ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

"The Axis of Idiots"

> id="QUOTE">John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam . Your military service, like your life, is more

fiction than fact. You've accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq . You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and the same words you used to describe Vietnam . You're a fake! You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did to the Vietnamese. Iraq , like Vietnam , is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

Alisium

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8705

Report this Oct. 13 2009, 5:17 pm

Quote (TheChronicOne @ Oct. 13 2009, 9:11 am)
Quote (Alisium @ Oct. 13 2009, 4:06 pm)
Quote (TheChronicOne @ Oct. 13 2009, 9:03 am)
Quote (Alisium @ Oct. 13 2009, 3:59 pm)
Quote (TheChronicOne @ Oct. 13 2009, 8:48 am)
Quote (Alisium @ Oct. 13 2009, 3:16 pm)
Yeah, total idiot.

Because it's only okay to say these things about George W. Bush and conservatives. In fact, it was a true sign of patriotism then.

How dare he, A mere Sergeant Major of Marines, someone who obviously has done more for this country before morning chow, than all of us combined, speak against the left.

Seems more like an agenda to me.

If he was truly worried about politicians being criminal and corrupt why didn't he include some of the obvious ones like Bush and Cheney??


Naahh, this guy's a blowhard. He's not interested in America, he's only interested in being right for his "side".

Because he obviously agrees, in large part, with Bush and Cheney.

Stupid logic on your part.

So, we disagree with Bambi, the Democrat party and the NYT, were suddenly not interested in America. Rubbish.

Tell me, how do you even compare yourself to this man?

I'm not full of shit, for one.

I don't attack the "other side" and ignore "my side"s wrong doing, for another.

Where in that post did I say either about you?

You told me to compare myself to the blowhard, so I did.

Are you so worked up that you can't recall what you just said??

Touche'

I disagree with your characterization of him but that was funny.

:cool:

Longtimetrekker1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 9471

Report this Oct. 13 2009, 5:24 pm

Quote (Alisium @ Oct. 13 2009, 5:08 pm)
Quote (Longtimetrekker1 @ Oct. 13 2009, 9:06 am)
Quote (Alisium @ Oct. 13 2009, 4:56 pm)
Quote (Longtimetrekker1 @ Oct. 13 2009, 8:32 am)
Quote (Alisium @ Oct. 13 2009, 4:16 pm)
Yeah, total idiot.

Because it's only okay to say these things about George W. Bush and conservatives. In fact, it was a true sign of patriotism then.

How dare he, A mere Sergeant Major of Marines, someone who obviously has done more for this country before morning chow, than all of us combined, speak against the left.

You are using two deflections there. ?One was saying this was done to my guy so we can do it to your guy, which doesn't deal with the right or wrong of it. ?The second deflection is suggesting that we owe this guy the right to say whatever he wants because of his service. ?Neither addresses if what he said was right or wrong.

ANYONE who suggests the free press and the government would be better off dead than alive, I take acception. ?And if we are going to get all misty eyed about the abuse of poor George W. each time and ignore the substance of the speech, we aren't going to get anywhere. ?I'd object just as strongly to someone having said Bush or Chaney should be dead and are as bad as the terrorists. ?Nuts are nuts, and his past service doesn't automaticially give him a pass on anything he says. ?I'm not going to take my respect for our service men and women to the point where they can spout off any violent and threatening crap they want once they are out of the service. ?And you don't know his record, so there is no "obviously" about it. ?Wrong is wrong.

You're deflecting. You won't debate his actual points, only attack him as a person.

And he hasn't anywhere in there suggested that anyone should actually die. His stealing air comment is obvious hyperbole meant to express his frustration with these parties. You know that. To suggest otherwise is an act of intellectual dishonesty.

I do see how sensitive you are and how it would hurt your feelings, though. You guys should sit down together, hold hands, cry and let all the pain out. That was tough, mean talk from a hard and scary man.

I'm sure he would really love to see them all run away, though. As would I.

I've read plenty heinous things about the Bush admin, here and other places. Things, that were they said about Bambi, you would have been up in arms. Yet, I never saw you jump the way just did. So, don't be a hypocrite.

Every bit of that is a distraction. ?What's the point in discussing this with you if you can't talk about what he actually said. ?I don't agree that saying people are stealing air is a harmless comment at all. ?I believe he means just that. ?

You keep using the word obviously as if the things you say and claim or obvious. ?They are not. ?Slandering me like a little child isn't making a case either. ?Do you have actual arguments to offer or just games to play? ?What next? ?Call me a poopy head?

Just games, poopy head.

And you know better.

You know that I don't shy away from debate. If you want to talk about what he actually said, I would. You are the one not doing it.

Okay. ¿Let's look at his arguments. ¿He says the media has blood on it's hands and it has killed more people than Al Queda, that they should not breath air good Americans are breathing and should not be protected by its military. ¿He says they they should leave the country to those who support the war without question.

So how is this not the same "love it or leave it" bullcrap we've been hearing from nuts of all stripes for ages. ¿Anyone who disagrees with my political view is unAmerican and evil and needs to leave my country. ¿ These lunkheads who think they have the monopoly on right and wrong and argue that any alternate viewpoints need to be silenced are as much an enemy to free speech as he claims liberals are. ¿Of course, it's comforting to know that someone served in the military who thinks that people he disagrees with should not have the protection of the military because of their beliefs. ¿How is this someone you want to be seen siding with. ¿ I never thought you believed this kind of extremist bullcrap, a moment's angry rhetoric aside.

Corwin8

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8468

Report this Oct. 13 2009, 6:31 pm

Another case of people only seeing what they want from an article. If you agree with some of it or all of it people tend to think one thing about you.
If you disagree you tend to dismiss the post and poster as whackaloons.

A person can post an opinion without having to provide examples of assclownery from both sides just to satisfy opponents.

Alisium

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8705

Report this Oct. 13 2009, 11:25 pm

Quote (Longtimetrekker1 @ Oct. 13 2009, 9:24 am)
Quote (Alisium @ Oct. 13 2009, 5:08 pm)
Quote (Longtimetrekker1 @ Oct. 13 2009, 9:06 am)
Quote (Alisium @ Oct. 13 2009, 4:56 pm)
Quote (Longtimetrekker1 @ Oct. 13 2009, 8:32 am)
Quote (Alisium @ Oct. 13 2009, 4:16 pm)
Yeah, total idiot.

Because it's only okay to say these things about George W. Bush and conservatives. In fact, it was a true sign of patriotism then.

How dare he, A mere Sergeant Major of Marines, someone who obviously has done more for this country before morning chow, than all of us combined, speak against the left.

You are using two deflections there. ?One was saying this was done to my guy so we can do it to your guy, which doesn't deal with the right or wrong of it. ?The second deflection is suggesting that we owe this guy the right to say whatever he wants because of his service. ?Neither addresses if what he said was right or wrong.

ANYONE who suggests the free press and the government would be better off dead than alive, I take acception. ?And if we are going to get all misty eyed about the abuse of poor George W. each time and ignore the substance of the speech, we aren't going to get anywhere. ?I'd object just as strongly to someone having said Bush or Chaney should be dead and are as bad as the terrorists. ?Nuts are nuts, and his past service doesn't automaticially give him a pass on anything he says. ?I'm not going to take my respect for our service men and women to the point where they can spout off any violent and threatening crap they want once they are out of the service. ?And you don't know his record, so there is no "obviously" about it. ?Wrong is wrong.

You're deflecting. You won't debate his actual points, only attack him as a person.

And he hasn't anywhere in there suggested that anyone should actually die. His stealing air comment is obvious hyperbole meant to express his frustration with these parties. You know that. To suggest otherwise is an act of intellectual dishonesty.

I do see how sensitive you are and how it would hurt your feelings, though. You guys should sit down together, hold hands, cry and let all the pain out. That was tough, mean talk from a hard and scary man.

I'm sure he would really love to see them all run away, though. As would I.

I've read plenty heinous things about the Bush admin, here and other places. Things, that were they said about Bambi, you would have been up in arms. Yet, I never saw you jump the way just did. So, don't be a hypocrite.

Every bit of that is a distraction. ?What's the point in discussing this with you if you can't talk about what he actually said. ?I don't agree that saying people are stealing air is a harmless comment at all. ?I believe he means just that. ?

You keep using the word obviously as if the things you say and claim or obvious. ?They are not. ?Slandering me like a little child isn't making a case either. ?Do you have actual arguments to offer or just games to play? ?What next? ?Call me a poopy head?

Just games, poopy head.

And you know better.

You know that I don't shy away from debate. If you want to talk about what he actually said, I would. You are the one not doing it.

Okay. ?Let's look at his arguments. ?He says the media has blood on it's hands and it has killed more people than Al Queda, that they should not breath air good Americans are breathing and should not be protected by its military. ?He says they they should leave the country to those who support the war without question.

So how is this not the same "love it or leave it" bullcrap we've been hearing from nuts of all stripes for ages. ?Anyone who disagrees with my political view is unAmerican and evil and needs to leave my country. ? These lunkheads who think they have the monopoly on right and wrong and argue that any alternate viewpoints need to be silenced are as much an enemy to free speech as he claims liberals are. ?Of course, it's comforting to know that someone served in the military who thinks that people he disagrees with should not have the protection of the military because of their beliefs. ?How is this someone you want to be seen siding with. ? I never thought you believed this kind of extremist bullcrap, a moment's angry rhetoric aside.

Okay, fair points.

To me, his intent is not to label all those who disagree with him or the war as unAmerican.

His focus is particularly towards the liberal establishment, their rhetoric (which he views as destructive) and their actions which borderline on aid and comfort.

The acts of those people in particular has gotten his ire, not those who disagree with him. I'm sure, like you or I, he's not overly fond of those on an opposing political front, but the real anger is towards the establishment.

Taken at face value, and in a vacuum, okay, I can see how  this letter can be construed as extremism. However, I have been reading his stuff (only since after seeing this letter) and know the particular culture he is coming from, intimately. From that I infer that much of what he is saying is just an outward expression of anger with a liberal use of hyperbole.

However, I do believe that he believes that the people he calls are are actually destroying the country. Much the same as those who opposed Bush believed the same about him. Can you really fault someone for that? Can you fault them for wanting to lash out, especially considering how much this nation means to him (wherein he put the majority of his adult life where his mouth is.)

To that end, I agree with him.

And for a further example of the harsh things that service members and Marines, in particular, can say but not really mean:

We often say about Jane Fonda that we wouldn't cross the street to pee on her if she was on fire. Or that we wouldn't cross the street to watch her bleed to death. We say that, we say that out in the open and to anyone who's listening.

Murtha holds and even more special place in our hearts.

However, we don't actually mean it. You'd be we would do our level best to help them. We still hate them, but we'd help them.

Cynic321

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8588

Report this Oct. 14 2009, 1:05 am

> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote> id="QUOTE">Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the "runner-in-chief."
border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (Avenger_Class2009 @ Oct. 13 2009, 12:24 pm)


It was the CIA, under a Republican President who overthrew the democratically elected Iranian leader and installed our puppet the Shah. The Shah who was every bit as politcally corrupt and viscious with dissenters as any of the theocracy that overthrew him. Supporting right wing dictators in foreign lands is a repeated error of ours.

And I seem to remember a bunch of dead soldiers and downed helicopters in the desert as far as 'confronting' went. It didn't go well.

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote


Leaving aside that many young warriors are for war and many old(er) ones are against it; that Swiftboat crap is worn out.

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">On November 17, 2005, Murtha submitted the H.J. Res. 73 in the House of Representatives, calling for the redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq, saying, "The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home.[26]

The bill cited that lack of progress of towards stabilizing Iraq, the possibility that a draft would be required to sustain sufficient troop numbers, Iraqi disapproval of US forces and approval of attacks on the soldiers, and the increasing costs of the war. The bill proposed that deployment to Iraq be suspended and that US Marines establish a "over-the-horizon" presence in nearby countries.[27]

Murtha's comments forced a heated debate on the floor of the House on November 18.[28] Republicans led by Duncan Hunter of California, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, responded by proposing their own resolution (H. Res. 571), which many Republicans said was intended to demonstrate that those calling for immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq were out of the mainstream...

:sarcastic:

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Pat Leahy, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam: Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we'll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer.

That might be. But every time we drop a 'smart' bomb and kill 50-100 'collateral damage' Iraqis; I'm thinking we kick the ball WAYYYY down the field. Like decades worth of Jihadists cause Uncle Sam killed little sister/brother.



:eyesroll:

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">You can't strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer...

Al Qaeda'll have a hard time 'destroying my country'. They don't need to. All they had to do was fly 3 passenger jets into 3 buildings and crash a 4th. ¿We'll destroy the country ourselves with our fear/anger/hatred response.

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">You are America 's 'AXIS OF IDIOTS.' Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don't ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam . If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.

This is America and the man is entitled to his opinion. No matter how misinformed, flawed, jingoistic, and back-assward it is.

Alisium

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8705

Report this Oct. 14 2009, 2:23 am

Quote
 Bill did like his b.j.'s and his cruise missile campaigns. The one time he succumbed to mission creep in Somolia it ended in Black Hawk Down and nobody had a belly for the fight after we got our nose bloodied.


Clinton destoryed our prospects in Somilia by trying to be gentle. Did you know that warfighters couldn't return fire if the weapon they had, at hand, out-classed what the bad guys had? Did you know it was unlawful to shoot back at, pursue or capture bad guys that dropped their weapons? Did you know that the field commanders asked for armor and were denied by the Clinton admin? That's one of the reasons why Blackhawk Down went so badly. They had to wait for the UN contingency to belly up and that didn't happen until towards the end of that battle.

Rules like that, and the ones Obama is creating in Afghanistan are why Americans don't have the necessary staying power. Bush played that game too, until the end.

Politics takes a back seat to war because war is proof that politics already failed.


Quote
Murtha....  


Murtha is a POS.

And the surge was a little more than bribing the bad guys. That's a very simplistic view of the situation. Patreus re-wrote our policy (an a manual) in Iraq into something very effective. He did in one year what couldn't be done in five. And what did he get for his trouble. An ad from moveon.org that called him a betrayer and Hillary calling him a liar in the Senate.

He and McChrystal  (a really bad-ass special operations general who got things done in Iraq) now have a winning plan. Surprise, surprise, the usual suspects (minus Obama) are now telling him to get ####ed.

Quote
 Speaking of learning your history: Dick Durbin was and is a Democrat. Nixon and Kissinger (who bailed on Vietnam) were Republicans.


The Democratic Congress pushed us out of Vietnam and the Democratic Congress refused to fund the South Vietnamese, per the request of Ford and as a result if fell.

Too much to cut and past so here's a link. I know you're good for it.

http://www.prospect.org/cs....vietnam

I'm not going to re-argue Iraq. I've had enough of that over the years.

Alisium

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8705

Report this Oct. 14 2009, 2:40 am

Yeah, let's play the picture game.



http://themoderatevoice.com/3138....t-style





Sure, there is the errant bomb that causes a true tragedy. But, I think they understand the difference. They also respect strength and staying power. Both are qualities we have in short supply anymore.


EDIT:

J/C are we only allowed one pic per post now?!

Alisium

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8705

Report this Oct. 14 2009, 2:40 am

Cruervo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5659

Report this Oct. 14 2009, 4:58 am

A little history lesson on Vietnam: The French losing their colonies shortly after WWII was emasculating them almost as badly as riding the coat tails of the allies was no exception for Vietnam. They asked us to nuke them. At the time, we had a policy of the US providing most of our allies nuclear needs. Of course, there was no way in hell that we were going to do that on the grounds of it being supremely retarded beyond comprehension. Shortly thereafter, France began its own nuclear program. Ho Chi Minh being an educated man and having fought also the Japanese saw certain parallels to his experiences and the US fight for independence. He approaches the US for aid in building his country. The French not willing to give up their vendetta thought of a way to turn us against him. Part of his education took place in France. They had record of him being at a Communist party meeting. Wheather or not it was true is irrelevant, considering that a student of political science may visit multitudes of parties. The French told us, "Hey this guys a commie, and there is a democratic resistance in the South. It's just like Korea!" Therefore, we were played, and we were locked into a war with a man charismatic enough to convince his citizens to go through the horrors of the conflict and sustain incredible casualties.

Cruervo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5659

Report this Oct. 14 2009, 5:12 am

The comments reguarding the media has nothing to do with free speech. It has more to do with the media being incredibly inaccurate or taking things out of context in the war. The dynamics of assymetric war or counterinsurgency is that of an information war in addition to the physical one. I can tell you first hand that all of our press will misrepresent fact or straight up be inaccurate from time to time. The media using "bad news" thats innacurate to begin with makes us lose that side of the information war. At that point we dont even need Al Jazeera. PSYOPS is what does our information and propaganda work in Iraq. When they mess up, Al Jazeera uses that. I think you may have Civil Affairs messed up with bribing. Part of winning the war is making things better or host nation citizens Yes, we did lure a lot of parties that were formally our enemies. That's cheaper and smarter than trying to kill them all. All they want is foreigners out of their country. They learned that was easier to play ball with us and fight the extremists that wont leave until they die. Then, there is a thing called AQI. Al Qaida in Iraq. You will find Muslim extremists from every country in the Arab war and beyond in this organization. You would be surprised how many white British and American citizens are in AQI and the Taliban. Of course, now with the citizens siding more with us AQI is pulling out of Iraq and going more to Afghanistan now. Also, I must say that I dont like being told that I'm in Iraq killing and raping people when its really standing orders that if you see a rape taking place that you kill the offenders. Oh, and the fact that if an American commits a crime against an Iraqi citizen he now has to go to an Iraqi court and receive Iraqi punishment... Prepare for unforseen consequences.

EdwardTivruskyIV

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2271

Report this Oct. 14 2009, 10:02 am

Another partisan windbag.

Cynic321

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8588

Report this Oct. 14 2009, 10:42 am

> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote> id="QUOTE"> ¿Bill did like his b.j.'s and his cruise missile campaigns. The one time he succumbed to mission creep in Somolia it ended in Black Hawk Down and nobody had a belly for the fight after we got our nose bloodied.
border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (Alisium @ Oct. 14 2009, 1:23 am)


Clinton destoryed our prospects in Somilia by trying to be gentle. Did you know that warfighters couldn't return fire if the weapon they had, at hand, out-classed what the bad guys had? Did you know it was unlawful to shoot back at, pursue or capture bad guys that dropped their weapons? Did you know that the field commanders asked for armor and were denied by the Clinton admin? That's one of the reasons why Blackhawk Down went so badly. They had to wait for the UN contingency to belly up and that didn't happen until towards the end of that battle.

Rules like that, and the ones Obama is creating in Afghanistan are why Americans don't have the necessary staying power. Bush played that game too, until the end.

Politics takes a back seat to war because war is proof that politics already failed.


border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">Murtha.... ¿

Murtha is a POS.

And the surge was a little more than bribing the bad guys. That's a very simplistic view of the situation. Patreus re-wrote our policy (an a manual) in Iraq into something very effective. He did in one year what couldn't be done in five. And what did he get for his trouble. An ad from moveon.org that called him a betrayer and Hillary calling him a liar in the Senate.

He and McChrystal ¿(a really bad-ass special operations general who got things done in Iraq) now have a winning plan. Surprise, surprise, the usual suspects (minus Obama) are now telling him to get ####ed.

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">Well, as bad as Kim Jung Il is, we don't see N. Korean suicide bombers.

I'm not seeing the connection. We're not occupying N. Korea.

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">Politics takes a back seat to war because war is proof that politics already failed.

I'd agree with that, in general. But it's not absolute. The world wouldn't stand for us glassing Iraq and dipping the oil out of the hole, for instance.

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">In any event what was he supposed to do?

He was the President. He's got a bit more latitude than you or I or some governor. How about an Executive Order directing the FBI and or the CIA to go after Al Quaida cells they knew were here? How about a special directive tasking the NSA to get a FISA court to OK special tapping/searching permission and ordering federal agencies full cooperation with local law enforcement on the ground?  How about a few phone calls to a few governors to tell them to get their Criminal Investigation Divisions of state law enforcement to cough up everything they might have?

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">AMERICAN forces are paying Sunni insurgents hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to switch sides and help them to defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The tactic has boosted the efforts of American forces to restore some order to war-torn provinces around Baghdad in the run-up to a report by General David Petraeus, the US commander, to Congress tomorrow.

Petraeus will tell Congress that there has been great progress at a local level in Iraq following a surge in the number of troops this year, but little sign of political reconciliation.

In a letter to US troops, the general wrote that “local Iraqi leaders are coming forward, opposing extremists and establishing provisional units of neighbourhood security volunteers”.

The Sunday Times has witnessed at first hand the enormous sums of cash changing hands. One sheikh in a town south of Baghdad was given $38,000 (¿19,000) and promised a further $189,000 over three months to drive Al-Qaeda fighters from a nearby camp...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol....200.ece

Bush announced the surge in January of '07 and the troop levels began increasing between  January & the end of the year.

But you can see the exact moment the tactical checkbook was deployed in July '07.



There's an interesting 2 year old article here:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070924/hayden

You've got to wade through some leftist rhetoric, but it draws some interesting historical and political paralles. The irony is that the Pan-Arab Nationalism it mentions in passing seems to  be a well underway bi-product of the Gulf Wars when you consider the frontal assault OPEC and the Gulf states are getting ready to make on the dollar.

http://www.stockhouse.com/Columni....oosting

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">The Democratic Congress pushed us out of Vietnam and the Democratic Congress refused to fund the South Vietnamese, per the request of Ford and as a result if fell.

I read it. Ford's $300 million request was too little too late and everybody agreed.

And it raises some valid points. But I'd argue the situation today is different than it was then in part because the news media and it's ability to shape public opinon has been sorely degraded. When Walter Cronkite stood in olive drab and said from Vietnam that it was unwinnable Johnson knew he'd lost middle America.

Which is a powerful statement of how the power of media has declined in shaping our perceptions. Too much fragmentation and opposing opinons and blogs and ezines and video sites to create enough mass opinon to get Congress to do anything.

Which was apparent when 2005 & 2006 rolled around and anybody, no matter how slow on the uptake, could see just how full of shit Bush was. STILL there was no popular consensus.

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">Yeah, let's play the picture game.

I'd rather leave the flag draped coffins out of this. That'd be a tad boorish and insensitive even for me.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum