HS1988 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Im sorry straw it must have flown right over your head. My point is none of them require our military action. The only thing we have any legitimate reason for using force is to get Osama. The General remark was cute but old. It amazes me how some people can make those kind of remarks without having any idea what someones military service includes, or what rank they obtained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 We have a legitimate reason to use our military any time our national security is threatened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HS1988 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Amen to that Now all we need is someone who knows when that is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Middle Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Originally posted by Colmesneilfan1We have a legitimate reason to use our military any time our national security is threatened. I completely agree. And that's why I believe these never-served-a-lick politicians should leave it up to the military leaders to get the job done. You let the soldiers do the fighting and we're all going to be a lot better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straw Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Originally posted by MiddleI completely agree. And that's why I believe these never-served-a-lick politicians should leave it up to the military leaders to get the job done. You let the soldiers do the fighting and we're all going to be a lot better off. Middle, the planets must be lined up cause you and I thinking the same way too much. Still have to be careful though. Kerry has Military background but he is an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Middle Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Originally posted by strawberry66Kerry has Military background but he is an idiot. Haha! Good point. I mean more of the guys who are still in the military running it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I agree. Let the generals conduct the war and don't worry about being politically correct or offending other nations. Our national security is more important to me than whether we make France or Germany mad at us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clawsnstripes Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 pull our troops out and end the war. then we'll be fighting them here again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straw Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Originally posted by HS1988Im sorry straw it must have flown right over your head. My point is none of them require our military action. The only thing we have any legitimate reason for using force is to get Osama. The General remark was cute but old. It amazes me how some people can make those kind of remarks without having any idea what someones military service includes, or what rank they obtained. We know after the fact that Saddam didnt have or moved the WMD's we and every Democratic politician thought he had. Now you and every democratic politician use that to oppose the war which the democratic politicians once supported. Am I missing something? And IF you served, thanks. However that does not make you immune to making stupid statements on Smoaky.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locutus Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I am not going to try and debate Iraq, but it does amaze me how many people hold President Bush personally responsible. Politics is Politics, yes, he is the Commander in Chief and all that, and we have to have someone to criticize, but I would bet a dollar against a donut that if he could do exactly what he wanted to do, this joke would be over, you could bag it and tag it, but he can't, he is a Politician. I could end this thing in 30 days time if I could be in charge without all the sideshows, politics, and all the stuff that must be considered. I truly feel President Bush is a man to ride the river with. I just wish he would step it up, say this is what we are going to do to protect America, put America first, and provide for the American CITIZENS. You don't like it, tough, you want to protest do it somewhere else, you want to do something about it, bring it on. You kill one of ours we will kill all of yours. War is hell and you don't want war with The USA. This is America by God, greatest country in the world, and we are going to keep it that way, or die trying. Will that happen, nah, not until they make me President anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seminole44 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Locutas, can I be your VP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiggerbacker Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 That is the problem with the politics game, they only let politicians play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sideliner Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Originally posted by Five0pd310Yeah, he should have thought about that one first. Bush Think!!!!!!!!:lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBryant Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Originally posted by Middle Originally posted by Voted4DubyaIraq has not lasted longer than WW2. The correct statement is that it took the U.S. less time to invade Europe and defeat Hitler than it has in Iraq. A weak parallel, but truthful in context. Iraq conflict: Started March 20, 2003. Currently September 25, 2006. Time: 3 years, 6 months, and five days. D-Day to VE-Day: Started June 6, 1944. Ended May 8, 1945. Time: 11 months, 2 days A very weak parallel.. We were already fighting Hitler in Italy, Africa, etc.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 AND we weren't as handcuffed by politicians in WWII as we are in Iraq....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLeihman32878 Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 I thought all along the best route was to engage in military action in Afghanistan and Iran, first. Finish the deal in those two countries and we could have moved on to Syria , Palestine and plucking out Hezbollah out of Lebanon. When this was done, I would have focused my military and diplomatic efforts on stablizing the government in Pakistan and encouraging Pakistan and India to dismantle their nuclear arsenal. Only after these matters were accomplished, would I even consider ousting Hussein in Iraq. To me, Hussein was a lot like Chavez and Castro, a controlled threat. With that said, as much as I disagree with the war in Iraq, we must stay the course. It's the whole Pottery Barn, "you break it, you buy it" effect. I just think a lot of these problems could have been avoided had we approached this mess in a different manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Middle Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Originally posted by Colmesneilfan1AND we weren't as handcuffed by politicians in WWII as we are in Iraq....... That was pretty much my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now