Bush ready to start WWIII

scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324070,00.html
The one guy the article sites as being "injured" happend when he was jumping on his daughter trampoline not while doing battle.
he was sent back and never should have been sent over. The article you linked to does not include the entrie article which i beleive was written on Thurs. Since it is new, I'll wait to see how it plays out regarding accuracy.
There is some question regarding the accuracy of one email sited from a doctor.....as to the facts regarding % levels of deployment he stated.
Perhaps the article is totally acurate...but questions have already been raised regarding the facts.
 
dlauber

dlauber

Member
Originally Posted by eugenez_21
rudedog , please
Marines= rambo, are you shiting me
I have no idea where you are getting that all our troops are begging to get home and hate the war. My uncle just came back from baghdad in December. His story is quite different. Most citizens are glad to have us over there and dont really mind. Also 99% of the guys over there dont mind providing security to people that dont even know the right definiton of freedom. He also told me its so different there now then it was when he was there on his first tour, so progress has been made quite a bit. Secondly, the rambo deal. My uncle is 21 and is a CEO that makes 400,000 a year and trades for a new BMW ever year. He also has a doctor degree in advanced business. What do you think he picked to be in the military, a Marine, that was his choce. So I would be careful with who you are describing with rambo or you might have a high dentist bill soon.
I just wanna get a few things straight...
In 4 years he got a doctorate degrees, became CEO for a company were he makes 400,000 dollars a year, served in Baghdad long enough to see a change in the peoples attitudes towards soldier.
That just doesnt sound probable to me.
I think your lying, or your uncle is lying, or maybe theres other factors I dont know about or just dont understand.
I do support Bush side, and making up facts to support ones side ruins the debate for the rest of the supporters.
If you are not lying the simply explain how he managed all of what you said.
 
eugenez_21

eugenez_21

Member
omg srry guys that made me look like such a jerk lol lol lol didnt edit same finger wrong hand(to fustrated to check) i ment to type 29. And he is CEO/ Owner of a trucking company and 400,000 is gross by the way SORRY lol that did make me look stupid
 
dlauber

dlauber

Member
Alright now that sounds more likely

And that was nothing personal, I just think that theres so many people that try to make up facts to support there side that I wouldnt put it past anyone in any kind of debate.
 
eugenez_21

eugenez_21

Member
and the people additude thing. i didnt say that he saw a change in people he just commented that the people dont HATE you there. The change that he did see from 1st tour to second tour was that its safer as far as bombings and attacks.
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by eugenez_21
rudedog , please
Marines= rambo, are you shiting me
My uncle just came back from baghdad in December. His story is quite different. Most citizens are glad to have us over there and dont really mind. Also 99% of the guys over there dont mind providing security to people that dont even know the right definiton of freedom. He also told me its so different there now then it was when he was there on his first tour, so progress has been made quite a bit.
Although you have to search for the good news coming from Iraq, there is zero doubt significant strides have been made.
The problem the liberal media and many democrats have in general is that they cried for so long we cannot turn Iraq around. One group even went as far as to call the general a liar and traitor. Even a presendnetila candidate called the genral a liar...shameful.
many liberals still have to carry the "we will fail" torch ...as they have a vested interest in this outcome. They've scremed it for so long...many or blind to the success...or they simply enjoy pulling against the USA in order to promote a certain agenda.
Not all liberals/democrats share this view...many do. I do not want to paint with too broad a brush, but I beleive there is a signifcant portion of the democrat liberal party that really wants us to fail in Iraq.
This is why you no longer here much about the success in Iraq, as the liberal media and Dems need to divert attention from this to some other issue...as we can't have success in Iraq...that is unacceptable..
The facts regarding Iraq today no longer work in favor of the battle cry we can't win.
That's why I continue to call to question the OP claims/positions "we can't win" plus the other nonsense as it is in conflict with the news coming from Iraq and our military leadrers. We still have a LONG way to go...but I beleive we have truned the corner and success will be the outcome if we stay the course.
I applaud Bush for continuing on with the war on terror...when from a poll standpoint...it would be in his best interest to cut and run. Thank goodnes we currently have a president that does not govern based on polls...as we did in the clinton years.
He relaizesas do I we cannot tuck our tails and run...this hands over EXACTLY what our enemy wants.
The direpsect our military in general receives from some liberals is disgraceful. Again, not all but there is a significant segmnet....and they are well funded.
It is our job to call them on it each and every time...and show our support for the brave men and women that serve this country . We should expose this dirsrepectful garbage for what it is.
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7991922
I've already repsonded accordingly....and will wait further comment until all the facts are examined regarding this story by the Denver Post.
You will find this rag on liberal newspapers listings on the net. They back liberals for president so I question the facts surrounding the ENTIRE story and the papers objectivity in general.
The story could be accuate or only parts. It could be skewed to further the overall agenda of the paper. Too ealry to tell...I'll await repsonses form the military as the rag published the article on Thurs.
 
dogstar

dogstar

Active Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
I've already repsonded accordingly....and will wait further comment until all the facts are examined regarding this story by the Denver Post.
You will find this rag on liberal newspapers listings on the net. They back liberals for president so I question the facts surrounding the ENTIRE story and the papers objectivity in general.
The story could be accuate or only parts. It could be skewed to further the overall agenda of the paper. Too ealry to tell...I'll await repsonses form the military as the rag published the article on Thurs.
Im not posting it JUST for you. Im posting it for all to decide as they will.
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
Im not posting it JUST for you. Im posting it for all to decide as they will.
Understood.
 
mfp1016

mfp1016

Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
Never a soldier? Yea, they pretty much ignored us Vietnam vets. That was one 'war' that got no respect. When we came home, there wasn't any fanfare like you saw after WWII. They just wanted us to go away. Read today's paper. They're treating the injured and disabled from this war the same way:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...01-19-13-31-38
And people like you don't help. I tell you what, you have a lot of resentment for the army because of your Nam woes. Well I've got news for you sir, you're not the only vet of that war here.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
I've already repsonded accordingly....and will wait further comment until all the facts are examined regarding this story by the Denver Post.
You will find this rag on liberal newspapers listings on the net. They back liberals for president so I question the facts surrounding the ENTIRE story and the papers objectivity in general.
The story could be accuate or only parts. It could be skewed to further the overall agenda of the paper. Too ealry to tell...I'll await repsonses form the military as the rag published the article on Thurs.
I live right next door to Denver and can tell you first hand, If you read it in the post wait until a decent news source investigates it. This paper is a joke. In this case they at least appear to be quoting real people so it seems believable but consider this. During the Governors election here they Splashed a headline across the front page "Law Enforcement Endorses Ritter" You had to read a ways into the storey to learn that "Law Enforcement" was the Denver Chief of Police and 2 prosecutors from counties in the western part of the the state who were backing him. I figured the union had endorsed him or something but it was just these three people. Yep, no agenda there.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar

http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=8&gl=us
That union endorsement came right before the election. The story ran near the end of July because I wrote a letter to the editor about Aug 3rd.
The story isn't still on the Post's website but it was on his campaign website. Even so it was mostly past and and a few present country attorneys and the past and present Denver police chiefs, Under the heading "law Enforcement Officials" like the press release is titled it isn't quite as bad but the paper had it simple "law Enforcement endorses Ritter". Unlike others I dont make stuff up, here's the story from ritter's website.
July 27 - Law Enforcement Officials Endorse Ritter
Bipartisan law enforcement leaders endorse Ritter as ideal candidate
Numerous law enforcement officials – Republicans and Democrats from around Colorado – praised Bill Ritter’s record as a prosecutor today and declared that his nearly two decades as a protector of the people makes him the ideal candidate for governor. “Bill Ritter has a rare ability to bring people together, even in this era of bitter partisan politics at both the state and national levels,” said Tom Raynes, Republican District Attorney of the 7th Judicial District, which includes Delta, Gunnison, Montrose, Ouray and San Miguel counties. “Colorado needs Bill Ritter. Colorado deserves Bill Ritter,” Raynes noted, surrounded by dozens of current and former law enforcement officials as well as other Ritter supporters on the steps of the Denver City & County Building.
Ritter served as Denver’s elected District Attorney from June 1993 to January 2005. He also worked as a deputy district attorney and assistant U.S. attorney. Ritter said he has grateful to earn the support the support of Raynes and Bonnie Roesink, Republican District Attorney of the 14th Judicial District (Grand, Moffat and Routt counties). He called their endorsements the ultimate “act of political courage.” “Public safety is not a partisan issue,” Ritter noted. “The justice system is not defined by partisan interests. Our first order of business is always to protect the citizens and do the right thing.”
Roesink said she has never before supported a Democrat for elected office. “Bill Ritter stands up for what he believes in, and today I feel strongly enough about Bill Ritter to stand up for him,” she said, adding “Bill’s leadership is tireless. I want a governor who cares about public safety. Bill has the experience and the integrity that sets him apart.” Roesink is modeling two programs after similar efforts launched by Ritter: “Communities Against Senior Exploitation” and a specialized Drug Court.
Former Denver Police Chief Dave Michaud said anyone who criticizes a prosecutor’s plea bargain rate doesn’t understand the system. An average of 5,500 criminal cases a year move through seven criminal courtrooms in Denver. Those courtrooms can handle only a combined 200 trials a year.
Norm Early, who preceded Ritter as Denver’s District Attorney, said Ritter is a better Coloradan than his political opponents, who will try to “distort, mangle, torture, and use any manner of obfuscation” to attack Ritter’s record. “Bill Ritter is a better Coloradan,” Early said. “You don’t become a better Coloradan by wheeling and dealing in Washington, D.C. You become a better Coloradan by tending to the knitting, getting your hands dirty, and by doing the people’s work.”
Ritter said he is proud of his record. During his 12 years as District Attorney, he recorded a conviction rate of 95 percent, sent more than 12,000 defendants to prison, and earned a nati
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by SigmaChris
No I didn't mention power in my question but I intended it to be perceived from what the previous poster stated about the Clintons being power hungry...so let's take take a look at both posts put together. The point I was trying to make (and I guess it wasn't too clear) was just because a family could have multiple Presidents doesn't make them power hungry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mess88
both clintons live for power and nothing else. That's what make them so dangerous. You will never see Laura bush run for office. Hillary will cause ww3 if she elected. The terroist will not fear her and know that they can start the war and win. PEACE comes with Victory If you know anything about history that when a war is won peace will come shortly after. Again victory brings peace not something wrote on a piece of paper. Peace treaty do nothing. Like someone said in a song KILL THEM ALL maybe some of us need a class in the SAVAGE NATION Long live the U.S.A
The Bush family are just a bunch of public servants? They started 2 wars and who knows what would happen if Jeb ever gets elected.
You also contradict yourself saying Hilary would cause / start WWIII but then claim the terrosits would start a war then hint a woman couldn't lead us in war. Kind of sexist don't you think?
For the record, I am an independent and haven't decided on who I am voting for.
You don't think 99% of these politicians live for power? Why else do you think that there is such an raise in the reach of government the last 40 years? That is hardly a firebomb.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
Just to let you know. I serverd a tour in Nam right before we pulled out of that conflict. So as I said before, unless you 'armchair quarterbacks' have ever been in the middle of one of these conflicts, you don't have a clue.
I'll stand behind my statement of the people who are gladly going over to Iraq to fight this 'war'. Unlike the adamant pro-war posters of this thread, the majority of Amercans aren't as gungho about this war/conflict as you are. The only individuals who were actively joining the military prior to 9/11, were the high school kids that were conned by military recruiters into thinking they could get a free education with little or no effort, or the people with dead-end jobs that were enticed into the Reserves for the same college education opportunities. Prior to 9/11, the recruiters would say, "War? NAAAH. We have an active military presense over in the MidEast, but we're not sending new recruits over there now. Come be a Reservist. You only have to play 'soldier' one weekend a month, and we'll give you $30,000 towards your college education. We won't send you into a war. We have plenty of lifetime military personnel to handle any major conflict." Then all of a sudden, we were blind-sided by 9/11. Americans were incensed, but you didn't have the same reaction as you had when Pearl Harbor was bombed. After war was declared against the Japanese, hundreds of thousands of men, many who were underage, did whatever it took to join the military. Women wanted to go, but Congress wouldn't let them on the front lines. After 9/11? Yea, there was a minor rush to join, but nothing like for WWII. It was mainly these Rambo/ Sgt. Shriver types that wanted to get even with those terrorists that blew up a major symbol of America. 'An eye for an eye'. I imagine the people you know who are over there, are the Reservist-type that never in their wildest dreams expected to be pulled away from their families for one to two years at a time.
You think I'm 'burying my head in the sand' because I'm not acting like you Audie Murphy wannabes who think we'll wipe out any and all terroristic threats to this country if we 'stay the course' in Iraq. Actually, I'm just being a realist. I know what the long-term outcome will be in this war, because I personally saw how it ended in Vietnam. If you think continuing this conflict will give you this sense of security that our borders will never be attacked again by terrorists, pack your bags and guns, or the bags and guns of all your friends and relatives who feel the same way you do and head on over. Don't give me this lame statement "I don't have to go over there to support the effort." Believe me, there are hundreds of troops over there that would trade chairs with you in a minute. They're paying the price for that free ride they thought the were signing up for. So go take their places if you're really that adamant about this war. If you don't, then you're just burying you head in the sand next to mine.
funny, I thought we were fighting in Iraq, Vietnam doesn't have many simularities.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
after reading this entire thread,I've got to call bs on this one. I would need a willing suspension of disbelief to belief otherwise.
btw my cousin who is a marine lifer, turned down inheriting a multi-million dollar engineering company to enlist in the marines. He knew exactly what he was doing when he signed up.
 
ophiura

ophiura

Active Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
Never a soldier? Yea, they pretty much ignored us Vietnam vets. That was one 'war' that got no respect. When we came home, there wasn't any fanfare like you saw after WWII. They just wanted us to go away. Read today's paper. They're treating the injured and disabled from this war the same way:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...01-19-13-31-38

Welcome home, and thanks for your service.
What was done to Vietnam vets was an embarrassment for this country and something that we must ensure never happens again.
That is why soldiers need our 100% support to finish their job, not get jittery and run. It is why this war, again, should not be fought by armchair generals and the media...yet it is, and you are buying it now too. If this war fails, it will be in part due to the self fulfilling prophesy of "another Vietnam" that many predicted and wanted to see happen.
Your broad brush statements about our soldiers is confusing in light of your experience. I worked with a lot of Vietnam vets in 1992 in DC during the first Gulf war. And I tell you what, they were doing whatever they could to make sure what happened to them did not happen to these guys. They were making a personal effort, however small, to wave the flag, to shake their hands, to welcome them home, to support them from afar...whatever it took, with no (atleast outward) resentment about the parades and cheering although they were entitled to it.
I am not in DC now to be quite so front line but I am sure those guys are still there, making sure it doesn't happen again...not sitting around demeaning their efforts, maligning their intent and their achievements.
I don't care about what president did what (again, whether Bush, Clinton, Clinton Part II, Obama, McCain....ANY of them will have their issues). I care about those soldiers getting support. The crap rolls downhill, and the more the President is maligned, the more crap piles onto the guys on the ground. So lets cut it out, IMO. Dissent is fine, that is American, but in the end there should be respect and attention to the message getting out to our soldiers, our allies and our enemies.
 
dogstar

dogstar

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
....Unlike others I dont make stuff up, here's the story from ritter's website.
I never said you did......and I hope that above quote is not directed towards me. Your earlier post was not clear about any particular story to me so I just looked at the part I quoted, knowing that on its own, that statement was not correct because the DPPA did indorse him.
Now about this story. I will take your word about the headline in the paper though you have not provided and I have not found any proof and only add this...
You will have to say if perhaps you can't count though
.....more of the release that you did 'not post' seems to indicate a few more than 3 people. And now you and I both have used the term " few ", I quess that number can be interprated anyway one wishes.

...........
A complete list of speakers, attendees and other law enforcement officials endorsing Ritter:
ORDER OF SPEAKERS
TOM RAYNES – Republican District Attorney, 7th Judicial District (Delta, Gunnison, Montrose, Ouray and San Miguel counties)
BONNIE ROESINK – Republican District Attorney, 14th Judicial District (Grand, Moffat and Routt counties)
DAVID MICHAUD – Former Denver Police Chief, 1992-98
NORM EARLY – Former Denver District Attorney, 1983-93
BILL RITTER – Former Denver District Attorney, June 1993 to January 2005, Democratic candidate for governor.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE
Don Quick – District Attorney, 17th Judicial District (Adams, Broomfield counties)
Mitch Morrissey – Denver District Attorney
Michael Goodbee – Former District Attorney, 5th Judicial District (Clear Creek, Eagle, Lake and Summit counties)
Greg Long – Former Republican District Attorney, 14th Judicial District (Grand, Moffat and Routt counties)
Dave Thomas – Former District Attorney, 1st Judicial District (Gilpin and Jefferson counties); current acting District Attorney, 3rd Judicial District (Huerfano and Las Animas counties)
Manuel Martinez – Former Denver Manager of Safety
Fidel “Butch” Montoya – Former Denver Manager of Safety
John Simonet – Former Denver Manager of Safety
Gerry Whitman – Denver Police Chief
Tom Coogan – Former Denver Police Chief (1983-87); Colorado Parole Board
Lorri Brovsky – Past President, Colorado Women in Criminal Justice
.......
I will also let this go now because I entered with the link about the injured soilders only becuse of the conversation relateing to the recruitment and that article was IMO, the lastest I know of that is relevant rather others agree or not.
I will let everyone decide on their own if they choose to beleive it or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top