Posted on 08/16/2004 10:55:19 AM PDT by Headfulofghosts
Can someone give me an exact answer, why doesn't Kerry come out against the war, when all of the facts back him up, as of now he's got my vote. However, he should drop this " allies" thing, because it really is a bunch of bull, it's as bad as Bush saying that there is still WMD, i mean come on, is there anyone who actually belives this- that France, Germany, and Russia well come along to our ' side." Complete wishful thinking, the world has changed, there is no soviet union, and the world hates the US, for some good reasons, but the rest is all hypocritical. Whoever, the next president is, should say these exact words, to the Iraqis, ' listen, we tried to do the right thing, but we didn't know how stupid you all really are." And I think it's time to start to be inventive, come up with new angles, for example that little Hitler like Al Sadr, send a CIA unit, capture his a...., while he sleeps, dress him up in those " execution suits" like Al Queda does, and waste him, portraying themselves as Al Queda. Lastly. every detainee should be forced to watch " Newlyweds." As far as the war in Iraq itself, i agree that it has inspired more terrorists as Kerry claims, but in a weird and strange way, it may give the CIA enough time to get the intelligence they need and to fully infultrate it, as in the Sept. 11, hearings fmr. cia director Tenet said we had no intel on the ground, and that it would take 5 years to fully fight the threat- and i agree with Miss Portman, that maybe the best thing for both our country and Bush, is to send him back to his ranch- as he seems to be more interested in that than the affairs of President.
actually i don't think that, i just thought that maybe the Iraqis would help out more considering it their country and that everytime a bombing occured, they wouldn't blame us, but instead blame the one's who are doing the violence.
Also -some in the media, Chris Matthews for example, seem to forget that post ware- Europe was not easy either, look at the Werewolves, a hundred or so serviceman were killed by them
Did you have to look all of that up?
WW II lasted longer than you stated.Just as we have troops in Iraq,for the cleanup,we were in Germany and Japan for 10 years AFTER the cease fire...helping with the transition and we are just now, beginning to remove our troops in Germany.
You think that we've been in Iraq too long and yet,we've been there a VERY short time!
WHY are you majoring in history? GOD help us,if you're planning on being a teacher!
Agreed! :-)
i said, the Korean War never ended, 50-53 i didn't say it never happened
A couple years is a drop in the bucket.
Okay,you just proved that all you want is attention.Look kid,you're just wasting bandwidth because you're lonely and it's NOT appreciated at all.
One reason I dno't watch CNN, they go orgiastic for the enemy.
dno't = DON'T
*sigh*
There was a reason I joined Artillery and not Signals.
*chuckle*
Have a friend who went to Iraq twice.
He was in a medical unit, and didn't seemuch happen over there.
(As he said it, "It's too **&*&! quiet here!")
Then the compound was mortar'd, and he was like, "The infantry guys were pretty P.O'd!"
They drove next to the building he was in and out towards the perimeter.
Anything else that happened he described as being 'fluff' and 'nothing much to worry about, they can't shoot.'
(He had a friend get fraggo'd by mortar fragments a couple feet away, the Kevlar and flak jacket saved his friend's life.)
*shrugs*
He's home now, and lkeeps saying he wished I was there for the 'fun' as he put it.
(He joined up when I was leaving the uniform.)
Patton believed, at least in part, that Montgomery failed to make the gains he might have because he insisted on having everything just so before going forward. His failure to press forward in less than ideal circumstances on ocassion actually caused more casualties than Patton's more agressive approach. Some believed that Monty's lack of aggressiveness indicated an unwillingness to risk anything and a reluctance to make difficult choices.
To translate that into the current situation, the impression many American officers had was that Monty could not do hard things because he was not willing to take risks or casualties. Patton said that an army that can't take casualties is of no use.
If the U.S. (as an army or as a nation) can not take casualties, or endure hardship or delay, in the pursuit of worthy goals than what good are we?
Helpful hints..vote for Bush,read more threads,and stop posting moronic vanties,which make you look like an idiot.
Oh yes,and find some "fun" threads and make friends THERE.
I know,I know and thank you for your service! :-)
First of all, i graduated with a 3.5 gpa, with a major in history, lastly it's kind of hard being the only person in a household who is not democratic, and the only one not a liberal nut job in class
also it kind of sucks, when you're grade is lowered, just because you stand up to your teachers liberal beliefs
Awww geez --- I have bras older than this guy...
You aren't the only one,who has faced some or all of that.Grow up,for crying out loud!
I have pocketbooks that are two decades older than him,that I still use. LOL
*hand on mouth*
!!!!
And you never learned grammar or punctuation? You write like a lazy person. ~Work~ a little to sound as educated as you claim to be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.