posted on July 31, 2004 01:26:36 PM new
Actually, all the political pundits are claiming the left has hijacked the right's claim to values, strong military, etc., etc.
I thought at 18 you are considered an adult? If a kid joins the military and knows full well that the military may at any time go into war, there's not much room for the parents to do anything. There is no choice there for a parent to make.
posted on July 31, 2004 01:30:14 PM new
No, kiara, that's a man with absolutely NO convictions. A man who puts his finger in the air to see which way the *current* political wind is blowing and then, since he totally lacks the courage of his convictions, re-adjusts his positions for political gain.
President Bush on the other hand IS a man of his convictions. And he did what needed to be done....and still holds the position that the world is better off without saddam in power....NO MATTER what the most recent polls show. He felt it was the right thing to do....he still does. That's taking a stand....and sticking to one's convictions. Something the ultra-left has no concept of, obviously.
Your posts about my country's President and how we use our military always gives me a chuckle....since anyone who looks to your country's military can see how it's not valued at all....left in disrepair....going bankrupt...etc.
Our liberal dems appear to share those same lack of values your country has towards it's military...your fighting power...it's not important. All the while you can't even protect yourselves. That's footsteps I don't want to see my country follow in....and they will if an ultra-liberal like kerry is elected. It was bad enough with clinton, a more moderate dem and his lack of support for our Armed Forces.....kerry would only be more radical....no matter the *current* position he's taking to get elected.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 31, 2004 01:38:13 PM new
Neroter, I think parents have a great deal of influnence on on their children even after age 18. But my question is hypothetical. If you could choose would you sacrifice the life of your child in the Iraq war. So far, no one has answered, Yes.
posted on July 31, 2004 01:41:07 PM new
Linda, it would be a lot easier to read your comments if you would get rid of all that crap at the end of your comments. Do you really need more than one signature line to support your views?
posted on July 31, 2004 02:03:24 PM newSo far, no one has answered, Yes.
It's been answered...you just don't like what you're being told....it was a LOADED question. No parent thinks it's automatic that they're going to be sacrificed at all. Few will be....most won't be.
Still don't get it huh?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 31, 2004 02:07:24 PM newAnd also again....a parent DOES NOT CHOOSE for their child so the question starts on a false premise.
Linda, you are wrong that parents do not choose. Is some cases they do have to give their consent so it some cases the parents can choose for their children.
One would think that age would be a simple category. One is either old enough, or too old, right? Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work that way. By federal law (10 U.S.C., 510), the minimum age for enlistment in the United States Military is 17 (with parental consent) and the maximum age is 35. This is to ensure than anyone who enlists on active duty can be eligible for retirement (20 years of service) at the mandatory age of 55 (60 in some cases). However, DOD policy allows the individual services to specify the maximum age of enlistment based upon their own unique requirements. The individual services have set the following maximum ages for non-prior service enlistment:
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 31, 2004 02:18:38 PM new
Yes it is hypothetical and your reaching to some moral parallels you yourself dont even believe in = to try to get the people on the right to say yes they would. so then you can say they are awful people and awful parents.
And at 18, you are pretty much considered an adult no matter the influence of your parents. If you want to join the military -- they cannot stop you.
posted on July 31, 2004 02:32:39 PM new
I'm pointing out the fact that the Iraq war is not in defense of our country or any other country. It's a needless war and not worthy of the death of any human being.
posted on July 31, 2004 03:20:29 PM new
Tell me, Ebayauctionguy, how do those wars compare with Bush's war against Iraq?..a war without any cause in which the Bush administration lied to the world and to the American people... ignoring intelligence information and without regard to the opinion of the international community. This was not a war to defend people here or anywhere. Iraq's neighbors were not threatened by Iraq and neither were we. This was a preemptive invasion against a country not responsible for the acts of terrorism against the United States. What sense does it make to waste our resources and the lives of our troops along with the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and soldiers in the country of Iraq? In addition to the lost lives and destruction of an innocent country this war has served to inflame terrorists and make our country less safe and less respected throughout the world.
It was criminal to sacrifice even one life for such a needless and ruthless invasion of an imperialistic administration such as we have now.
Our soldiers are vital to the defense of this country and not a single soldier's life should be endangered needlessly in a war that is only waged for imperialistic adventure by an incompetent leader.
posted on July 31, 2004 03:30:37 PM new
:: It's a needless war and not worthy of the death of any human being. ::
Well Helen, on that I can agree with you. However, we cant go backwards. But I'd like to ask you, Is ANY war worthy of the death of our sons, daughters, mothers, fathers...to us personally? I would say, probably not. Those other wars were fought for a belief. Just as this one is.
btw, its come to be known THERE ARE terrorists in Iraq. They're called the insurgents for now. Most of whom are being funded by among other places - Saudi and the rest of the ME countries.
Again, we are wasting our breath. They just don't get it, never will. They are about as bright as Bush which is why they are his followers.
Cheryl
. . .if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist- I really believe he is Antichrist- I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend.. . - War and Peace, Tolstoy
posted on July 31, 2004 03:58:45 PM new
One thing I've loved during this campaign season has been how the dems can so easily overlook what their own party WAS saying and claim this President lied to us. They all had the same information from our intelligence....the same intelligence agency that kerry voted to both reduce funding for - and voted to not increase funding for.
That's what many political partisans say now about the minimal evidence of weapons of mass destruction found on the ground in Iraq following the invasion.
John Kerry says it. Al Gore says it. It's become something of a mantra for the anti-Bush crowd. They are counting on fooling enough people into believing they really mean it.
Yet, the only way they can believe this themselves is if they, too, were lying to the American people before Bush was ever elected.
You see, Bill Clinton said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction 1998:
The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.
Hillary Clinton said it in 2002:
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile and delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of Sept. 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
John Kerry said it in 2003:
Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.
Al Gore said it in 2002:
Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. Yet now, Al Gore claims Bush "betrayed this country. He played on our fears."
What has changed since those comments were made? Only the minds of partisan politicians with an agenda different than national security and unity on foreign-policy matters.
It's an election year. That's what has changed.
Keep in mind, Kerry, as a U.S. senator, had access to much of the same classified information available to the president of the United States. If indeed Bush lied, why did Kerry allow him to lie? Why didn't he perform due diligence and examine the classified files the United States had on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs before he voted to commit troops to the invasion?
I think most of you know the answer.
Kerry was doing the expedient thing then, and what he perceives to be the expedient thing now.
Back then, he believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq based on years of intelligence information – the same information President Bush relied upon for his decision to go to war.
Now Kerry has an opportunity to score political points for his presidential bid by accusing his opponent – the sitting president of the United States – of lying, of purposely deceiving the American people, of lying to Congress.
For an opportunist like Kerry, who has never been held accountable for his political career of flip-flops, this was an opportunity that proved irresistible.
Kerry and the Democrats will say anything to win. They will do anything to win. This is not just an indictment of their ideas. It is an indictment of their character as people. It is an indictment of them as Americans. And it is certainly an indictment of their ability to lead.
-----------
posted on July 31, 2004 04:07:03 PM newEbayauctionguy, I believe that I did answer your question. Yes, I believe that there are unavoidable wars such as the ones that you mentioned and in those wars, I would expect my children to serve our military. Iraq is not, as I have described to you in my comment above.
BTW...Have you thought about answering Rusty's question lately? It was a simple question, really. I believe he asked you to name one accomplishment of Vice President Cheney.
I'm fininshed with you.
Neroter, I don't believe that this war is being fought for a belief. I understand that freedom and Democracy has been used to justify the war but I don't believe it.
I read about the situation in Iraq daily and I know that there are some terrorists in Iraq now where there were none before the Bush invasion. They, along with the insurgents have taken advantage of Bush's lack of strategy or plan for peace after the war.
posted on July 31, 2004 04:13:51 PM new
LindaK... Your posts are so fricken boring..please remember, it isn't the quantity, but the quality... sheesh.. give us a break, will you!
posted on July 31, 2004 04:17:43 PM new
EbayAuctionGuy - Helen said to you:
I'm fininshed with you. LOL She's made that promise to me a million times.....hasn't honored it though.
----
Remember helen whined about everything our country was doing so wrong in Afghanistan too. It's not just Iraq with her.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 31, 2004 04:21:41 PM new
Yes, maggie, I completely understand that the dems here don't want to be forced to view the facts....rather than how they'd like to see them presented.
Don't like my posts? There's an ignore button....use it.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 31, 2004 04:24:28 PM new
Linda_K, what's the war in Iraq got to do with Canada?? They didn't stir up that hornets' nest. (Ya, I know.... when all else fails, let's bash Canada because kiara lives there now)
Canada did immediately send troops into Afghanistan to fight the terrorists. You may have forgotten because Bush wants you to forget, that's the country where the terrorists were before they were all allowed to come into Iraq and it's the country that should have been focused on to begin with and perhaps the world wouldn’t be in the mess it is now because of a non-thinking leader like Bush who acted on impulse.
These impulsive actions of his have needlessly cost the lives of many innocent people, among them many young soldiers who were misguided by lies and sacrificed their lives there. May they never be forgotten.
BTW, Linda_K. Save some time and don’t bother with your usual Clinton answer….. I’ve heard it before.
posted on July 31, 2004 04:34:35 PM new
I believe what I said about how your country's lack of making your military a priority was pretty clear.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 31, 2004 04:46:31 PM new
Canada has been working on their defense policy since 9/11 and it is a priority. Canada is a peace-loving country.
At least Canada has the good sense to send their military where it's most needed. Not like Bush who sacrificed his to show his Daddy what a "big" boy he was!
posted on July 31, 2004 05:07:20 PM newit isn't the quantity, but the quality.
LOL still waiting for just one post from you maggienuthins...
Kiara, good call the Canadian military is inept, of course they can be with the World's only Super Power as their neighbor...
Do you think we would allow our limted intelligent brethern to the north to be invaded? Naw... we would protect you just like any big brother would protect his mentally retarded younger brother...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Homosexuality is a choice that can be corrected...
posted on July 31, 2004 05:13:51 PM new
I agree the Canadian military has been sadly neglected for years. Hopefully more funding will go into it now as 9/11 was a wake-up call for many.
posted on July 31, 2004 05:25:09 PM new
Here's what I don't get about the Dems claims that Bush lied, and we are talking about some high ranking officials in the Democratic party here. If Bush did in fact lie and all of these high ranking officials really do beleive that he lied then why is Bush not up for impeachment?? Clinton lied about something as miniscule as a damn blowjob and he was impeached. The reason why is because these high ranking officials really DON'T beleive that Bush lied.
posted on July 31, 2004 05:37:27 PM new
Helenjw. NO NO NO NO NO NO, I would not sacrifice the life of my son to secure Falluja. My son was brought up to only fight for the TRUTH.
Linda_K,yellowstone,replaymedia,twelvepole, neroter12,logansdad,ebayauctionguy. YOU HAVE JUST EXPOSED YOURSELVES. YOU ALL JUST SHOWED HOW INSIGNIFICANT YOUR OTHER POSTS AND COMMENTS HAVE BEEN. YOU PEOPLE DO NOTHING BUT SPREAD POISONOUS TWISTED UNTRUE WORDS.
posted on July 31, 2004 05:42:26 PM new
Littlepeepee
I think you need to take Logansdad back to your side, he's not one of ours and we certainly don't want him.
posted on July 31, 2004 06:01:41 PM new
There is a difference between "used to have them" and "doesn't have them anymore." As in Saddam used to have them, but no longer had them when Bush was hurrying us into a war with no foundation.
Just as there is a difference between "imminent danger" and "hasn't bothered anyone outside his borders for 8 or 9 years." Which was the case when Bush was hurrying us into a war with no foundation.
And there is a very real difference between real American values and going to war because there might, someday, be a threat to us.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
