lets here it for bush

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Fishy.....
More and more lives are lost every day with no end in sight due to the current administrations mistakes....
I personally feel my similarities were more accurate than yours but...
What war has ever "had the end in sight"? Eisenhower wrote a letter in case of the defeat of the landing on D-Day. The Battle of the Bulge showed Germany still had fight left. As a Texan I can mention the Alamo...
War is unpredictable. To say "the end isn't in sight" implies we could see it if it was.
Going back to Vietnam... we had the war won. Many historians and interviews with the Viet Kong have shown that the Tet Offensive was a last gasp. They realized they couldn't defeat the US military and so they launched an offensive designed to inflict as many casualties as possible in the hopes that the US morale at home would collapse.
Sound familiar?

 

[fishy.....]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
I personally feel my similarities were more accurate than yours but...
What war has ever "had the end in sight"? Eisenhower wrote a letter in case of the defeat of the landing on D-Day. The Battle of the Bulge showed Germany still had fight left. As a Texan I can mention the Alamo...
War is unpredictable. To say "the end isn't in sight" implies we could see it if it was.
Going back to Vietnam... we had the war won. Many historians and interviews with the Viet Kong have shown that the Tet Offensive was a last gasp. They realized they couldn't defeat the US military and so they launched an offensive designed to inflict as many casualties as possible in the hopes that the US morale at home would collapse.
Sound familiar?
Well of course you find your arguments more valid....Honestly that does not surprise me in the least.
I in turn find your rebuttals quite humorous....
It is obvious that neither one of us is going to change the others minds. I suppose this is the case with most politically charged discussions.
However, thanks for the interesting debate and have a good evening.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Fishy.....
1. Both wars are being fought Guerrilla Style
2. Like in Vietnam the enemy does not play by "the rules" & is clearly willing to die for their beliefs.
3. The number of civilian casualties are disgustingly high
4. As in Vietnam there is no clear plan for victory and the reasons for going to war in the first place were based on lies.
5. The politicians - namely Bush have given unrealistic time frames and estimates of how much the war would cost and last.
Just look at when the idiot stood on an aircraft carrier claiming that the war was near the end.
6. If the war continues to be run by a similar administration that makes the same mistakes over and over, it will end like Vietnam. We will leave more of a mess than when we started.
....
Now to your points...
1. As far back as the Revoltionary War (and probably farther than that I just can't think of any instances) we've had guerilla tactics being employed.
2. There are no rules on the battlefield. Only arbitrary ones placed on soliders by politicians.
3. In two days of allied bombings, somewhere between 35,000 and 200,000 (or more depending on who is asked) civilians died in Dresden. Add that to the couple of hundred thousand Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Are civilian casualties really that high today? The fact that we are being so careful right now is why the insurgency is as capable of fighting as it is.
4. The plan for victory is simple. Defeat all terrorists in the country and create a stable democracy. Again, look at WWII for a far less thought our "victory plan".
5. I'm pretty sure the politicians, namely President Bush, have kept saying this will be a long drawn out conflict. I'm also pretty sure President Bush and the generals keep saying that they refuse to put timetables on the war...
6. This war will end like Vietnam if the same spineless politicians "cut and run" like we did in Vietnam.

 

[phixer]

Originally Posted by Fishy.....
Actually I came to the conclusion that Bush is an idiot well before the "herd mentality". When he was running for president for his first term.... back in 2000.
What I find hilarious are all of the people who voted for the nitwit, not once but twice, and now have the audacity to complain about the new Vietnam War he has created. A war that was implemented based on erroneous and deceitful information.
Dosent Ward Churchill teach at CU?

 

[yote]

If I remember right, Right after 9-11 the American people ( most of us any way ) were yelling lets go get em and teach em a lesson. Bush said we were going after the terrorist,and the countrys that support them. Which we all ( again most of us) supported.
Then the media started some Bush bashing, just like they did when Bush beat Al Gore out in the election. Then the democrates got in on the action.An American soldier died in battle,lets all give up now.
If this countrys founding fathers had of had that attitude along with the news media that we have today, We'd still be a british territory.
This country has gotten soft.Bush had the back bone to go after terrorist,. He told us and the world thats what he intended to do.
If we aren't going to let our military stand for our country,then why do we spend billions upon billions of dollars to train them?
At least Bush has enough back bone to stand his ground even if the rest of the world dont aggree . That a whole lot more than I can say for Clinton.

 

[jovial]

Well said. Remember when clinton said:
It depends on what the definition of is is

 

[indydirk]

Originally Posted by yote
If I remember right, Right after 9-11 the American people ( most of us any way ) were yelling lets go get em and teach em a lesson. Bush said we were going after the terrorist,and the countrys that support them. Which we all ( again most of us) supported.
Then the media started some Bush bashing, just like they did when Bush beat Al Gore out in the election. Then the democrates got in on the action.An American soldier died in battle,lets all give up now.
If this countrys founding fathers had of had that attitude along with the news media that we have today, We'd still be a british territory.
This country has gotten soft.Bush had the back bone to go after terrorist,. He told us and the world thats what he intended to do.
If we aren't going to let our military stand for our country,then why do we spend billions upon billions of dollars to train them?
At least Bush has enough back bone to stand his ground even if the rest of the world dont aggree . That a whole lot more than I can say for Clinton.

Amen brother ......... preach it !!!!

 

[watson3]

If you notice on the pictures that I have posted our vest have a patch that says "17 Reasons"..I was stationed onboard the USS COLE..Those were our 17 reasons...You should remember who the leadership was that led up to this attack, and the ones before it..New York was not the firt attack on the US

 

[fishy.....]

Originally Posted by Phixer
Dosent Ward Churchill teach at CU?

Not quite sure how that wack job being a former teacher at CU has any relevance to this discussion. :notsure:

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by watson3
If you notice on the pictures that I have posted our vest have a patch that says "17 Reasons"..I was stationed onboard the USS COLE..Those were our 17 reasons...You should remember who the leadership was that led up to this attack, and the ones before it..New York was not the firt attack on the US
That's absolutely correct. As I recall there were 6 previous attacks on the US during the 90's. In fact, our lack of response has been stated was one of the reasons Al Qeada attacked us on 9-11, according to Bin Laden.

 

[watson3]

 

[shogun323]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
That's absolutely correct. As I recall there were 6 previous attacks on the US during the 90's. In fact, our lack of response has been stated was one of the reasons Al Qeada attacked us on 9-11, according to Bin Laden.
I recommend a book called "Dereliction of Duty." It was written by Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert "Buzz" Patterson. He served as a military aide to Clinton from 96-98. One of his responsibilities was to carry the nuclear football. The book elaborates quite well on our lack of response from the 90's.
And Watson3, thank you for your service to our country!!

 

[watson3]

Originally Posted by shogun323
I recommend a book called "Dereliction of Duty."
Great book..

 

[kmc]

Maybe a little off topic. But...If the technology available to the media today had been around in WWII, Do you think we would have won?
And whatever happened to Ward Churchill?

 

[watson3]

I think it could have went either way..Technology as far as Television coverage plays a huge role...Technology as far a weaponry, they may have put up a better fight..

 

[oceanists]

Originally Posted by Jovial
Well said. Remember when clinton said:
It depends on what the definition of is is

remember when /Bush stated "fool me once"? LOLOLOLOLOLOL I can come up with thousands more , asll I have to do is listen to one of Bush's state of the unions

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Oceanists
remember when /Bush stated "fool me once"? LOLOLOLOLOLOL I can come up with thousands more , asll I have to do is listen to one of Bush's state of the unions
If it comes down to a choice between a President who stumbles over words or a slick tongued one that blatantly lies I'll opt for the former.

 

[phixer]

Originally Posted by Fishy.....
Not quite sure how that wack job being a former teacher at CU has any relevance to this discussion. :notsure:
It's doubtful that your opinion was influenced a "whack job" liberal professor who just so happend to teach at CU

but have you read some of his lectures? His view points are very similar to yours.

 

[phixer]

Originally Posted by kmc
Maybe a little off topic. But...If the technology available to the media today had been around in WWII, Do you think we would have won?
And whatever happened to Ward Churchill?
I think he was even too liberal for CU so Berkley picked him up.

 

[jovial]

Originally Posted by Oceanists
remember when /Bush stated "fool me once"? LOLOLOLOLOLOL I can come up with thousands more , asll I have to do is listen to one of Bush's state of the unions
I'll take a bad speaker with courage over an impeached used car salesman anyday.

Without compairison and lets start small. I'll tell you why I dont like clinton. Because I didnt like paying for free handouts in the form of higher taxes, I like my 2nd amendment rights, Im pro life and believe in smaller government. Those are few of the reasons I didnt vote for him. Well before the rest of his charades ever started.