Reverend_Hellh0und

Also Hautey I need to tell you I find it sick that you judge a potential rape victim by her job, work, actions, after alleged rape.


Pretty sick my man....

__________________
كافر
Never forget those who died.
Never forget those who killed them.

Reverend_Hellh0und

Jeff,


Kosovo was in his second term no? And Somalia 18 killed, 73 wounded, 1 captured.



When I went in in 1990 there was plenty of training, After Klinton came in it dried up right quick and I was part of that new deal smaller force yadda yadda, I remember slots for my AFSC went from 110% or so full to 60% due to the addition of slots, though the training budget dried up.


Him being a draft dodger his first move as President "dont touch dont tell" was a slap in the face of those who served.

Lerxst

Ah, well you are right about Kosovo for sure. I wasn't trying to be a smartass, I really didn't know why deaths were up. I had never even heard that statistic until you brought it up.

I would imagine it stands to reason that as the military size is reduced so are overall training opportunities. Keep in mind, Clinton didn't go through and red line training classes. He approved a budget. What the commanders did with regard to how certain money was specifically spent was not Clinton call. He challenged our military leaders to adapt to a very new and dynamic world situation. So you can't set there and say Clinton cut training. He didn't, the Pentagon cut training. Clinton didn't go in and specifically analyze each defense line item. Clinton went with a strategic vision, and that vision is what got us the military force you saw manhandle Iraq and Afghanistan. And it's a shame that Bush & Co. seemed completely oblivious to types of conflict our military was currently equipped to handle. Which is why our troop strength is tapped, moral is questionable, and we are faced with figuring out how to deal a decisive blow to a very legitimate enemy in Iran.
You mean his accommodating homosexuals in the military? I'll have to admit that back in the day it pissed me off. We were young, heterosexual combat soldiers by God! We wasn't havin' no fags in our unit! Times change. The institution of the military is no longer defined by age old tradition, it's defined by the people serving and the commanders who make the policy. We may not like it but that is just how it is. There is nothing that says a homosexual can't kill an enemy combatant any less dead than a straight man can.

__________________
I was so right. And you? Well you were so wrong. You lost. Ha. Ha.

Stinger

So you consider the Rosenberg's patriots? So we all consider the patriots since they believed they were acting in the countries best interest?

When the country through the proper legislative proceedure decides it must use force against an enemy who has sworn to destroy us unless we destroy them, the force our freedoms and liberties from us and replace them with a religious despot, what do you call those who oppose or doing so and in fact prefer or enemies win?

__________________
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Marcus Aurelius
Proud member of the Gang of Five, the gang that is always right!
No Personal Attacks, if you can't debate the issue go elsewhere.

Lerxst

No I don't. The Rosenbergs allegiance was with the Soviet Union, our enemy. They were active agents working for a foreign government which sought to conquer the U.S. Straw manning me now? C'mon man...that is pretty lame.
Wrong. You are fear mongering just like Bush did. Everyone here knows the runup to the invasion of Iraq was a broadway show on the grandest of scales and completely unnecessary. Bush's own CSG commander and some of his top military leaders told them as much (of course they were muzzled or dismissed in due course for not agreeing with the Bush vision for Iraq). My, seems they were completely right and Bush completely wrong.

If you really believe Iraq had the ability to destroy the U.S., take our freedoms, and force a religious despot on us then we need to stop this conversation right now and take it to a new thread. I don't want to **** this one up with a litany of tired, rehashed neocon "why we fight" talking points that as dead and buried as GWB's credibility.

But to answer your question, those who oppose this war and oppose Bush are very probably some of the biggest patriots in this country. We were led to war through fear mongering and deception. Your own statement above is parroting the bull**** rhetoric that got us into this debacle in Iraq. Saddam and his military were a non-factor. They were an agitation at best, but they were sufficiently contained. Destroy us? Take our freedoms? Was that a joke? Are you so out of touch with the reality of things that you actually believe that? He didn't have the capability. Five Muslim nations combined in complete unity don't have that capability. Hell ten don't. Let alone a country whose military had already been decimated and was surrounded on all sides and under heavy sanctions.

So given all the things we know now, I believe that anyone who opposes what George Bush because of what it has put this nation through is definitely a patriot. Because George Bush cost this country hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives by his little failed experiment. He also cost us our credibility as a superpower and created more enemies for us as a nation.

Stinger

They thought it would be in the best interest of the US and the world if the Soviets also had the A bomb. Were they patriots?

No everyone doesn't know that, especially those that know what actually did run up to the war.



I don't so keep it going.

Which if the actual reasons of the Iraq Liberation Act did you disagree with?

Why would leaving Saddam in power, which was against the very policy of the Clinton administration, make them more patriotic? And you do know you are including the vast majority of Dems in your less than patriotic group.

No we went to war for very specific reasons which hold true today.

Sorry but that is totally false. He wasn't contained at all. He had blackmailed other countries to get around the sanctions, which were going to be lifted anyway.

Let me ask you this, what did it take JUST to get the inspectors back in, remember when he kicked them out, and then at that he STILL refused to comply. But what did it take?

No but then you have to over-simplify it in order to make your point.

Given enough time they do, and they wouldn't have to do it with a full bore military assault.


Given the fact that both Dr. Kay and Dr. Duelfer state Saddam was more dangerous than we had ever imagined?

What would have been success?

It didn't take Bush to create those who want to destroy us.

Tell me what have the liberal patriots supported? What is their current plan?

Reverend_Hellh0und

No I didn't think you were. And I discovered that statistic about 6 months ago. I was shocked.

Not blaming anyone but doesn't that sound odd?




Klinton set the direction, called for what to be done. The O's made the actual decisions and we all suffered.




I could care less personally but I think Klinton had an obligation to approach the subject with a little more tact. Given his service status it was rather in your face FU! to those service to do it the way he did imo.

winston53660

Actually the reductions on a massive scale began when Cheney was Sec of Defense.

__________________
http://winstoncreative.com/

Iriemon

By what should she be judged if not her actions?

__________________
Matthew 5:9

Reverend_Hellh0und

I am sorry, The Good Reverend does not judge a rape victims accuraccy by whether she takes her clothes off in public or not.


Yours and Hautey's line of blame the victim cause you like klinton is pretty low my friend. Especcially for you.