Perhaps Bush is merely cleaning up after the mess the Democrats left him after he was elected. You know what? Where was Kerry demanding funding for the military so that these veterens could stay home? Where was Kerry leading the way for an initiative to expand active duty forces? This man wants to be President right? Maybe having these retired men go to combat is hurtful enough to the Bush campaign that Kerry decided to turn a blind eye? So don't go saying that Bush thinks nothing of the soldiers. He at the very least TRIED to get extra funding for them. But a certain Senator led the way to stop this funding. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 20 2004, 07:02 AM Post #56 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
For the last time, IE, Bush has NOT cut veterans benefits. Please stop repeating this lie (not misstatement... this is an out-and-out lie continually circulated by the Democrats). Bush consolidated several agencies that had the same functions (that were in essense doing the same job more than once). NO veterans benefits were actually cut (hint... I'm a Veteran). Benefits could be better, but we could thank your buddy Bill Clinton for that. As for extended duty postings, have you forgotten that WE ARE AT WAR? This is, in reality, fairly commonplace. I never heard you whine about this when Clinton did it in Kosovo. The reason this happens is to KEEP OUR FORCES CAPABLE OF MOBILIZATION SHOULD A NEW FRONT OPEN UP IN THE WAR ON TERROR. Lastly, I can say the exact same thing I said above. Where were you when the previous administration did this in Kosovo? Those WITH CERTAIN SPECIALIZED SKILLS were recalled. The number is shockingly LOW.
What a complete load of horse droppings this quote is. OF COURSE he cares. Do you think he is Dr. Evil, moving little green army men across a table, rubbing his hands together? How crass AND asinine your rather snottily superior statement is! New soldiers ARE being recruited. I know you don't read the evil Drudge Report, but it linked to an article earlier this week that said that army recruiting goals ARE being met. PRESIDENT Bush has never insisted "that we can go it alone." That is both spiteful and in poor taste. As for gvok's asinine and crass statement that soldiers were being sent to die, RETRACT IT! I don't know if I've ever read anything more UNINFORMED or maliciously UNTRUE. Are troops cannon fodder? NO! Are troops untrained? NO! Have we fought this war in a way to minimize casualties? YES! Maybe the word I should use here is IGNORANT. You two (IE and gvok) have got to face REALITY here. September 11th, and the events that unfolded after (and the events that led up to it) ARE NOT GOING AWAY! Am I CLEAR? Your idea of a September 10th fantasy land is shortsighted. Let me give you reality. Your world is GONE. Everything has changed. FACE UP TO IT. Having John Kerry say "I'll bring the troops home in six months (or twelve months)" is just CAPITULATING. Why don't you two just hoist the white flag and put up big signs in your front yard that say "Please don't hurt me Mr. Terrorist, I voted for John Kerry"? Keep hiding your heads in the sand to the REALITY of today. I'd rather fight them over there than here. YOUR COMMENTS SICKEN ME!
|
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| gvok | Aug 20 2004, 09:15 AM Post #57 |
|
Unregistered
|
Well, there's nothing bating or hostile there. I don't believe I ever said that our troops were cannon fodder, untrained or that we haven't fought the war to minimize casualties. So all those arguments of yours are strawmen. It is my understanding that almost 1,000 servicemen and women have died since the preemptive invasion of Iraq. So I will not retract my statement. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.
Another strawman argument. I (and to my knowledge IE) have never said that the world is not a different place since 9/11. I've never said that we should not be fighting terrorists. This is just another example of you assigning motive. You just plain wrong on that one. I know you desperately need to believe it, but it isn't true.
I'm sorry you feel that way. |
| ^ | |
| Wichita | Aug 20 2004, 09:37 AM Post #58 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
And there goes another one .... Say goodbye to this thread. Edit: Note Bill's post was deleted per his PM request. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |

I don't believe I ever said that our troops were cannon fodder, untrained or that we haven't fought the war to minimize casualties. So all those arguments of yours are strawmen. It is my understanding that almost 1,000 servicemen and women have died since the preemptive invasion of Iraq. So I will not retract my statement. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.
3:24 AM Jul 11