Poll: How are you voting this year?

[VanOsbourne]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

Why am I so wrong for wanting there to be a GOOD FUKKING REASON before we send our fellow americans off to die?

And if you say have a good reason. That you believe STRONGLY in going to war. Then you should be the first to go.

But instead all I'm hearing here is how its ok to send someone you dont know. Someone who will be just another number on CNN. It wont touch you. A bunch of armchair fukkin WARterback's here. thats what we have.

[charvelguy]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

rut roe..naw, I see Nor as having valid points and he is pretty well versed in historical fact. We just don't see eye to eye.. and that is that, he is far from bordering on what I would define displaying a dipshit mentality.
Even though VO pretty much stands for the same feelings I have about this conflict, I really do not like to see people attacked that way here because our civial little discussions can become rather nasty in short order. I misread his question on airpower as it stated "without putting boots on the ground before or after" I agree, tho.. thousands of lives will have been sacrificed/wasted to establish our belief on foreign policy. In my eyes, that really isn't much different than Vietnam.

[VanOsbourne]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

Well I'm sorry I got a little personal. For that I am sorry.

I dont like having to go to military funerals. To see the widows, thier children asking where daddy is. "Why is daddy sleeping mommy." So I ask, why? What was the reason this person had to die. I cannot come up with a good enough answer.

As americans we should HAVE to ask ourselves these questions before we risk our soldiers lives.

I've heard the reaons. WMD, a terrorist nation, they are not good enough reasons to go to war. If thats the case we have another 30 countries to invade. If its a threat from another nation, its North Korea we should be worried about.

If the war in Iraq is a "good cause" you need to tell that to the Mothers, Wives , and Children who have lost thier loved ones. I you cannot look them in the eye and tell them it was the right thing to do, you hav'nt a leg to stand on.

[PowerTube]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

[ QUOTE ]
If the war in Iraq is a "good cause" you need to tell that to the Mothers, Wives , and Children who have lost thier loved ones. I you cannot look them in the eye and tell them it was the right thing to do, you hav'nt a leg to stand on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. My sentiments exactly. My "acid test" for this is very simple: "Do you believe in this strongly enough to send your son there?" It's a simple question and the choices are mutually exclusive, either Yes or No. I see a lot of people sitting in their Laz-Y-Boys and yelling "USA! USA!" while they watch bombs drop on cities filled with women and children.

I did eight years in the Air Force, all on active duty. I am not, and have never been, a pacifist. I see a lot of people who have never served a day and are no longer eligible who are hawking the Iraqi war and everything Bush does.

National DEFENSE, not International OFFENSE.

By the way, there are quite a few high-ranking retired military officers who publicly and vocally agree with me.

[fritzreiser]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

[ QUOTE ]
My "acid test" for this is very simple: "Do you believe in this strongly enough to send your son there?" It's a simple question and the choices are mutually exclusive, either Yes or No..

[/ QUOTE ]

If that were the acid test, we would NEVER go to war. Most parents would never send their kids to war for ANY reason.

Maybe that is why we don't ask parents if it is okay to send their kids to war. Although, that could be how John Kerry plans to fight a more "sensitive" war on terror.

[charvelguy]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

Michael Moore recently asked a similar question of someone (forget who, probably a Journalist - TV or other)
Would they sacrifice their kid (son) if it meant a resolution to the standoff in Najaf?
The person went on to write a rather interesting article about how this was a rather unfair or unbalanced question because people have to make sacrifices in war. The question is, is the sacrifice acceptable to justify the outcome or the means which is why most of this is being investigated now...because it was shoved down our throats. Probably because it would also conveniently serve as a suitable platform for re-election..to get the job done, who's best qualified.

I don't think Kerry ever stated it would be a more 'sensitive' war, altho people who regard him as weak could perceive and present it that way. In all fairness, it is represented as a 'smarter' angle on the war in Iraq, and I think he has some good ideas, better than sending our troops into Iraq and having them equiped with hummers without enclosure and armor plating. That tells me that the military was ill prepared to fight an engagement like the one we got into and that the plan was hurried & ill conceived because we only had a foggy idea of what kind of resistance we would be fighting, or they just didn't care about what kind of vehicle they would have to be fighting in.
They should have took a hint from the Israeli/Pal conflict. Bush is reckless IMO.

[VanOsbourne]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

If someone's not willing to risk thier own life. Then they have no right tell others to do it.

[fritzreiser]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think Kerry ever stated it would be a more 'sensitive' war, altho people who regard him as weak could perceive and present it that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good Lord, Charvelguy, you sound like PBS, CBS, ABC, and all of the other Kerry Campaign Media Outlets. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

It is exactly what Kerry said. Here is a quote from CNN (not exactly a right-wing news org):

Last Thursday, Kerry told minority journalists at the Unity 2004 conference in Washington that "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side."

[PowerTube]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

[ QUOTE ]
If that were the acid test, we would NEVER go to war. Most parents would never send their kids to war for ANY reason.

Maybe that is why we don't ask parents if it is okay to send their kids to war. Although, that could be how John Kerry plans to fight a more "sensitive" war on terror.

[/ QUOTE ]

John Kerry is just as misguided and wrongheaded about Iraq as Bush is. Your answer here is very telling. It tells me that you're doing what most people do; pick a "side," in your case Republican, and pull for your side to "win." We're already mired neck-deep in Iraq and it will continue regardless of who "wins" the election.

Compare World War II with Vietnam. Most people believed in what we were doing in WWII. That's why thousands rushed the recruiting stations and there were 12-year olds lying about their age to get into the army. A mere 25 or so years later, during Vietnam, there were draft protests, riots, people running to Canada, etc... because a lot of people didn't believe in it.

It's one thing to fight for your freedom and defend your homeland, your family, and your property. It's another thing to go and perform a police action because Dubya or Kerry said so.

[nor]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

Yo, VanOsbourne. We were all having a rational debate, right up to the point where you started calling me names and telling me to shut up. As always, I will stick to facts and polite discourse - and leave the seventh-grade name calling (in lieu of historical context and topical debate) BS to you.

[ QUOTE ]
Uh.. the six days war. Desert Storm maybe. Don't be a dipshit airpower wins every war.

[/ QUOTE ]In your previous post, you stated "That is no reason for a GROUND WAR. Air strikes would have done the trick." My rebuttal was that, no matter how overwhelming air power may be, air assaults alone cannot accomplish an endgame. Let's examine your examples...

SIX DAYS WAR: The preemptive air strike you refer to was perfect and awesome. Over 300 Egyptian aircraft destroyed on the ground, ensuring Israeli air superiority. Hostilities did not end, however - the war was not over. In the ensuing week of battle, more than 800 Egyptian tanks were destroyed, and thousands of soldiers were taken as prisoners of war. Nasser later acknowledged that 80 percent of Egypt’s Russian-supplied military equipment had been lost in the Sinai debacle. The airstrike did not win the war, but instead made it remarkably easy for Israeli armored divisions to take Egypt out of the action. Boots on the ground won the day. The airstrike paved the way for the ground forces - just like they were supposed to.

Airpower played a signifigant role on the Syrian front as well, but not in the form of airstrikes. The Golan Heights were secured by paratroops (more boots on the ground).

DESERT STORM: If the weeks long air campaign won the war, why did Coalition forces launch a massive armored assault around the flank of the Iraqi lines, crushing them in 100 hours of fighting? What were the tanks and troops doing there? According to your interpretation, we should have won with airpower alone, right? Why not just park a few carriers off the coast, and leave our armor and troops at home?



[ QUOTE ]
My point about Pearl Harbor went right over your head I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]Actually, your point was crystal clear. I simply found your analogy to be flawed, and postulated my own counter analogy. Please feel free to pick it apart.

[ QUOTE ]
So Iraq attacked us? When did that happen?

[/ QUOTE ]The whole point (right or wrong) was to be preemptive, and avoid another disaster on US soil. Remember, everything that you are saying about Iraq, was also said about Afghanistan prior to 9/11.

[ QUOTE ]
We saved THOUSANDS of american lives by dropping the bomb on Hiroshima.

[/ QUOTE ]Actually, we saved millions of lives on both sides by forcing the capitulation of Japan and avoiding an assault of the islands. After the second bomb, did we just turn around a go home? Load up all the troops on a boat for San Diego? No - we occupied Japan with tens of thousands of troops to make sure they didn't just rebuild and start the whole process over again. There are those pesky 'boot on the ground' again. And don't forget - those were only two out of 19,000 bombing missions flown from Tinian, an island that thousands of 'boots on the ground' die to secure.

[ QUOTE ]
Man you need some history lessons.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, all I'm trying to do here is point out that American lives are more important then to waste them in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]The way I see it, our nation has a choice. We can play it safe, keep our troops home, and eventually sacrifice thousands of civilians (Afghanistan-9/11), or we go and root out the bastards BEFORE they can attain;
a)the capability to attack us here
b)the capability to inflict far greater casualties on our troops

The reality of 9/11 is this: If we don't go there to get them, they will eventually come here to get us. And they aren't coming for our tanks, planes, and carriers. They are coming for our kids, our families, our economy, our way of life.

[ QUOTE ]
Again if you feel differently sign the fuk up and go. If you can think its ok for a mother of two to lose her husband over this war, kids to lose thier father, the least you can do is go the fuk over there and give the same.

[/ QUOTE ]So, if I am not humping a field pack and dodging tracers - I'm not allowed an opinion? I registered for the draft on my 18th birthday ('83). Had my country called, I would have gone wherever they sent me. I was 26 during Desert Storm. I called the local Selective Service office - they said I was too old. I'm worried about the pricks who can simply waltz thru the border about 300 miles to the south of me. My kids, my wife, and my friends are at risk. Call me an armchair warrior - but I don't want my armchair to go up in a ball of fire as a result of something we could have handled earlier, but didn't. My taxes pay for the fancy hardware, the military funded educations, VA hospitals, and military payrolls. If you don't like what I have to say, or don't believe I have a right to say it - get used to disappointment.

Look, I have my opinion - you have yours. It is possible to have a difference of opinion without name calling and other nasties. I'm playing nice.

Have a good one...

[nor]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

[ QUOTE ]
Don't even get me started about enforcing UN resolutions. If I were president, I would....

1. Get us out of the UN
2. Evict them from our shores
3. Flip them off as they're leaving

[/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/headbang.gif[/img]

Oh yeah, charvelguy : the China thing WAS a bit of a stretch, lol. I was on a roll...

[horns666]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

Kill 'em..

[Top Jimmy B]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

As a Canadian I really shouldn't invole myself in this, but here goes.

Were I able to vote in the election I would chose Bush. I would do so for many of the same reasons mentioned by others. He is the lesser of two losers.

I get a little upset when I hear Americans pis$ and moan about the war and Bush's actions in Iraq. At least you have a leader that will commit to something , anything. Our former Prime Minister had his thumb so far up his rump, on this issue, that he pis$ed off everyone. Our military has become a legion of "peacekeepers", whatever that means. I think it has to do with young Americans, Brits and Aussies dying before we pitch in. Not sure, but I think that's what it is.

[toejam]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

I don't disagree with Bush's actions in the war. I actually applaud him for the most part. I just don't want him in office any longer and would rather give Kerry a chance. I don't really give a crap about either a democratic or republican stance as I'm really not into politics and don't follow much.

[VanOsbourne]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

Nor... I apologized for getting personal. Ribbing my face in it is just as bad.

Now if those are your reasons for going to war Iraq would'nt even hit the top ten list.