What we don't see in the news

[jarhead]

Kicksave,

Nice Rant! I am a little perplexed by your opening comment in your previous post, to wit: "Go ahead and stand by the man as he's being brought down for this fraud, but the rest of us are a little less gullable."

Then at the end of your post, you provide a link to all sorts of scientific polls, which totally dispute your comment. Every poll, and in every category, the numbers show overwheling support for President Bush. How do you rationalize these two opposing realities that you post? Who are "the rest of us"?

You engage in hyperbole with staements such as: "If the Amercian people don't want us going to war with 15 different countries, all we gotta do is snow them on the reasons... "

Do you recall the accusations from the administration about "An axis of evil"? That was aimed at 3 countries, not 15. One down, two to go. If Iran and North Korea pose a nuclear threat to this country, they must be dealt with.

Or, would you just rather stick your head in the sand, and let bad people do bad things to America? Not me.....I am not a "Surrender Monkey"

 

[Timebuilder]

I think KickSave has his onw view of the world. It's a distictly different view than mine, but he has a right to his opinion.

He can have his opinion because time after time Americans are called to make the hard choices and defend freedom. While he complains that we haven't gone after the othewr bad guys, I predict that he WILL complain when and if we do. Suppose we take some form of action against al queda in Saudi Arabia. He'll have something negative to say. I call this "hate America first".

I'm happy to be seen as a "joke" by such an individual. It is a reminder of the limited ideas I held as a young fool who said such things. I have a busy week, ands having a battle of wits with an unarmed person is a waste of valuable time.

 

[KickSave]

I think KickSave has his onw view of the world. It's a distictly different view than mine, but he has a right to his opinion.

He can have his opinion because time after time Americans are called to make the hard choices and defend freedom.

I just find it really distasteful that someone who has admitted he was never in the military is so quick to point out the American way of defending freedom and making hard choices. I WAS IN THE MILITARY, you weren't! So what's this hard choice you are whining about?


BTW, Bushes ratings are dropping like brick. YOu see them as overwhelming support, the polls say it's barely over 50% right now, and sliding down hard. Like I said, the rest of the country, you know, the ones who demand more from their governemnt than the blind faith you show in them, the rest of the coutnry is catching on to his scheme.

And if Iran and N Korea pose a nuclear threat to us, I'm just glad you're not the one making decsions about it. Cuba and Russia once posed a nuclear threat to us, but we managed to survive that without going to war with either of them. For you, it's either "Surrender Monkey" or all out war, you lack the vision to see ANY middle ground... just like your fearless leader W.

 

[jarhead]

Kicksave:

I WAS in the military, as you might surmise from my pen name on this board.

That said, you seem to have forgotten some history. The Cuban missle crisis of the 60's, was WON, by the JFK administration, by confronting the Soviets......not by appeasement.

Serving, or not serving in the military, has no bearing on the position one has on political matters. There are just as many idiots in the military, as their are in the population at large.

You have no special insight as a former military person, unless perhaps you rose to the position of Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff.

 

[DarnNearaJet]

Are you serious. Pakistan supports terror!?!? For cryin' out loud, Pakistan is the country that allowed U.S. forces air space and other assets to chase the Talibam out of Afganistan.

Is North Korea next...........you make a good case for it. I support your view there! Yes, North Korea could well be next if diplomacy fails.

Yes, as a matter of fact I am serious. pakistan has a record of supporting Islamic fundamentalism and terror (so does Saudi Arabia and a lot of other "allies.") Lately their terror has been directed against India and their age-old dispute against Kashmir.

PS: Where do you think Osama is these days?

 

[jarhead]

DarnNearaJet

I think (but don't know) that Osama is hiding in either eastern Afghanistan, or western Pakistan.

What's your point?

 

[KickSave]

Kicksave:

I WAS in the military, as you might surmise from my pen name on this board.

That said, you seem to have forgotten some history. The Cuban missle crisis of the 60's, was WON, by the JFK administration, by confronting the Soviets......not by appeasement.

Serving, or not serving in the military, has no bearing on the position one has on political matters. There are just as many idiots in the military, as their are in the population at large.

You have no special insight as a former military person, unless perhaps you rose to the position of Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff.

Who said anything about apeasement? There are still other solutions between total apeasement/surrender monkey, and all out war. Funny you mention Kennedy, and his compromise, of a blockade. Never heard Bush even once discuss any solutions besides bombs away. That's my point. I have not forgotten history, I clearly remember a president with vision difusing a nuclear situation, without killing 1000's of people in the process. But our current president and Mr Builder, both lack the vision to see anything other than pease monkey style apeasement, and all out war. They lack middle ground, and vision, and people die as a result. Easier for someone to preach about how right it is, when they never risked their necks serving the cause in the first place!

And it's not ones intillegence that grants them right to question the governements military policy, it's one's standing. Just like how the Conservitives hammered Clintons ability to be Commander in Chief after he was declared a draft dodger, I find it distasteful that someone who never served in the military is talking about the tough choices Americans make to protect our freedom. Apparently the choice was too difficult for -some- of us to make, but yet they have no problem preaching on about it.

 

[Timebuilder]

I WAS IN THE MILITARY, you weren't! So what's this hard choice you are whining about?

Apparently, it is you, sir, who is doing the whining. Lacking a substantive idea, you decide to try to attack my credibility as a military trained man who did not serve in the military. So be it.

I had to explain this once before about a year or so ago, to another poster, but it bears a second mention.

Unlike other countries, we do not live under a military dictatorship. Our military moves at the wish of the executive branch. A civilian branch. Being a current or former member of the military doesn't provide any special standing for making an authoritative assesment of a military action. For example, all of the retired officers hired by the networks as talking heads (a broadcasting term) are not getting the same stream of information as their active duty counterparts. If they do get some firsthand reports, as I sometiomes do, they can't make that info known to anyone else in any precise way. Sometimes these actions by our military, at the request of the white house, have popular support and sometimes they are simply a hard choice, made by a leader rather than a poll taker. But if you like polls, here goes: you said that the president's approval is dropping "like a brick". You are more than welcome to your mischaracterization. Even a 30 percent approval is just fine with me, thank you very much. Even a poll by the Iraqui people shows support for our presence, at least for the next year or so.

Cuba and Russia once posed a nuclear threat to us, but we managed to survive that without going to war with either of them.

It was the certain idea that a war would result in nuclear annihilation that made the cuban missle crisis in particular, and the cold war in general, both sucessful examples of military brinksmanship.

For you, it's either "Surrender Monkey" or all out war, you lack the vision to see ANY middle ground... just like your fearless leader W.

I'd hoped I wouldn't have to remind you of the ten years of "middle ground" as you call it that we had just given to Sadaam. What you really mean is appeasement, which would not have worked in Cuba, has not worked in Iraq, and will not work in North Korea.

I'd be very interested to hear a description of a plan, ANY plan, that respresents an effective "middle ground" in these conflicts. If one exists, no one, not even the "hate America first" crowd are talking about it.

 

[Timebuilder]

Apparently the choice was too difficult for -some- of us to make, but yet they have no problem preaching on about it.

I can take you to wasington and show you a wall where my friends established a whole bunch of standing for all of us. To compare a citizen who loves America to a slippery criminal like Clinton is an affront to anyone who has made the ultimate scarifice. It is the civilians who run military policy, not the generals themselves. In this case, I am in good company.

And it's not ones intillegence that grants them right to question the governements military policy, it's one's standing.

That standing is citizen. If other citizens think you are wrong, then you will be criticized, just like you are critcizing me. But you have NO standing to say that someone has to have served in the military in order to lead, preach, comment, criticize, or otherwise handicap the results of a conflict. I happen to have some unique background and 50 some years of life expereince on both sides of the aisle to give me the insights that I have.

Having had both opinions in this discussion, I feel my current position is superior to my previous postion. And yours.

 

[jarhead]

KickSave

During the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, I was nearing the end of my four year enlistment in the Marine Corps. I can still remember it, as I pondered whether my enlistment might be extended. I can still remember the news reels on TV showing the covers rolling off the tops of the ICBM silos in North Dakota and Wyoming. Steam or nitrogen venting off from the launch silos. This is as close as this nation ever came to total nuclear exchange with another super power. The military was at DEFCON ONE.

DEFCON 5 Normal peacetime readiness
DEFCON 4 Normal, increased intelligence and strengthened security measures
DEFCON 3 Increase in force readiness above normal readiness
DEFCON 2 Further Increase in force readiness, but less than maximum readiness
DEFCON 1 Maximum force readiness.


You somehow come to a conclusion, that this was a compromise? Do you know how close this nation came to having millions die from a thermo nuclear exchange of ICBMs? Yet you criticize current leadership, for taking a war stance where to date, 142 military men and women have died. Had the blockade brought Chairman Kruscheve(sp) to another decision than the one he took, those millions would have indeed died. You see, KickSave, you have the advantage of hind sight here. Had it gone the other way, and you were still on this planet, you would have been the first to criticize JFK. But, since it worked out, you hold him up as the model that GWB should emulate. Ya know what......taking Saddam down now, was a whole lot better than doing it when he could have been a far more serious threat of military and WMD retaliation.

If you have never watched it, rent the movie, "The Missiles of October" It is very sobering. I would always opt for taking down a tyrant before the despot could cause a global catastrophe.

 

[jarhead]

Correction

Forty one years ago is too long to truct my memory, so I did a bacgroubd check on my statement about DEFCON ONE.

I was incorrect.

Here is the factual information:

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US Strategic Air Command was placed on DEFCON 2 for the first time in history, while the rest of US military commands (with the exception of the US Air Forces in Europe) went on DEFCON 3. On 22 October 1962 SAC responded by establishing Defense Condition Three (DEFCON III), and ordered B-52s on airborne alert. Tension grew and the next day SAC declared DEFCON II, a heightened state of alert, ready to strike targets within the Soviet Union.

 

[KickSave]

Jarhead, I've seen Missiles of October, I know how close we were. Of course the big difference between then and now, is that then there were actual loaded nuclear missile pointing right at us, and now we have little more than an unverified intelligence report from some other countries secret service about attempts to buy uranium.

Yeah, I can see how close we were to nuclear anialation this past March. [/sarcasm]

Does anyone here honestly, in their heart, truly believe that the President did not in any way exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam, or mislead us on the specifics or the generalities of what that threat really entailed? Do you really believe that Bush had rock solid evidence that we were in imminent danger, but that he's withholding it for any reason? Do you really believe that we exhausted every possible alternitive to solving the "threat" Saddam posed?

I have a hard time believing any of those things. We are sorely lacking for any proof that those conditions ever really occured. But you all can choose what you want to believe. Blind faith is a wonderful thing.

 

[jarhead]

KickSave

To my recollection, Cuba did not yet have loaded, operational missiles ready to fire at the U.S. That is why we (U.S.) were going to stop any more progress, by stopping the installation and completion of offensive missiles in Cuba.

Cuba was a client state of the USSR, which DID have the capability to launch ICBMs at us.

So, why do you think JFK stopped the Cubans from progressing with nuclear missles? Just like in Iraq, they were not able to be launched, when we discovered the program, with U-2 spy photos. Do you not see a parallel?

Or, should the Cuban program have been allowed to go forward until the missiles were able to be launched?

 

[Timebuilder]

Does anyone here honestly, in their heart, truly believe that the President did not in any way exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam, or mislead us on the specifics or the generalities of what that threat really entailed? Do you really believe that Bush had rock solid evidence that we were in imminent danger, but that he's withholding it for any reason? Do you really believe that we exhausted every possible alternitive to solving the "threat" Saddam posed?

I believe that there was no intentional misleading of ANYONE, which includes the American people. Rock solid evedence? By what standard? I believe the evidence of a threat to the United States was "sufficient" for us to act. I believe that much of our current knowlege about WMD's IS being withheld, but not for a decietful purpose (I'll send a note to Bob Graham on that spelling). We are currently developing new intel, and are following up on intel that we had already gathered to date. This is not the time to reveal the content of this intel, as that might jeopardize lives and the success of the operations. Did we exhaust every possible alternative? How would we know when we did? We took a critical lookat the nature of events over the past 10 years of UN influence, and saw the freedom to plan and plot that it afforded the Sadaam regime. We decided that it was time to act, and when compared to almost any conflict in history, we achieved an almost miraculous amount of success in an incredibly short time, with a minimal loss of life for a war.

I have a hard time believing any of those things.

I'm okay with that. You don't have to believe those things.

Blind faith is a wonderful thing.

"Blind faith" is a matter of opinion. You think it applies. I don't. I have enough knowlege about the man that I think that he is trustworthy in general, and can be assumed to be trustworthy in this matter until proved otherwise. I couldn't say that about the former President.

If you believed Clinton when he said "I did not have sex with that woman", then certainly, a mighty burst of Blind Faith would have been necessary.

 

[KickSave]

Timebuilder, not that it has anything to do with this discusssion whatsoever, except for what you want to make it, but I didn't believe Clinton when he said that either. The big difference though, to me, is that he lied about a matter of personal issue to a judge, whereas Bush (just like Reagon on Iran Contra and Nixon on Watergate), lied to the Amercian people about something that DIRECTLY effects, the American people. It's not identical, but to me when a president lies about matters of life, death, war and elections, it's more grievous than lying about getting a blow job. Obviously there are people who think Nixon, Reagan, and now Bush are completely honest, and Clinton is a slimy criminal, but that's politics at it's most divisive at work.


Yo're free to feel differently of course. And since you believe in everything Bush has fed us, then there's nothing left to say.

I just wonder how long it will be, with no WMD to be found anywhere, and how long guys like you will continue to make excuses like "I believe that much of our current knowlege about WMD's IS being withheld, but not for a decietful purpose "


How convenient of an excuse is THAT? How long do you suppose Blair and Bush will take the heat for this to protect a few operatives in the field? Awfully noble of them, eh?
Or awfully foolish? Depends on if you believe in things that there is no evidence of. But lets not get back on the religion debate again, ok? LOL


/Kicksave out