Not all that unusual from a guy like him who talks from both sides of his mouth. He will show the same "support" for the middle class and will do nothing about it
It is my personal opinion that the brainwashing in this country is so deep that you cannot come out and call a spade a spade when it comes to our military history. If you want to become President you have to be very careful what you say. HOWEVER, it appears that Obama was able to weather the comments of Reverend Wright even though they were very controversial. The difference is that Obama didn't say these things himself. I personally would have no problem with a politician who came out and said Vietnam was a mistake and that if we love our soldiers then we should NOT put them into these type of situations. It seems so logical to me yet things get turned upside down because of fear.
People can support a war and not serve. My grandfather was too old to serve in Vietnam. Yet he supported it.
The rich and powerful do not "serve" in wars, nor do their children. They go to ivy league colleges and get great jobs instead, run for office, and "serve" in that manner. The ordinary citizen should take a lesson from that and do likewise.
I was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1965, and served in Vietnam from 1967 to 1969.
And I'll tell you something: When the draft was in effect, a great many of the "children of the rich and powerful" got drafted and answered their country's call to duty.
That is a fact, because for one thing, and contrary to what has been widely publicized, poor whites, blacks, Hispanics and others did NOT account for the majority of the military personnel who served in frontline combat units in Vietnam. The majority was comprised by middle-class to upper-middle-class whites, with a generous sprinkling of wealthy ones.
I know what I'm talking about, because I was there.
Furthermore, the primary thing that caused the armed forces to become comprised by a highly-disproportionate number of individuals from lower-middle-class and poor backgrounds was the ending of the draft.
And, of course, the draft was ended by left-wing liberal factions in the federal government.
Bill Clinton didn't support the Vietnam War and left the country so he wouldn't be drafted. so what is your point.
Obama wasn't in the military.
Clinton apoligized for his mistake, showed character. Romney avoids the issue. And were talking about avoiding the draft. There was no draft when Obama was of age.
Clinton not only didn't apologize for using the white house as a place for a sexual encounter with Lewinsky, in fact he didn't even admit that it ever happened. So much for character, and being a faithful husband, much less a president.
Obama was born in 1961. Therefore Vietnam was not an issue for Obama, but he still didn't go into the military.
Obama avoids the issue surrounding his citizenship, isn't that avoiding an issue?
I still don't understand what is your point in this forum?
Chicken-Hawk...like most of the past adm.
Look for next war with Iran...BIG MAN MAKE WAR ugga ugga.
I notice people supporting Romney avoid posts like this. Wonder why?
Just to make it known, I'm not a Romney supporter. What do you expect from a guy who was the architect for Obamacare and want's to repeal it IF he's elected.
I'm responding, and I am a stone-cold Romney supporter.
Additionally, I served two tours of duty in Vietnam as a U.S. Army combat infantry soldier, and I volunteered for each of my tours. If had wanted to, I could have sat out the war on an Army base in what was then West Germany.
And although Mitt Romney did not serve in the military during the Vietnam-War era, he worked as an overseas missionary for the Mormon Church. And in my book, that kind of duty is just as courageous, unselfish, noble and important as fighting on the frontlines of a war -- if not more so.
You're right, they're quick to want to get into a war it seems. But their kids don't seem to go, just the poorer kids. Romney avoided the war like the plague, yet was for it and against protesters for the war in VIetnam!
Give it time and Romney will claim to be all against the Vietnam War to try and get the baby boomers and Vietnam vets on his side. As for the Obamacare, it has helping the seniors and middle class greatly. Of course Romney don't care about the working class and health care. He's rich, employed, and has, and always had, healthcare for him and his family.
So is Obama also a chicken hawk? Afterall, he does give himself credit for "killing Bin Laden."
That was the main goal of the Bush Administration.
Liberals and the Left support wars when it is beneficial enough to do it.
That was NOT the main goal of the Bush adm!
Bush himself said "I really don't think about him that much".
The maing goal of the Bush adm was to destroy Saddam. Maybe because Saddam refused to play their money game? And to gain a foot-hold in the Middle East? And--Iraq has huge oil reserves.
It's all recorded: Project for a New American Century. PNAC.
They asked Clinton to do it, but he passed (regime change). THAT is why W HAD to be elected in 2000:by any means necessary.
He was willing to go along with the plan.
Continuing to take statements out of context, typical
"Bush himself said "I really don't think about him that much".
May we play the video?! This is what Bush said considering how Bin Laden was behind the USS Cole explosion and 9/11. Clinton had one step out of the White House and passed the info on to the next president. Bush didn't do crap about it till 9/11 happened. After that he got us involved in a useless war with Iraq and said his famous, "Bin Laden is like a pesky fly" and "I'm not going to worry about him now".
Had Bill Clinton taken militant Islam seriously, well then 9/11 would not had happened when Bush was president.
While I will agree with you that Bill Clinton underestimated the Al Qaeda, what happened on 9/11 would have occurred anyway, perhaps not that day, but it would've happened. Osama bin Laden and the network are determined then and he is determined now to attack America and destroy us.
People do not realize the war on terror is not a normal war. This is not like Vietnam, World War I, World War II, the Korean conflict. This is in a war where people have their differences fight, have a truce, sign a treaty, and everybody goes home. Even if there is only one terrorist left in the world, that person will plot against the United States. When it comes Al Qaeda and all the rest of them terrorist groups, they will never surrender, ever.
That's why I say even if Bill Clinton was tougher, Al Qaeda would've continued.
No, that's a fact. See that's the problem right there you can't realize or you choose not to accept point of view of Al Qaeda. You think they're your buddy buddy, walk down this street one day and just see how buddy buddy they will be to you.
By the way, you always jump on me claiming I attacked the left, there I was just getting on somebody who was from the right and you still attacked me. Truly need to get a hobby
My facts are that YOU accept the pov of al-queda...given that my facts say al-queda is CIA/Mossad.
And you DO attack the left. Your one word for Obama is fullofsh*t.
But I can't say BOO about a foreign head of state. SMH
You attack, people fight back......there a difference. You are allowed to fight back from Bullies. Bullies have the moral low-ground.
YOU get a hobby. Why do people have such a problem with what other people do? Don't like it.....don't read it.
Aw, but now Chris, us little ladies shouldn't get our little minds in a twist over what the menfolk do now, should we? Even if some of those menfolk want to send our menfolk to die for a cause they're too chicken to fight for.
We just need to take our pretty little heads back to the sewing and knitting thread.
At least your discussions, while we might not agree, our civil and intelligent. You don't cry, you don't whine, you don't sit there and play the pity game. This has nothing to do with menfolk or womenfolk.
And again if you think I am a chicken, change lives with me anytime you want starting on 9/11
What's wrong with sewing?
I don't think you are a chicken. Didn't I say that earlier?
Thank you for your civility, too.
There is nothing wrong sewing; it's just not my thing.
See your sentence proves it all, you want us to all have your point of view otherwise the rest of us are idiots.
No I don't attack the left, just keep spinning that one, and I stand by my one word of Obama. He is by far the worst president in history, his policies are beyond comprehension. I've written several articles criticizing the Republicans and some things they have done, I've criticized John Boehner numerous times, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, to name a few, I've been in forums and disagreed with Republican ideas in the same thread you were in. But of course since I disagree with you, you label me a Republican. You use the same act on everyone from Long Hunter, Evan Rogers, to the Jewish lady in the other hub that you insulted.
You keep saying that you're fighting back against bullies, and you don't even realize that you are the bully.
No. I don't want anyone to have my pov....but I reserve the right to have it!
Without being called a hater, un-American, traitor...all these things.
You call me a bully....I don't see it that way. I see you and the right as bullies...and I have the right to fight back.
Example: always with you-- I insult Romney....you insult me.
I disagree with Bush----I am the hater.
Yet you say things about Obama, liberals ,democrats, and never do you call yourself a hater.
Show me one time I insulted you when you mentioned Romney.
You do it all the time. I'm whining or crying or don't understand or not telling the truth or mis-informed or just stupid, I guess.
I have a right to feel the way I do..just as any of you.
And you make fun....is American View your name? You go around the forums too. Why do people have a problem with me?
I wouldn't even be here, but my local site dis-abled comments. And since Murdoch bough the Times, you have to pay to comment!
I have never made any money here, and I just don't feel it anyway--don't like the way people are treated.
But I am scared for this country, and I care deeply.
So, if you don't like me having a voice--don't listen.
American View, you can NOT ever trust Left Wingers. They are slime. They are misguided in thought and feeling as well.
No that's not true. I have some very good friends who are on the left, one of them is very far left. I have also recently met a good number of people from the left here on hub pages. I have had great discussions with these people on politics and other life issues.
You know the old saying about one bad apple, unfortunately some of them are here on the forums. And it's not just one side, Republicans and Democrats alike here at had some real knockdown drag outs over several issues. There are two far right guys that come to mind that did not leave any comments here. Which is probably a good thing considering some of the responses that have been here.
I do not see how to avoid war in Iran when 10 billionaire oil barrons are going to put Romney into office through their Super Pac donations.
Yes, and I know at least one of them: Adelson is a rabid Zionist...and puts Israel ahead of America.
Americans will die for Bibi....again.
And no one can mention it....because it's anti-Semitism to do so.
You sound like a typical hypocritical Socialist.
Now thanks to this thread, it all makes sense. I could not figure out why Obama politicized the Vietnam War on Memorial Day and disgracefully did it at the Vietnam Memorial so that it was closed for almost 10 hours and the public could not pay its respects.
I was not aware of Romney deferrals during Vietnam, but now I know why Obama was making a play for the votes of the Vietnam veterans. This guy does nothing without an ulterior motive, sometimes it doesn't show up right away, but sooner or later the stars always align.
@American View, so the President had an Ulterior Motive? Is your Hate so deeply seated you look for wrong in anything he does? I feel sorry for you, really! And I can only assume it was Okay, Romney dodged the draft while so many young men and woman went off tofight for our freedoms.
And he had the NERVE to say: "My sons are serving this country by helping to get me elected president."......
lmao! Boy does that show that he believes he's "Entitled to becoming the next President!" Romney doesn't have a clue, what it's like to work and live as an average American family does!
President Obama wasn't raised with a silver spoon in his mouth.
Are you really sure about that scream? You know there is a whole lot about Obama that is kept quiet. Like about his father, the media always portrays him as some poor uneducated goat farmer. Did you know Obama's father was a Harvard graduate?
"Obama, Sr. went on to Harvard to pursue Ph.D. studies, and then returned to Kenya in 1965"
"While living with his grandparents, Obama enrolled in the esteemed Punahou Academy"
Did you know that Punahou Academy is in the top five most expensive private schools in the country? It also rates in the top 10 scholastically.
"After high school, Obama studied at Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years. He then transferred to Columbia University in New York, graduating in 1983 with a degree in political science."
" Obama entered Harvard Law School in 1988. The next year, he met Michelle Robinson, an associate at Sidley & Austin law firm in Chicago. She was assigned to be Obama's adviser during a summer internship at the firm, and soon the couple began dating."
"After law school, Obama returned to Chicago to practice as a civil rights lawyer, joining the firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland in 1992"
Notice the words internship at the one law firm, can you notice any of the word missing in that bio? The word is conspicuous by its absence is employment, where did Obama get the money to support himself and all the schooling? Interesting question would you not agree scream? Prestigious private high school, Columbia, Harvard, not exactly cheap.
You have to peel the layers
Yes he was. Do not ignore his upper middle class background. He was mainly raised by his White grandma who owned a condominium. He attended the best private schools too.
Why do you say that? He was not born rich.
Where do you people get off always saying trash like that with little or no evidence of how he grew up. So does Obama know what it feels like to be an ordinary American?
When was the last time he was homeless or looking for a job?
Please come off it. Obama made millions off his book and he was well-off before he decided to run for the Senate's office.
Do you know who Rooney's family is? Yes he was born rich.
Romney can't help his circumstances of birth. There are plenty of wealthy Dems, too, like the Kennedys. I like the fact that Romney gave away all the money he inherited from his father.
Wrong. I think you should read up on his family and where he was born.
He was born in 1948 by 1954 his father was the CEO of American motors, are you clueless or something?
If there is something you disagree with, point it out.
Both Romney and Obama got to be "all you can be" without serving their country in combat. Slogans are for the masses, privileges are for the ones who know how to manipulate the masses
Difference being, there was a draft when Mitt Romney was of age. Which he dodged. No draft when President Obama grew up.
I do not hate Obama, I just think he is the worst President in history and that is based on his policies, unlike others who are blinded by party.
You served your country during Vietnam, you saved up all year long to go see the memorial in Washington, you travel thousands of miles, but you cannt get to see it because the Prez had to have his photo op and campaign. I know someone that happened to.
He did the same thing with the tenth anniversary of 911. He refused all invitations to go there during his first couple of years in office. He made it a political event, said no clergy and no prayers allowed that day yet part of his speech he quoted the bible, what a hypocrite. Remember the first responders were not allowed to go there that day, they were there on 911 while Obama was hiding under a desk somewhere in Chicago
Lastly your assumption is just another typical left move and do I need to explain what happens when one assumes? I am doing some research on what was said about Romney dodging the draft and I will withhold my final comment until then. As I said earlier, I had not heard this before so I need to check it out.
Having said that, if it turns out he did dodge the draft, then that is a big negative with me. But on the overall report card, Obama has so many negatives that by itself is not enough to get me to not vote for Romney. If there was a different candidate running against Romney, he might not get my vote.
Not to change the subject, but I guess you were OK with Bill Clinton avoiding the draft.
Are you serving your country helping to get Obama elected?
I believe I am serving my country by trying to get President Obama elected. No different then you trying to get Mitt Romney elected. We just have different opinions. As for President Clinton, I fault him for avoiding the draft using his ROTC connections. He however expressed later he was against the war and was Afraid, and felt guilt for his not going. I've yet to here Mitt Romney express anything about his deferrements over five years. While he was avoiding the draft he was for the war, and against (people like bill clinton against the war). Later Mitt Romney changed positions and against the war. At least President Clinton acknowledged his mistake.
I am not serving my country voting for Romney and I am not trying to get him elected, he is just the better choice of the two. trust me, I will be holding my nose when I vote. My choice and who was by far the best and most qualified candidate was Jon Huntsman, and he I would have served my country to get elected.
I too give Clinton credit for admitting he was a coward for avoiding the draft, but he did not do anything in it's place. If it is true that Romney was serving in a missionary overseas, at least he was doing something for world good, but do not hold me to that until I research it better to see exactly what he was doing.
Using the same disclaimer, I have read several interviews where Romney has expressed regret for not being there in country, but again, I would not hold me to it.
If you are a cheerleader for a war and are able to serve in combat but don't, then you are a coward and a hypocrite.
If you oppose a war and are able to serve in combat but don't, then you might be a coward but you are most certainly not a hypocrite.
I don't think anybody is actually a cheerleader for war. I think when we are put in a situation where war is inevitable and we end up in a war at that point you could decide if you were for or against that war. For example you may have not been for the Iraqi war but you might have been for the Afghan war. I don't know if you were or weren't just using it as an example. Then you might have been supportive of the actions in Libya, but you might not be a supporter of going into Syria. I think everything just depends on the reasons.
Having said that, you could be a cheerleader for a war, able to serve in combat but didn't, but that doesn't make you a coward or a hypocrite. I for example and a major cheerleader the war on terror. Was very pleased when we went after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. At that time I was able to serve in combat but didn't, did that make me a coward or hypocrite. I don't think so. Today I am not of the health were I could serve in combat, but despite that I'm still a huge supporter of our troops.
With all the proof that we have (and was well known at the time) you still believe that the war in Iraq was inevitable? Was the involvement of America inevitable in the Balkan war?
War is too profitable and America is not shy when it comes to make money no matter how gets to pay (in human lives or tax money) for it
I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree. While I agree that not everyone is suited for combat, if you are of enlistment age and you support the war and encourage your friends and the children of your friends to enlist but make excuses for yourself and your children, then you are a coward and a hypocrite. That is my opinion based upon observation of those who cheered for the invasion of Iraq while sitting in the comfort of their easy chairs.
I thnk the difficult question is this: would you be as enthusiastic about a war if you had to go?
I don't know how our soldiers could have been as supportive and enthusiastic about the 2nd Iraq War as our soldiers were right after Pearl Harbor.
As for your question would I be enthusiastic about a war if I had to go question it goes back to the original answer it depends on the war and the reasons were going.
As for the soldiers on the second Iraq war they were just as enthusiastic and determined as the soldiers after Pearl Harbor. Those soldiers were responding to the Pearl Harbor of their time, the war on terror. And what I have, yes I would have
There's a minor problem. EVERYONE knows that Iraq was not behind 9/11. And they had no WMD. The stated reasons for the invasion were either lies or huge errors in judgment. If the soldiers fought based upon Colin Powell's speech at the UN then they were duped.
EVERYONE does not know that, only those who follow Dems talking points believes it.
Iraq was not 100% behind it but there are indicators their fingers were in the pie, just no one could prove it.
WMDs on the other hand, there was a large list of unaccounted for chemicals, weapons, missiles, and a whole lot more that Hans Blux had meticulously documented. He was extremely frustrated not being able to find them as Iraq canceled inspections and wasted everybody's time going to sites that were not on the list. Many believed it was a dog and pony show.
But what is the fact is approximately 2 years ago three missiles were launched into Israel doing no damage where they landed. The three missiles when they tracked the serial numbers were on the list of WMDs that Hans Blux documented being inside Iraq. Now of course the media did not make much of it, but I wrote an article about it that you can go read. It seems to me that somewhere along the line it will come out where those weapons are currently stored or where they went. At that point Bush will be vindicated.
As for some of the other Intel that led up to the war, even Bush himself had said years later that some of that intelligence was obviously incorrect. The thing is they didn't know that at the time, it wasn't realized until later. That's why I laugh at Pelosi and the others call Bush a liar when they all acted and made their judgments on the exact same intelligence.
I'm sorry but you are pretty brainwashed....
Wow what an intelligent comeback. But then again what response could you have? You believe Democrat talking points, not much anyone can say after that.
So I guess you're saying Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction, never mass murdered their own people using those weapons, you don't believe the list of weapons unaccounted for by the UN inspector Hans Blux, the inspector who is all over the news for years trying to do inspections inside of Iraq, I guess none of that ever happened. I guess they would never sanctions against Iraq.
Yeah guess I am brainwashed
I believe that Iraq had a small number of highly degraded and pretty much useless chemical weapons as consistent with what was found, I believe they did commit mass murder like dozens of other states around the world do, often with US aid, I think that the reports of more chemical weapons were fabricated as has been testified to by several high ranking members of the intelligence services and advisers to the governments involved. I think none of those things justified an invasion.
Who makes excuse for themselves? Clinton made all kinds of excuses but seems to be getting a free pass. I am not sure about Romney yet because I have not finished research, but I am curious what these missions were he served in.
So are you suggesting because I was able to fight after 911, supported the troops but did not go myself I am a coward?
I am suggesting that if you supported the war, which means you felt its cause was worth sending men and women to die for, and were of enlistment age, then yes, you should be willing to die, too. If you are not willing to die, too, then why should others be sent in your stead?
I did indeed and quite proudly support the war. I totally supported the troops that went over there in harms way to defend our nation from the cowards who attacked us. Where were you on September 11, 2001? Would you like to know where I was? I was a Ground Zero and did not leave for three weeks. The health issues I mentioned earlier as to why I couldn't serve today are from that day. It took years to develop, December 2010 I was in the hospital with a trach-in my throat and on life support, I almost died. I only got out of the hospital two months ago, I have spent the majority of the last three years in a hospital, I have been outside a hospital maybe four months all toll.
Over 3000 innocent people died that day, not counting those who have gotten sick and died since, not counting the 343 of my brothers who died that day and the several hundred who have died since. Do you not think going after Al Qaeda for this was not worthy?
I was a lieutenant in the FDNY for total of 15 years, I have nine medals of honor, three medals of valor. Do you think I was willing to die? so does that make me a coward because I didn't go to Afghanistan to to fight? and how do you know if a person who didn't go was not willing to die?
Clinton was a coward, he admitted so, at least he did so, Romney did not say he was a coward and didn't want to go, at least I haven't found anything that says that. Have found statements that he wished he was in that country which would mean he would be willing to die. But who knows
AH I knew there were still some of you around who believe we should invade countries because part of a terrorist group is there, someone should declare war on the KKK and invade the US and Ireland.
I don't believe we should be invading countries at random. But Afghanistan was being run by the Taliban and they were many base camps within the country being trained by its leaders to grow terrorist army. Afghanistan was the home of the head of Al Qaeda Osama bin Laden, Afghan leaders were told to give him up, they refused. Since they attacked us I have no problem that they went to Afghanistan.
If someone attacks you do not defend yourself?
Al Qaeda attacked us, Afghanistan and the Taliban requested proof before they would turn anyone over (in accordance with international law) and then we invaded them, I would have supported tactical strikes against Al Qaeda camps and leaders but the invasion was dumb and unnecessary. As it happens having a training camp is not a crime, imagine if someone declared war on the KKK, they may well have training camps and leaders here and we would refuse to turn over anyone without evidence.
why does everybody turned to the KKK for their argument? The KKK is a nothing almost nonexistent organization today. There were street gangs out there that present more of a danger than the KKK.
The Taliban leaders, which of course were Al Qaeda as well, would've done anything to stall. Kind of like now the Justice Department said they would not get involved in who is leaking classified information from the White House. Well now Holder says is appointing to investigators/prosecutors to investigate. Why would he do that? To control and Stonewall the investigation.
Tactical strikes would have been okay, but they just would've moved around and regrouped. The invasion was the proper way to go. Problem was we didn't do it properly and now Al Qaeda and the Taliban are regrowing and will take over Afghanistan right after we leave.
I just used the KKK because they came to mind feel free to replace them with any American terrorist group.
The Taliban leaders were not Al-Qaeda most of them spoke out in favor of isolationism and you have to prove massive generalizations life that.
There is no "right way" to conduct a war against a guerrilla force in extreme terrain, I was involved in a guerrilla war and I can tell you that right off the bat, look what happened in Vietnam, look what happened when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, the we can't beat them, and we never could, not without nuking the whole country and a few surrounding ones. We can't pin them down they can strike and retreat, they can blend in and worst of all they have a lot of support amongst the people, it's unwindable the USSR threw everything they had at them and with significantly less ethical quandary than we do now and they could not beat them, they lost and retreated.
This is the last I'm going to say on this point. IF you were encouraging other people to go fight in a war that you supported but were unwilling to go yourself, then yes, you're a hypocrite. I won't say you are a coward because your actions in other aspects of your life prove otherwise.
I'm usually not a judgmental person, but on this particular point I will not budge.
I have a personal story, too, and I know it affects my viewpoint on this particular subject, but you will never convince me that it is acceptable to support sending other people or other people's kids to die while you protect your own butt and/or your own kids. NEVER.
Uh huh, and he was blasted for it....daily.
Or don't you remember "pot-smoking draft-dodging, philandere-in-chief"?
But now RMoney deserves respect? Don't think so.
Where do you come up with this stuff? cite the source where somebody called Bill Clinton a hot smoking draft dodging philanderer in chief. I do seem to remember he didn't inhale. Unreal
Michael Savage called him a red diaper doper baby.
But vulture capitalist is "too mean". waaaaaa
Cite a real source, claiming you heard it doesn't mean anything.
and I don't care what Michael Savage called him, or your spin of vulture capitalists. Spin spin spin
I'm still waiting fo thr source where Obama gave $10,000,000 to Barrett....
You always demand what you don't produe yourself.....much like RMoney and the war!
I do provide factual sources like goverment reports, you choose to ignore them. You spout off stuff and claim you heard it, or you read it in someones blog which is nothing more than somebody else's opinion, or the latest one you got it in an e-mail from her friend but can't disclose for national security reasons. Bush Co. this, Mitty that, you have a nickname for everybody.
It's quite fine to have an opinion this is a free country and you have the right to put your opinion out here, but there is a big difference between your opinion and what is a fact.
Clinton did not support the Vietnam war. Why should he go fight and die for something he does not believe in while GWB, who supported the Vietnam conflict along with his father, hid in the National Guard and didn't even complete his service there?
When it was your turn
While the poor did burn
Now you ruin
The lives of others
Ignoring the cries
Of tearful mothers
With shameful assurance
In your own power
You now stand tall
Pretending you did not cower
To walk and die
In your place
So you could lie
About your past
And how you believed
In a just cause
While your kind deceived
Herding us along
You pretended to be strong
But in fact you were wrong
And now seasoned
With a flag
And a god
And it’s greatness
Yet you destroyed
The moral compass
In your desire
And for what?
To achieve God’s will?
The same God
“Blessed are the peacemakers”
As he led
And the poor
As they seek
From the likes of you
Who can only steal
From the hearts of the few
Who continue to believe
In a world of green meadows
And the love they conceive
As their children
Look to them for guidance
In a world
With the power
To ignore the exploited
And to line the pockets
Of those who said no
But now say go
To those who have no option
But to fight and die
For the chosen few
Who will not tell us why
They can live with impunity
Never answering the question
Of how God’s grace is given
To Satan’s confession
No. I was born in 1958 and the draft was over by the time I was 18.
Just so you are clear; a chicken hawk is a person who used personal, political connections to avoid military service and then becomes hawkish once they come into power. It is a hypocrite or worse. It is a person who refused to serve and is then willing to commit soldiers to war. It is a person who has defaulted their right to be strong on defense.
You do not have to serve in the military to be commander in chief. But if you cheated your way around the military then you have put yourself into a special class. John Kerry went. George Bush did not.
Neither did Clinton, and Clinton admitted he was a coward and did not want to go and did everything he could to not go. Yet he's the hero of the Democratic Party.
I find it funny how the left is so critical of somebody who is actually in the service, and the National Guard is being in the service, claim he cheated the military, and then to use your term call him a chicken hawk. There were millions of men and women who served during Vietnam and yet were not on the front line. Are they chicken hawks too?
Whether or not Romney deferred would try to avoid going to Vietnam, the issue at hand as far as I'm concerned, is if you were fine with Clinton as commander-in-chief, that you have no right to be critical of anybody who may or may not have attempted to not serve.
Clinton is not my hero either but he did not launch full-scale war against another country if I remember correctly. The discussion is about what constitutes a Chicken Hawk and Clinton did not act that way. Clinton in fact had the balls to protest the Vietnam War and he was right to do so. We know this now in hindsight. Bush et al supported the Vietnam War. But they avoided it.
You have to look closely to see the trail but to me the actions of a Chicken Hawk are easy to detect. Avoid conflict but support it when you are out of harms way.
I think the Democrats have much to answer for in the run-up to the 2nd Iraq War with their comments about WMD but the context included continued monitoring by the UN. The Bush Administration is the one who went to war. They made the decision. They made the unequival comments and the case before the UN. They attacked even though the Security Council disagreed. And we now know the BA was wrong.
Don't forget that Cheney also managed to score some deferments and turned into one of the biggest hawks of our lifetime. Also don't forget Dan Quayle who I believe was the original Chicken Hawk.
Full scale, no, but he sent troops to Bosnia, did several strategic airstrikes in Iraq, I know there's a few other things but I cannot think of them at the moment.
as far as the UN goes, China and Russia will never vote with us ever on any issue. So that is really not a relevant argument. Obama sent our troops and bombers to Libya, the UN Security Council disagreed on that too
As far as deferments is my understanding Joe Biden owns the record on that one. We could debate that all day, you can name Republicans, I can name Republicans and Democrats equally, point is both sides do it and it serves no purpose just say one side does it.
No, your Guy hid behind his religeon and cast stones at others against the war. Condemned others for not going. Clinton didn't do that! Your guy was too good for the draft, but everyone else being drafted wasnt! What a joke. Comparing apples to oranges! lmao
I find it interesting, and based on the e-mail so are others, that you guys on the left are perfectly fine with Clinton being a draft dodger, admitting he was a coward,he would've claimed he was the Pope if he could use that to get out of going to the draft, your perfectly accepting that Joe Biden did the same thing, he got five deferments and then when he could not get any more deferments suddenly had a doctors note saying he had asthma. By the way he doesn't have asthma today. But want to toss a rope over a tree and hang Romney because he didn't go. I have not finished researching this yet, but, if it turns out Romney did indeed go overseas to missionaries, at least he would have done something constructive with his deferment then the other two who just did not want to go because they were cowards and wanted to hide. Then again what you expect from somebody who doesn't inhale. What a joke
Clinton was a disgrace as well. The 1960s was filled with cowards like Clinton and anti war coward hippies of the Left.
I supported both wars. The American military kicks butt regardless of the Left's attempts to get in the way of victory.
Who hid behind his religion?
The Left are nothing but cowards who talk trash.
Launching a full scale war is what you are so worried about? I am not so worried about that. Bush got U.S Congressional approval to do such. It was not like he did it illegally. And do not say the lie trash that is so typical for the Left people.
China is still a Communist nation. I do not expect them to ever vote for America on any issue. The same can be said about Russia. That nation still has commie leftovers.
Clinton was one of the most hated presidents during my stint in the U.S military. Every NCO (Non Commissioned Officer) that I knew hated Clinton. I wonder why?
Clinton and Kerry both were a disgrace. I wonder if we can still write ourselves in a medal these days like the loser John Kerry?
Is this your best defense? Calling people chicken hawks when the Left were filled with cowards who called people "baby killers" after they have done tours in Vietnam?
So how are the New Left drug addict hippies any better? They were ultimate draft dodgers back in the day.
You can't keep up. I'm DEFENDING KERRY. He went to Vietnam. I'm not calling him a baby-killer. What does that have to do with anything I've said.?
And just so you know I considered Jane Fonda to be a traitor.
And I'm talking about George Bush.
Stay on point.
There is some hope for you afterall.
Jane Fonda is a great actress. But she was a traitor who should have been arrested immediately for what she was doing back then.
I am staying on point. And I never stated anything about Jane Fonda. So YOU should stay on point.
I wasn't critical of Clinton! You Republicans were!!
18 of the 27 US Presidents since 1861 have been Republicans and since that same year a Republican has won 23 of the last 37 presidential elections. Soon Mitt Romney will be president.
How did a discussion about chicken hawks turn into a love fest for Republicans? It sounds to me like they have you pretty much in the palm of their hand. You can't even talk about one thing. An open-minded person (one who could never be made to do what Germans did for Hitler) can analyze one situaiton and see the truth regardless of anything else. Even if it's their own party. But when you bristle so much then that's when they have you and you become their tool.
Dicussions can go into any direction. You know that. It started because you ignore facts regarding those Left-leaning Democrats. They are the descendants of the New Left.
I can talk about one thing. But the topic overlaps with other things. Stop supporting the members of the New Left who hide out in the Democractic Party.
John Kerry was a disgrace. Carter would have been a better example.
We are talking about men and integrity. The whole Swift Boat campaign was a smear campaign. John Kerry went to Vietnam. Bush and Cheney got out of it due to connections. Kerry was destroyed because patriotism is used as a political tool in this country and it was turned around on him. It's actually unbelievable how he could be seen in a poor light and yet Bush is being protected by people such as yourself when it comes to this stuff. Bush was the worst President ever. He caused incredible problems for out country with his military excursions.
John Kerry was still a disgrace. He used his influence as well. So how was he any better than Bush? John Kerry is a joke and I am glad the American people saw through the flip flopper.
The American people will also see through this Obama as well. He is another Carter, except with no military experience. Obama is the worst president in history, not Bush Jr. And saying that Bush has caused many problems for OUR country is like saying Lincoln did the same.
Short memory here. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was an organization that formed and had over 500 members. Most of these members served with or were near John Kerry during his time in Vietnam. John Kerry made many statements about his time there, bragging about things he says he did. Several of these boat mates gained notoriety during a news interview where the host thought they were going to brag about Kerry as well, only they told the truth that Kerry lied and exaggerated about his service. After that many others step forward, Kerry try to reexplain his original statements and only those got him in deeper hot water. You can call it a smear campaign if you choose, but you not being smeared when somebody tells the truth about you.
Yeah...like all those R senators who also never served, calling Max Cleland a coward.
Cite your source for this. I am not finding anything on this except ask.com where someone asked if that was said and the response was no, but I would like to find out for myself
What about all of the D senators who never served? What about the ones who pretend to be Vietnam vet heroes like a failed presidential MA Senator who married a rich woman?
Which Democratic senators who never served, called a war-injured Republican soldier a coward?
If a Democratic senator avoided service while simultaneously supporting the Vietnam conflict then he is no better than any other hypocrite.
“In the weeks prior to the war to liberate Afghanistan, a good friend of mine would ask me almost every day, “Why aren’t we killing people yet?” And I never had a good answer for him. Because one of the most important and vital things the United States could do after 9/11 was to kill people. Call it a “forceful response,” “decisive action” — whatever. Those are all nice euphemisms for killing people. And the world is a better place because America saw the necessity of putting steel beneath the velvet of those euphemisms.”
– Jonah Goldberg
I think that war with Iraq is necessary to save lives in the long run. I think that those who are opposed to toppling Saddam are risking American (and Arab and Israeli) lives too.
Soldiers will die in any war, that’s why they call it war.
– Jonah Goldberg
As for why my sorry a** isn’t in the kill zone, lots of people think this is a searingly pertinent question. No answer I could give — I’m 35 years old, my family couldn’t afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter, my a** is, er, sorry, are a few — ever seem to suffice.
– Jonah Goldberg
Specialist Lyle Rymer the second of Roland was killed last Friday by a sniper as he helped secure an area in Baghdad for the Iraqi elections. He’s survived by his wife LaTisha, 3-year-old son Sean and 10-month-old daughter Jasmine.
http://www.kotv.com/main/home/stories.a … p;id=77300
Sergeant Andrew Farrar Jr., a Weymouth native, was killed in Iraq Friday, when he was electrocuted by a live wire during a night raid. It was his 31st birthday. On his second tour of duty, he was scheduled to come home in three weeks. [...] “He was a deeply loving family man,” Farrar said, and spent as much time as he could with his wife Melissa, and two sons, Tyler, 6, and Liam, 2.
http://www2.townonline.com/weymouth/loc … eid=175124
Naval Reserve Lt. Cmdr. Keith Edward Taylor, 47, was among those killed last weekend in a rocket attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Taylor had five weeks left on a six-month deployment and is survived by a wife and three young daughters.
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php? … d=020205op
Kimble, 30, a 13-year Marine veteran, was among the 31 troops who died when the CH-53E Super Stallion they were in went down near Ar Rutbah, about 200 miles west of Baghdad.[...]Over the weekend, family members gathered once again at the Kimbles’ home, in a quiet neighborhood just north of Temecula. This time it was to comfort his wife, Dawanna, and the couple’s four young children after the family received news last week that Dexter Kimble had been killed Jan. 26 when his helicopter crashed in Iraq.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/02 … 102615.txt
Flight Lt. Paul Pardoel, 35, a father of three from Victoria state who had joint British and Australian citizenship, died Sunday when the Hercules C-130 cargo plane crashed 18 miles northwest of Baghdad. [...] Pardoel his wife and young son and daughters had been living in England for the past three years.
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/031/wor … sol:.shtml
Mack, 36, was killed Jan. 13 in Mosul when he was hit by shrapnel from a roadside bomb. He was standing in a hatch of his Stryker armored vehicle, officials said.[...]Mack’s widow, Lisa, and their daughter Ashley, 17, held one another tight and cried together throughout the ceremony at the main post chapel. The family is from DuPont. “I know how much he loved you and cared about you,” Decker told them. “He talked about you often.”
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/loca … 9761c.html
As the plane taxied near the hangar at about 12:45 p.m., some family members closed their eyes. Others sobbed silently. As the tail of the plane came into sight, Tiffiny Comeaux, wife of Sgt. 1st Class Kurt Comeaux, began shaking uncontrollably, pulling her son toward her.[...]Comeaux’s casket was the first to be carried down the ramp. As the soldiers slowly stepped down the ramp, another one of his sons buried his face into his mother’s chest. Comeaux, 34, died in Baghdad, Iraq when an improvised explosive device struck his Bradley fighting vehicle.
http://www.theadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs. … 30345/1002
Army Staff Sgt. Steven H. Bridges, 33, among three Stryker brigade soldiers from Fort Lewis who died Monday in Iraq, was torn between staying home to care for his wife and four kids, and going to Iraq to care for his squad of soldiers, his wife said yesterday.
http://www.pigstye.net/iraq/article.php … 5085837913
Staff Sgt. Todd D. Olson, 36, died Dec. 27 in the 67th Combat Support Hospital in Tikrit, Iraq, from wounds he received in Samarra on Dec. 26 when a improvised explosive device detonated, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. He was a member of Detachment 1, Company C, of the Wisconsin National Guard’s 1st Battalion, 128th Infantry.[...]“The Loyal community took down all the Christmas decorations and put up all the flags,” said Nancy Olson, Todd’s wife. Among Todd’s survivors are his parents, Donald and Shirley Olson of Loyal, and his four children, Trevor, 17, Jesse, 16, Cody, 13, and Kasey, 5.
http://www.wisinfo.com/dailytribune/wrd … 1477.shtml
This is something I don't like about Romney. If he was for the war, he should have "suited up" and gone to fight. The last polls I saw, however, showed that the military strongly supports Mitt.
I like and respect McCain, but I feared he would be too hawkish. At least he served his time, which Romney didn't. Now Obama is being more hawkish than many on the left feel comfortable with. If he weren't, however, the right would be excoriating him.
They support him? I'd venture to say the majority don't even know he was a draft dodger.
Yep, 58% for Mitt and 34% for Obama. McCain got only 54% in 2008, and he's a decorated vet. Can you explain this?
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ballot … over-obama
Why do people easily forget that many Democrats said that weapons of mass destruction were indeed located in Iraq?
Al Gore even said so.
Talk about being dishonest.
I noticed that there were no protests against Obama after the death of Bin Laden. What if Bush was in office. How many would there would have been for no reason other than to politicize Leftist ideology?
What if Obama was president and said that America had to invade Iraq due to weapons of mass destruction. The Leftist in America would have been on board.
Perhaps, but that was because of George W.'s media blitz LIE that Iraq had WMD. It came out later that the whole thing was fabricated by George W.
The claims made by Bush and Powell were so far off base in the run-up to the war that it is very difficult to conclude anything other than GROSS NEGLIGENCE or outright lying. That is the difference.
You are trying so hard to find excuses. The final tally is...U.S victorious in both Iraq and Iran. Next, not one member of U.S Congress had mentioned any impeachment proceedings against Bush.
The last president who was impeached was that liar Bill Clinton. Just think about this for one moment. If that butt monkey Bill Clinton was actually doing his job and payed better attention to what was happening in the Middleeast; Bin laden would have been dead and 9/11 would have never happened years later.
Number of combat casualties under Bill Clinton, draft dodger who opposed the Viet Nam war: 1
Number of combat casualties under George W. Bush, draft dodger who supported the Viet Nam war but used his connections to get National Guard duty and then blew it off: 3400+
It was not against the law or draft to enter the reserve or guard units during Vietnam Conflict era.
What you have to say may be fact but fully legal.
If you do not acknowledge the difference between a draft dodger who supports the war but lets other people die for his cause while he saves his own hide, and a draft dodger who would want no one to die for a cause that he is not willing to die for, then you are either dense or intentionally ignoring the difference.
Cease with the name calling because I do not agree with you. If you are going to start calling names, well then I have nothing else to say to you then.
I did not call you a name. Either you don't recognize the difference, or you are intentionally pretending there is no difference. Which is it?
Just pointing out here, according to somebody else on this thread when you said he was either dense or intentionally ignoring, dense is considered hate speech. Do not laugh, I was suspended from forums once because I told somebody to stop whining.
" ...then you are either dense or intentionally ignoring the difference."
Cease with the name calling.
Oh, please. It was an "or" statement. Sensitive much? Or, is it just that you don't want to answer the question?
No it wasn't against the law to join the reserves or the national guard but there was a long line to get in and George Bush had strings pulled. Try to stay on point. He was given preferential treatment then later started a misguided war. That is the point of all of this. For some reason that's ok with you.
Are you saying that one needs preferential treatment to get in the National Guard? I think there's a couple of hundred thousand troops that were in Iraq and Afghanistan that would disagree with that statement
See, this is ridiculous. Getting in the National Guard during the Vietnam conflict was a lot different than it is now, and you know it. Why do you pretend you don't?
The requirements for the National Guard are no different then than they are today. Who's being ridiculous.
Maybe the requirements are the same, but the number clamoring to get in is not. You know that, though, don't you?
My uncle was a fighter pilot in the National Guard. Just because he was in the National Guard did not mean he would be free from going to Vietnam because in fact he was there. Going to do some research to answer your question about the numbers clamoring to get in and I think you going to find the numbers going to be much larger than you think. In a quick search I found this one article talking about tens of thousands of National Guard was sent to Vietnam. So if you think somebody was in the National Guard was getting a free pass to not go to Vietnam, you were wrong. the National Guard is not a free pass
http://www.mnroa.org/0703/research/viet … arch_1.htm
I never said the National Guard was a free pass. I never said that people who joined the National Guard were never sent to Vietnam. Show me where I did.
"Why should he go fight and die for something he does not believe in while GWB, who supported the Vietnam conflict along with his father, hid in the National Guard"
By saying he hid his National Guard you are implying that the National Guard is a place to hide, as in they don't go into country. My point all along was just because he was in the National Guard he was not hiding from service he could have been called up at any time. There's a big difference between that and somebody who just refused to serve like Bill Clinton and Joe Biden.there was no chance Bill Clinton were Joe Biden were going to get called then from where they were setting.
And I'll repeat what I already said. Clinton did not support the war, so at least he was not being a hypocrite. If young, able-bodied GWB supported the war, why didn't he volunteer to go fight and let someone else stay home?
I'll repeat myself again, if one believes in a cause enough to support other people dying for it, then they should be willing to die for it themselves.
Another propaganda false presentation by LMC, but of course we've come to expect that. It took all of about 30 seconds to debunk that video. When he makes the reference that he was going to the Republican national committee at the Sheraton Hotel claiming that was owned by the Chinese.
I cannot answer is GWB was drafted or volunteered, all I can tell you is with his attachment in the National Guard if he would've been called to go to country he would've had no choice. When you're in the service you go where they tell you.
I honestly don't care if Clinton was for the war not, not serving makes him a coward and people should stop making excuses for him. Call it for what it is.
I have not made any excuses for Clinton. Did you not see what I said early on in this thread?
"If you oppose a war and are able to serve in combat but don't, then you might be a coward but you are most certainly not a hypocrite."
Is that not clear enough to you?
"not serving makes him a coward"
But RMoney not serving makes him a patriot.
Indeed not going can show courage, I have a lot of respect for people like Ali who refused to go and went to jail instead and took the flak that involves, they showed a lot more courage and moral fortitude than people who meekly obeyed orders to go fight in a cause they considered unjust, being pressured into something you consider wrong, that is cowardice.
On the contrary this is a discussion about hypocrisy, if you support a war but refuse to go you are a hypocrite, if you oppose a war but go voluntarily that makes you a hypocrite too, Clinton opposed the war so not going is the opposite of hypocrisy, certain other politicians supported the war and did not go, that makes them hypocrites. It's very simple.
I to respect, Mohamed Ali for what he did. He did not look for deferments, he stood tall and went to jail for his convictions. That is the difference between him, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney
The more I think about this conversation the more I think your point of view diminishes the men and women who served. You seem to think that Bush in the National Guard is a free pass. That is an insult to all those who serve this country in the National Guard, is saying that they are not as important as the Army,Navy, Air Force, Marines. And what about all the millions of men and women in all the armed forces that were in uniform but did not get sent to Vietnam, are all of them hiding with help from their family?
My brother was in the Army during Desert Storm. He was stationed in Germany, a branch of the military intelligence division. Was he any less important than those boots that were on the ground liberating Kuwait? In his case he was actually as important as the guys on the ground. See his group were receiving the Intel from the AWACS planes flying over Iraq. They would relay the information they had to the troops on the ground in country. For example if the battalion was heading down the road and the recognizance photo shows about a mile down the road some Iraqi troops, he would relay that commander and tell them what was ahead of them. Now just because he was sitting in that seat in Germany on those particular days, he could have been called to go to country at any time, that's part of the job.
So even though Bush was in the National Guard did not mean he could not be called into Vietnam. But when you take deferments and hide like Clinton, Joe Biden, and apparently Mitt Romney then you are not in any position to be called up.
I have repeatedly made a distinction which you and Marquis would like to ignore. Bush supported the Vietnam conflict. Clinton did not. Romney supported the Vietnam conflict. I don't know whether or not Biden did and I don't care. I've already made it clear that if a Democrat supported the war and was able to serve but didn't then they are also a hypocrite.
I have made myself crystal clear, but you and Marquis continue to argue points that make no sense given my stated position.
Here are a few numbers I found. The troop levels were larger than than now, so I guess people were clamoring to get into the National Guard.
No he isn't. He's refusing to answer her question...again.
And you aren't answering mine.
Because there are none. Even the worst Dems have more class than that.
Look here chris, American View is out of your league. You are in the little league. Stay there and go to a thread about sewing or knitting.
Dems are trash. Stop supporting New Left anti American traitors.
Well, can HE name any Dems who called Repub soldiers cowards?
Enough, just drop it already. Let us dicuss some of the greatest generals in U.S HISTORY.
But Biden did refer to the soldiers as "storm troopers."
Oh yeah, question was answered, just could you don't like the answer doesn't mean it was unanswered. Spin
And stop knocking the National Guard. I was in the National Guard myself.
Please show me where I knocked the National Guard.
You are indirectly saying that being in the national guard is not as good as being in the regular army during the Vietnam conflict.
I did not say it was not as good. I made no value judgment on the merits of the National Guard. It was a better place to be if you wanted to avoid Vietnam.
Again you cannot stay on point. The point Marquis is that Bush was given preferential treatment and "parked" in the naitonal guard while others went to Vietnam and died. Why is it that you cannot understand the point? Nobody is knocking the national guard. Your responses are red herrings that are either signs of a losing argument or just signs that you do not understand the argument.
My guard unit use to go to Germany ever year.
While I was in Germany, I searched for old commie enemies. Germany, since the reunification, had all sorts of hidden commies.
Are you a vet? Did you serve in any guard or reservist units? If not...BE SILENT and kindly go to the sewing or knitting thread.
I will not be silent. I do not have to tell you anything about my personal life and it is rude of you to ask. If I want to offer up details, I will.
Well I am a vet and you are being an ass just because someone did not serve does not make them incapable of talking about the subject.
It's amazing how much you hate Democrats. George Bush used his family connections to avoid combat, proclaims he loves Jesus then attacks a sovereign nation over false charges. Kerry went to Vietnam. I respect Kerry as a man. You have twisted values.
in the spirit of transparency, in case you didn't realize, three of the people assisting Bill Clinton get his deferments were his family, one was his uncle who supposedly had very long establish relationships with high-ranking officials
Hey American View, notice how these Left Wingers always call names when you do not agree with them.
Yes, They spin, they whine, they deflect, they use bogus sources, try to give you their opinion as if it's law and when you call him on it lookout, they say oh you pick on me, I even had one recently e-mail somebody and tell him not to talk to me, how ballsy was that? That person e-mail me and told me about. That Person was shocked that somebody would try to tell them what to do. Unbelievable
I am amazed how much you hate the Republicans. John Kerry joins the U.S Army for less than a year, gets a scratch and then decides to write himself out a medal. What a disgrace to all the NCOs and privates who were in the bush.
You have pit in extra work to down Bush Jr. and some other Republicans. But you ignore your own Democrats who drafted or mysterously got out of harm's way.
You keep saying false charges. There were no false charges. Many men and women who were the U.S. military believe in Jesus. They have a duty to protect and to serve. Jesus is the savior of man. You can protect your country while believing Jesus did and will die for your sins. There is nothing wrong with that.
Kerry stayed in Vietnam, got a sratch, came home in less than 100 days, wrote out himself a medal of honor, joined the hippie war against the U.S. military and threw his little medal away in the end. He was a disgrace to the uniform.
You respect Kerry as a man? LOL
Kerry is not a good man at all. And as far as I am concerned, he is worse than a draft dodger. As I have stated before, he is a disgrace to the uniform and did not serve at least ONE year in Vietnam.
Democrats have twisted values. Obama hires people who have views which counter everything America stands for. I would trust these Socialist/Communists as far as I could throw them.
You sure are a tough guy to disparage someone who actually went over there. I would never put anyone down and say they were ONLY there for a year. It only takes a bullet a couple of seconds to end a life. Sounds to me like you are desperate to make a point.
Bush blew it with Iraq. He had eight years with the economy and it was in the toilet when he left office. If that's your idea of something to be proud of then I feel sorry for you because you have no standards.
If you are speaking on Kerry, that disgraceful man did not serve ONE year over there. He acted like he was a vet who served many tours. He is nothing more than a wuss who married a rich woman.
When America started to all of a sudden pay its respects to the Vietnam vets, this wuss wanted full credit. People like him make me sick.
Why do you keep defending that wuss of a man?
Bush did not blow it with Iraq. It was a success that Obama is trying to claim as HIS success. If it was not a success, that is because of the Democrats getting in the way. You can keep your emotions inward. I really do not care if you feel sorry for me.
And your standards are lower than the nuts that fall from trees.
Democrats are liars and traitors. If that is your bunch, so be it. They should have all been arrested for treason and libel.
Bush did not blow it with Iraq, but it was not a well fought war tactically.
As for the economy, I would suggest you do some real research on that fact and stop following talking points. If you do give you just a few highlights into what you will find. You will find the highest revenues ever occurred under Bush, the Dow Jones achieved its highest closing occurred under Bush, you will find he to came into office with the recession in full swing, you will find he dealt with several issues that decimated the economy and he came back each time. It is true that housing bust occurred at the end of his term causing another recession which Obama had to deal with when he took office.
If ever you would like to have an intelligent and civil discussion on the economy under Bush and compare it to the economy under Obama, I would not mind that conversation
He blew it from a purely humanitarian standpoint. You are ok with the deaths of innocent children apparently for reasons that have been proven to be false.
I thought only Democrats hated rich people. Why do you disparage Kerry for marrying a rich woman? I have no problem with it. Sounds like you're just jealous.
My standards? I care about people. You just want to brag about military victories. I'll take my standards over yours anyday when we meet God.
So you think Dick Cheney and Bush are honest men?
Humanitarian standpoint? You can NOT be human with Islamo fascists. So what should he have done? Get on his hands and knees and beg? If you want humaniraian effort, vote for the Dalai Lama.
I never said I was ok with the deaths of children. But you seem to be ok with the deaths of Americans, especially the 9/11 victims.
Democrats do not hate rich people when they are rich themselves. That worthless little commie mantra will not work here. All of those Democratic Senators and State Representatives have money. They are not suffering. Ask the hypocrite Al Gore if he is suffering from being rich.
I am jealous of nothing. And I was just stating a fact about the opportunist Kerry.
You care ONLY about people on the Left. The military fights for this country and keep Americans safe. Your ability to say what you are is because of them. So you should thank the U.S military. And they are hard fighters who should always get credit for their sacrifices. I will brag on about all U.S military victories.
I am surprised you even believe in God. Most of you Leftys are all about atheism. Your standards are laughable. The only redeeming value for you is the fact that you did not like what Jane Fonda did.
That is all.
It's interesting your surprise about me believing in God. You are up to your neck in discussing war and Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers." Do you really understand the message of the Gospels? I'm not sure you do. It's very clear to me that Jesus would be wondering about innocent children.
Iraq was not behind 9/11. The mere fact that you continue to bandy this about shows you have much research to do.
Afghanistan harbored the perpetrators. But you have shown your ability to be manipulated by including Iraq in the discussion. It's actually hysterical that you are so duped.
He went after Afghanistan. Have you read anything from me objecting to that effort? No you haven't. But you are unable to keep up with the discussion because you are emotionally compromised by the fact that you think on a party basis. You even call me a Lefty when in fact I am not.
Where have I blasted the US military? I'm talking about a chicken hawk politician and you are making emotional statements. Who say's I'm anti-soldier? You seem to love politicians. I do not. That is why I am more worried about Obama than you realize because I know the Left in this country trust governnment power. I in fact do not. Bush made a horrible horrible decision to invade Iraq. The speeches that he made to our country about Hussein were unequivical (along with Cheney's comments) about Iraq's involvement in 9/11 and their possession of WMD. Both of these conclusions were false. But you love politicians who say things like patriotism and Jesus is lord so you fell for it hook, line and sinker.
I am sick that our soldiers were killed in Iraq. Sick about it. I wrote a poem on here entitled "Why Are Our Soldiers Dying." My comments are based upon the idea that you are talking to THEM and looking THEM in the eye when you try to make these arguments defending George Bush. I don't want more mistakes to be made with our soldiers lives or the lives of innocent people around the world. You want to believe in God. Then think about that for a while. Think about what is driving your comments... Think about who convinced you...
Marquis, listen closely... this whole thing is about a politician who avoided service with the help of family connections THEN BECAME A HAWK. Everything you say to me shows you cannot grasp simple facts because you are buried in emotion. The Iraq effort is not about glory; it is a tragedy because George Bush and Dick Cheney came on board with blood on their mind. They love you for your support. They won't get mine. Two politicians who love you Marquis. Think about it.... two politicians... you think this is a discussion about our country. It's not... it's about politicians.
Did you listen to what Bush was saying? Axis of Evil is what he was talking about. The 1998 Iraq War Resolution alone buried Iraq. Bush was correct every step of the way.
Jesus is concerned about saving souls, not war. Dead Iraqi children means less terrorists. They do not believe in Jesus anyway.
You can make up excuses all you like, but in the end, you will die because you believed so boldly in the enemy.
There are many Democrats who were Chicken Hawks as well. I would like for you to get on them.
And why should you care about the troops? You Left Wingers seem to not like them anyway. I have read how the losers in California destroy or try and shut down recruitment stations like true homegrown terrorists/criminals that they are.
"Jesus is concerned about saving souls, not war. Dead Iraqi children means less terrorists. They do not believe in Jesus anyway."
I was hoping I was speaking to a rational human being; I was sadly mistaken. Good luck....
You are sick that soldiers died. Soldiers die. That is what they do. They are defending this great nation. And of course, no one is forcing them to join up either. But if they do not do it, that means you are on your own.
I bet you will be sick and tired of being stepped on like a rug because there were no troops to die for the trash that you say.
Look, it is all about future president Mitt Romney. When all of the Democrat presence is miniminized, things will be back in order.
NO, that is not true, if the democrat presence is minimized, the republicans will be allowed to further their agenda, and wipe out democracy. We need a balance of both parties to keep order in this country, or we will not survive. Have you not seen what it has done so far in states where the republicans are in charge? You really need to broaden your information sources. Look at both sides, not just one.
Democrats are trash. They need to be gone now. Republicans are the only ones who need to be here.
While I disagree the Republicans will wipe out Democracy, I do agree there needs to be a balance.
To Whom It May Concern:
I do not sew.
I do not knit.
I will not be silent just because a man tells me to.
Go to the sewing/knitting thread. Also, BE SILENT.
There is no rage. Report to the sewing/knitting threat immediately.
I can not wait when I am president. All Democrats and their supporters will immediately be detained. All Muslims will be detained. Christianity will be the official religion. English will be the official language. The borders will be mined just in case those illegals try to cross.
There will be NO WELFARE. If you want to eat, you MUST work. No more laziness and making excuses that the Left loves so much. Marriage will OFFICIALLY be between MEN AND WOMEN. There will be a death penalty for rape, murder and robbery.
School will be 10 out of 12 months for 1st-12th grade.
America will be smart and in order. No more lame -o losers ruining things. Finally, Canada will be ceased. They did not help America during the American Revolutionary War.
So they must pay dearly. Their land and resources will do nicely.
See usually I would think anyone making a statement this dumb was joking but with you I am not sure...
Usually I do not respond to idiots. But you are the exception. You make me laugh. YOU are a court jester.
You are a fool Josak.
That is excellent since we both make each other laugh we should stick to it. You are a little mini Hitler jumping up and down yelling about imprisoning people who disagree with you and invading a neighboring country, it's just awesome to watch.
Hey Josak, your pic sucks.
And then the words say Defend Equality. Don't you mean force Equal Outcome No Matter What the Cost?
I am glad you like my pic
Nope I mean defend the inherent truth that all people deserve equal opportunity.
That means Equal Outcome.
You should work hard. Merit is the only way. People have equal opportunity.
Now get rid of that god-awful pic. You look like some ridiculous commie.
People don't have equal opportunity and I quite like my pic I near guarantee you have no idea what hard work is , I am not a communist but I am almost as bad :p
People have opportunity to do things. You do not understand laziness. Most likely you are lazy. If so, you deserve to be put in the dirt like the dirt bag that you are.
Your pic sucks -
I have every idea what hard work is. See unlike you welfare goons, I have self dignity. You are a commie. You speak like one. Your pic sucks like one.
When I am president, Communism will be ERASED.
All Communist will be arrested, detained, put on trail for sedition and spying too. Finally, all Communist will be given the death penalty. What the heck...all people on the Left.
That means YOU.
I have never been on welfare a day of my life, the only government assistance I have ever had was from my home country which partially funded the orphanage I grew up in, my first job was as a miners assistant at age 16, spending 15 to 18 hours a day working as I say you don't know what hard work is.
I am a socialist so it's almost as bad, you wouldn't be the first government to try to kill me for it though, the Argentine one where I grew up had a pretty good go at it and got 50 to 60 thousand of my brothers and sisters, I do hate to break it to you though but you won't ever be president
P.S. Argentina now has a socialist government, see how that works out?
Communism is trash. So is welfare.
Beat it and find a job. There is plenty of OPPORTUNITY to do that.
I own a business now in shipping and import plus I am at retirement age anyway.
As for opportunity I don't know about that, the last time I advertised for a job I got 250+ applications for it...
Welfare is not "trash." There's too much fraud in the system, but it's still a good program. And BTW, I'm a GOPer who sometimes votes Dem. I don't like extremes at EITHER end of the political spectrum - nothing will ever get solved that way.
I only asked what is wrong with sewing? it was meant as a joke and nothing more. I never told you to be silent, it was you and LMC that went off on a tangent about men wanting to silence you. I even told you I respect your comments as you are civil and give intelligent responses. I may not agree with you or LMC or anyone for that matter, but I would never tell anyone to be silent. That would go against my core values
AV, this response and my subsequent sarcasm was not directed at you. Sorry, I thought you knew that. Some men are condescending toward women; others are not.
Chris, if you are scared for this country, do not vote Democrat. They are the enemy of freedom and prosperity.
The enemy of freedom and the middle class isn't the Democrats, it's the Republicans. A Republican vote will be the end all of end alls.
A Republican vote is the line that separates Churches from being controlled by the atheist secular federal government. It stops illegals from getting free-be citizenship while other foreigners must wait.
It stops the atheist secular government from over-taxing corporations which pay most of the tab. All the grime and coruption that Democrats do is halted because of the Republicans.
Thank God for the Republicans.
Don't let the facts get in the way Marquis:
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/12/28/a … as-policy/
And if you had a business mind you would know that businesses LOVE illegal immigrants because they are much cheaper than labor unions.
I'm amazed at the cheerleaders here from BOTH sides! I don't trust anyone who never admits fault with his or her "team members." And as for my POTUS pick, I somewhat agree with AV. Huntsman was my first choice, too. Romney is my second choice, and Obama is my third choice. I couldn't have voted for Santorum, Gingrich, or Bachmann.
Thanks for the props. You know how much grief I took for my friends on the right that I believed Huntsman was the most qualified to be President.
I am with you on those I would have never voted for
You can't be a real person. The Republicans destroyed the economy from 2001 - 2008.
The economy was already going down hill when a Democrat was in office.
Congressman Barney Frank, who destroyed the U.S. economy by recklessly lowering lending standards in the 1990s and the first years of the 21st century. Pathetic Frank was the critical player in opposing all expert advice to compel mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to back or buy $1 trillion in home loans for people who could not afford to pay them back. Many of these loans later were bundled into securities and re-sold to investors who had no idea how risky they were.
As a result, disaster in 2008.
There is always lots of talk claiming the republicans destroyed the economy. My blame lays with congress and there out of control spending,
If you are interested in a civil discussion on the subject, I would like to here your views on why.
I'm looking at the statistics. Look at the war in Iraq and the spending that went on. I don't see how a rational person can look at the Bush years and think that is the answer to our economic problems.
I have looked at the real statistics. I have looked at the spending including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. If congress would have controlled itself or if Bush would have had the stones to veto those budgets, things would be different. But the Bush policies worked.
Let me ask you a question, we are no longer in Iraq, our troops in Afghanistan have been reduced and are not using the resources that they once were. In fact I read an article from the CBO that says we are only spending about 40% of what we once did in Afghanistan. So, if we are no longer spending any money on Iraq, we are spending 60% less in Afghanistan, Obama brags that he has saved $2 trillion in budget cuts, and not to mention the use DOJ cut of tens of billions of dollars, why would we be spending more money than ever, even during the last year of the Bush administration? I thought that if you cut it meant you spend less. The CBO estimates that we will be spending $4.2 trillion this year, Bush's last year was the biggest year of spending in his administration and that was $2.9 trillion and that includes the Iraq and Afghanistan war.
Because big business and the wealthy like Republicans and the breaks they get. Bush gave them breaks. Did it creat ejobs? no Did it take us into recession? yes.
So I guess the point you a trying to make is that because of the Bush tax breaks, which by the way the majority went to the middle class and poor, that the business and the wealthy didn't create jobs so therefore there was little revenues coming in and since it was no revenues coming in to pay the bills we went to a recession.
Let's take a look at that theory. Bush tax cuts were passed in 2003 when the revenues were $1.7 trillion, and started in January 2004, revenues for 2004 were 1.8 trillion. As a tax breaks took hold in 2005 revenues jumped to $2.153 trillion, and rose every year. Bush's last year in office the revenues were $2.5 trillion. Obama's first year revenues dropped $2.1 trillion and last year were only $2.3 trillion. So explain this, if the Bush tax breaks didn't work why did the revenues go up? why did the revenues go down after Obama took office?
Did he create jobs? unemployment was 6% when the tax breaks were enacted and went down to 4.4% in May of 2007. in April 2008 it was only 5%. in May of 2008 unemployment rate began its uphill climb to 7.3% when Obama took office and of course continued on to 10.4% at its worst. Today is 8.2%. So I would say that unemployment dropping steadily after the tax breaks were enacted means he created jobs.
Revenues increased but new jobs weren't created. They hoarded the money. Revenues are up now, still hoarding money, no new jobs. Wealthier get wealthier.
Okay, I will bite. How do you explain the drop in unemployment if new jobs were not created. Do you not remember the millions of jobs that were lost after 9/11? Unemployment jumped to over 6%, Economy stayed stagnant over the next year. The 2003 tax breaks got things going and put people back to work.the unemployment rate dropped to 4.4%, that's put in people work, at job creation.
Revenues have gone up over the last year, but are way behind what they were under Bush.
Too much criminal activity goes on in Republicana. They can't help looking guilty, and they know it. Makes 'em look like the cat eyeing the canary.
Interesting point, Democrats have never done any criminal activity, right John Edwards.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/1 … 94486.html
Not that I am an Edwards fan but you should be more discriminating in your retorts.
Why did Romney support the Vietnam war??
Because he was serving the Lord in France on his church's overseas mission, thus avoiding the draft??? He would have been eligible for ROTC at Brigham Young, but he didn't do that either.
Great Question Ralph, I have been doing some research but I have been real busy the last few days since this it popped up. I am very curious as to what the real story is that hopefully I will get some time this weekend to know what the answer is.
Whether Romney served as a missionary in France or in the slums of Lagos, Nigeria, he served God and Country.
Furthermore, the vast majority of the young men who did answer the draft did not end up anywhere near Vietnam and spent their entire active-duty service within the friendly confines of such places as the U.S., western Europe and Japan.
And so far as that goes, the vast majority of the ones who went to Vietnam were not stationed anywhere close to where the action was. They spent all of their time way back in the rear where they had access to such things as Olympic-size swimming pools, bowling alleys, golf courses and air-conditioned movie theaters.
As a matter of fact, for every one military person that served in a frontline unit in Vietnam (like I did), about 10 served somewhere in the rear.
The point is, just like the military personnel who did not do any actual fighting in Vietnam served their country by putting their personal lives on hold, Romney served God and his country by putting his personal life on hold.
Now for those who are cynical and biased towards Romney, I wasted my time writing the preceding paragraphs.
"The point is, just like the military personnel who did not do any actual fighting in Vietnam served their country by putting their personal lives on hold, Romney served God and his country by putting his personal life on hold."
You miss the point completely!
Military personnel put their LIVES ON THE LINE...not on hold.
And take yourself as an example; you served in combat, yet I don't hear you bragging about it or telling other people to send their children somewhere to die. That's what Romney is doing. His father, grandfather, or sons never served in any military branch EVER! Yet, here he comes up on TV talking like an old Soldier that's going to pick up the...TORCH...(not a gun)and go out and fight(but not die)for America.
Franklin D. Roosevelt was never a soldier, Marine or sailor, yet he commanded U.S. military forces in a massive two-front war against two very formidable foes.
Bill Clinton never served in the military, yet he oversaw a considerable number of U.S. military actions.
Barack Obama never went to boot camp, yet here he is today, commanding thousands-upon-thousands of U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan and other hot spots around the world.
Because I am very familiar with what it takes for a president to be an effective Commander-in-Chief, I am well aware that one does not have to have a record of serving in the military to be "good" at the job.
The only things it takes are strong leadership abilities and outstanding organizational skills.
And speaking of those abilities and skills, Obama is seriously lacking in those areas and Romney is not.
Romney would have destroyed the Auto industry. Romney will create another war for the purpose of skimming billions off the top. Romney will make BUSINESS decisions that will help only him and destroy this Country.
Obama is a GOVERNMENT MAN. He saved us from financial ruin created by your Business man that have no idea of how to run a Government.
"The only things it takes are strong leadership abilities and outstanding organizational skills."
What it takes is people skills and the abilility to serve and protect the people that are in your care. Barack Obama Killed our enemies and is trying to protect our soldiers by bringing them home.
Our previous Business Administration kept our enemies alive to use for talking points. A business man makes money for himself and the heil with everybody else. A Government Man protects his villige no matter what it will cost him.
Of course you already know all of this. But in the end MONEY TALKS...right?
"Bill Clinton never served in the military, yet he oversaw a considerable number of U.S. military actions."
I can only remember one. He went to war in Bosnia to stop a slaugter of muslims in that Country. He is a GOVERNMENT MAN-a man that feels his duty is to Govern.
(1) The labor unions rabbit-punched and nearly disabled the U.S. auto industry many years ago.
In fact, Toyota, Honda, Mistsubishi, Nissan, et al owe every bit of their success to the U.S. auto labor unions.
(2) Obama killed our enemies?
Yeah, and Santa Claus is going to come down my chimney next Christmas and leave a brand-spanking-new Cadillac CTS Coupe -- with Tyra Banks sitting in the passenger seat -- under the tree for me.
(3) Obama is "protecting" our military personnel by "bringing them home"?
No, that's wrong. Obama is NOT protecting our military personnel. They are "protecting" Obama along with all of the rest of us.
And anyone who is aware of the massive power and long reach that the U.S. Armed Forces possesses knows that it is very dangerous to "bring the troops home."
(4) And, yes, money certainly does talk. And that is one of the primary reasons why I spend a great deal of my time and other resources on teaching the poor and down-and-out how to be successes in life.
Yes, Clinton avoided the draft and later apologized for his decision. Romney dodged the draft and his lack of character was shown for five years for a war he supported and dodged. And then had the never to character attack those demonstrating against the way.. And he never apologized.
Where did I say anything about Clinton dodging the draft?
But since you brought it up -- of course he apologized for doing that. Apologizing for one's past and present misdeeds is taught in Politics 101.
And Romney never apologized to the war protesters?
So what. The ones who participated in that juvenile undertaking are not owed any apologies. In fact, they should be apologizing to all of the men who got physically and mentally wounded in Vietnam and to the survivors of all of the men who got killed over there.
And he shouldn't be apologizing to the vets? That'swhat I was referring to, before you twisted it for your own interpretation.
What is all this dribble about apologies?
I fought on the frontlines in Vietnam. I became physically and mentally ill in Vietnam. My life was nearly wrecked in Vietnam. I spent both my 22nd and 23rd birthdays in Vietnam. I still have nightmares about Vietnam.
However, I am not owed any apologies by Mitt Romney or anyone else.
In fact, I am very glad I got "screwed up" in Vietnam and spent a couple of the best years of my life over there. And that is because I owe at least that much to this great nation -- which has always been very good to me.
AMERICAN VIEW wrote: "I am doing some research on what was said about Romney dodging the draft and I will withhold my final comment until then. As I said earlier, I had not heard this before so I need to check it out."
I hope this little video clip will help you with your research.
http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/_news/ … etnam?lite
Thanks, but of course you do have to consider the source, MSNBC, a Cable News Network that doesn't even research the news they just read a script given to them by media matters.
Despite that I did listen to the entire video. First Lawrence O'Donnell is the last person to criticize anybody who did not serve in Vietnam. I do know he made the claim in the video that the Vietnam War had passed before was his time to serve. Vietnam conflict ended the United States in 1973, Lawrence O'Donnell was draft age in 1968.
He did mention about the agreements with the Mormon religion that they do not serve in the military if they give their service to a religious mission. Which of course we know Romney did.O'Donnell also made another statement that they are the only religious group that has such an exemption, he was wrong. The Quakers have the same exemption and have had one since they came to this country. So if everybody is okay with the Quakers not serving, you can't be hypocritical against the Mormons like O'Donnell was.
The comparison between Mohamed Ali admit Romney is apples and oranges. Romney religion as an exemption, Muslims do not have an exemption. In addition Ali was claiming he was a Muslim minister, which he was not. That was why he was arrested. I do respect him for standing up for what he believes was willing to take the consequences of his actions.
One more thing that O'Donnell said that was not true, he said the agreement with the Mormons and the military was a violation of the Constitution. I would like him to show me where in the Constitution it says all people of all religions have to serve in the military. That would be the only way that agreement with the Mormons would be in violation.
I do appreciate the fact that you put that link here for me to see while I researched this. Even though I am not an MSNBC fan and O'Donnell got some stuff wrong, he did confirm with his report some things that I had found out.
Romney is a clown....his skills are beyond questionable, and his "success" without his familial inheritance is suspect.
Romney lacks the integrity to lead his own self..........the man doesn't have a single view he hasn't run away from at least once.
It is a sad, sad, pathetic day when he is the best of the Republican party.... Then again, based off their candidate a few years back, I am not surprised....they keep finding their way to the bottom of the barrel (or very close to it) when it comes to selecting a leader (or rather, a puppet).
Mike, you and I exemplify what diversity is all about.
You believe that Romney is a clown, and I believe that Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are clowns.
Let me correct you on some of the Democratic talking points that you're using. First, while Mitt Romney may have come from a good, well established home, he made his own way. After college, he went to work for an investment firm. When his father passed away, he donated all of his father's money to Columbia University in other words he did not have or use any of his father's money to reach the accomplishments he has made. He cofounded Bain capital, and he and his partner turned it into the company it is today.
Now you talk about success that his family, then let's discuss President Obama. Despite all the bogus stories you hear, Obama's father is a graduate of Harvard University with a PhD. At the age of 10 Obama was sent to live with his grandparents in Hawaii. Obama attended Punahou Academy, the fifth most expensive private school in the country. After high school Obama attended Occidental College in Los Angeles, he then transferred to Columbia University and went on to Harvard University. While in Harvard he did an internship at Sidley and Austin law firm, where Michelle Obama was a lawyer. Obama graduated Harvard in 1991 went to work for a law firm in Chicago.
"The firm was founded in 1984 by partners from the consulting firm Bain & Company. Since inception it has invested in or acquired hundreds of companies including such notable companies as AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel."
Do you think it is possible the man with no integrity could have invested or acquired such successful companies above? Not a chance. Pretty impressive list here don't you think? And that's not all the companies they are associated with. Sure seems to me is a pretty good job creator, unlike Obama who has lost approximately 1,000,000 private sector jobs according to the BLS, Bureau of Labor Standards.
I have another question for you, do you think Obama would have shown up at ground zero and stood at the top of the rubble with the rescuers? I can tell you for a fact the answer would be no. His first several years in office turned down invitations to be of the 9/11 anniversaries. The only one he went to was the 10th anniversary and he would have gone to that either it wasn't political and election year, you can take that to the bank.
According to Jeb; Sane Republicans are not willing to follow the demands of the far Right wingnuts. That why you have a more maleable Republican running for President.
When did Jeb Bush say that, oh yeah that's right, the left talking point where they took his statement out of context which is pretty typical of what the left does.
Just for the record, the candidate I wanted to see run was Jon Huntsman.
Of course he didn't say what I said, because I said what I said to paraphrase what he said.
He said what he said 6 days ago. I said what I said today. Know what I'm saying?
Here are his words verbatim:
"On Monday, Bush said that both Ronald Reagan and his father, George H.W. Bush, would have a hard time getting nominated by the more conservative voters in today’s Republican Party.
“Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad, they would have a hard time if you define the Republican party, and I don’t, as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground,” Bush said, according to Buzzfeed, which reported Bush’s giving the comments at the headquarters of Bloomberg LP in New York City.
Bush, a much-discussed contender to be Mitt Romney’s running mate, said he sees the ultra-conservative and partisan standards of today’s GOP as “disturbing,” but called “this dysfunction … temporary.”
Ok...That's Jeb saying what Jeb said...
any further word play required?
Too bad you did not have the entire interview quote, of course the "I don't" did not give you a clue he was being sarcastic. Of course the rest of the interview would have shown that but, why do that when the out of context quote can promote an agenda.
Buzzfeed, great source by the way. You do know it is a social network, right.
He said those words! Out of his mouth! I saw him on the TV-Sitting down during an interview with...somebody. And his words were clearly understood regardless of what he said later in the interview. He said the same thing in different way a number of times after that on TV in interviews. (but I can't prove it)
You are missing the point. I am not saying that Bush did not say that, what I am saying is that if you watch the entire interview you would have understood that he was being sarcastic when he spoke that sentence. That is why the words "I don"t" are in that sentence.
If you look at that sentence alone, it looks like what you're trying to say, when you look at it it's entirety in context what he said leading up to it, you would understand that. I do not doubt you saw it on TV, probably in a cable news report. I am quite sure you probably saw it on other stations in different ways. I believe you.
The conversation leading up to that was the discussion about the Democrats accusing the Republicans being obstructionists. Is talking about his father and Ronald Reagan and how difficult it is today to reach across the aisles to get anything accomplished. He was saying the sentence from the point of view of a Democrat, that is how Democrat would define the Republican Party. I think if you saw the entire interview, it would make more sense.
I cannot tell you how many times during the Bush and Obama administrations that I saw something I could not believe somebody said it. Then when I do research, I find out he was taken completely out of context. That is why do not believe one thing that comes from the media today, and I trust absolutely nothing that I read in the blog world because let's face it it's just somebody's opinion. I write articles and I base them on facts that I find on government websites, but truly at the end of the day, the article is just my opinion.
The interviewer if I remember correctly was Charlie Rose.
Somebody is confused or completely lost their way here! I'm pretty sure of what I watched and read...Maybe not!
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- … todays-gop
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162- … umstances/
"Somebody is confused or completely lost their way here! I'm pretty sure of what I watched and read...Maybe not! "
OK , Let's take it slow , what you saw was a clip taken out of context on some cable news show. Again, I do not doubt what you saw.
Your first source, the Hill, is just a carbon copy of the other link you provided earlier from Buzz feed, which is not a new source but a social network. I will place a link to it for you at the bottom.
The next link, CBS news, was a promo for the interview and that only talked about Bush say no to the VP if he was asked.
Oh you're gooooood. You almost convinced me you were right and I was seeing things. By the way; I saw the whole interview.
And, just in case you doubted Jebs' own words; I included another link where he said he would not be Romneys' vice president because of the Right Wingnut influence on the Republican Party. No matter how many times you try to tell Jeb what he really meant; he's going tell you clearly what he has to say.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162- … umstances/
So, are you saying Romney is a "respectable Republican"? If you are, I agree.
You never change, and you and people like you are the cause for the condition of this country. You use inflammatory words, like clown here, but get offended when someone uses these same kind of words against someone you like.
Obama is on par with Jimmy Carter for being one of the worst modern day presidents. He has no accomplishments as Senator or as President. He has no business experience as he went from school to local politics, then to the Senate and now the President. He has never even ran a candy store. He lacks even any business training, and he never served in the military and yet he was going to solve the economic crisis, and deal with Iraq and Afghanistan.
Remember, an accomplishment is not just actions, it is actions that result in helping the people and the country. He and his democratic controlled congress spent his first to years as president avoiding the economy, the foreclosures, and the unemployment problem. Instead he undertook Obamacare, which won't take effect until he is out of office.
In the last one hundred years, neither party has moved the country forward, they just move it from the left to the right and back and forth. This party motion is never forward.
If JFK wasn't assassinated then the Vietnam War might have had a better ending. Unfortunately, the ever incompetent and egotistical Lydon Johnson was in charge, and that was the major reason we lost Vietnam.
Rehashing the Vietnam War to get at Romney is a waste of time. When the democrats put Obama us against John McCain, military experience by the candidates was not important. But when John Kerry went against George W Bush, the military experience was important.
These are political tactics, and they are used more often by the democrats, and people like you that blindly serve the democratic ideology.
People should be breaking away from the blind political party loyalty and vote for the best candidate, even if it is the lesser of two evils. At least until they can give the message to the party that they are no longer blind.
It took the two major political parties in the US to bring the country to its knees and falling toward the ground. Neither party by itself can raise the country to a standing position without breaking party lines for the common interest of the country.
This is the United States of America, but we still don't have a United Congress, or a President that can unite them.
I guess you mean on par with George W. Bush?
If JFK had not been assassinated there might well have never been an American war in that part of the world. Vietnam would have sorted itself out...
But, we were wrong at the very beginning (following World War II), supplying the French with surplus war materials left over to "recolonize" a liberated area.
We were wrong to support empire over self-determination. We brandy about our Revolution and freedom, but when a vassal state tries to stand up we do whatever we can to put them back in subordination.
Romney is a clown.
He has no real views, he has no spine, and he will say whatever it takes to get himself into the Oval Office.
How I vote politically is dependent directly on my views...and I want the Dream Act to be passed. I want Don't Ask, Don't Tell to be permanently banned, and want to see equal rights for all Americans. I agree with the separation of church and state and want religion as far away from civil governance as possible.
Both parties are flawed....I support grass-roots political activism and the rise of a new political community....as I am sure you do. But, I want religionists, gender bigots, and xenophobes away from power.
That's why I won't vote for the GOP.
The Vietnam War was illegal, and a complete blunder. Just as in our latest adventure in Iraq.
There was no "Gulf of Tonkin Incident". It was a sham.
Tell me Feenix, what do you know of Indochina? How far back do you trace the roots of American intervention in that part of the world?
Let us see what you actually know....and how much washing of your own you have to acknowledge...
I will admit I am not the most versed person on the Vietnam War. I've been told many stories from my brother firefighters who were there. I know some of the behind the scene political activities due to relatives that were in Washington the time. I know first-hand accounts from my father who was in the Corps of Engineers. He was there in country building barracks, roadways, and landing strips. He was in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia and served from 1956 to 1965
"The Gulf of Tonkin Incident', or the USS Maddox Incident, are the names given to two separate confrontations, one actual and one now recognized as non-existent, involving North Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. On August 2, 1964, the destroyer USS Maddox, while performing a signals intelligence patrol as part of DESOTO operations, engaged three North Vietnamese Navy torpedo boats of the 135th Torpedo Squadron. A sea battle resulted, in which the Maddox expended over two hundred eighty 3-inch and 5-inch shells, and in which four USN F-8 Crusader jet fighter bombers strafed the torpedo boats. One US aircraft was damaged, one 14.5 mm round hit the destroyer, three North Vietnamese torpedo boats were damaged, and four North Vietnamese sailors were killed and six were wounded; there were no U.S. casualties.
The outcome of these two incidents was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for deploying U.S. conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam.
In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that the Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2"
Seems it happened.
First, your attempt to show me up is completely uncalled for. That is true because for all you know, I just might be a highly-educated and very-well-read-and-informed scholar when it comes to the history of Indochina and U.S. involvement in that part of the world.
Second, so what if there was no "Gulf of Tonkin Incident." That was not the first time a nation used a "trumped-up excuse" for carrying out military operations for the purpose of protecting what it considered to be its national interests.
Third, because you obviously believe that the U.S. made the "wrong move" by going into Vietnam, I suggest that you do some very detailed research concerning how the leaders of the old Soviet Union and the old Red Guard of Communist China felt about the long U.S. presence in Vietnam.
If you do a real-good job of doing that kind of research, you will find that the Vietnam War was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union, as well as the primary reason why Red China finally came to realize that it had to transform from being a communist economy to a capitalist one, in order for it to survive.
The point is, it is not a very good idea for one to base his/her opinion on what the Vietnam War was all about on what is written in books, pontificated by left-wing educators and pundits, and in the writings of journalists who are desperately attempting to justify their opposition of that conflict.
"First, your attempt to show me up is completely uncalled for."
How so? Uncalled for? Are you someone who can't be questioned or refuted?
No....not at all.
"That is true because for all you know, I just might be a highly-educated and very-well-read-and-informed scholar when it comes to the history of Indochina and U.S. involvement in that part of the world."
I don't know....there is no "for all I know"....that would be baseless generalization.
"Second, so what if there was no "Gulf of Tonkin Incident." That was not the first time a nation used a "trumped-up excuse" for carrying out military operations for the purpose of protecting what it considered to be its national interests."
I don't care about what other nations are doing....I am talking about the United States. If you are now using this to agree with me that Vietnam was contrived, that is fine. We can agree on that.
"national interests"....a nonsense word.... Stealing California from Mexico was "national interest"....so does that make what we did right?
Not at all...
"Third, because you obviously believe that the U.S. made the "wrong move" by going into Vietnam, I suggest that you do some very detailed research concerning how the leaders of the old Soviet Union and the old Red Guard of Communist China felt about the long U.S. presence in Vietnam."
I suggest you do some research.
Opposition to European presence in what became Vietnam (only in the 20th century following World War II) was a century old by the time the Americans decided to pick up where the French failed.
I put wiki here for the convenience...but is much more on this subject.
Colonialism......depriving independence to a non-European population....
Concerning the Cold War....a professor of mine worked for the CIA throughout the 60's, 70's and 80's. He specifically was responsible for assessing Soviet military capability. I spent a lot of time with him outside of class picking his brain.
The intelligence used to create nonsense like Vietnam was contrived. Using the correlation to the War on Terror, he said,
"The leadership of the CIA works based on predetermined beliefs, regardless of the reality. They take their Arabic linguists and send them to watch the Iranians (who don't speak Arabic) and then send the Farsi linguists to watch Saudi Arabia (who don't speak Farsi).
To bring this back to the Cold War...a "crisis" developed between Egypt and Israel in the 1970's, perhaps you remember it..(the Yom Kippur War it is called).
Kissinger ran around talking about the "Soviet troops" stationed in the Mediterranean Sea waiting to land. They pumped and pumped and pumped the American people full of fear about the imminent Russian intervention in Egypt...and compelling us to have a firm show of force to counter it....
While Kissinger was lying to the American people, my professor, working for the CIA, a Russian linguist and expert on their military, was telling another story...
The Russian military wasn't poised for a strike.....there was no invasion force...in fact, the Russian government was struggling to keep its conscript soldiers in uniform... Desertion was extremely high.
A few years later, in the late 1980's this same professor, still in the CIA, again countered his "higher ups" with a report that the Soviet Union was teetering on the brink of collapse....but, that didn't jive with the "reality" that the "leadership" wanted to see.... He was pushed back, his research was minimized, and he figured his career sidelined because he bucked the views of the establishment..
And then, in quick order, the Soviet Union collapsed....and that obscure Soviet analyst was propelled upward...his career was revived, for no one else had "anticipated" any of what happened. The leaders of our "intelligence" field and their "yes men" were left unprepared for reality.
If the fall of the Soviet Union had never happened, this guy would have never been anybody, let alone a renown author and professor at one of our nation's leading institutions of higher education.
Smoke and mirrors to dupe the American people into subsidizing yet another commercial venture....keeping colonialism alive and well.
"If you do a real-good job of doing that kind of research, you will find that the Vietnam War was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union, as well as the primary reason why Red China finally came to realize that it had to transform from being a communist economy to a capitalist one, in order for it to survive."
I disagree completely. What you present is a gross oversimplification and generalization. "Red China" and the Soviet Union were by no means any united force, and Vietnam was not "in solidarity" with either of them. Vietnam was a colonial state attempting to gain independence, and China and Russia posed threats to its sovereignty. They were not trying to replace one set of colonial overlords for another. Did the Soviet Union and China attempt to manipulate Vietnam?
Yes... Were they successful, not really. Didn't China even attack Vietnam in the late 70's?
There is a lot more going on here than you write about, which leads me to believe that you are unaware of what I am saying.
Research for yourself....objectively (as I have...I don't start with preconceptions), and let's see where you end up.
"The point is, it is not a very good idea for one to base his/her opinion on what the Vietnam War was all about on what is written in books, pontificated by left-wing educators and pundits, and in the writings of journalists who are desperately attempting to justify their opposition of that conflict."
Yeah....those left wing former CIA-Soviet military specialists....don't trust them.
Pundits? They don't talk about this stuff...
I have made my claim, and I have supported myself. You can write whatever you wish, but I urge you to do more research yourself. There is far more going on than you are giving credit for, and there is much more incompetence, corruption and collusion going on than you are willing to admit.
True, you have something to defend....you were abused by your own government needlessly....while a few got rich off that South East Asian disaster, most were poisoned, debilitated, and forgotten.
Let us stop this from happening generation after generation after generation.
You wrote, "I have made my claim, and I have supported myself."
Well, not in my book. The U.S. presence in Vietnam had absolutely nothing to do with anything as archaic as colonialism and aggression by a major power against a small and poor nation of people.
Briefly, that war was all about denying the Soviet Union access to all of the natural harbors that exist on Vietnam's rather long coastline -- and denying Red China access to the Mekong Delta, which at the time, could produce enough rice to feed about half of that country's population.
And if the U.S. had not been in Vietnam for as long as it was, Ho Chi Minh would have been glad to "rent" those spots to the Soviets and Chinese. After all, he would have had to have gotten income from somewhere to support his very poor country.
Anyway, by the time the U.S. departed from Vietnam in 1975, it was Mission Accomplished. The Soviet Union was already beginning to fold, and China was experiencing widespread famine and its economy was in shambles.
Feenix....we were 1) helping France regain "her" Indochina colonies.
We promised France during World War II that we would do so...
After the war ended we propped them up with our surplus military gear, loans, and other support...and off France went to "regain" empire.
But, it didn't work out well. The Vietnamese didn't want anyone, Chinese, Soviet, French or otherwise telling them what to do.
Ho Chi Mihn tried to appeal to the U.S. right at the end of World War II, he wrote a letter to the American president identifying Vietnam's road to independence alongside America's path...but we turned a deaf ear....or rather, we chose to hear the "cries" of the French colonials who wanted their access to cheap resources..
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXI … /04.8.html
The U.S. had its eyes on Vietnam as a MARKET for Japanese made goods..
I agree that we were also trying to keep the Soviet Union from "warm water" ports..(that is a Western European strategy for global domination going back over 100 years before "Communism" or the "Soviet Union" ever came to existence)...but this is just another aspect of colonialism..
There is no denying this...
But, I'll point back to the older Mr. Romney.... He clearly saw himself being deliberately misled by the U.S. military and diplomatic hierarchy...
Or was he lying? If I follow your line of reasoning Feenix, Mr. Romney is a liar.
Is that what you are saying?
And, if that is the case, how can you then decide to support the liar's son?
This makes no sense.
However, the REAL reasons why we spent our human and financial wealth in Vietnam make perfect sense....to those who made the big contract money...
Hey, I'm outta here. The dynamics behind the long U.S. presence in Vietnam is profoundly complex and it is impossible to adequately cover all of the aspects of that involvement in a forum on HubPages.
I say that the Vietnam War was the most important war the U.S. ever fought and, of course, you do not see things that way.
So, I am going to move on and leave you with your thoughts and opinions. And that is because at this point in time, I have a whole lot of other fish to fry.
"I say that the Vietnam War was the most important war the U.S. ever fought and, of course, you do not see things that way."
I couldn't name anybody who "sees things that way."
That's your most ridiculous statement to date in the HubPages forums. And that's saying a lot!
Deeds, you are very jealous of me and intimidated by me, aren't you.
Obviously, you are having a very difficult time accepting the fact that there is a black man who thinks "outside the box" and who just might be a lot smarter, and more informed and educated, than you are.
And because you ranted at me, "That's your most ridiculous statement to date in the HubPages forums," I really do know that I'm on the right track.
If you ever thought that something I said made sense, I would change my tune right away.
I think you misunderstand, American View...
I'm not only talking about August 4th....
What precipitated the "attack on the Maddox"?
The plot line is very familiar...it has become an American traditional classic retold over and over again from the Mexican-American War to the second War in Iraq...
Have you read Operation Northwoods American View?
How creative can the United States be when there is a desired outcome needing to be fulfilled?
I know you were not talking just about August 4. For every book you want to toss that me I could toss one back with the opposite point of view. At the end of the day it doesn't mean anything in the entire conversation. You are set in your way with your view on this issue and I respect it, I do not have to agree, but I do respect it
I wasn't tossing a book.. But now I will share some resources..
Look up Operation Northwoods (Cuba)...you can find it full text.
We initiated war with Mexico...we put U.S. soldiers in Mexican territory. There is a bigger goal....a larger game of chess that some are playing at high levels..
http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/pr … n_war.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/23/opini … wanted=all
Again, you are tossing one point of view that is easily rebutted. I am not wasting my time doing so. I told you, I disagree with you but I respect your opinion.
No....not at all.
I'll ask the question again....
What was the United States doing in Southeast Asia?
How did the U.S. get involved in Vietnam?
Was there any agreement made during World War Two that made sure Vietnam happened?
I already know the answer to this question....let us see how good you are at finding out for yourself.
Again, since you cannot seem to understand what you read, you are set in your ways with what you believe, you will,not believe anything shown to you so I am not wasting my time doing so. I told you, I disagree with you but I respect your opinion.
Not at all...
Since you can't answer questions I see you are set in your ways.
My views have changed over time, based on evidence that has been compiled. That is why I ask the questions I do.
If you are unwilling/unable to do the long-term work I did to come to my views then that is on you.
You have shown me nothing...but I have shared many sources. (as usual American View...you and I have been down this road but in different venues before. Are the links I sourced wrong? If so, show some yourself. You never do... I have yet to see you cite anything, ever.
It is hard to have an actual discussion, regardless of respect for opinion, if people (you in this case) refuse to look at sources.
What a world we live in, I don't cite anything, are you for real. But I don't do is waste my time with people like you who are not open to intellectual discussion because you believe your way is it and the rest of us are idiots. I have better things to do in nicer people to talk to.
As for my views on this particular issue, they come for more than just readings, they come from actual people, people who are involved, people who were on the ground. You claim you sent me many sources, like what, a PBS special, a New York Times article, please, do not insult yourself by trying to claim your providing solid sources.
For the last time, I respect your point of view but do not agree with you. When somebody says that, it does not mean they want a have a debate, even though you want to.
If you want to have a debate on the Vietnam War go look up Feenix, he is here on this thread to. He loves to talk about Vietnam.
Wouldn't have mattered in his case anyway, classified 1-Y, he was health ineligible. Romney was eligible and chose not to, even though he supported the war. Youre comparing applies to oranges.
I read that Biden's health deferment came later, after the first five other deferments: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2 … 1157_x.htm
But the asthma didn't keep Joe from being a lifeguard or from playing high school football and basketball, nor from playing on the college football team. And by the way, he wasn't part of the anti-war group.
Romney got a deferment for missionary work, then like Biden, he got student deferments. Mitt registered with Selective Service and was available for the draft in 1970, but he drew a high lottery number.
No matter how you attempt to spin it, he was a draft dodger. Missionary work to save his butt, along with a lot of money and connections. Do you Romney supporters have a problem calling him a draft dodger? I see many here calling Clinton one with no problem. He took it upon himself to be available for the draft knowing at the time the US was reducing the number of troops in Vietnam and his chance of being called was nill to none.
" I see many here calling Clinton one with no problem."
Clinton himself called himself a draft dodger, he admitted he was afraid and would not go. Big difference between that and a person who had a religious exemption. One by the way that goes back many years and wars, one negotiated between the Mormon faith and the military. In order to get that exemption Romney had to go to a missionary in a foreign country.
No Spin, just the way it was
If you read all these posts, you'd see that I don't agree with what Romney did. I don't have a big prob with his deferments by themselves, but I think he was a coward to be so pro-war without serving. The deferment argument is a losing battle with Dems, unless they include the pro-war agenda. There - see how easy that is? Obama supporters should criticize him and admit when he's wrong, too. But some on here simply can't do that.
I can't criticize Obama; just like I wouldn't criticize Tom McCain. Both are good honorable men that try to do the right thing. And when they mess up; you know their intentions are to help people of this Country. Romney and Republicans like that are in a different league. But, you already know that.
That does not count, he is on the left so that makes it OK
I had a brother who did not serve in Vietnam...his draft number never came up. He was one of the lucky ones with a high number. For me, it was different, I had a low number and made my decision to serve. I do not regret that choice though I fully understand we had no business in that war. JFK knew that and was doing all he could prior to his death to get us out. His death gave the office to LBJ who put us totally in the middle of it all and escalated it for all the years he was in office. BTW, he was a Democrat...if you want to connect the dots to Clinton and Obama. Don't paint Romney in a bad color because he supported his country at a time when our nation was at war. I did the same thing and many other Americans did as well. Now you want to hang a moniker around Romney's neck that was hung around most of the military in this country back in the 60's and early 70's because we elected to serve our nation in a time of war executed by a "Democrat" (who you seem to have favor with). We were in the middle of a Cold War against communist/socialist agression and we had military plans which evolved around the "Domino Theory" and the "Rimland Theory" in terms of the measures of success of those ideologies. Maybe you need to educate yourself on those concepts before you condemn the actions of people who supported a country that a "Democrat" president decided was the "right thing" to do. Whether Romney served or not, he had the dedication to his country and he now has the fortitude to still admit that he supported that action. Don't let your admiration of Bill Clinton apolizing for being a draft dodger fog your vision. WB
Great post, Wayne. And thanks for serving your country.
The vietnam wars' domino theory was a sound military tactic to stop the spread of Communism. It went terribly wrong and sucked us into a black hole we couldn't pull ourselve out of in time. Unspeakable things were done to you and the young people of your time. Time won't heal it...and people trying to glorify what happened during that time for self aggrandizement won't be stood for today.
GOD BLESS YOU AND YOUR SERVICE TO THIS COUNTRY.
What were George Romney's views on the Vietnam War?
What happened after he visited there in 1965....why did he do an "about face" on his support of the war after this visit?
Just answer some basic questions, I've asked some good ones, and let us see where we end up...
Jump down the rabbit hole....
You've cited all kinds of sources......or actually the opposite.
What you DO do is make unsubstantiated claims.
I've shown sources, and shared conversations I've had with actual people.
But maybe they aren't "actual" enough?
You can minimize and mock my sources.....but that is easy when you produce nothing for yourself.... But, that is what you always do.
I was originally talking to Feenix in this thread, and then you decided to get involved in the conversation..
So, perhaps you shouldn't have thrust yourself into this? You shouldn't have intervened, maybe?
But, what would an "American" view be without more intervention....
I ask questions.....and you continue to fail to bring out answers.
If you don't want to waste your time, don't respond....it is that simple and easy...
Why did Romney's father completely change his mind about the Vietnam War? What did he see when he visited Vietnam that caused him to claim that he had been "brainwashed" by the Kissinger b.s. agenda?
American View has no answers....but who does?
Why did Romney support the Vietnam War?
Answer is simple and timeless and, unlike just about every other issue and position, not subject to flip flopping or even reconsideration.
Communism is evil! It is anti-capitalist!*
America must continue to fight the spread of communism!
And that begins with kicking out the current commie pinko POTUS, Obama!
*Possible notable exception being modern CHINA.
Fenix. If you're going to claim to be more intelligent and more informed than another person, you might try paying a bit more mind to your sentence structure. "...who just might be a lot smarter, more informed, and more educated than you." There, I fixed it for you. Please, continue being more intelligent than him now, I'm enjoying the show so far.
I respect your service to the nation, and I realize that your being directly involved in that war makes it more personal to you for a variety of reasons.
I used to feel the same way about Iraq.
But, there is reality....and it isn't pretty, and it isn't an ego booster. The truth hurts, and the truth is that we had no right being there. We could have easily supported Ho Chi Mihn early on; we could have supported their aspirations for independence (as the French did for us when we sought the same thing from our colonial master, Britain).
But we chose a more costly, destructive, and troubling route.....
It did not have to be this way...
Mike, thank you for thanking me -- and thank you for your service, and welcome home, brother.
Interestingly, when I arrived in Vietnam in November, 1967, the unit I was assigned to was operating from out of one of the old Michelin rubber-tree plantations, and the other troops and I swore that place was haunted.
And I will certainly take what you said under consideration. When it comes to the Vietnam War, perhaps I am leading with my heart instead of my mind.
I thank you both for your service! And respect the comments from both of you. Kudos to you both!
I would tend to agree. Often I've seen you speak with emotion that is certainly merited, but with conclusions that logic doesn't mirror. The fact that your heart plays an active role in your life and decisions means that you will more often than not try to do the right thing, but remember that it means nothing if your mind isn't actively in control of things in order to see to it that the implementation of that right thing is done properly.
All things, in moderation, and with reason.
Although, as an aside, the idea of the United States, at that time, supporting any communist country openly is somewhat far fetched. We were, at the time, fairly adamant about at least appearing to oppose communism in all its forms.
Vietnam was seeking independence long before World War 2. When Mihn initially came to the Americans and Western European states they were ignored.
No one was interested in releasing a resource rich colonial serfdom from its position of servitude.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic … 62,00.html
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n04/pankaj-mis … s-a-nation
This is the same with Cuba.
In the 1890's the people of Cuba were ridding themselves of their colonial masters, Spain.
United States policy was already established that the only flags to fly in Cuba were to be Spanish or American. There was never any thought of a "free Cuba".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba%E2%80 … _relations
There was never a care about the Cuban people themselves, just as there was no care for "colored" peoples here in the United States.
I know, Feenix, that you and I have tangled over the topic of racism, race relations, and white privilege, but if we juxtapose the condition of Native (non-European), African, Asian and Mexican Americans at the same period of time as our "nation-making" in Cuba, there is no way to substantiate any concerns for the majority of the population.
Ho Chi Minh and Vietnam could have gone down very different paths.
Communism becomes an alternative when the primary capitalist structure fails to listen to those it decides are "undesirable" or unimportant. It then, regardless of reality, becomes an epithet used by the United States and Western Europe to slander and silence attempts to counter their hegemony.
I quote the first epithet because it is what I've actually read in official documentation by policy-makers themselves, whether planners for the development of Los Angeles, crafters of our nation-state, or creators of foreign policy.
by Audrey Selig 3 years ago
Do you think Mitt Romney could beat Hilary Clinton for president in next election? Explain.Romney may try another run at presidency.
by The Medicine Man 5 years ago
What Will Happen if Mitt Romney Is Elected President?
by Ray Williams 5 years ago
At this point, who are you voting for? Romney or Obama?I realize it's a pretty redundant question, but I'm wondering what some of my followers(and hopefully new followers) actually think. Give me some legitimate reasons why you chose who you chose, and please try to refrain from...
by Thomas Byers 6 years ago
What do you think about Mitt Romney being the first president in U.S. History to have millions stashed in offshore Tax Havens. You know I saw this tonight and it really bothers me that we keep letting people like this run for the US President. I'll tell you right up front that I don't support the...
by Eric L. Andrews 5 years ago
Who won the presidential debate last night, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?
by Dr Billy Kidd 6 years ago
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said last week that Obama has a secret agenda for his second term. I'm wondering what that is. Romney did not say. Or is this the old psychological trick of projecting your fault on the other guy. Is it Mitt who has the secret agenda? I surely don't know. Perhaps,...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|