Originally posted by TurtlestackNope, not at all!
So you are saying we never should have got involved in WWII?
I was countering old rubberjaw's statement:
"democrats never go to war b/c they have theis mindset that the best way to deal with terrorists is to "negotiate" with them, and have a "let's be friends" attitude... Billy Boy being the class example... "
OH, how could I forget:
Clinton (D) (Somalia)
Originally posted by Dace AceGood one. I always like to point out that the tranzis never whined about the Rangers mowing down Somalis like they were in season and there was no limit, but Bush is a big bad meanie because of a couple of CAS missions.
Nope, not at all!
I was countering old rubberjaw's statement:
"democrats never go to war b/c they have theis mindset that the best way to deal with terrorists is to "negotiate" with them, and have a "let's be friends" attitude... Billy Boy being the class example... "
OH, how could I forget:
Clinton (D) (Somalia)
Originally posted by MerkThe majority of names on both the Dem and Rep list are well known names who can easily be found in the papers on any given day. I agree that the list is selective but posting the complete list would be a chore. The spirit of the list is interesting in that there has always been the appearance that senators won't send their own sons to war (there was a famous song about this) but find it easy to send someone elses son to war.
This list of course tries to make the donks have more veterans claim without mentioning the well known fact that the majority of military personnel vote Republican.
But that won't stop the moonbats on this site from parading this silly list all around the left-o-sphere.
On the other hand war is necessary because the only way you can really change your opponents mind is to kill them. In today's political climate the dems are opposed not for moral reasons but because it can help them get elected and that's because the American people don't like this war. BUT most Americans do understand that just leaving Iraq would not only cause major long term problems in the middle east but it would dishonor our troops who have already died there.
Republicans are very good at sticking together whereas the Democrats bicker too much within their own party due to lack of strong leadership. The Republicans support the war (though that's much more in question right now) because they present a unified front to the enemy. The Democrats unfortunalty appear weak with their aversion to war and that's what cost us the Vietnam war.
I am a veteran myself. I also lean towards the Democratic party on most issues because I feel the Republicans are too isolationist in their world views and too conservative in their social views. What I feel is necessary is that the Democrats should use their power to court support from our allies abroad for this war and let the Republicans take care of managing the war. This congress better get it's act together or else it will be more of the same old crap for the next four years if neither party is willing to work together.
Originally posted by AThousandYounghere are two lists.
Evidence that the Democractic Party has a far higher proportion of battle tested veterans than the Republican Party and therefore might be expected to know a bit more about real military matters.
So...you think it's better to have non veterans than veterans in politics?
probably created by someone or a group of someones with an agenda.
how, then, do you extrapolate that they show a proportion of anything?
if they were complete or statistically derived, you could say that.
are they?
Originally posted by uzlessoh, look, you missed Colin Powell.
Ever wonder why US Republicans send the troops to war so easily yet Democrats are more cautious? Judge for yourself.
Democrats
Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent toVietnamJan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Eng ...[text shortened]... Star for Valor inVietnam.
Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
Clarence Thomas: did not serve
Originally posted by TurtlestackWell stated!
The majority of names on both the Dem and Rep list are well known names who can easily be found in the papers on any given day. I agree that the list is selective but posting the complete list would be a chore. The spirit of the list is interesting in that there has always been the appearance that senators won't send their own sons to war (there was a fa ...[text shortened]... f the same old crap for the next four years if neither party is willing to work together.
During the last election I saw a list similar to this that was just congress and it was very lopsided in favor of the Democrats. It would be interesting to check into that. The Senate would be a good sampling as it almost 50/50. We could throw Cheney in there for the Republicans to balance it out, and we all know where he was during Viet Nam.
Originally posted by TurtlestackThe part about senators not sending their sons to war is very true. Nobody wants to send their son to war. If someones family member is involved, its more difficult to see things without an emotional bias. That's why CinC being a civilian and perhaps never having served is not a bad idea. that's not to say a retired title 10 should be excluded from being eligible, just that their is pluses and minuses to both.
The majority of names on both the Dem and Rep list are well known names who can easily be found in the papers on any given day. I agree that the list is selective but posting the complete list would be a chore. The spirit of the list is interesting in that there has always been the appearance that senators won't send their own sons to war (there was a fa ...[text shortened]... f the same old crap for the next four years if neither party is willing to work together.
I think its the responsibily of both parties to try to get international support. And I think both parties in congress should stop trying to tell CinC how to run the war. Its like they've never lead any sort of major project in their lives. You can't run a war by committee. We think its bad now, just imagine how bad it would be if there was 535 more people in charge.
Though I have voted donk and probably will in the future, I lean Republican (as I'm sure you can tell) because they aren't such pro-globalony surrenderists, but I do wish they would stay out of social issues. If someones bahavior isn't affecting someone elses rights, (even then its not Congresses duty, that one belongs to SCOTUS) I say Congress has more important issues to deal with. Ones that they have been avoiding for decades. Like pork spending, border security, etc etc.
Thank you for your service.
Originally posted by CliffLandinI believe I saw that list too. And I think you're right about it being rather one sided.
During the last election I saw a list similar to this that was just congress and it was very lopsided in favor of the Democrats. It would be interesting to check into that. The Senate would be a good sampling as it almost 50/50. We could throw Cheney in there for the Republicans to balance it out, and we all know where he was during Viet Nam.
Edit: sure, let's throw Cheney in the Senate list too, since he's not a senator. Can I throw in my 9th grade Spanish teacher?
Originally posted by MerkHe is the President of the Senate and serves as its presiding officer. I'm pretty sure that makes him, while not a Senator, part of the Senate.
I believe I saw that list too. And I think you're right about it being rather one sided.
Edit: sure, let's throw Cheney in the Senate list too, since he's not a senator. Can I throw in my 9th grade Spanish teacher?
Caution - Reading ahead 🙂
Let's say Gore (a democrat) had took office. What would the world be like right now? We probably would have invaded Afghanistan no matter who was in office but what about Iraq?
I believe Bush invaded Iraq for the simple reason that it allows the USA to set up a government it can control right in the heart of the middle east and right next to our REAL enemy - Iran. It's like having your rook on the 7th row with a knight and queen ready to attack. Yes we can also get all the oil we want and sure we can lubricate the military industrial complex with billions in tax payer money but the real reason is that we want to control the middle east before the middle east can control itself.
Imagine what the world would be like if the middle east nations actually sat down and started to agree on how to work together with Iran in charge. Wouldn't that pose an even greater threat to Western interests? For quite some time we have seen how Iran has slowly come back to power and has started to attempt to unify the middle east through terrorism, and religious extremism. Does America and the rest of the Western world want that?
No, of course not. Now I'm not saying any of this is morally justified in any way but I believe this is the real reason why we are in Iraq. We want to keep the middle east splintered and fighting among themselves instead of coming together and posing a threat to Western way of life.
I believe this is why Bush sent us into war. He knew there were no WMD's and I don't think he cared. He saw an opportunity and he took it. Was he right? Well it depends on how you feel about the middle east I suppose. But even democrats have to admit they don't want to see an Islamic nation rise to power and threaten us.
And threaten us they would too because they want us gone. They want Isreal gone and they want us to go back to where we came from. If Iran and nations like them had greater control of the middle east imagine the world we would live in. You think we have terrorists now, well geez, just let Iran get their way and you'd have a 9-11 every week. These people hate us, they hate our way of life and are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to see our way of life ended. This is not a game to them and it can't be a game to us either.
We have to accept the fact that we are knee deep in it and that we will have to continue slogging through it until we get what we want. And what we want is to control the middle east, protect our interests in the middle east and cripple extremist nations like Iran and Syria so that they can't pose a threat to us anymore.
I for one have not hatred to Islam but I also don't want to convert to it either. I am not a rebublican because I am socially liberal so the idea of converting to the most conservative way of life in the world is not too appealing to me. I want my fast food and SUV and plasma screen. I want to be free to speak out against my government when I disagree with it (which is a big part of being a patriot). In closing I want to win this war because I fear the world I could live in if we don't win.
I know that sounds alot like rhetoric but really think about what kind of world we would be living in if the Nazi's had won the war or if communism was the norm. We like our way of life. We may be quite full of ourselves for thinking other people should live like us but I'll admit to arrogance here and say I don't want to live any other way and I'm for making sure things stay the way I want them.
And how I want things is to be free to be a social liberal even if it means supporting the republicans to run and manage this war. The democrats on the above list should know better too. They all served (just like I have) and they should understand the real reason for this war and what it means. Maybe that makes me a bully. Maybe I should be a more sensitive Democrat towards their way of life. Maybe I should fold under the pressure and run away from the fight. But could I live with the outcome of that? No I could not and nor could any other liberal like myself either.
There comes a point when you have to make a choice and immediatly following that choice comes the consequence.
Originally posted by CliffLandinSpeaker of the house is in line for the presidency, that doesn't mean Nancy Pelosi is part of the executive branch.
He is the President of the Senate and serves as its presiding officer. I'm pretty sure that makes him, while not a Senator, part of the Senate.
I see your point though, and its a much better point than my pelosi or teacher reference. If you want to put Cheney in there, its not that far out of wack. It does make some sense.
I'm pretty sure, at the congressional level, there is more donk veterans than republican veterans. So I guess the dems win? If that's a win. I'm fairly convinced that only the power hungry seek a seat in Congress, so that would explain why most military personnel vote republican, but there are so few republican veterans in congress. Most soldiers aren't power hungry. They're rather humble actually.
Its actually a long running tradition for a lot of career soldiers not to vote in Presidential elections because it would make them feel like they were bias.
Originally posted by Turtlestackor maybe he went into iraq, supported by congress, because iraq said they were complying with inspections but actually were giving them the run-around. like, over and over.
Caution - Reading ahead 🙂
Let's say Gore (a democrat) had took office. What would the world be like right now? We probably would have invaded Afghanistan no matter who was in office but what about Iraq?
I believe Bush invaded Iraq for the simple reason that it allows the USA to set up a government it can control right in the heart of the middle e ...[text shortened]... ave to make a choice and immediatly following that choice comes the consequence.
has the IAEA had any successes? do they compare with their failures?