List your main objections to Hillary Clinton

[NCclimber 0]

On the flip side we have people who's skin crawls every time they hear Dubya say "Nukyalar".

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

On the flip side we have people who's skin crawls every time they hear Dubya say "Nukyalar".

Exactly. For some reason, I find myself wanting to like him even though I think he will eventually take ranks among the worst presidents in history. If H Clinton were among the best, I think far too many people would still want to dislike her.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm going to post this by itself, as I don't want it lost in the shuffle of the rest of my answer to your post. Questions:

.

1) Is it a bad thing to cut troop numbers?

Quote

Yes and No. Following the Cold War, plans to pare back the armed services were made. They were moderate, but noticeable. President Clinton accelerated this under a false pretense of "living in peacetime", one example, the US Army was cut from 22 divisions to 10, over 50%, and in the face of continued, deliberate attacks on US assets. Even following the Gulf War, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Powell, noted that under G.H.W.Bush, they issued at executed over 40 military deployments and operations. President Clinton left our armed services horribly undermanned, he had no appreciation for the men and women in uniform. Ask any soldier, seaman, airman or Marine who's been around for a while.

So it was OK for GHW Bush to cut as many troops as Clinton, but not OK for Clinton? Then it was OK for GW Bush to not restore troop levels? Under your logic, GW Bush is as culpable as Clinton for not restoring troop levels; under my logic they all did well by cutting troop levels when there was no need based upon demand and technology.

- So why is it that you never chastise GW Bush for not restoring troop levels?

- You are aware that GHW Bush cut approximately as many troops as Clinton, right?

- You write that troop cuts under GHW Bush were, "moderate, but noticeable" when they were about as many as Clinton did; how is it that it was so horrible? Also, where does the Republican Congress play into this and how is it that they are w/o reprimand by you?

2) Is it a bad thing to close bases?

Quote

Again, Yes and No. Under the current realignment and expansion, instead of opening new bases, or creating new divisions, they are expanding the current base load and increasing current divisions by a whole brigade. However, some of the closures being recommended by BRAC are ill advised in my opinion, for example: Walter Reed Army Medical Center is due to close in 2011. This is a mistake and I hope there is another review which will preserve the post.

So it's ok for GW Bush to close bases, but not Clinton?

- Why is it that when Clinton closes bases and cuts troops he's the devil, but your boys do the same it's called, "justifyable realignment?" The Bush's bookended Clinton's term, so it's a constant trend rather than a turn, if ya know what I mean. There is a contradiction to your logic here. I think all 3 presidents did the right thing as far as closures and realignment; aren't you being partisan here?

If a president inherits a depleted military, especially troop-wise, is it prudent to build them up immediately?

Quote

Yes. President Bush new that our military had been devastated from within and was in desperate need of an infusion of equipment and men. It was one of his primary campaign issues during 2000

- Then why is it that you don't denounce GW Bush for this? He hasn't significantly increased troop numbers, but NO COMPLAINT; WTF? I think it's one of the few things he hasn't fucked up by not throwing more troops onto the rosters, but you have no complaint. Your blind partisanship is obvious rather than looking at factual data.

[livendive 8]

Quote

She falls into the stereotype of "tax and spend". Only allowing targeted tax relief. I disagree with that kind of direction from government. It creates an artificial sense of ownership by the government, when in fact, it is the other way around.

I'm not a fan of "tax and spend", but it's a hell of a lot better than "spend and spend".

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have a hard time believing that, as recently as she was (a very active) First Lady, that she actually believed that Iraq posed a threat to the US, yet she voted to authorize use of force there as a Senator.

This bothers me even more since I realize that the US enforced "No Fly Zones" were illegal and not authorized by the UN.

Of course that was after being spoon-fed cherry picked intelligence by Bush.

If I believed that, which I don't, that would make her a hapless dupe. Now the question is would I vote for someone so easily fooled. If Bush was able to do it, how easily would Kim Jong Il, Amenajihaad etc. be able to dupe her?

RNC Chair Ken Mehlman said on Meet the Press that Congress had exactly the same intel that Bush did, repeated it, Russert reminded him of the Wshington Post's investigation and then Mehlman said, "Well, they had basically the same intellignec that Bush had."

It's obvious that he presented what he felt would make his case. So if Hillary went along, she's a dupe, if she rejected she's a war enemy sympathizer. Ridiculous.

This is one of those cases like Ollie North and the I don't recall horseshit, Bush did pick which intel to submit.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't like her hair.

As trivial as that may sound on the surface, it does carry a lot of weight. I think it is representative of the intersection of the many groups that will be swayed to not vote for H Clinton for whatever reason they hold to be important. When too many of those groups intersect, a candidate become unelectable.

Help

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

On the flip side we have people who's skin crawls every time they hear Dubya say "Nukyalar".

Choosing a hairstyle that you don't happen to like, I don't think about either way, isn't the same as being dumb-n-proud. His advisors I;m sure have told him he mispronounces the word, but he's gonna stand by his guns and be dumb on purpose.

This is typical, shift her actions to that of her haircut, BRILLIANT.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

On the flip side we have people who's skin crawls every time they hear Dubya say "Nukyalar".

Exactly. For some reason, I find myself wanting to like him even though I think he will eventually take ranks among the worst presidents in history. If H Clinton were among the best, I think far too many people would still want to dislike her.

Who cares what people think, the country is in real bad shape, does that matter?

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

On the flip side we have people who's skin crawls every time they hear Dubya say "Nukyalar".

Exactly. For some reason, I find myself wanting to like him even though I think he will eventually take ranks among the worst presidents in history. If H Clinton were among the best, I think far too many people would still want to dislike her.

Who cares what people think, the country is in real bad shape, does that matter?

Um....voters? It matters immensely that GWB has charisma. People want to like him even though he has been a nearly complete failure as a president.

Consider this: H Clinton is pres. instead of GWB and does exactly the same things. I'm guessing she would be crucified by now. Reason? Too many people don't want to like her. If she was POTUS and had to deal with the scandals, outing of CIA agents, and the total failure in Iraq, what do you think would be going through peoples minds when they saw her on TV talking about Iran and N. Korea? That bitch has got to go! People would be lining up on both sides of the aisle to get her head on a stick so they could keep their own job. Same situation with GWB - give him some time, we support him, he loves america, blah blah blah.

So yeah, the fact that people like or dislike your hair, your accent, your blue-blood lineage, your whatever is of far more importance than your actual qualifications.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

So it was OK for GHW Bush to cut as many troops as Clinton, but not OK for Clinton? Then it was OK for GW Bush to not restore troop levels? Under your logic, GW Bush is as culpable as Clinton for not restoring troop levels; under my logic they all did well by cutting troop levels when there was no need based upon demand and technology.

That's not what I said. In the wake of the Cold War, it was still the policy and doctrine of the US to be able to maintain a two-front war. G.H.W. Bush cuts did not call for a debilitating cut. At most, the Navy was going to lose its battle ships, yet still maintain a carrier fleet able to maintain a presence globally. Under President Clinton, he went further, and the Navy lost 3 carrier battle groups (I think that's the right number).

It made sense to cut the defense posture. But not by 60%. President Clinton used the money saved to fuse massive social programs, and he would have cut it more if the Socialized Medicine plan passed.

Quote

- So why is it that you never chastise GW Bush for not restoring troop levels?

Because troop levels did not need to be restored to Cold War levels, but the ranks did need to be expanded, and that is what's happening, so, there's nothing to chastise.

Quote

- You are aware that GHW Bush cut approximately as many troops as Clinton, right?

No, he didn't.

Quote

Also, where does the Republican Congress play into this and how is it that they are w/o reprimand by you?

Because it isn't Congress that determines the cuts, it's BRAC. Congress either accepts it or declines it. The cuts under President Clinton were commissioned before the election of 1994.

Quote

So it's ok for GW Bush to close bases, but not Clinton?

That's not what I said.

Quote

- Why is it that when Clinton closes bases and cuts troops he's the devil, but your boys do the same it's called, "justifyable realignment?" The Bush's bookended Clinton's term, so it's a constant trend rather than a turn, if ya know what I mean.

This would make sense if we were still cutting troop levels, since we aren't, I don't know what you're talking about.

Quote

There is a contradiction to your logic here. I think all 3 presidents did the right thing as far as closures and realignment; aren't you being partisan here?

Perhaps, I'm not always objective, but taking politics into it, President G.H.W. Bush did it out of necessity, and maintenance of strategic posture. President Clinton did it to spite and to siphon the money to social programs which were not hurting for funding.

Quote

If a president inherits a depleted military, especially troop-wise, is it prudent to build them up immediately?

Quote

Yes. President Bush new that our military had been devastated from within and was in desperate need of an infusion of equipment and men. It was one of his primary campaign issues during 2000

Then why is it that you don't denounce GW Bush for this? He hasn't significantly increased troop numbers, but NO COMPLAINT; WTF?

Dude, you need to read my posts. Each division of the Army is being bolstered by a full regiment (roughly 33%), which consists of 3 infantry battalions plus support. I mentioned that force strength is increasing.

Quote

I think it's one of the few things he hasn't fucked up by not throwing more troops onto the rosters, but you have no complaint. Your blind partisanship is obvious rather than looking at factual data.

Dude, I'm in the Army and can see first hand the growth of the force strength. How's that for data? The strength levels aren't climbing as fast as I wish, but they are growing, and they are higher than they were when President Clinton left office.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have a hard time believing that, as recently as she was (a very active) First Lady, that she actually believed that Iraq posed a threat to the US, yet she voted to authorize use of force there as a Senator.

This bothers me even more since I realize that the US enforced "No Fly Zones" were illegal and not authorized by the UN.

Of course that was after being spoon-fed cherry picked intelligence by Bush.

If I believed that, which I don't, that would make her a hapless dupe. Now the question is would I vote for someone so easily fooled. If Bush was able to do it, how easily would Kim Jong Il, Amenajihaad etc. be able to dupe her?

RNC Chair Ken Mehlman said on Meet the Press that Congress had exactly the same intel that Bush did, repeated it, Russert reminded him of the Wshington Post's investigation and then Mehlman said, "Well, they had basically the same intellignec that Bush had."

It's obvious that he presented what he felt would make his case. So if Hillary went along, she's a dupe, if she rejected she's a war enemy sympathizer. Ridiculous.

This is one of those cases like Ollie North and the I don't recall horseshit, Bush did pick which intel to submit.

You seem to forget that 8 months before 9/11 she was in the WH and had at least as much access at that time to complete unfiltered intel. In the run up to the war, she was one of the most vocal supporters of Bush's decision to invade. Are you actually going to defend her for not knowing the truth about SH? Do we need to repost what she said in support of the war?

-

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

On the flip side we have people who's skin crawls every time they hear Dubya say "Nukyalar".

Exactly. For some reason, I find myself wanting to like him even though I think he will eventually take ranks among the worst presidents in history. If H Clinton were among the best, I think far too many people would still want to dislike her.

Who cares what people think, the country is in real bad shape, does that matter?

Um....voters? It matters immensely that GWB has charisma. People want to like him even though he has been a nearly complete failure as a president.

Consider this: H Clinton is pres. instead of GWB and does exactly the same things. I'm guessing she would be crucified by now. Reason? Too many people don't want to like her. If she was POTUS and had to deal with the scandals, outing of CIA agents, and the total failure in Iraq, what do you think would be going through peoples minds when they saw her on TV talking about Iran and N. Korea? That bitch has got to go! People would be lining up on both sides of the aisle to get her head on a stick so they could keep their own job. Same situation with GWB - give him some time, we support him, he loves america, blah blah blah.

So yeah, the fact that people like or dislike your hair, your accent, your blue-blood lineage, your whatever is of far more importance than your actual qualifications.

I know what you're saying, look how pathetic the American voter is when this is obvious:

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

How can the American voter ignire that and continue to vote in the garbage from the right? The lefties wanted everyone to have medical coverage, the right thinks it is a luxury, yet the people vote for the garbage taht wants to keep it exclusive.

That said, I think things like hairstyles are taking it too far, I think they find things to hate before getting to hairstyles. But if you've noticed, they can't find anything to bitch about that is substantive.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

So it was OK for GHW Bush to cut as many troops as Clinton, but not OK for Clinton? Then it was OK for GW Bush to not restore troop levels? Under your logic, GW Bush is as culpable as Clinton for not restoring troop levels; under my logic they all did well by cutting troop levels when there was no need based upon demand and technology.

That's not what I said. In the wake of the Cold War, it was still the policy and doctrine of the US to be able to maintain a two-front war. G.H.W. Bush cuts did not call for a debilitating cut. At most, the Navy was going to lose its battle ships, yet still maintain a carrier fleet able to maintain a presence globally. Under President Clinton, he went further, and the Navy lost 3 carrier battle groups (I think that's the right number).

It made sense to cut the defense posture. But not by 60%. President Clinton used the money saved to fuse massive social programs, and he would have cut it more if the Socialized Medicine plan passed.

Quote

- So why is it that you never chastise GW Bush for not restoring troop levels?

Because troop levels did not need to be restored to Cold War levels, but the ranks did need to be expanded, and that is what's happening, so, there's nothing to chastise.

Quote

- You are aware that GHW Bush cut approximately as many troops as Clinton, right?

No, he didn't.

Quote

Also, where does the Republican Congress play into this and how is it that they are w/o reprimand by you?

Because it isn't Congress that determines the cuts, it's BRAC. Congress either accepts it or declines it. The cuts under President Clinton were commissioned before the election of 1994.

Quote

So it's ok for GW Bush to close bases, but not Clinton?

That's not what I said.

Quote

- Why is it that when Clinton closes bases and cuts troops he's the devil, but your boys do the same it's called, "justifyable realignment?" The Bush's bookended Clinton's term, so it's a constant trend rather than a turn, if ya know what I mean.

This would make sense if we were still cutting troop levels, since we aren't, I don't know what you're talking about.

Quote

There is a contradiction to your logic here. I think all 3 presidents did the right thing as far as closures and realignment; aren't you being partisan here?

Perhaps, I'm not always objective, but taking politics into it, President G.H.W. Bush did it out of necessity, and maintenance of strategic posture. President Clinton did it to spite and to siphon the money to social programs which were not hurting for funding.

Quote

If a president inherits a depleted military, especially troop-wise, is it prudent to build them up immediately?

Quote

Yes. President Bush new that our military had been devastated from within and was in desperate need of an infusion of equipment and men. It was one of his primary campaign issues during 2000

Then why is it that you don't denounce GW Bush for this? He hasn't significantly increased troop numbers, but NO COMPLAINT; WTF?

Dude, you need to read my posts. Each division of the Army is being bolstered by a full regiment (roughly 33%), which consists of 3 infantry battalions plus support. I mentioned that force strength is increasing.

Quote

I think it's one of the few things he hasn't fucked up by not throwing more troops onto the rosters, but you have no complaint. Your blind partisanship is obvious rather than looking at factual data.

Dude, I'm in the Army and can see first hand the growth of the force strength. How's that for data? The strength levels aren't climbing as fast as I wish, but they are growing, and they are higher than they were when President Clinton left office.

I had a graph saved that now doesn't work when I prompt on it, but I did find this:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:VIgsaJFpev4J:www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21754.pdf+u.s.+military+size&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

That's a Congressional report from May, 2004. I'llanswer the rest of the post later.

Throughout the Cold War, end strength of the U.S. active dutyforce never droppedbelow 2.0 million personnel and peaked at over 3.5 million during the Korean andVietnam Wars.1From 1989 to 1999, end strength dropped steadily from 2.1 million to1.4 million, where it has remained. Force structure dropped even more, with active Armydivisions, for example, going from 18 to 10.

Point is, the numbers dropped steadily from 89 to 99 and have remained stable sinc ethen. CONCLUSUION:

1) GHW Bush started the drop

2) CLinton continued the drop

3) GW Bush as of May 2004 has done nothing to increase the numners

[kallend 1,651]

It is unclear to me why the USA needs a military budget that is larger than those of the next 8 nations combined. You don't need a force of that size for defense. The only explanations I can think of are (a) intention to wage wars of aggression, and (b) need to feed the "defense" industry.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,147]

and the answer probably lies in a combination of a and b.

[Royd 0]

Quote

It is unclear to me why the USA needs a military budget that is larger than those of the next 8 nations combined. You don't need a force of that size for defense. The only explanations I can think of are (a) intention to wage wars of aggression, and (b) need to feed the "defense" industry.

A thief is less likely to break into your house if he sees a big, gnarly dog laying on the front porch.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

It is unclear to me why the USA needs a military budget that is larger than those of the next 8 nations combined. You don't need a force of that size for defense. The only explanations I can think of are (a) intention to wage wars of aggression, and (b) need to feed the "defense" industry.

A thief is less likely to break into your house if he sees a big, gnarly dog laying on the front porch.

Perhaps the big, gnarly dog was sleeping when the theives bombed the WTC's in 93 and flew acft into them on 911.

Reality check: People like that don't scare, so biuldup all the military all you want, you just look foolish when they thumb their noses and circumvent you.

Deterrence only works on those that are susceptibel to deterring.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Reality check: People like that don't scare, so biuldup all the military all you want, you just look foolish when they thumb their noses and circumvent you.

Yes they do. These guys are chicken-sh*ts. They act all motivated and tough, but once they start to feel the blowback, they crap their drawers and drop their weapons and try to find the rock they crawled out from.

Quote

Deterrence only works on those that are susceptibel to deterring.

It also works when one is too stupid to recognize the deterrence and then they feel the full brunt of it.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I had a graph saved that now doesn't work when I prompt on it, but I did find this:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:VIgsaJFpev4J:www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21754.pdf+u.s.+military+size&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

That's a Congressional report from May, 2004. I'llanswer the rest of the post later.

Point is, the numbers dropped steadily from 89 to 99 and have remained stable sinc ethen. CONCLUSUION:

1) GHW Bush started the drop

2) CLinton continued the drop

3) GW Bush as of May 2004 has done nothing to increase the numners

Here's a graph. The increases are not substantial, but they are higher, notably in the Air Force and Army. The Army is in process of adding between 80,000-100,000 within the next few years. Enlistments are way up across the board.

Your conclusion is broadly correct, but inaccurate. President GHW Bush started a reduction, President Clinton accelerated the cuts, particularly in the Army and Navy. President GW Bush is increasing the numbers.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Quote

Yes they do. These guys are chicken-sh*ts. They act all motivated and tough, but once they start to feel the blowback, they crap their drawers and drop their weapons and try to find the rock they crawled out from.

Like is happening in Iraq?

I understand your statement, it has been a rallying cry for the US military for a long time. It doesn't seem to be holding up in Iraq though. But then, I am not sure what kind of "blowback" they would be feeling. They had nothing to do with 9/11 to begin with.

Maybe the US is actually feeling the "blowback" of invading a country for ego and financial gain?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I had a graph saved that now doesn't work when I prompt on it, but I did find this:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:VIgsaJFpev4J:www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21754.pdf+u.s.+military+size&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

That's a Congressional report from May, 2004. I'llanswer the rest of the post later.

Point is, the numbers dropped steadily from 89 to 99 and have remained stable sinc ethen. CONCLUSUION:

1) GHW Bush started the drop

2) CLinton continued the drop

3) GW Bush as of May 2004 has done nothing to increase the numners

Here's a graph. The increases are not substantial, but they are higher, notably in the Air Force and Army. The Army is in process of adding between 80,000-100,000 within the next few years. Enlistments are way up across the board.

Your conclusion is broadly correct, but inaccurate. President GHW Bush started a reduction, President Clinton accelerated the cuts, particularly in the Army and Navy. President GW Bush is increasing the numbers.

Nice find. I had a DOD site that inclided numbers by years. Anyway, it revealed basically what your graph does, the decline from 89 to 2000 was steady, a staright line, and the increase after Clinton was minimal.

CONCLUSION:

1) GHW Bush started the decline

2) Clinton sustained the decline and base closures

3) GW Bush has done almost nothing to increase troop levels, and that's in the face of this so-called war

QUESTIONS:

1) How is it that Clinton is such a SOB? All he's done is to continue what daddy did and jr apparently agrees with, as troop levels are approximately the same.

2) How is it that Clinton is a SOB for closing bases, but when Jr does it it's oh so justified?


Can you see the false perception here that Clinton was so bad? It's just a kneee-jerk reaction when a Dem cuts military spending to think that he's trying to crawl into bed with the Commies, but it usually is BS.

Furthermore, if the Dems are such pussies, explain how every war the US entered into in the 20th century other than the 1991 Gulf War was started when a Dem was in office.

What the Repubs want to do is to shift the power from teh gov to corps and they do so, as Eisenhowere warned, by using the Military industrial complex. See, defense spending, especially if you count the 320B to Iraq, has gone thru the roof, while troop numbers are only slightly higher, and that's in teh face of war. War is an excuse to ship the government's money from the people to corporations. I've posted that graph as to the increase of debt by president soooo many times, but no one comments. The GOP agenda isn't to sooth the fundie nuts, not to kill the world, it's simply what it has always been, to make the rich richer; don't get sucked in by the rhetoric and flag-waving, they're just distractions.

Quote

Your conclusion is broadly correct, but inaccurate. President GHW Bush started a reduction, President Clinton accelerated the cuts, particularly in the Army and Navy. President GW Bush is increasing the numbers.

Hmmmm, broadly correct but inaccurate? OK. The numbers are the numbers. The cuts of GHW Bush are 10% of the numbers of Clinton. GW has of yet done little to increase the numbers, and that's again in the face of this pseudo-war. It would be typical to increase troop numbers to break even in the face of war.

Point is, these cuts were neccesary and woud have gone down inder any president and Congress.

I don't mind rich people throwing the country into the shitter in the name of mass profit for the rich, but it baffles me when poor peopkle do it in the name of patriotism or some other silly notion. Actually when I was young I bought into that BS too, as I was in teh military and the threat posed by my superiors was the USSR. They would hang posters that had representations of 1 tank for 1,000 tanks and have a picture graph that showed how all the military people and equip was so much larger by numbers with the Commies. Then the wall fell, the Commies were exposed as the broke0dick country the US knew they were all along. I realized what a joke the Cold War was, what a joke Reagan was and to a degree what a joke the military has become. It was no longer about defending the US, it was a platform for multikazzillion $ corps to build expensive toys and justify them. I was dissolusioned and that has been supported ever since. How is it that defense spending is going thru the roof, especially with this pseudo-war, but troops numbers are lower than post-WWII?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Reality check: People like that don't scare, so biuldup all the military all you want, you just look foolish when they thumb their noses and circumvent you.

Yes they do. These guys are chicken-sh*ts. They act all motivated and tough, but once they start to feel the blowback, they crap their drawers and drop their weapons and try to find the rock they crawled out from.

Quote

Deterrence only works on those that are susceptibel to deterring.

It also works when one is too stupid to recognize the deterrence and then they feel the full brunt of it.

It has ZERO to do with intelligence, it has to do with the willingness to die for your cause. With your statement it could be reversed and all the US troops to die were also too stupid. I don't buy either, I think the heads of country get certain people willing to die for the causes of the heads of state.

So I guess the smart ones are the obedient ones who are willing to accept Christianity and American Democracy. KInd of like with Indian Schools in the late 1800's and early 1900's; the "Good" Indians accepted Christianity and cut their hair, the "Savage" Indians fought and had to be killed. Ya know, we never change.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Yes they do. These guys are chicken-sh*ts. They act all motivated and tough, but once they start to feel the blowback, they crap their drawers and drop their weapons and try to find the rock they crawled out from.

Like is happening in Iraq?

I understand your statement, it has been a rallying cry for the US military for a long time. It doesn't seem to be holding up in Iraq though. But then, I am not sure what kind of "blowback" they would be feeling. They had nothing to do with 9/11 to begin with.

Maybe the US is actually feeling the "blowback" of invading a country for ego and financial gain?

I'm not talking about 9/11, I'm talking about these guys in the heat of a fire fight.

I'm talking about the blowback of engaging in firefights with us.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Airman1270 0]

I don't necessarily "hate" Hillary, but knowing she holds me in contempt does nothing to enhance an attitude of civility and respect.

Politically, I object to her because every time people like the Clintons get what they want, I lose more money and more freedom.

The easiest way to end up in front of a judge in "free" America is to refuse to do what liberal Democrats tell you to do.

Cheers,
Jon S.

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Quote

I'm talking about the blowback of engaging in firefights with us.

They do seem to be coming back, agian and again, so I am not convinced that is really working.