Kerry insults every man and woman in uniform

[KenP]

Originally Posted by PARAGON

It's not what you think it is..... at all.

There is nothing about John Kerry in it. Just American Heroes.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by PARAGON

Wow, did you go through MCRDPI? If so, when and what platoon?

Sand Diego (didn't have to deal with all of the sand fleas). March-July 1990. Mike Company for the first 2-1/2 months until i broke my 3rd metatarsal in my left foot, which sent me to MRP for 4-1/2 weeks, then back out to India Company. I can't remember which platoons in Mike and India. Suffice it to say it was either First, Second, or Third. When I went in, I consoled my mother: "Don't worry, they haven't deployed the Marine Reserves in wartime since 1945."

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

I see your point MarineHawk. I didn't say that everyone who agrees with the current administration is blind or hasn't thought it through, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I meant that too many political activists (on both the right and left) are uninformed followers who don't think for themselves but are all too willing to shut down any other point of view.

I also didn't say (or mean) that the GOP is leading us down the road to totalitarianism. It's not one party or the other that flushes democracy down the toilet ... it's disrespect for differing points of view and refusal to seek common ground. It doesn't matter how much I disagree with someone, I love a well-spoken rational argument because there's always something new to learn or consider. Whether I change my mind or not, I'm better off because I've thought about an issue in a new way.

True, the "slippery slope" is an overused metaphor. In this context, I am saying that anyone who thinks they are infallibly right and refuses to hear other points of view (because "all liberals are commies" or "all conservatives are nazis") is on dangerous ground. When this happens in politics (right or left) and the opposition is silenced, it can lead to totalitarianism.

The best way to preserve democracy and find workable compromise is to examine opposing points of view. It allows us to see all sides of an issue and reminds us that we don't know everything. If we unilaterally shut down everyone who disagrees with us regardless of their reasoning or politics, we are opposing the nature of democracy.

Fair enough. From my own perspective though, I believe that, when our country goes to war, for those who really care about our troops and/or about the security of our nation, it's the time when we most need to give our C-in-C the most support at least on that mission.

I assume most of the people who are attacking Bush in these circumstances don't realize what damage they are doing. I also assume that, if they did, some of them might stop.

One of the few real similarities between this war and Vietnam is that the enemy(ies) are very much encouraged by our internal divisiveness brought on by the left. This helps their morale, makes them braver and more hopeful. It also hurts our troops’ morale. Morale in combat really is one of the few most important variables in determining outcome and how many of one side’s troops live or die or get injured. This is why the idea of supporting the troops but deriding the mission does not work. No Soldier, Marine, Sailor, or Airman wants to risk his or her life to fight and win a stupid, evil war. I experienced this first hand. In 1991, our morale, and thus our combat effectiveness, was extremely high, mostly because the nation was, with the exception of a very small minority, very united behind the mission. This really fueled our ability to deal with hardship and fear. We believed we were fighting for something important. Once enough citizens start saying (ultimately to our troops) that their mission is stupid, you kill their morale, and ultimately make their job much more difficult and deadly.

I'm not partisan on this issue. I thought that the GOP's worst hour since Watergate was in April 1999, when only a few Republicans would just come out and unequivocally support the war in Kosovo. Most of them were playing politics and stating the same old "support the troops, but not necessarily the mission" crap. McCain (who I'm not terribly fond of as a politician) was to his credit one of the exceptions. As much as I really hated Clinton, I just wanted the GOP to say, on Kosovo, we support you without qualification whether or not we would have made the same decision. The failure to do so back then was compounded by the fact that we had a weak President, who, out of fear of unpopularity, actually told our enemies that we would not use ground troops under any circumstances—thus iolating one of the most basic rules of warfare--don't tell your enemies your limitations. If Clinton, having no intention of using them, had deployed two armored divisions in Macedonia, before he began the bombing. Milosevic would have caved in five minutes. Perhaps Clinton would have done this if he had had a blank check from the GOP. It would have made us stronger and our troops safer.

The same is true now, except that the consequences are much, much more severe. If we lose in Iraq, we're screwed. If we win, al Qaeda is screwed. Reasonable minds can differ on whether or not we should have gone into Kosovo or Iraq, but neither one are evil wars whereby we are slaughtering innocent people for our own gain. There are, at least, legitimate reasons for both campaigns. Thus, there’s no reason to believe that, by supporting those either of those wars (or at least not attacking our C-in-C) that we are facilitating the path toward an evil Hitlerian state. It just means we will win the war more quickly. It really has an effect. The growing dissension on this war is simply encouraging our enemies and weakening our forces. It's bad for the country. Sure, anyone who wants to attack Bush on the war has the right to do so. I just think it’s not necessarily wise to exercise that right no venomously. Even worse, few Dems will ever concede that, of which I am convinced (partly because I agree with him), that Bush thinks he’s doing the right thing and that then simply disagree with his policies. Instead, they accuse him of all kinds of evil motives. This makes any constructive debate impossible.

I wish the Dems would just say: "Bush we disagree with every domestic decision you have ever made, but we will support you in this war [that they voted for when it was in their political interests] and will help you win it as quickly and decisively as possible." It's what the GOP should have done in 1999, and it's what the Dems should do now. As a byproduct, if they had been taking this posture, IMO, they would have won a lot more elections in the last few years.

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

Fair enough. From my own perspective though, I believe that, when our country goes to war, for those who really care about our troops and/or about the security of our nation, it's the time when we most need to give our C-in-C the most support at least on that mission.

I assume most of the people who are attacking Bush in these circumstances don't realize what damage they are doing. I also assume that, if they did, some of them might stop.

One of the few real similarities between this war and Vietnam is that the enemy(ies) are very much encouraged by our internal divisiveness brought on by the left. This helps their morale, makes them braver and more hopeful. It also hurts our troops’ morale. Morale in combat really is one of the few most important variables in determining outcome and how many of one side’s troops live or die or get injured. This is why the idea of supporting the troops but deriding the mission does not work. No Soldier, Marine, Sailor, or Airman wants to risk his or her life to fight and win a stupid, evil war. I experienced this first hand. In 1991, our morale, and thus our combat effectiveness, was extremely high, mostly because the nation was, with the exception of a very small minority, very united behind the mission. This really fueled our ability to deal with hardship and fear. We believed we were fighting for something important. Once enough citizens start saying (ultimately to our troops) that their mission is stupid, you kill their morale, and ultimately make their job much more difficult and deadly.

I'm not partisan on this issue. I thought that the GOP's worst hour since Watergate was in April 1999, when only a few Republicans would just come out and unequivocally support the war in Kosovo. Most of them were playing politics and stating the same old "support the troops, but not necessarily the mission" crap. McCain (who I'm not terribly fond of as a politician) was to his credit one of the exceptions. As much as I really hated Clinton, I just wanted the GOP to say, on Kosovo, we support you without qualification whether or not we would have made the same decision. The failure to do so back then was compounded by the fact that we had a weak President, who, out of fear of unpopularity, actually told our enemies that we would not use ground troops under any circumstances—thus iolating one of the most basic rules of warfare--don't tell your enemies your limitations. If Clinton, having no intention of using them, had deployed two armored divisions in Macedonia, before he began the bombing. Milosevic would have caved in five minutes. Perhaps Clinton would have done this if he had had a blank check from the GOP. It would have made us stronger and our troops safer.

The same is true now, except that the consequences are much, much more severe. If we lose in Iraq, we're screwed. If we win, al Qaeda is screwed. Reasonable minds can differ on whether or not we should have gone into Kosovo or Iraq, but neither one are evil wars whereby we are slaughtering innocent people for our own gain. There are, at least, legitimate reasons for both campaigns. Thus, there’s no reason to believe that, by supporting those either of those wars (or at least not attacking our C-in-C) that we are facilitating the path toward an evil Hitlerian state. It just means we will win the war more quickly. It really has an effect. The growing dissension on this war is simply encouraging our enemies and weakening our forces. It's bad for the country. Sure, anyone who wants to attack Bush on the war has the right to do so. I just think it’s not necessarily wise to exercise that right no venomously. Even worse, few Dems will ever concede that, of which I am convinced (partly because I agree with him), that Bush thinks he’s doing the right thing and that then simply disagree with his policies. Instead, they accuse him of all kinds of evil motives. This makes any constructive debate impossible.

I wish the Dems would just say: "Bush we disagree with every domestic decision you have ever made, but we will support you in this war [that they voted for when it was in their political interests] and will help you win it as quickly and decisively as possible." It's what the GOP should have done in 1999, and it's what the Dems should do now. As a byproduct, if they had been taking this posture, IMO, they would have won a lot more elections in the last few years.

x2

Very well said.


Also,

It's not a matter of want to silence. It's a matter of one should have respect to silence one's own self out of respect of the men and women, not only in combat, but those supporting them and those that are their family and friends.

I still hold that it is a hugely bold and at the same time ignorant stance to assume one has the knowledge to properly voice their dissention to something as large as war. We elect officials to make decisions that are important for the welfare of our country. They make those decisions based on information that only they have at the time and we, as citizens do not deserve to receive as it will undermine security. For one to assume you can intelligently argue the rights and wrongs of entering and/or the direction of a war without real facts, is simply zealous to the point that one's own words become more important that the actual facts.

This is what's happening with all of the war dissenters. Not only do they have short-term memory loss, they are jumping to conclusions without any real facts and doing that in the media. This in turn gets blasted in front of the troops, their family and friends and it undermines moral. It gets shown all over the enemy's airwaves and emboldens them because they realize all they have to do is make it costly, not win the war, just make it costly and the US will leave when the next election comes. That's the way it worked before.

[h2co-pilot]

"The Paper Tiger"

“After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle thinking that the Americans were like the Russians. The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized, more than before, that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows……would run in defeat.”

"We have seen in the last decade the decline of American power and the weakness of the American soldier who is ready to wage Cold Wars, but unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut in 1983 when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia (in 1993)."

- Osama Bin Laden in the 90's

[MarineHawk]

Similarly, in his 1996 Ladenese Epistle Fatwa, bin Laden stated:

... Few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that "the explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists".
We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than twenty four hours!
But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order-you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. ...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terroris...atwa_1996.html

Same is true now, if he hadn't fought in Iraq or if we allow ourselves to be defeated, we will be facing encouraged, stronger Islamic extremist enemies for many years to come. Now (actually, it was years ago) is the time to come together, unite and finish this war with a win.

[GeorgeSSSS]

John Kerry is the only American military member to ever have part of an enemy's military museum dedicated to him. The Vietnamese military museum in Hanoi has a section dedicated to Kerry and Jane Fonda explaining how they helped (then) North Vietnam prevail by damaging morale in the U.S. The Tet offensive was a military disaster for the North, but Kerry and Fonda (with the help of Walter Cronkite) turned it into a success by convincing people that the fact it was tried meant North Vietnam was invincible. If you think I'm making that up, check it out for yourself.

Kerry is a traitor, elitist, and gigolo.

And now he's at it again.

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by GeorgeSSSS

And now he's at it again.

Those Marines are too dumb to have a sense of humor like that

[partsguy]

Nothing better to do...........tenden injury(from treat or tricking)

Go on.

[KenP]

Kerry smacked the military when he got out. He smacks it now, while we're at war again. And he wants to be president.

WTF would our military be like with HIM as Commander in Chief?!?!

[GeorgeSSSS]

Originally Posted by KenP

Kerry smacked the military when he got out. He smacks it now, while we're at war again. And he wants to be president.

WTF would our military be like with HIM as Commander in Chief?!?!

They'd be fighting wars "more sensitively" (his words).


Kumbia

George SSSS

[The Green Lantern]

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

[Star Jones]

I luv jon kary. He can keep miz homo donkgangsta outa da bighouse cuz he liks da litel boiz an gets um to were man capri gaygeer an hold da handels. Hes grodygay gross wit da poopdic.

[BlueHUMMERH2]

Amazing how divided the group is on here. Yet we all drive the same vehicles. MJF, and now this issue.

I still think Kerry is an idiot. So was Dean, and Al Gore. But I think the same about their competitors.

I think I was trying to get at the point that if you deny what's happening in the country around you for the "greater good", then this country as we know it is doomed. If you choose to be quiet rather than speak, then who's going to change anything? I don't think anyone should be quiet "for the sake of the troops". That's a strange arguement, because they should know how the people they're fighting for feel. I agree, if they hear only positives, of course the morale will stay up, and that's good for them. That's a winning strategy for sure. But they should know why they're there, in their hearts, and what they're fighting for. If they don't know that, then why did they sign up in the first place? For income? For college? And then Iraq came around, and they got screwed? If you think the news from home would sway their commitment, then you really have a lot to say about the integrity of our troops, don't you?

Certainly Marinehawk, comparing today's events to those of WWII is far-fetched. I merely wished to make the point about facism, and where it comes from. Do I think we'll get there? I don't know. Will our society collapse in 50 years? Some anthropolgists think so. But using military history will always provide the answer that might is right, because only the victorious write the "facts". There is more to culture than militarism however.

I think WWII had a very clear enemy, and it was more B&W. Today, things aren't so clear anymore. And that makes it difficult for some people to figure out what we're doing in the world today and why. Who is evil? What is evil? We're not fighting against a nation, we're fighting against a group of individuals that share a common ideal. They're everywhere. And I think that makes the wars of today far more complicated than some of those in the past.

I'm not trying to be mean here. I'm just stating my opinion. But I get very little respect here anyway, and hardly anyone likes me, so I really don't care what anyone thinks of what I say at this point. I'll continue to post here just the same.

I'm not a liberal extremist, and I'm not a conservative. I'm a moderate liberal. Do I think we need to/should be in Iraq? I am not sure. Do we need to win? YES. I have great respect for the service of our veterans. And I am surprised at how many come out as supporters of war, and how many disagree with such tragedy and death. This war in Iraq is a tragedy, and it has nothing to do with terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. Because we didn't find the latter, and we certainly aren't eliminating the former.

My grandfather is the only member of my family to serve, drafted in WWII. He was sent to Japan following their surrender. His opinion is now completely against violence and the current war. My g/f is a National Guard member. She's a medic. She doesn't like the CIC, and is not happy with what's going on in Iraq, nor are her friends. So I am not isolated from this issue.

[h2co-pilot]

Maybe this would be helpful:

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html


(Sokay to hover, it's not meatspin. I relish in your disappointment.)

[The Green Lantern]

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well and afford to buy a Hummer H1. And if you don't, you get stuck in the mud."

[Hmmm2]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

Fcuk you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

You worthless fcuk!! You have no idea. How many U.S. Marine officers or enlisted have you been around? I went to the Gulf War with a regiment of Marines that blew me away with their level of competence, integrity, intelligence, and diligence. Far, far in excess of any other professional group I have ever encountered before or since. In 1991, when my reserve regiment (the 24th) left, more than 50% of the regiment's enlisted had more than two years of college experience. The vast majority of those were were progressing to degrees. Yet they decided to enlist nonetheless, in the Marines, who offered the least college benefits of any service. Why? Because, although most were intelligent and competent, they wanted, for at least a brief period, to do something more meaningful and important to history than just taking the easiest path to the most money. What have you done for the world Dennis that was not in your own self interest?

Even by your own shallow standards, the Marines have done pretty well. I don't know what the percentages are today, but, in 1990, more than 20% of the U.S. Congressmen and Senators and C.E.O.s of the Fortune 500 companies were former Marines. Granted these people might not be up to your lofty caliber, but they did okay. I can only assume that the other U.S. Services are similarly filled with exceptionalism. And I assume it's even better today than in 1990. You simply don't know what you are talking about. These guys are smart, hard-working, dedicated, brave, and they are doing something more valuable than almost anyone else I am aware of is doing. They are heros. They really are.

I lost my brother who was in the Marines during the Vietnam era. He never made it home. He was in college .. soon to graduate .. then chose to ENLIST (no, he wasn't drafted)...and decided to finish up the few credits to get his degree after he completed his enlistment period. My dad is a West Point graduate who served with the U.S. Army in Army Intelligence during WWII. I agree with MarineHawk.Those who have served are more than sensitive when it comes to statements as made by people like Kerry. I think it's fair to comment on Kerry's statement, but, everything else is like treading on thin ice. Especially when it comes to bashing the U.S. military when some of the members here commenting aren't even U.S. citizens. That's an insult.

[BlueHUMMERH2]

Originally Posted by h2co-pilot

Maybe this would be helpful:

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html


(Sokay to hover, it's not meatspin. I relish in your disappointment.)

Your point?

ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS,

The political description that
fits you best is...

CENTRIST

CENTRISTS espouse a "middle ground" regarding government
control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on
the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention
and sometimes support individual freedom of choice.
Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind,
tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what
they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p=8&e=5

I relish in your disappointment

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by BlueHUMMERH2

Amazing how divided the group is on here. Yet we all drive the same vehicles. MJF, and now this issue.

I still think Kerry is an idiot. So was Dean, and Al Gore. But I think the same about their competitors.

Whoa there, pocket monkey. Don't flatter yourself that you are part of some "group." You obviously are too young and overly-ambitious in your attempt to "fit in" because you have no idea of where you "belong."

It's obvious to others who the fish out of water are here and "your group" doesn't have enough members to be considered a group here.

Dennis doesn't count because he just likes to stir the political sh!t pot much as I do the rest.

Originally Posted by BlueHUMMERH2

I think I was trying to get at the point that if you deny what's happening in the country around you for the "greater good", then this country as we know it is doomed. If you choose to be quiet rather than speak, then who's going to change anything? I don't think anyone should be quiet "for the sake of the troops". That's a strange arguement, because they should know how the people they're fighting for feel. I agree, if they hear only positives, of course the morale will stay up, and that's good for them. That's a winning strategy for sure. But they should know why they're there, in their hearts, and what they're fighting for. If they don't know that, then why did they sign up in the first place? For income? For college? And then Iraq came around, and they got screwed? If you think the news from home would sway their commitment, then you really have a lot to say about the integrity of our troops, don't you? .

You just aren't going to get it because 1) you're too ignorant of life's realities 2) you're too blind by your own political views to see what is RIGHT

What good does it do for anyone, and I mean anyone to voice their dissent to what they feel is an unjust war when they do that in the open, public arena. What does that accomplish and what change does that supply. None. If you as a voter, if you are even registered to vote, want to make a change to policy, you vote for someone that you feel will make a difference and/or call your Congressman and Representative to let THEM know how YOU feel.

For others that really give a damn, since you don't seem to care, lack of morale, kills. It kills the very troops that protect your freedom to say the stupid sh!t you are wanting to say without any concrete basis.

Bringing us, to the point of WHO THE FUCK do you think you are, that you can second guess the President and all of his advisors and every single Senator and Representative that voted in favor of this war who all had, has and will have mounds of more information about the subject than you through the biased media reports.

WHY IN THE FUCK do you think you can make some type of proclamation that could possibly cause death to American troops in combat without having any REAL data on the subject.

Some people should exercise self-censorship.

Originally Posted by BlueHUMMERH2

Certainly Marinehawk, comparing today's events to those of WWII is far-fetched. I merely wished to make the point about facism, and where it comes from. Do I think we'll get there? I don't know. Will our society collapse in 50 years? Some anthropolgists think so. But using military history will always provide the answer that might is right, because only the victorious write the "facts". There is more to culture than militarism however.

I think WWII had a very clear enemy, and it was more B&W. Today, things aren't so clear anymore. And that makes it difficult for some people to figure out what we're doing in the world today and why. Who is evil? What is evil? We're not fighting against a nation, we're fighting against a group of individuals that share a common ideal. They're everywhere. And I think that makes the wars of today far more complicated than some of those in the past.

I'm not trying to be mean here. I'm just stating my opinion. But I get very little respect here anyway, and hardly anyone likes me, so I really don't care what anyone thinks of what I say at this point. I'll continue to post here just the same.

I'm not a liberal extremist, and I'm not a conservative. I'm a moderate liberal. Do I think we need to/should be in Iraq? I am not sure. Do we need to win? YES. I have great respect for the service of our veterans. And I am surprised at how many come out as supporters of war, and how many disagree with such tragedy and death. This war in Iraq is a tragedy, and it has nothing to do with terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. Because we didn't find the latter, and we certainly aren't eliminating the former.

My grandfather is the only member of my family to serve, drafted in WWII. He was sent to Japan following their surrender. His opinion is now completely against violence and the current war. My g/f is a National Guard member. She's a medic. She doesn't like the CIC, and is not happy with what's going on in Iraq, nor are her friends. So I am not isolated from this issue.

That's what you want to call your resume for speaking from experience?

Why don't you go see a recruiter and sign up right now? Why don't you go do something bigger with your life and serve your country and get some real experience?

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Originally Posted by BlueHUMMERH2

I'm not a liberal extremist, and I'm not a conservative. I'm a moderate liberal. Do I think we need to/should be in Iraq? I am not sure. Do we need to win? YES. I have great respect for the service of our veterans. And I am surprised at how many come out as supporters of war, and how many disagree with such tragedy and death.

x2

My parents served honorably in the army during the Korean War and my dad joined the NSA afterwards. My brother served in the Air Force during the Gulf War. I'm proud of them and of my nephew who plans to join the Navy.

imo, we should not have invaded Iraq under Pres GW Bush. But that's as far as I can agree with my liberal friends. Now that we are there, we MUST NOT abandon the mission. What we need now is bipartison dialog on how best to complete the transition of power to the iraqis and reduce (not eliminate) our military presence there.

Pulling out now, the way we abandoned Beirut, Somalia and other places, would only embolden our enemies and leave the middle east in a power vacuum next door to an Iran eager to annex all that nice land to the west.
And to me that's far scarier than anything Saddam had in my mind.