That's a bit of an exaggeration. Most of the world *is* working with us in the greater war on Islamofascism, and much of it supports us in Iraq including the UK, Australia, Italy, Poland, Japan, Thailand, South Korea, etc. Those that belittle or show contempt for their contributions do nothing less than denigrate our _true_ allies.
"SamVanga" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m27.aol.com...
A number of people in this group remind * me* of those who for reason of fear, opportunism or ignorance conveniently take side of the oppressor in a occupied country. A characteristic feature is that they often talk about themselves in plural form.
No "first-hand knowledge" is required to notice there is something wrong with Shuey' s friend's reasoning.
Oh wait, I forgot; perhaps you do know something about casualties.
nonsense
Sort of like when Vess posted "What are **we** doing in Najaf?"
WmB
To reply, get the HECK out of there snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net
Most of the world is siding with us...it's the liberal media that wants to twist it to sound like we (especially a Republican administration) are the devil...
Hey, you forgot the contingent of 35 Royal Tongan Marines. If we had them with us for OIF, we would have had to send only 159,965 Americans. Kim M
Ah, ye of little knowledge..... If you really must know, I have, indeed, been away on temporary duty, but you must really learn how to spell. It's spelled MILITARY. Come on, now, repeat after me; you can do it. Say it with me
M - I - L - I - T - A - R - Y.
There, now, that wasn't so hard was it?
My home page:
" In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon
Well, I suppose that's true. He has been in my killfile for a while. I only recently dumped most of the long-term residents out and he began reappearing.
My home page:
" In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon
I think, in his case, it may actually be the "political rectum." ;~)
My home page:
" In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon
Hey, we all know what's really scary is having your family influence getting you into some so-show billet in the ANG. As far as the look, I guess you prefer the "What, me worry?" look
Kim M
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (SamVanga) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m27.aol.com:
Now that's funny!!!!
Speaking as a non-US, non-politically aligned person, I have a question. How does military service, or the lack thereof, qualify one for the office of PUSA? And why do the events that happened (or not, as the case may be) in someone's life 40 years ago reflect on their abilities to hold public office now? I know what I was like in my 20s - I'm all grown up now, with different opinions, different abilities and the balls to make descisions and stick to them. Just like the presidential hopefuls, I would think... except that they've had a few more years to refine themselves. Surely their conduct and demonstrated abilities over the last 10-15 years is more appropriate to the subject under discussion, rather than what happened when they were callow youths, with (probably) no idea they'd ever be in the situation they're in now?
Not flaming anyone, just curious as to everyone's views.
RobG
**And if you don't lay off the politics, I'll start discussing the upcoming Australian elections... so there.**
It doesn't... and it's POTUS. At least it is while Bush is in office.
Nprmally it wouldn't or shouldn't... unless someone holds themselves up their past for scrutiny and their opposition takes them up on the offer.
When I think back to when I was twenty, I cringe and smile just a little at the same time. Helluva ride, but I'm glad I don't have to repeat it. OK, there was this one girl.... ;-)
PM Howard has my vote.
WmB
To reply, get the HECK out of there snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net
It doesn't, really...there is no Constitutional requirement nor suggestion of such - though the way the politicians spin it is that prior active military service speaks to some qualification to be Commander in Chief...just as politicians spin incumbency as somehow qualifying them for second, third, fourth, etc. terms...which flies in the face of what the Founding Fathers had in mind, IMHO...but...
There is however a long standing tradition in this country of electing former Generals and such to be President - Washington being the first, and therefore setting many of the traditions (like the Presidential two term limit, which was only actually codified into law after FDR broke the tradition, if I remeber my civics...).
While I personally don't mind or care if my President has had previous military experience, I DO care about his attitude toward the military during all phases of his public life. I would be inclined to think that this attitude would reflect directly upon his attention to detail and reddiness to ACT as Commander in Chief. And that at a minimum if he was STUPID enough to create a personal history of opinion counter to mine, and then start standing up and making claims to the opposite during a campaign, why should I trust him at all?..much less as President?
Not to mention that I certainly don't want anyone in the office whom hasn't been thinking about getting there for a LONG time. "Indiscretions of youth"? Poor excuse for someone whom aspires to public service, if you ask me.
And I'd be at a loss to define what "abilities" ANY politician actually "demonstrates" before actually holding the office...therefore we fall back to character...and pray...a lot...
Rob, some people are still fighting Vietnam and always will. I think it's a mistake for Kerry to put so much emphasis on his service or Bush's lack of it. It's what's happening now and what will happen that counts. Bush obviously relishes the chance to get people's minds off what's happening now unless he can use it to his advantage. Sadly this tendency makes a lot of people wonder about terror alerts - are they real or just stuff to stampede the herd? Most everything in domestic policies has been done to the "Potemkin Villages" idea, ie. it looks nice from the outside but a glance inside shows the hollowness of the thing.
If you want to bring up Australian politics, go ahead! It'd be interesting to me and a break from the constant flow of American political BS. ;)
Bill Banaszak
And you snipped the part about denigrating our _true_ allies.
If Russia, France, and the UN hadn't been up to their armpits in Saddam's blood money we might not have even had to launch OIF.....
It doesn't unless it's to the Democrat's perceived advantage. If it's not to their advantage, as in the past case of Bill Clinton and the future case of Hillary Clinton, it's downplayed.
ISTR that wartime military service wasn't of much help in George H.W. Bush's re-election bid or Dole's presidential campaign, both of whom were defeated by Bill Clinton, who had no military service whatsoever. Not even in the National Guard....
They shouldn't. But if Bush's ancient DWI conviction was deemed relevant by the Democrats in 2000 then it's only fair to now consider Kerry's conduct during and after his Viet Nam war service. What's sauce for the goose, etc....
Works for me. John Howard would have my vote if I were a citizen of Oz. :)
You mean like the 9-11 attacks, only worse?
Which is why I don't watch the network garbage, and derive my opinions from such raw data as I can gleen. It is possible that the video broadcast media gets things absolutely right from time to time, but it's not worth trying to sort out from the crap. I find that reading a broad spectrum of print sources (particularly from the op-ed pages) tells me things and gives me insights that are far more valuable than anything coming off of the idiot box, particularly now, when digital editing techniques make single-source video imagery extremely suspect. OTOH, when a staff sergeant says he's going to plead guilty to some counts of prisoner abuse, that certainly ups the degree of veracity.
Reading those op-ed pieces and toting up the facts that are not seriously disputed, I conclude that the Republican Congress and administration are not doing a good job. It's my conclusion, based as much on Charles Krauthammer, George Will and the direct utterances of administration officials as anyone others might characterize as liberal, that my vote is better placed with Kerry than with Bush. Some of us on the liberal side really do think and consider facts, beleive it or not, though I realize that the small sample size on this ng might cause some of you to doubt that.
BTW, I find the worries about gun possession to be a curious short-term concern, both because this administration has done far more to endanger other fundamental freedoms, and because there is no likelihood of a substantial change in congressional make-up if Bush is defeated. A vote for Kerry at this juncture is almost entirely a vote for a better foreign policy, since his domestic initiatives will have little chance of passage. Frankly, another Bush term could well result in a catastrophic collapse for the entire Republican coterie in Washington, and then maybe you will really have to worry about whether you get to keep your guns. Just speculation, of course, but I suggest that relying on nothing more than faith in the Goodness and Right of Our President is a gamble. In closing, I commend to you Rumsfeld's recent comments on the nature of long-term commitments of troops by the US. Four more years? For US troops, it might be a whole lot longer.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.