When a Commander-in-Chief denies his armed forces the tools they need ... led to the deaths of 18 U.S. Army soldiers and the wounding of 84 others...As if we ever needed proof that x42 DID SAY: "I loathe the military"
makes me sick
Posted on 10/02/2002 7:15:37 PM PDT by UnBlinkingEye
What has happened to our image as a beacon of freedom, opportunity and the right way to live?
Much of the world fears or hates us. We have a proclaimed policy of attacking any country whose policies or regimes don't follow our dictates.
Why have we become the biggest bully in the world?
SOCIAL inferiors, not racial. Yes, you were wrong. But I'm sure you're used to THAT.
Screw imperialism.
Oh, well, that pithy retort certainly deflates any contrary contention. Go home folks. With two words, America's foreign policy has been cast.
I'm pretty sure you can be a snob and a coward and still have 'holier than thou' opinions, if you choose to do so.
I don't think cowardice enters into MY argument so much as it enters into YOURS. Certainly the moral cowardice of someone who lacks the courage of his convictions. Either you believe in America or you don't. I believe that our way of life is the best on earth. I don't believe that others need to follow it if they don't choose, but I also don't think there's a nation on earth that has any room to criticize us. Nor do I think we have any duty to secure their blessing for protecting our own interests, or for expanding our influence, or for defending the weak and voiceless from predation. I'm not sure where my cowardice is supposed to enter in. But I'm fairly sure we've all seen yours.
Tell me why my argument exhibits cowardice or a lack of courage in my convictions.
... I'm not sure where my cowardice is supposed to enter in. But I'm fairly sure we've all seen yours.
I don't think I said you are a coward and you have yet to show me why my position represents cowardice.
Your criticism of America seems founded on the notion that we are a "bully." Using the standard definition of the word, that means that we oppress smaller, weaker nations for no particular reason except to inflate our own precarious sense of worth. I suggest that a belief in one's country compels one to objectively evaluate the application of that epithet.
With the possible exception of Bosnia, a product of Bill Clinton's sleight-of-hand, the United States has no record of "bullying" anyone. The major wars we've fought -- the Revolution, the Civil War, the World Wars -- were all in response to egregious offenses against our moral code. The so-called "lesser" wars were defenses against our ideological enemies, whose expansionist goals were as obvious as they were oppressive.
Therefore, to collaborate with America's Fifth Column critics who label any attempt at self-preservation "imperialist" or "hegemonic" defies the facts in favor of acceptance by those critics. That strikes me as cowardice, the cowardice of a man who will blame America first, then ignore the facts when he gets around to it. Why else would you try to paint our effort against terrorism as anything but justifiable? If cowardice doesn't drive you, what does? Was Neville Chamberlain a coward because he was so willing to appease Hitler? I think history has shown that he was. At the very least, he was willfully obtuse.
I don't think I said you are a coward
Let me cite: I'm pretty sure you can be a snob and a coward ...
Did I misunderstand your point?
and Bush and company sold their souls to big oil and the Arabs just like Klinton did to the Chinese...there someone had to say it.
Puts you in violation of the following making you subject to Court Martial
Article 88 - Contempt toward officials
4.12.1 a. Text.
"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.
In recent memory we only attack smaller weaker nations with 'stand-off' weapon systems where we have little or no threat of response.
Therefore, to collaborate with America's Fifth Column critics who label any attempt at self-preservation "imperialist" or "hegemonic" defies the facts in favor of acceptance by those critics. That strikes me as cowardice, the cowardice of a man who will blame America first, then ignore the facts when he gets around to it. Why else would you try to paint our effort against terrorism as anything but justifiable?
The 'War on Terrorism' strikes me as an unending war on the Constitution, much like the 'War on Drugs' or the 'War on Poverty'. I don't blame America, but I do blame our corrupt political class.
With the possible exception of Bosnia, a product of Bill Clinton's sleight-of-hand, the United States has no record of "bullying" anyone.
I think you have overlooked Serbia, Kosovo and our disgraceful attack on a nation trying to defend themselves against Muslim terrorists.
Let me cite: I'm pretty sure you can be a snob and a coward ...
Maybe I should have said 'one can be a snob and a coward' BTW most snobs I know are cowards.
Not to get into the middle of your fight with IronJack but remember......
"No poor dumb SOB ever won a war by dying for his country. You win a war by making the other poor dumb SOB die for his country!"
In addition, Iraq was not a "weak" nation. During the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq killed 300,000 Iranians and wounded more than 500,000.
Prior to the Gulf War, Iraq had the fourth largest Army in the world.
Prior to the Gulf War, many "experts" testified on Capitol Hill that the U.S. was getting into a World War One style bloodbath, just as Iran had done, and that U.S. casualties would be in the tens of thousands.
When a Commander-in-Chief denies his armed forces the tools they need to fight like Clinton did by denying the requests for armor by U.S. Army field commanders in Somalia, the result is a "Blackhawk Down" fiasco that led to the deaths of 18 U.S. Army soldiers and the wounding of 84 others albeit with the deaths of hundreds of Somali gunmen. Clinton had denied his field commanders the armor they requested because Clinton thought that it might look bad. He was afraid that the U.S. would look like a bully.
The result was 18 dead Americans.
By contrast, in the Gulf War, the U.S. fought to win the War and not to win the Miss Congeniality Award.
The result:
"Iraq went from the fourth-largest army in the world to the second-largest army in Iraq in 100 hours".....Lieutenant General Tom Kelly
When a Commander-in-Chief denies his armed forces the tools they need ... led to the deaths of 18 U.S. Army soldiers and the wounding of 84 others...As if we ever needed proof that x42 DID SAY: "I loathe the military"
"No poor dumb SOB ever won a war by dying for his country. You win a war by making the other poor dumb SOB die for his country!"
In addition, Iraq was not a "weak" nation. During the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq killed 300,000 Iranians and wounded more than 500,000.
I'm not fighting IronJack, I'm trying to show him another point of view. I am not in favor of equivalent casualties for our troops, but I am also not in favor of American deaths in support of globalism.
Iraq was and is a 'weak' nation compared to us, the threat from them to the United States is minimal.
IF our military didn't do as ordered, there would be chaos!!
Don't forget that if the German and Japanese troops didn't do as ordered WWII would never have happened.
I keep hearing this from foaming at the mouth supporters.
I see little evidence, we were attacked by 18-20 criminal fanatics, no major attacks since then, no nation claiming responsibility, yet we have declared 'War' on a concept.
Once we're done, we should set the world on notice that the levels of barbarism seen in the past will not be tolerated any more. Either you will join civilization or you will be remembered only in gardens of stone.
It is time for Pax Americana.
What about the slaughter in Africa? I don't think imperialism or empire is a good role for America.
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.