• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

This has historical significance...a MUST read

schnurrbart

Well-known member
hotdryplace said:
schnurrbart wrote:You rightwingers just want to send other people to fight in the wars you start. I'm sure you spent a great deal of time wearing your country's military uniform, right?



Actually,since the end of the draft, its rare to even find a Blue Dog democrat in the military (less than one in five voted democrat in the last 4 presidential elections). Liberals in the military are extraordinarily rare. In a class of 62 officers I was with there was only one true liberal (talk about confused) and one conservative democrat. Liberals simply are not comfortable with the mission, self discipline, motives, purpose, patriotism and the concept of doing something bigger than yourself to join the military. Most of todays recruits come from the smaller cities, towns and rural areas.
What I'm say'in is, if rightwingers are do'in the sending, then it's rightwingers doin the join'in, the fight'in and the die'in, BUT NOT THE WHINE'IN.


LIBERALS= PROUDLY ATTACKING OUR DEFENDERS AND DEFENDING OUR ATTACKERS FOR OVER FORTY YEARS.

I beg to differ with you. How can you lump all of anyone into one group? That is ludicrous. My last unit had a pretty mixed group. I will say one thing, most of the officers probably were rightwingers but I can assure you the enlisted weren't. Also, as a learned officer, you should have a better grasp of the English language. And before you start jumping about weak arguments or anything of the sort, be advised that I offer only advise to you and hope that you will be better for it. The contraction you used should be written "doin' ", "joinin' " etc.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
schnurrbart said:
Larrry said:
schnurrbart you are wrong absolutely wrong. We were in war with Iraq from the Kuwait invasion and resolutions were still in effect. Maybe there was not actual combat, but Iraq had obligation to do or face repurcusions. Pure and simple.
I can see why you are putting your gibberish forward, because without it your argument is silly. You are reaching, and coming up with nothing.

You are the one saying we were in a constant state of war. that is BS and you know it. Of course, there were provisions and sanctions because of the war but we were NOT at war. Tell me what gibberish I am putting forward.

If we use that as the excuse for the war with Iraq- then why are we not invading North Korea and getting rid of that nut that is threatening us and our allies with nuclear missiles and starving his people to death :???: Because we have never ended that War, Conflict, Police Action or whatever you want to call it.....A cease fire was signed in 1953 - but no peace treaty or surrender or anything else has been signed to this date....
 

Mike

Well-known member
schnurrbart said:
Larrry said:
schnurrbart you are wrong absolutely wrong. We were in war with Iraq from the Kuwait invasion and resolutions were still in effect. Maybe there was not actual combat, but Iraq had obligation to do or face repurcusions. Pure and simple.
I can see why you are putting your gibberish forward, because without it your argument is silly. You are reaching, and coming up with nothing.

You are the one saying we were in a constant state of war. that is BS and you know it. Of course, there were provisions and sanctions because of the war but we were NOT at war. Tell me what gibberish I am putting forward.

Poll: Hussein the winner in past year's confrontations
By Keating Holland/CNN
WASHINGTON (November 16, 1998) -- Most Americans say Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has been the winner in the series of confrontations between Iraq and the United States in the past year, according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll.

Only 37 percent believe that President Bill Clinton was the winner in the U.S.-Iraq confrontations of the past year, and two-thirds of the American public says that missile attacks against Iraq have not achieved significant goals for the United States.

The poll included interviews with 1,039 adult Americans November 13-15 and has a margin of sampling error of +/- 3 percentage points.

Here are the questions and results:

In the last year or so, who would you say has been the winner in the confrontations between Iraq and the United States -- Bill Clinton or Saddam Hussein?

Saddam Hussein 53%


Bill Clinton 37%

Thinking about the United States missile attacks against Iraq which have occurred since the Gulf War, do you think those attacks have or have not achieved significant goals for the United States?

Have achieved goals 30%


Have not achieved goals 66%


The poll was conducted over three days: Friday, when it was unclear whether the U.S. would attack Iraq; Saturday, when Iraq backed down but the Clinton Administration had not yet accepted the Iraqi offer; and Sunday, when the situation appeared to be resolved. However, people interviewed on each of the days gave statistically similar answers to the questions, indicating the weekend's events did not significantly affect opinion on them.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Seems as though the liberals here have serious memory problems. :???:

They keep forgetting that just about every day Iraq was locking radar onto our flyover jets and there was turmoil in Iraq all through the Clinton years.

Iraq kicked the UN Inspectors out of Iraq more times than Carter has pills.

Snubbart, you WERE joking weren't you? :lol: :lol:
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
Mike said:
schnurrbart said:
Larrry said:
schnurrbart you are wrong absolutely wrong. We were in war with Iraq from the Kuwait invasion and resolutions were still in effect. Maybe there was not actual combat, but Iraq had obligation to do or face repurcusions. Pure and simple.
I can see why you are putting your gibberish forward, because without it your argument is silly. You are reaching, and coming up with nothing.

You are the one saying we were in a constant state of war. that is BS and you know it. Of course, there were provisions and sanctions because of the war but we were NOT at war. Tell me what gibberish I am putting forward.

Poll: Hussein the winner in past year's confrontations
By Keating Holland/CNN
WASHINGTON (November 16, 1998) -- Most Americans say Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has been the winner in the series of confrontations between Iraq and the United States in the past year, according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll.

Only 37 percent believe that President Bill Clinton was the winner in the U.S.-Iraq confrontations of the past year, and two-thirds of the American public says that missile attacks against Iraq have not achieved significant goals for the United States.

The poll included interviews with 1,039 adult Americans November 13-15 and has a margin of sampling error of +/- 3 percentage points.

Here are the questions and results:

In the last year or so, who would you say has been the winner in the confrontations between Iraq and the United States -- Bill Clinton or Saddam Hussein?

Saddam Hussein 53%


Bill Clinton 37%

Thinking about the United States missile attacks against Iraq which have occurred since the Gulf War, do you think those attacks have or have not achieved significant goals for the United States?

Have achieved goals 30%


Have not achieved goals 66%


The poll was conducted over three days: Friday, when it was unclear whether the U.S. would attack Iraq; Saturday, when Iraq backed down but the Clinton Administration had not yet accepted the Iraqi offer; and Sunday, when the situation appeared to be resolved. However, people interviewed on each of the days gave statistically similar answers to the questions, indicating the weekend's events did not significantly affect opinion on them.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Seems as though the liberals here have serious memory problems. :???:

They keep forgetting that just about every day Iraq was locking radar onto our flyover jets and there was turmoil in Iraq all through the Clinton years.

Iraq kicked the UN Inspectors out of Iraq more times than Carter has pills.

Snubbart, you WERE joking weren't you? :lol: :lol:

Hey, mick, I think maybe you are the joke. You quote polls that my the presidents definition, rightwingers don't pay any attention to. It amazes me that everytime somethiing derogatory about bush comes up, you rightwingers fall back on how bad things were with Clinton. How many shots were fired and how many Americans died during the Clinton years in Iraq. Are you still trying to spin the WMDs story? Even bush has said that there were none and that he was mistaken. Of course, everyone believed the garbage put out by the spin Drs. However, almost everyone but bush and his handlers and spin Drs. saw the new intel and changed their minds, as thinking people do when confronted with different, better intel. Even as bush admitted that he had been wrong with several of the reasons stated for war, he never changed a single thing! We WERE/ARE NOT constantly in a state of war from 1991 til the present day. Iraq and saddam DID NOT have anything to do with 911. Iraq and saddam DID NOT have anything to do with al Qaeda. Of course, NOW Iraq is being overrun with al Qaeda. Iraq NEVER had even a single suicide car bomber before our invasion and now they are overrun. You spin it anyway you want. I know that you will never see different information and think that what you believe could possibly be wrong. You are right and that is all there is to it. Don't bother responding because you have no new information to offer. Have a great day, mick.
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
Mike said:
Same lame arguments I see. :roll:

The burden of proof is on you mickie boy. There has been plenty of proof of the "changes" in bush's reasons for going to war and bush has even gone on the record as saying he was wrong. You say "same lame arguments" but you can't come up with anything to prove that what I say is not true.
 

Mike

Well-known member
schnurrbart said:
Mike said:
Same lame arguments I see. :roll:

The burden of proof is on you mickie boy. There has been plenty of proof of the "changes" in bush's reasons for going to war and bush has even gone on the record as saying he was wrong. You say "same lame arguments" but you can't come up with anything to prove that what I say is not true.

I put several instances before you to show that we were in turmoil in Iraq during the Clinton years and you say I have put forth nothing?


No burden on me Bubba.

Same lame aruments I see. :roll:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
schnurrbart said:
Mike said:
Same lame arguments I see. :roll:

The burden of proof is on you mickie boy. There has been plenty of proof of the "changes" in bush's reasons for going to war and bush has even gone on the record as saying he was wrong. You say "same lame arguments" but you can't come up with anything to prove that what I say is not true.

Once again the liberals refuse to come up with PROOF of something but fail to provide the proof when thay are asked too!

Schnurrbart you claim to have a lot of military experience and how the troops as a whole are against his action! Just how many soldiers, sailors, national guard, air force, and marines are you in contact on a daily basis?
perhaps you could enlighten us on your REAL experiences!!

I know of one member of this board that was wounded, and still volunteered to return because he felt it was his duty! Not because the GOVERNMENT (BUSH who the whole bunch of you liberals BLAME for everything that has happened) forced him to!!
Tell me Sir when in the military did you receive your orders DIRECTLY from the president? No you did not! 99.9 % of every order you got the President was not even aware of.
Until you can come up with a solution other than running (wave your white flag) and have knowledge of what REALLY is going on in the war and foreign policy you are as far out in left field as anyone else.
Personally I do not have the experience nor knowledge in the field of foreign policy to make that decision NOR do I think you have.
Until you have THAT first hand knowledge. It make you just as wrong as the rest of the second guessers who claim to have all the answers.
 

hotdryplace

Active member
schnurrbart said:
hotdryplace said:
schnurrbart wrote:You rightwingers just want to send other people to fight in the wars you start. I'm sure you spent a great deal of time wearing your country's military uniform, right?



Actually,since the end of the draft, its rare to even find a Blue Dog democrat in the military (less than one in five voted democrat in the last 4 presidential elections). Liberals in the military are extraordinarily rare. In a class of 62 officers I was with there was only one true liberal (talk about confused) and one conservative democrat. Liberals simply are not comfortable with the mission, self discipline, motives, purpose, patriotism and the concept of doing something bigger than yourself to join the military. Most of todays recruits come from the smaller cities, towns and rural areas.
What I'm say'in is, if rightwingers are do'in the sending, then it's rightwingers doin the join'in, the fight'in and the die'in, BUT NOT THE WHINE'IN.


LIBERALS= PROUDLY ATTACKING OUR DEFENDERS AND DEFENDING OUR ATTACKERS FOR OVER FORTY YEARS.

I beg to differ with you. How can you lump all of anyone into one group? That is ludicrous. My last unit had a pretty mixed group. I will say one thing, most of the officers probably were rightwingers but I can assure you the enlisted weren't. Also, as a learned officer, you should have a better grasp of the English language. And before you start jumping about weak arguments or anything of the sort, be advised that I offer only advise to you and hope that you will be better for it. The contraction you used should be written "doin' ", "joinin' " etc.

YIPES!!!....A few satiracally placed apostrophes have so shocked contractural sensitivities that I'm recieving blogospheric lashings from the GRAMMAR TALLIBAN!!!!.
I was enlisted for nine years and I stand by what I said. Your statement "My last unit had a pretty mixed group" implies ' prior units' were not 'mixed' in your favor. But I would also have to say that many were simply politically disengaged like the general population.

LIBERALS= PROUDLY ATTACKING OUR DEFENDERS AND DEFENDING OUR ATTACKERS FOR OVER FORTY YEARS.
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
Mike said:
schnurrbart said:
Mike said:
Same lame arguments I see. :roll:

The burden of proof is on you mickie boy. There has been plenty of proof of the "changes" in bush's reasons for going to war and bush has even gone on the record as saying he was wrong. You say "same lame arguments" but you can't come up with anything to prove that what I say is not true.

I put several instances before you to show that we were in turmoil in Iraq during the Clinton years and you say I have put forth nothing?


No burden on me Bubba.

Same lame aruments I see. :roll:

Turmoil = war? Hell, sometimes my stomach is in turmoil but I hardly think it is war!!
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
Mike said:
schnurrbart said:
Mike said:
Same lame arguments I see. :roll:

The burden of proof is on you mickie boy. There has been plenty of proof of the "changes" in bush's reasons for going to war and bush has even gone on the record as saying he was wrong. You say "same lame arguments" but you can't come up with anything to prove that what I say is not true.

I put several instances before you to show that we were in turmoil in Iraq during the Clinton years and you say I have put forth nothing?


No burden on me Bubba.

Same lame aruments I see. :roll:

"In a class of 62 officers I was with" Well, what can I say? Your grammar still leads one to believe you are challenged. I still fail to see what your meager statements relate to "war" and invasion of sovereign countries. Clinton did react to several things with cruise missiles but NEVER did he wage war as this administration has done. The world was better because of it also. If you are keeping score, his failure to stop OBL is no worse than bush's failure to capture him. Both should have done a better job looking at hindsight but my opinion is that bush's poor job has been much more costly that Clinton's even begins to.
 

Latest posts

Top