1. #51
    Forum Member
    VinnieB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    On the couch in my skivvies
    Posts
    2,316

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86
    And to quote the immortal Olson Johnson, "who can argue with that?"
    Soon he'll be calling me an Oscar Wilde "Fellow".....
    IACOJ Member

  2. #52
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,327

    Default

    Originally posted by Dalmatian90
    Fiscal Conservatives may not agree with what Bush & Congress have done with rampant pork barrel & social welfare expansion (although they may begrudge some of that as necessary to goose the economy through weak times). But they'll take Bush over someone whose answer is to raise taxes -- not to control the deficit, but to fund even more new spending.
    I found out a lot about this from 'W' during the debate. He clearly stated He works hard. He is a hard worker. He is working hard. They are working hard. We are working hard. We couldn't be working any harder. Believe me, we are working hard.

    It's great filler when you don't know what to say.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  3. #53
    Forum Member
    BCmdepas3280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    873

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86


    I found out a lot about this from 'W' during the debate. He clearly stated He works hard. He is a hard worker. He is working hard. They are working hard. We are working hard. We couldn't be working any harder. Believe me, we are working hard.

    It's great filler when you don't know what to say.
    ROTFLMAO
    IACOJ Membership 2002
    {15}

    Mike IAFF

    The beatings will continue until the morale improves

  4. #54
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Conshohocken, PA
    Posts
    391

    Default Substance over style

    But then, how many times did the Senator say, "My position on Iraq has been consistent." Me thinks he said that too many times as well.

    Okay, Bush did a lousy job on style. But let's look at the substance not just style.

    Highlighting the "consistency" of his position, over the course of 90 minutes Kerry managed to say the war with Iraq was a "colossal error of judgment" on the part of the President and referred to the war as a "distraction" from "the real war on terror," but he managed to add that he believed Saddam was a threat when he voted to authorize the use of force, that the Iraqi people deserved to be free, and that he could "win the peace," while beginning to withdraw U.S. forces within six months, making our "bribed and coerced" allies, whose contributions he "respects," pick up the slack. He also implied he'd build a real coalition for Iraq, including France and Germany, and open reconstruction contracts to those nations -- the very ones who profited most (illegally under UNSC sanctions) from Saddam's rule, and who have both refused (as recently as this week) to be a part of any such coalition, even in the eventuality of a Kerry presidency. I ask you, where's the consistency?

    On the subject of our troops engaged in Iraq, Kerry remarked, "I understand what the president is talking about because I know what it means to lose people in combat. And the question, 'Is it worth the cost?,' reminds me of my own thinking when I came back from fighting in that war. And it reminds me that it is vital for us not to confuse the war -- ever -- with the warriors. But of course who was so instrumental in promoting that confusion in 1971?

    Back to the war at hand, Kerry relentlessly attacked President Bush, saying, "Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us." Then, when asked about the most dangerous security threat in the world today, Kerry didn't hesitate to reply, "Nuclear proliferation," to which President Bush added, "in the hands of terrorists." Kerry doesn't understand the true threat of terrorism. Islamic fundamentals don't want to negotiate with us. They want to KILL everyone of us who don't believe as they do.

    Talk about flip-flop; The Senator apparently thinks he can publicly ridicule Russian President Vladmir Putin as a tyrant one minute, then vow to secure all fissile materiel in the former Soviet bloc within four years the next minute. Does Kerry really believe we can do this apart from Russian cooperation? Who's the brazen unilateralist now?

    The Senator suggested giving nuclear material to Iran. On the subject of Iran, Kerry was obviously confused on the whole issue of nuclear technology, as well as the historical facts concerning the sanctions against Iran.

    By way of contrast, on the subject of North Korean nuclear armament, Kerry bemoaned the President's decision to abandon bilateral talks with dictator Kim Jung Il in favor of multilateral pressure -- a coalition, some might say -- involving China, Russia, South Korea and Japan. For some reason, when President Bush employs multilateral diplomacy it's a bad idea; Kerry would return to Clinton's tried-and-failed diplomacy of appeasement -- the same diplomacy under which North Korea was able to advance its nuclear program in secret, even adding enriched uranium to its plutonium-based weapons development.

    But the entire debate I believe was put to rest with the following response and reply, and shows just how wrong Senator Kerry is about our nations security. "No president through all of American history has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the test. That passes the global test [original emphasis] where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing. And you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

    Mr. Bush replied, "I'm not exactly sure what you mean: passes the 'global test.' You take pre-emptive action if you pass a global test? My attitude is you take pre-emptive action in order to protect the American people."

    Game, set, match.

    Kerry talks and looks good on TV but when you get right down to the substance, he didn't do a very good job.

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Dalmatian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Posts
    3,120

    Default

    I found out a lot about this from 'W' during the debate

    So that's why you're using meaningless filler when you don't have an answer based on facts?
    IACOJ Canine Officer
    20/50

  6. #56
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,327

    Default

    Originally posted by glowpop

    Game, set, match.

    Not quite. All that substance has put us into one of the worst foreign policy decisions in the history of our nation.

    By claiming stability as a reason, the region has been made more unstable.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  7. #57
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,327

    Default

    Originally posted by Dalmatian90
    I found out a lot about this from 'W' during the debate

    So that's why you're using meaningless filler when you don't have an answer based on facts?
    Same as 'W'. Maybe I'll run for President.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  8. #58
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Conshohocken, PA
    Posts
    391

    Default Should we have...

    Originally posted by scfire86


    Not quite. All that substance has put us into one of the worst foreign policy decisions in the history of our nation.

    By claiming stability as a reason, the region has been made more unstable.
    Should we have gone to Somolia? Should we have gone to Rywanda? Should we continue to let the genocide continue in Sudan or should we send troops to stop it?

  9. #59
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,327

    Default Re: Should we have...

    Originally posted by glowpop


    Should we have gone to Somolia? Should we have gone to Rywanda? Should we continue to let the genocide continue in Sudan or should we send troops to stop it?
    The better question to ask is why we haven't gone there, but invaded Iraq instead? If humanitarianism is now part of our foreign policy as it relates to military force.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  10. #60
    Forum Member
    DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default Re: Should we have...

    Originally posted by glowpop


    Should we have gone to Somolia? Should we have gone to Rywanda? Should we continue to let the genocide continue in Sudan or should we send troops to stop it?
    Damn straight we should be. We should have been in Europe in 1939, should have been in the Balkins in 1991, we were 6 months late to Somlia, we abondoned and allowed the deaths of a million people in Rywanda, and we should have been in the Sudan 9 months ago.

  11. #61
    Forum Member
    VinnieB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    On the couch in my skivvies
    Posts
    2,316

    Default

    GLOWPOP...great post!...But it is usless to point out facts to SCFIRE..he does not accept them. You can write for days about Somalia, Rawanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq...he'll just refuse to accept the truth and has not clear understanding of US Forgien Policy.

    You are right about "game, set, match"..that hit the nail on the head. Pass a global test to protect our selves....yeah...ok!...And I also think Kerry insulted all our allies that are commited to us. Just because the French, Germans, and Russias dispise us....Well lets see...Oil For Food...eh?...HEAVY military commitment to Iraq over the years.....He also spoke about our allies contrabutions...a thousand here, a hundred there...this guy has no clue. Most of the allies do not have and expaditionary force to deploy for a length of time. And a 1000 guys is NOT a small commitment....for most that would be an entire Regiment..or Brigade for some of the former Eastern Block Nations.....
    IACOJ Member

  12. #62
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,327

    Default Re: Re: Should we have...

    Originally posted by DennisTheMenace
    Damn straight we should be. We should have been in Europe in 1939, should have been in the Balkins in 1991, we were 6 months late to Somlia, we abondoned and allowed the deaths of a million people in Rywanda, and we should have been in the Sudan 9 months ago.
    So what's stopping us?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  13. #63
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,327

    Default

    Originally posted by VinnieB

    You are right about "game, set, match"..that hit the nail on the head. Pass a global test to protect our selves....yeah...ok!...And

    I also think Kerry insulted all our allies that are commited to us.
    Kerry stated, "you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

    Read the entire context instead of one phrase. And I agree with Kerry's position on the matter. We launched a pre-emptive strike with minimal support from allies who do have the capacity to support us with significance (not counting the Uk) with cooked evidence of WMD's. And look where we are with Bush's snap judgement to protect the American people.

    And do you mean our staunch allies like Albania and Costa Rica?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  14. #64
    Forum Member
    DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default Re: Re: Re: Should we have...

    Originally posted by scfire86


    So what's stopping us?
    To much bitching and not enough action. One reason I would rather have a Texan in the White House for another 4 years then a yaping New Englander who has had no paying job other then that of Jr. Officer or Elected Official.

  15. #65
    Senior Member
    Dalmatian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Posts
    3,120

    Default

    Should we continue to let the genocide continue in Sudan or should we send troops to stop it?
    ...
    The better question to ask is why we haven't gone there, but invaded Iraq instead?


    I didn't realize Darfur started a couple years back when you could make a choice, "Should we go to Sudan or Iraq?"

    Hmmm, from the Presidential Debates:

    LEHRER: New question, two minutes.

    Senator Kerry, you mentioned Darfur, the Darfur region of Sudan. Fifty thousand people have already died in that area. More than a million are homeless. And it's been labeled an act of ongoing genocide. Yet neither one of you or anyone else connected with your campaigns or your administration that I can find has discussed the possibility of sending in troops.

    LEHRER: Why not?

    KERRY: Well, I'll tell you exactly why not, but I first want to say something about those sanctions on Iran.

    Only the United States put the sanctions on alone, and that's exactly what I'm talking about.

    In order for the sanctions to be effective, we should have been working with the British, French and Germans and other countries. And that's the difference between the president and me.

    And there, again, he sort of slid by the question.

    Now, with respect to Darfur, yes, it is a genocide. And months ago, many of us were pressing for action.

    I think the reason that we're not saying send American troops in at this point is severalfold.

    Number one, we can do this through the African Union, providing we give them the logistical support. Right now all the president is providing is humanitarian support. We need to do more than that. They've got to have the logistical capacity to go in and stop the killing. And that's going to require more than is on the table today.

    I also believe that it is -- one of the reasons we can't do it is we're overextended.

    KERRY: Ask the people in the armed forces today. We've got Guards and Reserves who are doing double duties. We've got a backdoor draft taking place in America today: people with stop-loss programs where they're told you can't get out of the military; nine out of our 10 active duty divisions committed to Iraq one way or the other, either going, coming or preparing.

    So this is the way the president has overextended the United States.

    That's why, in my plan, I add two active duty divisions to the United States Army, not for Iraq, but for our general demands across the globe.

    I also intend to double the number of special forces so that we can do the job we need to do with respect fighting the terrorists around the world. And if we do that, then we have the ability to be able to respond more rapidly.

    But I'll tell you this, as president, if it took American forces to some degree to coalesce the African Union, I'd be prepared to do it because we could never allow another Rwanda.

    KERRY: It's the moral responsibility for us and the world.

    LEHRER: Ninety seconds.

    BUSH: Back to Iran, just for a second.

    It was not my administration that put the sanctions on Iran. That happened long before I arrived in Washington, D.C.

    In terms of Darfur, I agree it's genocide. And Colin Powell so stated.

    We have committed $200 million worth of aid. We're the leading donor in the world to help the suffering people there. We will commit more over time to help.

    We were very much involved at the U.N. on the sanction policy of the Bashir government in the Sudan. Prior to Darfur, Ambassador Jack Danforth had been negotiating a north-south agreement that we would have hoped would have brought peace to the Sudan.

    I agree with my opponent that we shouldn't be committing troops. We ought to be working with the African Union to do so -- precisely what we did in Liberia. We helped stabilize the situation with some troops, and when the African Union came, we moved them out.

    BUSH: My hope is that the African Union moves rapidly to help save lives. And fortunately the rainy season will be ending shortly, which will make it easier to get aid there and help the long-suffering people there.


    Could it be we actually do look for international consensus -- and provide the leadership to be the first major power to use the keyword, "Genocide" which has specific meanings and starts specific processes at the U.N.? Kerry wants grand international coalitions, except on North Korea where we should go it alone, and except for Darfur were we should go except we're overextended (disregarding that we did deploy troops to Liberia only last summer...)

    Give us a compelling reason to go with Kerry -- something, anything...other than an articulate weathervane.

    Iraq under Saddam was a nation with a known history of WMD, known history of attacking other nations in the area, was not compliant with numerous, long-term U.N. resolutions, a known history of support of terrorists, in a volatile location, with significant potential to develop WMD, whose response to Int'l sanctions wasn't to check Saddam or his cronies but hoist up pictures of children being "starved" by the sanctions, and whose future leadership most likely was Qusay & Uday who made Saddam seem kind of normal. There's just a tad bit more national interest at stake there, and a longer history of international cooperation & sanctions going on over Iraq than Darfur.

    Maybe it makes the left flop like a fish when they can't jive in their thought process that we're not acting entirely like a cowboy, going into anywhere we like, without a history and at least the attempt to make an int'l agreement over the issue in the first place...
    IACOJ Canine Officer
    20/50

  16. #66
    Forum Member
    DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86


    Kerry stated, "you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

    Read the entire context instead of one phrase. And I agree with Kerry's position on the matter. We launched a pre-emptive strike with minimal support from allies who do have the capacity to support us with significance (not counting the Uk) with cooked evidence of WMD's. And look where we are with Bush's snap judgement to protect the American people.

    And do you mean our staunch allies like Albania and Costa Rica?
    Which allie has the ability to provide support of significance? Germany can't, they don't have the military assets like pre-WWII; Japan the same(but they contributed anyhow); France has the Foreign Legion, but it is a tiny force, and their regular forces are small and pitiful. Are you going to say Russia is an ally? Fine, but they are tied up in their own Chechen problems even if they supported us diplomatically on it.

    We have sadly lost 1000 folks in Iraq, but that is what was expected to be lost in the first hours of the war by the arm chair genrals and pundants, so we are doing pretty good considering. There has been no real attack on US civilians or on US soil in three years. W is doing something right.

    Kerry stated his goal, stablize Iraq and get the heck out, I think that is everyones goal, now how does he propose to do it? How will he get Germany, France and the UN to contribute now, just because he is in charge and not W?

  17. #67
    Forum Member
    VinnieB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    On the couch in my skivvies
    Posts
    2,316

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86


    And do you mean our staunch allies like Albania and Costa Rica?
    I guess Poland (2400), South Korea (2800), Italy (2700), Ukraine (1500), Netherlands (1400) don't count eh? I didn't expect you to throw those countires in. If one was to add up the contributions of everyone there...aside from the ones stated above...there is somewere around 2-3 thousand more.
    IACOJ Member

  18. #68
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,327

    Default

    Originally posted by DennisTheMenace

    We have sadly lost 1000 folks in Iraq, but that is what was expected to be lost in the first hours of the war by the arm chair genrals and pundants, so we are doing pretty good considering. There has been no real attack on US civilians or on US soil in three years. W is doing something right.
    And for what? As pointed out during the debates. We weren't attacked by Iraq. Even Rumsfeld now admits there was never any evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

    I won't pretend to speak for the pundits. But just because they were wrong on casualties doesn't make those who have made the supreme sacrifice any less dead.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  19. #69
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Yep, your right sc, Iraq and it's peace loving former dictator did absolutely nothing to the US of A. No financing of terrorist activities, no harboring terrorists, no developement of WMD. It was ONLY President Bush that though he was guilty of all this, yep "W" only...
    But then again that is about as BS as most of your posts. Read below, or are all these quotes also wrong?

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

    "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
    Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

    "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
    Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
    Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

    "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
    Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  20. #70
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    First off, I recall being told several times going into this war (support it or not) that we would be there for years. It would be a long and hard time. We knew that and were told that going in, so an exit strategy is a bit pemature, until the nation is getting its own leaderships and control firmly established.

    That being said...

    "That's why, in my plan, I add two active duty divisions to the United States Army, not for Iraq, but for our general demands across the globe."

    And two divisions is going to take a mighty long time to crank up to operational status. On the order of a couple of years to train the roughly 20,000 troops to staff and support the new divisions. He makes it seem like it will happen overnight, perhaps conveniently not mentioning that part to the citizenry. ANd how does he propose to pay for 20,000 new salaries, new tanks, weapons, artillery, mortars, barracks, helicopters, training, and all manner of logistics to support these men and women? I smell another tax increase (although I don't think I could ever say no to a tax increase for national defense).

    "I also intend to double the number of special forces so that we can do the job we need to do with respect fighting the terrorists around the world."

    And as I have said before, you will now have to deplete current forces to train several thousand new Rangers, Green Berets, SEALs, Forec Recon Marines (the USMC having just recently begun its foray into the world of special operations), Air Force PJs and combat forward air controllers, and all of the other special ops gurus out there. On top of this the recruitin effort will have to replace those several thousand guys on the line from infantry units and those units they traditionally pull from.

    On top of this, almost every operator in the field of special ops has well over a year before they are even basically trained to get the assigned to an operational element. From there it is another 6 months to a year before they are fully spun up.

    Again, perhaps a misleading of the citizenry regarding the issue.

    As for going back to Africa to accomplish humanitarian efforts, we are still suffering from fear instilled in Somalia and will likely not be playing peacemaker there again, nor many other palces for that matter.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  21. #71
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,327

    Default

    Originally posted by SPFDRum
    Yep, your right sc, Iraq and it's peace loving former dictator did absolutely nothing to the US of A. No financing of terrorist activities, no harboring terrorists, no developement of WMD. It was ONLY President Bush that though he was guilty of all this, yep "W" only...
    But then again that is about as BS as most of your posts. Read below, or are all these quotes also wrong?
    And which one of those quotes advocates a unilateral pre-emptive war?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  22. #72
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86


    And for what? As pointed out during the debates. We weren't attacked by Iraq. Even Rumsfeld now admits there was never any evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

    I won't pretend to speak for the pundits. But just because they were wrong on casualties doesn't make those who have made the supreme sacrifice any less dead.
    I highly doubt that Rumsfeld would say there is no connection between Iraq and al-qaeda. It is true that there is no direct evidence of saddam behind the September 11, 2001 attacks, but the administration has never made any such claims. There is however evidence of saddam offering logistical and financial assistance to not only al-qaeda, but a number of terror groups as well.
    Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is probably the most noted al-qaeda operative to have been helped by Baghdad. Zarqawi was wounded in Afghanistan during combat with US forces and recieved his medical treatment in Baghdad. It is also common knowledge that iraq offered safe haven in its northern regions, in direct cooperation with the radical group 'Ansar al-Islam'. Many of these terrorists were operating in Afghanistan until they were forced to move because of our military operations there. Zarqawi is also noted for wanting to produce large amounts of ricin, and is considered to be an active participant with WMD's, in case any one would forget.

  23. #73
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,327

    Default

    Originally posted by jasper45
    I highly doubt that Rumsfeld would say there is no connection between Iraq and al-qaeda.
    Apparently a news story today says otherwise.


    Rumsfeld says no 'strong, hard evidence' of Saddam-Qaeda connection

    1 hour, 34 minutes ago


    NEW YORK (AFP) - US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he has seen no "strong, hard evidence" linking former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) with Al-Qaeda, backing away from his pre-war assertions that contacts between the two went back over a decade.

    "I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way," he told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations after being asked what Saddam's connection to Al-Qaeda was.


    Rumsfeld said there were differences in the intelligence community as to what the relationship was.


    "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said.


    The nexus between terrorism and the Iraqi regime was a key point in the US effort to persuade the world that Saddam Hussein had to be dealt with after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.


    In September 2004, Rumsfeld said the United States had "credible" information that Al-Qaeda and Iraq (news - web sites) had discussed safe havens and non-aggression agreements, and that Al-Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction.


    In his comments Monday, Rumsfeld said he had relied on the Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites) for his information in the past, and appeared to blame the intelligence reporting for the way the relationship between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein was portrayed.


    "I just read an intelligence report recently about one person who's connected to Al-Qaeda who was in and out of Iraq. And it is the most tortured description of why he might have had a relationship and why he might not have had a relationship," he said.


    "There are reports about people in Saddam Hussein's intelligence service meeting in one country or another with Al-Qaeda people for one person or another, which may have been indicative of something or may not have been," he said.


    "It may have been something that was not representative of a hard linkage," he said.


    Rumsfeld also raised the prospect that US and Iraqi forces will launch more offensives to clear safe havens of insurgents like the one just completed in the city of Samarra.


    Rumsfeld expressed confidence the United States would win a bloody test of wills with the insurgents but admitted that the cost in US and Iraqi lives has been high.


    "It is often, on some bad days, not a pretty picture at all. In fact, it can be dangerous and ugly," he said.


    He insisted, however, "Failure in Afghanistan (news - web sites) or Iraq would exact a terrible toll. It would embolden the extremists and make the world a far more dangerous place."


    To the question of how to win the struggle in Iraq, Rumsfeld pointed to the recently completed offensive by US and Iraqi forces to retake the city of Samarra, which has been held by insurgents since June.


    At least 150 people, including an unknown number of civilians, were killed and scores wounded in two days of fighting there.


    "What has to be done in that country is what happened in Samarra over the last 48 hours," Rumsfeld said.


    "You cannot allow a series of safe havens or a consistent pattern of misbehavior, anti-social behavior, violence against the government of Iraq to go on over a sustained period of time," he said.

    "You can't allow that, or you don't have a country, or people don't feel they have a stake in it," he said.

    Rumsfeld said diplomacy backed by the threat of force was the preferred means to regain cities controlled by the insurgents, but it had not always worked.

    "Finally you may have to use force, and that's what happened," he said.

    "My guess is that's what you'll see in Iraq -- the government systematically deciding they are not going to accept the idea of safe havens, and foreign terrorists, and former regime elements running around threatening and killing people," he said.

    Asked how elections can be held in January if major cities are not subdued, Rumsfeld said the Iraqi government would decide what to do.

    "What judgments the Iraqi government would make at any given time is entirely up to them, not me, not the United States and not the coalition," he said.

    Rumsfeld made waves last month by suggesting that elections may be held only in parts of the country that are secure.

    He accused neighboring Iran of sending money and arms into the country to influence the outcome of the elections, and said Syria also has facilitated the movement of "terrorists" and money across its borders.

    He said it was too soon to tell whether an agreement by Damascus to tight control its borders would lead to a change.

    A theme Rumsfeld returned to often was that Afghanistan and Iraq were battlefields in a larger struggle between extremists and moderates in the Muslim world.

    The insurgents' goal, he said, "is to flip the governments in that part of the world, one after another, and to take them over and re-establish a caliphate."

    "They are convinced that if they can win the battle of perceptions -- and they're very good at managing perceptions -- that we will lose our will and toss it in. I believe they're wrong," he said.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  24. #74
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    And which one of those quotes advocates a unilateral pre-emptive war?
    All of them.

    1) Being a Gulf War vet, I know that that region does not know the meaning of moderation...OK, let me cut to the chase, those people hate us, period.
    2) Haven't suffered a terrorist attack since 9/11 is telling me that this is working.
    3) A good offense is the best defense when dealing with extremists.
    4) Unfortunately, freedom isn't free. I may not like it, but it does at times, cost us dearly. Many have paid that price.
    Remember, this is an all volunteer military, so it's obvious they are doing what they believe is right, an people are enlisting, willing to pay that price. Much like many of the Vets on these forums.

    Unless you have been there, I can not express the depths of hate the extremist muslim population has for ALL Americans. All things aside, I don't believe a pacifist, Kerry, has what it takes to keep us safe. Nor could I help in dishonoring those that have served and died by giving up and pulling out. That policy didn't work in Vietnam, what makes people think it will work now?
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  25. #75
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,327

    Default

    Originally posted by SPFDRum

    All things aside, I don't believe a pacifist, Kerry, has what it takes to keep us safe. Nor could I help in dishonoring those that have served and died by giving up and pulling out. That policy didn't work in Vietnam, what makes people think it will work now?
    What makes you think Kerry is a pacifist?

    And your parallel to Vietnam is quite accurate. We can not impose a democracy upon people who do not wish it. Democracy comes from within a populace.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register