The Problem With Republicans

BTW Greg, when I answered your line with this: "That's what is happening in Iraq, just the liberal media won't show us that, it doesn't fit in their agenda, or yours. I dont have an agenda other than trying to use my head rather than just my mouth. it comes oiff as sounding like a knock at you personaly & I didn't mean it that way. What I meant was aimed at the many people in the country that just seem to like to shoot the mouths off without ever really engaging their brains first.
(Meant to be a generic insult, not a personal one)
It is really tough to debate some of these issues without having the discussion lower itself into grade school pissing matches.
There is obviously alot of emotion in the subject & I find myself having to exercise great restaint (sometimes failing) to not get angry.
One the whole though, I think it is usefull to discuss this stuff out in the open, rathder than keeping it bottled up.

Just look to history fellows, it tells the story over and over.

World War I, beaten enemies return 20 years later to restart a world conflagration because the beaten were beaten again and again after the war.

World War II, the beaten are reborn and rebuilt and become our strongest allies.

Walk away from Iraq in the mess its in, you have an enemy breeding ground.

Hi Richard, thank you for the gentlemanly reply, I want to appologize too, I get VERY hot under the collar about some of the subjects here, and this is why I have stayed far away from the discussions for so long. No matter how many times I reread a message before I hit 'submit' my anger shows in my choice of words..

For some of your replies I have to totally agree, of one: I'd rather see the money spent inside our own country too..

The 'liberals' that i referred to that have handcuffed the Homeland Security [that I deal with at airports] are the ACLU... they are nuts... the screening is just a whitewash, windowdressing, almost meaningless.. Just a 'feel-good' for the flying public.. I believe that the background checks done on me by the FBI etc to clear me to fly an airliner full of US citizens should clear me to be able to carry a small pocket knife [it's a tool, not a weapon] a small multi-tip screwdriver, and a small pair of pliers.. I carried these for decades flying corporate and private aircraft, but can't get them through 'Homeland Security'.
I could go and be part of the FFDO program, but the responsibility of carrying a weapon is pretty great, and I haven't convinced myself I want that responsibility. YET.. Maybe when the FFDO is allowed to carry concealed, Like I can in Michigan, but not out of state.. or on the plane I'm piloting..

As for cancer, yes it is a big killer, I lost my best friend... my father , a few years ago to cancer... but you know, I'd much rather see him die of a breakdown of his body after 87 wonderful years, than to see some terrorist kill him.. He fought in WWII, in the Ardens during the 'battle of the bulge', he deserved to live a life free of worry about some foreign terrorist getting into our country and killing him, or anyone else he knew..

LIfe WILL end, for each and everyone of us, either from cancer, heart disease, accident, stroke, something, they are for the most part not preventable.. but a terrorist with a gun, poison, bomb or knife is preventable..I'll pay for that protection. We HAVE to have that protection...

I do totally agree that we are embroiled in a civil war in Iraq.. But if we want any chance at turning around the 'Hate-America' brainwashing that the Iraq children and generations of Iraqi have heard, it is through our humanitarian efforts.. YES we need the same stuff here on our own land, but without reducing the threat from abroad, we won't have much chance of rebuilding our own infrastructure, it will be destroyed in a war fought in our own backyards.

Your comment about 'throwing a dart' to pick a country to invade is a bit off.. I don't think you can say we invade our allies land...
Yes I agree that we need to do more in afghanistan, but with Pakistan next door, with nukes, we have to tread very carefully...
AND now please think about this... before the Iraq war #2, how were the Iraqi people living... in a bankrupt country, run by a ruthless dictator, with a crumbling infrastructure... If we ever hope to have any chance of countering the brainwashing against America, we need an example to point to, and say yes we occupied that country for some years, but when we left it, it was far, far better of than when we first got there. We have to use this type of battle, it is the only one the common person sees or cares about.

An absolute guarantee of safety? No, that is not possible, I agree, but we have to do what we can to turn around the rhetoric of the Islam 'clerics' [or whatever] that preach that we are the 'great satan'. We HAVE to turn that around, or ... become totally isolationists, erect a wall, build up a strong border with virtually NO travel across it, with impossible infrastructure to fend off the outside world.. it won't work... I wish in many ways it could and would.. 'press one for english'.... ggrrrrr... !!!

Anyway, I think I'll try to stand away from this, it's not good for my blood pressure, and I need to keep my first class medical for another ten years...

It's been a week, the coal hopper for the AA boiler is near empty,, I guess I need to go get some exercise..

Take care, Greg L

I enjoy these discussions too -- but there's no doubt they take a lot out of us, especially if they're conducted in the civil way they ought to be.

At some point, it might be instructive to look at how "Al-Quaeda" got started. If I'm not mistaken, Osama and many Saudi fundamentalists thought that their Holy Land had been defiled when our forces were positioned there to prepare for "Operation Desert Storm" in Kuwait in 1991. And we shouldn't feel alone; they didn't like it when the Russians occupied Afghanistan during the 1980's, either. Can it be any surprise that some of the SAM's which Charlie Wilson gave the Mujahadeen are now are being aimed at our copters over there?

A good point has been made above about the difference between the post-WWI and post-WWII behavior of the U.S. as it relates to reconstruction. We sure didn't do that in Afghanistan after the Russians were defeated.

Just yesterday, McCain answered a question at a town hall meeting that he didn't envision a draft. That being the case, how can he prosecute all the fronts on the "War on Terror" for all the time that he forecasts? Absent a draft, isn't he simply writing checks that can't be cashed? Isn't that just as fanciful and unrealistic a notion, doesn't it undermine our credibility every bit as much as the concept of withdrawing from Iraq which he views with such contempt?

I live in an "Army town" just north of West Point (in fact, Gen Petraeus's home town) and I can say that there are no broad generalizations which can accurately be made about the "beliefs" of soldiers or their families. I spoke to a voter just before Super Tuesday whose grandson came home in a box last summer. He believed his grandson had been duped by the Army recruiters, that he saw the folly of the war over there and didn't want to go back the last time he had to, and his grandfather certainly didn't take a position anywhere close to that which is so broadly attributed to our brave warriors and their families, that we somehow "owe it to the fallen" not to "wave the white flag of surrender" by withdrawing. To the contrary, this Korean Vet's view was that no other grandparent should suffer the same fate he and his family have suffered. Bottom line: veterans and their families represent the same cross-section of opinion on this war that exists in the rest of the population -- only we ought to remember that they volunteered to become involved in this, so one reasonably may assume that, unlike the military population in a draft-based conflict, they at least started out in support of the military action.

I'll end with a little factoid I discovered a couple months ago. Anybody remember Bobby Ross? U. Md. and Ga. Tech, then S.D. Chargers and Detroit Lions head coach. Quit last spring as head coach at West Point. Final salary? $600K/yr. Yes, Bobby Ross quit the highest paying position in the entire federal government (50% higher than the President) because he had the toughest job in the world: trying to convince kids with ability to come to West Point to play football. And even he couldn't pull it off.

Maybe that ought to be the test: when kids with ability volunteer for command-training, maybe the sale has been made. And, when they aren't volunteering -- when our wars are being fought with people from the most economically-desperate areas who've been stalked and lied to by recruiters -- put another way, when not one of Mitt's five sons is in the service, we ought to read that barometer as an indicator that maybe our purpose isn't as noble as we might think.

stockingfull wrote:I enjoy these discussions too -- but there's no doubt they take a lot out of us, especially if they're conducted in the civil way they ought to be.

At some point, it might be instructive to look at how "Al-Quaeda" got started. If I'm not mistaken, Osama and many Saudi fundamentalists thought that their Holy Land had been defiled when our forces were positioned there to prepare for "Operation Desert Storm" in Kuwait in 1991. And we shouldn't feel alone; they didn't like it when the Russians occupied Afghanistan during the 1980's, either. Can it be any surprise that some of the SAM's which Charlie Wilson gave the Mujahadeen are now are being aimed at our copters over there?

A good point has been made above about the difference between the post-WWI and post-WWII behavior of the U.S. as it relates to reconstruction. We sure didn't do that in Afghanistan after the Russians were defeated.

Just yesterday, McCain answered a question at a town hall meeting that he didn't envision a draft. That being the case, how can he prosecute all the fronts on the "War on Terror" for all the time that he forecasts? Absent a draft, isn't he simply writing checks that can't be cashed? Isn't that just as fanciful and unrealistic a notion, doesn't it undermine our credibility every bit as much as the concept of withdrawing from Iraq which he views with such contempt?

I live in an "Army town" just north of West Point (in fact, Gen Petraeus's home town) and I can say that there are no broad generalizations which can accurately be made about the "beliefs" of soldiers or their families. I spoke to a voter just before Super Tuesday whose grandson came home in a box last summer. He believed his grandson had been duped by the Army recruiters, that he saw the folly of the war over there and didn't want to go back the last time he had to, and his grandfather certainly didn't take a position anywhere close to that which is so broadly attributed to our brave warriors and their families, that we somehow "owe it to the fallen" not to "wave the white flag of surrender" by withdrawing. To the contrary, this Korean Vet's view was that no other grandparent should suffer the same fate he and his family have suffered. Bottom line: veterans and their families represent the same cross-section of opinion on this war that exists in the rest of the population -- only we ought to remember that they volunteered to become involved in this, so one reasonably may assume that, unlike the military population in a draft-based conflict, they at least started out in support of the military action.

I'll end with a little factoid I discovered a couple months ago. Anybody remember Bobby Ross? U. Md. and Ga. Tech, then S.D. Chargers and Detroit Lions head coach. Quit last spring as head coach at West Point. Final salary? $600K/yr. Yes, Bobby Ross quit the highest paying position in the entire federal government (50% higher than the President) because he had the toughest job in the world: trying to convince kids with ability to come to West Point to play football. And even he couldn't pull it off.

Maybe that ought to be the test: when kids with ability volunteer for command-training, maybe the sale has been made. And, when they aren't volunteering -- when our wars are being fought with people from the most economically-desperate areas who've been stalked and lied to by recruiters -- put another way, when not on of Mitt's five sons is in the service, we ought to read that barometer as an indicator that maybe our purpose isn't as noble as we might think.

Excellent Post!
(Hope you aren't offended but it's nice to have an ally here...at least allied in what your points were)

A counterpoint: My next-door neighbor has two sons, both army volunteers.. they both just re-upped for a return to Iraq.. I spoke with both boys [men now, I remember them as boys] and their parents.. about the wisdom of going back. Both of the young men said they really saw improvements in the situation, and felt that they were doing some real 'good' for the Iraqi people... and no I don't think the guys are delusional, or easily fooled or have the wool pulled over their eyes. I was VERY impressed with their decision to risk their lives and futures for another country and people.

I fly with quite a few pilots in the guard, and many fresh from active service.. they all feel that the media gives a very slanted view of Iraq, and all slanted to make the current unpopular administration look as bad as possible.
Nothing like the news coverage during Iraq 1, with Schwartzkopf's breifings, Those were classics..

I do wish there was an 'easy' answer, but there is not.. we are in a quagmire.. again.. and no matter who or what gets elected, mistakes will be made, the future will be mis-read and the wrong moves made.. and then we can all sit back and point fingers at yet another administration for all the mistakes the Media make mountains out of..

Just remember, if Jimmy Carter had had some backbone and went in an pulled out or hostages, immediately, and show that America won't be taken hostage, then we wouldn't have the escalation in the nerve and depth of pennetration on the terrorists into the free world..
Then, If Billy Clinton hadn't wanted to watch football more than be commander-in-chief, and had said yes to taking out Bin Ladin, then maybe most of the bloodshed over the last eight years wouldn't have happened.. How he can show his face in public after 9/11 I don't know.. I'd be ashamed of myself.

See?? I an look back and point fingers like everyone else..

Just remember one very important thing, as much as many many people don't like Bush,, he did one very important thing,, he moved the war to THEIR backyard, not yours and mine...

Damn,,, and I was going to stay off this thread... Where's my BP medicine..

Greg L

Thanks, Richard. I've been impressed by the logic and, um, "temperance" of your posts.

It's a sure sign of an impending landslide when reason begins to carry the day with coal burners!

Greg, I wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard that tired old line about Clinton not getting OBL. It's not only been refuted by the evidence that the CIA wouldn't certify OBL at the time but vastly overtaken by Bush's breathtaking incompetence since 9/11. Lessee now, it's been 6 1/2 years since 9/11 and it's still Bill's fault that we haven't gotten Osama?

In his zeal to avenge the previous attempt on his father by Saddam, Dubya squandered the national purpose -- and, oh by the way, international support -- we had following 9/11. Now, as Colin Powell correctly predicted before we went in, we've been bankrupted, not only fiscally but in our standing among nations, dealing with the Iraq that we bought when we broke it. And we've made matters far worse in the process among those who are most inspired to hate us by our mere presence occupying their countries. And that's a very large number of people.

In the end, no matter how you feel about the mechanics, there can be no serious dispute that, as Ronnie Ray-guns was fond of saying, we're not better off than we were 8 years ago. Not in any way.

So take heart; there's about to be a new crew and a new way. And, if it doesn't work out, I'm sure there'll be somebody to run against 'em in the coming years.

Ronnie Rayguns.... ha ha never heard that one before... pritygood.

LsFarm wrote:A counterpoint: My next-door neighbor has two sons, both army volunteers.. they both just re-upped for a return to Iraq.. I spoke with both boys [men now, I remember them as boys] and their parents.. about the wisdom of going back. Both of the young men said they really saw improvements in the situation, and felt that they were doing some real 'good' for the Iraqi people... and no I don't think the guys are delusional, or easily fooled or have the wool pulled over their eyes. I was VERY impressed with their decision to risk their lives and futures for another country and people.

I fly with quite a few pilots in the guard, and many fresh from active service.. they all feel that the media gives a very slanted view of Iraq, and all slanted to make the current unpopular administration look as bad as possible.
Nothing like the news coverage during Iraq 1, with Schwartzkopf's breifings, Those were classics..

I do wish there was an 'easy' answer, but there is not.. we are in a quagmire.. again.. and no matter who or what gets elected, mistakes will be made, the future will be mis-read and the wrong moves made.. and then we can all sit back and point fingers at yet another administration for all the mistakes the Media make mountains out of..

Just remember, if Jimmy Carter had had some backbone and went in an pulled out or hostages, immediately, and show that America won't be taken hostage, then we wouldn't have the escalation in the nerve and depth of pennetration on the terrorists into the free world..
Then, If Billy Clinton hadn't wanted to watch football more than be commander-in-chief, and had said yes to taking out Bin Ladin, then maybe most of the bloodshed over the last eight years wouldn't have happened.. How he can show his face in public after 9/11 I don't know.. I'd be ashamed of myself.

See?? I an look back and point fingers like everyone else..

Just remember one very important thing, as much as many many people don't like Bush,, he did one very important thing,, he moved the war to THEIR backyard, not yours and mine...

Damn,,, and I was going to stay off this thread... Where's my BP medicine..

Greg L

I don't think that my post will help your BP much Greg, so sit down & pop a few pills.
I'm getting tired of everyone blaming 9/11 exclusively on Bill Clinton when two things are irrefutable:
1. The actual 9/11 attack took place on GW Bush's watch & it is always the commander on watch that has historicaly taken the fall for dereliction of duty. (Look at what happened to Kimall & Short right after Pearl Harbor)
2. GW Bush was CinC for almost a full year prior to the 9/11 attacks & had full access to the FBI warnings about middle eastern men who wanted to learn to fly airliners. (not land them or take off...just fly them) His Justice Dept has been shown to have been more interested in going after political foes rather than real criminals or terrorists.
Let's split the difference...Neither Bill Clinton or GW Bush should be President. If Bill Clinton deserved impeachment for lying about oral sex then I think GW equally deserves impeachment for his lies. Clinton is already out of office & cant hurt this country any more, but GW is still sitting there. My opinion= Lets start impeachment proceedings tomorrow!

stockingfull wrote:Thanks, Richard. I've been impressed by the logic and, um, "temperance" of your posts.

It's a sure sign of an impending landslide when reason begins to carry the day with coal burners!

Oh man...I feel like the cavalry has finally arrived to help me fight the marrauding indians circling the wagon train! (Not pc of me but the indian metaphor reflects my age watching cowboy shows on TV)

Don't worry, we're about to be saved. Yea, that's obama!

I never thought in a million years I would agree with Roseanne Barr

"When I fly in an airplane I want the pilot with the most experience, not the one who can inspire hope in me that I get to where I am going. When I pay my taxes, I want the person filing them to be experienced, not the new person who inspires hope in me that he can do the job. When I hire someone to fix my washing machine, I want the tried and true experienced person, not the one who inspires me to hope that he can fix it. When I go to the doctor I do not want to get the one who inspires hope in me that s/he can cure what's wrong, but the one who knows what the hell to do the minute I call. It's not really the job of a public servant to inspire, but to get the job that the people demand done. The democrats think that if they have hope and are inspired things will get better, but they actually won't. When Oprah makes her employees sign her fifty page non-disclosure statement, she doesn't "hope" they can't break it, she pays teams of experienced lawyers to MAKE SURE they can't break it, or be sued in an experienced court by an experienced judge".

Roseanne's a white woman, and white women want Hillary so bad that many of them have completely lost sight of what else they're getting in the bargain. First, they're getting the Clintons and all the political venom that comes along with that, on both sides. For me, that alone is reason enough not to support her. Second, they're not getting the "experience" they think they're getting. What's this "35 years of experience" BS that she's been selling? Hell, by that measure, Lady Bird or Betty Ford had as much.

And, if you want John McCain's "experience," you'll have that chance. The "experience" of the Keating 5; the "experience" of being against torture before he was for it. The "experience" of eschewing lobbyist influence but not being able to remember the array of his own lobbyist contacts and favors. The "experience" of knowing that deporting 12 million illegals is impossible. The "experience" of believing that we need to be in Iraq for another 100 years....

There are more than 8 months before the election. I'm confident that we'll all know a lot more about the candidates' "experiences" before that day comes.

My reply is in blue.

stockingfull wrote:The "experience" of the Keating 5; The democrat controlled congress that hired the independent counsel recommended McCain be dropped from the investigation. the "experience" of being against torture before he was for it. I never heard him say he was for it. The "experience" of eschewing lobbyist influence but not being able to remember the array of his own lobbyist contacts and favors. He says he has "never done any favors for anybody -- lobbyist or special interest group," prove him wrong. The "experience" of knowing that deporting 12 million illegals is impossible. So Obama thinks its possible? The "experience" of believing that we need to be in Iraq for another 100 years....Should we pull troops out of Germany, its been 64 years ?

There are more than 8 months before the election. I'm confident that we'll all know a lot more about the candidates' "experiences" before that day comes. I hope so.