Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Top 10 Democratic Party Slogans

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by firefightinirish217 View Post
    No, I told you. Had I shown you I would have printed out a pretty little picture for you since you obviously have problems with reading. Nothing pejorative at all, merely stating a fact that you couldn't figure out the analogy on your own. But if you insist, cry some more, it'll get me used to that little baby that'll be here in September. See, now that was pejorative.
    Mere words can't describe how that makes me feel.
    I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

    Comment


    • #32
      Isn't turnabout fair play?
      I thought the peace protesters would be going ballistic over this,and to some extent they are.They've been protesting providing air cover to people trying to overthow a dictator but I guess it's for the better.At least we don't have too many know nothing actors and actresses speaking their minds about subjects which they have little to no knowledge about.Shouldn't Sean Penn have been volunteering to serve as a human shield to prevent this use of air power?
      Yesterday,I heard that Eric Holder was moving ahead to try in military courts Kahleed Sheik Muhommad and others suspected of having taken part in the planning and execution of the Sept 11 attacks.
      I guess that it's okay when it's a liberal making these decisions because God knows that THEY know how to bring people to justice,right?God forbid that President Barack Hussein Obama should make an announcement that George Walker Bush was correct in wanting to have these terrorists tried in a military court where the security would be better.It just wouldn't do to say that he was right,would it?
      I wasn't aware that there was an outcry over President Reagan ordering the bombing of Libya back on April 13,1986.For the first few months of that year,my destroyer USS Mahan DDG 42 was sailing racetrack patterns around the 32 degrees,30 minutes North latitude line defying the territorial claim Muhmmar Khadaffi made that the Gulf of Sidra was internal waters.President Reagan wanted to show that it was international waters,just like the Gulf of Mexico,and thus open to all nations for navigation.We even got close enough to shore one night to see lights on the horizon and were told that they were lights of Benghazi.Never heard a threat warning light off once,either.
      When the bombs started falling,we had already been relieved by the next carrier battlegroup,headed for homeport and were three days out of Charleston when the news came over the radio.We'd been extended twice on that 6 month Med cruise and were well into the 8th month when we got word that yes,indeed we were really heading for home.
      No one gave a rat's *** about troop morale on extended tours,at least for the Navy.You were doing a job and they didn't want you leaving until it was done or you were relieved on station.
      Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
      What's even funnier is how during the Bush Administration war critics were called unpatriotic or traitors. We were told that criticism of the president while there were troops on harms way was detrimental to troop morale, and would embolden our enemies. Here's almost 500 posts that prove it. I guess troop morale isn't an issue any longer.

      More funny is that during the 80's, conservatives were wanting Reagan to bomb Libya into the Stone Age. Now that Obama is actually attempting to overthrow Gaddafi there are some who believe this action is an impeachable offense.

      Yup, the laughs never stop.
      Last edited by doughesson; 04-07-2011, 01:26 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Were our troops used in ground combat ops in Croatia,or Bosnia/Herzegovenia?
        No fly zones were implemented then and when our troops deployed there,it was as part of a UN peacekeeping force.Clinton didn't want the military to do what it does best:break things and kill people.He wanted them to be heavily armed cops,which is NOT what a combat unit is designed to do.

        Originally posted by mcwops View Post
        Its called history. No "No-Fly Zone" operation has ever ended without ground operations. Even with our bombings, the rebels continue to lose ground to the Libyan government. At some point, we will either have to give up and leave, or put troops on the ground to assist the rebels.

        You mentioned conservatives supporting bombing Libya 30 years ago, and not wanting to do it now makes them hypocrits. Ok fine, valid point. But what does that make the Democrats who openly criticized the last administration on Iraq and Afganistan, including sacred Obama, and promised to bring our troops home if elected in 2008. Three years later, they get us involved in a 3rd "non-war". Bush had 17 UN resolutions and the support of the majority of Congress to enter Iraq. Obama had 1 UN resolution, and never even consulted Congress. I would say "pot meet kettle" at this point, but I wouldn't want to appear to be making a black joke and be called a racist.

        My belief is it should take a declaration of war by Congress to allow our military to bomb and attack another country, something that hasn't been done since World War II. Every conflict we have been involved in since then has simply been a half assed skirmish that our military has had to fight with one hand tied behind their back. It has become an easy out for our politicians, to start wars, without being forced to call it one.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by doughesson View Post
          Were our troops used in ground combat ops in Croatia,or Bosnia/Herzegovenia?
          No fly zones were implemented then and when our troops deployed there,it was as part of a UN peacekeeping force.Clinton didn't want the military to do what it does best:break things and kill people.He wanted them to be heavily armed cops,which is NOT what a combat unit is designed to do.
          Call it what you will, but troops on the ground all the same.

          Comment


          • #35
            Funny how the argument against Iraq was that it was an illegal war against an oil-rich Muslim nation that was no threat to American national security or interests.

            I'm sorry, how is Libya different?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by emt161 View Post
              Funny how the argument against Iraq was that it was an illegal war against an oil-rich Muslim nation that was no threat to American national security or interests.

              I'm sorry, how is Libya different?
              Different because he was going to attack, kill and injure his people.




              .... oh, wait.
              I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

              "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

              "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by emt161 View Post
                Funny how the argument against Iraq was that it was an illegal war against an oil-rich Muslim nation that was no threat to American national security or interests.

                I'm sorry, how is Libya different?
                Is the answer Libya doesn't have much oil?

                Comment


                • #38
                  12% of the world's oil supply isn't "much"?
                  But,this isn't about oil.Even I can see that the intent was to level the playing field when one side of a fight has airpower and the other is a militia(citizens armed on their own hook to depose a dictator) with no air power and only such heavy weapons as they are able to capture while using light infantry arms.
                  Are the people against any US intervention in this fight in favor of Khadaffi being able to run roughshod over his own people?What would that say about the United States if we didn't think that other people's Freedom was worth fighting for,just because it "doesn't involve us"?

                  Originally posted by mcwops View Post
                  Is the answer Libya doesn't have much oil?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by doughesson View Post
                    12% of the world's oil supply isn't "much"?
                    But,this isn't about oil.Even I can see that the intent was to level the playing field when one side of a fight has airpower and the other is a militia(citizens armed on their own hook to depose a dictator) with no air power and only such heavy weapons as they are able to capture while using light infantry arms.
                    Are the people against any US intervention in this fight in favor of Khadaffi being able to run roughshod over his own people?What would that say about the United States if we didn't think that other people's Freedom was worth fighting for,just because it "doesn't involve us"?
                    So, you supported the US liberation of the Iraqi people, right?
                    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

                    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

                    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Not about Democrats, but a good article on the US in Libya over at USNI blog: All ahead slow in Libya

                      President Obama rushed into Libya due to circumstances on the ground and for reasons that have largely been articulated at a high level, and not a detailed level. That typically means US policy is both political and strategic, but neither the political nor strategic reasons are good for domestic political consumption. After the initial phases of US military activity, under the NATO flag the US military policy for Libya has become “the least we can do which is also the most we will provide.”
                      So you call this your free country
                      Tell me why it costs so much to live
                      -3dd

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by doughesson View Post
                        12% of the world's oil supply isn't "much"?
                        But,this isn't about oil.Even I can see that the intent was to level the playing field when one side of a fight has airpower and the other is a militia(citizens armed on their own hook to depose a dictator) with no air power and only such heavy weapons as they are able to capture while using light infantry arms.
                        Are the people against any US intervention in this fight in favor of Khadaffi being able to run roughshod over his own people?What would that say about the United States if we didn't think that other people's Freedom was worth fighting for,just because it "doesn't involve us"?
                        Probably the same as they used to think, oh wait, nobdy cared whether we were involed unles it was a world war situation. In fact, our interfering with every country's issues is what lead to us being hated in the world to begin with. We can't be a world police. Look at what it's doing to our economy. If we're to be the world's police then there shouldn't have been any issues with us going to Iraq as well then right?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by firefightinirish217 View Post
                          I trust the Democrats and Republicans about as much as I trust a Cobra versus a cotton mouth.
                          That pretty much sums it all up right there.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by firefightinirish217 View Post
                            In fact, our interfering with every country's issues is what lead to us being hated in the world to begin with.
                            That is not why we are hated...

                            We are hated because we have freedom. Freedom that isn't controlled (for the most part) by a religious belief. Another reason is that we have the right to pick our political leadership.

                            Lastly, it is a fundamental belief in this country that we believe that all of mankind has these rights by virtue of being human.

                            That threatens a good majority of the world.
                            I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

                            "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

                            "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              If they hate us for helping out every time some nation suffers a natural disaster or needs help ousting a dictator,just wait until we manage to elect some isolationist President who won't allow the troops to leave our shores unless the country is attacked and more civilians killed as a result.
                              The countries who hate us the most have also been among the first to scream for help from Uncle Sam when they need and/or want it to solve their problems.

                              Originally posted by firefightinirish217 View Post
                              Probably the same as they used to think, oh wait, nobdy cared whether we were involed unles it was a world war situation. In fact, our interfering with every country's issues is what lead to us being hated in the world to begin with. We can't be a world police. Look at what it's doing to our economy. If we're to be the world's police then there shouldn't have been any issues with us going to Iraq as well then right?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
                                So, you supported the US liberation of the Iraqi people, right?
                                That's right.If Operation Iraqi Freedom was started over oil,why are we paying closer to $4.00/gallon for gasoline instead of getting gas stipends as the troops still on duty in Iraq watch the sand dunes collapse as we suck that country dry for our own tanker fleet?(Don't get me started on how few US flagged tankers and other merchies there really are)
                                Last edited by doughesson; 04-11-2011, 03:46 PM.

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X