I'd personally like to thank any obama voters

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

I didn't get to finish my last post, I had to change computers. Anyway, it's not only "revenge." I feel that we must protect our country and that "revenge" is a way of protection. We have to send the message that actions that were taken would not be handled lightly. We want those nations who terrorize others to fear us. I just wished if they wanted to overthrow Saddam, that they would have seized all terror activity in Afghanistan to see if they could capture Bin Laden first. Give the UN enough time and see if we could have a larger coalition rather than having to send our entire military. I know not every American Military personell was in the middle east, but it seemed as if we were spread way too thin. What would have happened if we had a large scale attack on us. I think we have succeeded in the war on terror, at least at home. Abroad has had some victories and accomplished alot. My main gripe was the timing of Iraq. I just felt that it was not where we needed to be at that time. Terrorism is something that unfortunately will be around forever. Piracy is just another form of it that seems to have jumped to the front page as of late. We need countries strong to deter this type of behavior and yes I know Iraq was one that needed to be changed, just not at that time.

 

There are many levels of victory. To me, total victory is what we are looking for. In, job completed, out, HOME! Too many lives were lost.

 

I think we see eye to eye more than we think. We just have some differences in why and how with some of this. For the most part, this post and your last was great. There is no reason to resort to questioning someone's patriotism and what not. I agree I did the same and apologize. I think we both want what's right for the country, just in different ways.

 

a revenge type of victory doesn't secure anything or prevent more terrorism, example killing a mob boss doesn't stop organized crime, someone else just becomes the boss. The u.s. was wise to focus on the bigger scheme of terrorism instead of concentrating on revenge. They still wouldn't have captured bin laden in the big scheme of 8 years even with a lot more troops as has been written.

The only battle in which more troops might have captured bin laden was the oct battle of tora bora high up in the mountains and in that case they requested a lot more army rangers, but the pentagon didn't respond and that was simply a tactical error of particularly battle, they didn't realize the miscalculation till hindsight but those things happen. Those types of errors have happened throughout the war even in iraq..

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

"Actually I was right about your disgrace. I am proud of everyone for what they have done when they were called to duty and yes even YOU! There are a lot of those men and women who when away from their company, tour, or comanding officers, and so forth would tell you they disagree with what happened there. I have heard it myself. You may disagree, but you go and do your job and they did. One is working on his second trip to Iraq."

 

The notion that a lot of soldiers and marines disagree but won't say anything is completely false, a few do, but the majority overwhelmingly support what they do. the few that don't of course complain to those who would listen most, the liberal side or the media, and of course they tell that "a lot of people disagree with the war to', of course they would say that.

The anti war crowd and the media are running jokes in the military.

 

 

 

 

"I understand what sacrifice is , ask all the moms, dads, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, and so on that can't hold their loved ones or tell them they love them all for something they may not have been the right move. If they were lost defending the country, then I'm sure those people could deal with their loss better. There are many who feel those men and women were lost for reasons other than what they needed to be "sacrificed" for."

 

Wrong again, most overwhelmingly believe in it.

 

I have never undermined anything our military does. I questioned the reason some of it was done. YOU LOVE to turn something said into something else to fit your argument. I was proud the day that statue fell. I can tell you exactly where I was what I was doing and who I was with. I was proud when our SEALS took out those 3 pirates last week, go look at the post I made. I've been proud of everything done in Afghanistan, I know work is being done and progress is being made , but all I was saying is that if we would have concentrated our efforts there , we may have caught the man we were looking for. That sir is questioning the decisions of Bush's Administration, not the soldiers. Don't twist my words, that's disgraceful.

 

Actually another big misconception is that people can "support the soldiers without supporting the war". Perhaps some people even think that they're supporting the soldiers

and marines, but the military doesn't agree with that way of thinking, that's simply the way it is.

[fieldgeneral 10]

"Actually I was right about your disgrace. I am proud of everyone for what they have done when they were called to duty and yes even YOU! There are a lot of those men and women who when away from their company, tour, or comanding officers, and so forth would tell you they disagree with what happened there. I have heard it myself. You may disagree, but you go and do your job and they did. One is working on his second trip to Iraq."

 

The notion that a lot of soldiers and marines disagree but won't say anything is completely false, a few do, but the majority overwhelmingly support what they do. the few that don't of course complain to those who would listen most, the liberal side or the media, and of course they tell that "a lot of people disagree with the war to', of course they would say that.

The anti war crowd and the media are running jokes in the military.

 

 

 

 

"I understand what sacrifice is , ask all the moms, dads, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, and so on that can't hold their loved ones or tell them they love them all for something they may not have been the right move. If they were lost defending the country, then I'm sure those people could deal with their loss better. There are many who feel those men and women were lost for reasons other than what they needed to be "sacrificed" for."

 

Wrong again, most overwhelmingly believe in it.

 

I have never undermined anything our military does. I questioned the reason some of it was done. YOU LOVE to turn something said into something else to fit your argument. I was proud the day that statue fell. I can tell you exactly where I was what I was doing and who I was with. I was proud when our SEALS took out those 3 pirates last week, go look at the post I made. I've been proud of everything done in Afghanistan, I know work is being done and progress is being made , but all I was saying is that if we would have concentrated our efforts there , we may have caught the man we were looking for. That sir is questioning the decisions of Bush's Administration, not the soldiers. Don't twist my words, that's disgraceful.

 

Actually another big misconception is that people can "support the soldiers without supporting the war". Perhaps some people even think that they're supporting the soldiers

and marines, but the military doesn't agree with that way of thinking, that's simply the way it is.

 

You can't speak for everyone in the military period. I have talked to several and read comments from others who disagreed with things, some of which did their job, even though they disagreed.

 

That last statement is completely opinion. I can support my military but question the decision making of my government. It happens on this board all the time. I have never questioned our military or their skills or training. I do however question the timing of some things. Once again, you can twist and turn anything you want, but these things are just as you put it WRONG.

[Guest JJBrickface]

Actually another big misconception is that people can "support the soldiers without supporting the war". Perhaps some people even think that they're supporting the soldiers

and marines, but the military doesn't agree with that way of thinking, that's simply the way it is.

 

You can't speak for everyone in the military period. I have talked to several and read comments from others who disagreed with things, some of which did their job, even though they disagreed.

 

That last statement is completely opinion. I can support my military but question the decision making of my government. It happens on this board all the time. I have never questioned our military or their skills or training. I do however question the timing of some things. Once again, you can twist and turn anything you want, but these things are just as you put it WRONG.

 

Its not that you question the war. Many liberals especially those in Congress spoke out saying that the US could not win the war, basically belittling the soldiers efforts. Once again it was the rhetoric coming from these people.

Edited April 22, 2009 by JJBrickface

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

 

You can't speak for everyone in the military period. I have talked to several and read comments from others who disagreed with things, some of which did their job, even though they disagreed.

 

"That last statement is completely opinion. I can support my military but question the decision making of my government. It happens on this board all the time. I have never questioned our military or their skills or training. I do however question the timing of some things. Once again, you can twist and turn anything you want, but these things are just as you put it WRONG.

 

 

 

Did I speak for everyone in the military? Did I not write that a few disagree? I spent enough time in it to know what the majority mindset of the military is and isn't.

You don't speak for everyone in your profession either but you could better know the overall mindset of people in it than those who aren't or haven't ever been in that profession.

 

It's opinion, yours that you're supporting the troops while opposing what they're doing.

As was already mentioned in response, suggesting the u.s. couldn't win, the troops, or undermining their efforts by suggesting they were losing, was not supporting the troops.

[fieldgeneral 10]

Did I speak for everyone in the military? Did I not write that a few disagree? I spent enough time in it to know what the majority mindset of the military is and isn't.

You don't speak for everyone in your profession either but you could better know the overall mindset of people in it than those who aren't or haven't ever been in that profession.

 

It's opinion, yours that you're supporting the troops while opposing what they're doing.

As was already mentioned in response, suggesting the u.s. couldn't win, the troops, or undermining their efforts by suggesting they were losing, was not supporting the troops.

 

A statement that is completely OPINION. Once again, I support my troops in all that they do even if I disagree with the task that has been handed to them. If you were in the military and disagreed with the reasons you were going to war, but didn't have the option to go, are you not being supportive either? Doeas that mean that you agree with the government's choice to go to war no matter what? I can support the men and women that are our military and not agree with those who send them into battle.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

A statement that is completely OPINION. Once again, I support my troops in all that they do even if I disagree with the task that has been handed to them. If you were in the military and disagreed with the reasons you were going to war, but didn't have the option to go, are you not being supportive either? Doeas that mean that you agree with the government's choice to go to war no matter what? I can support the men and women that are our military and not agree with those who send them into battle.

 

 

Disagree with politicians all you care to before a war, when the war starts, people should quit opposing it if they do, till after it's over. Opposing the war, suggesting they're losing, ect., do nothing but encourage the enemy to fight harder and to outlast the u.s.., that's not support. How can someone suggest to tell troops we support you we just don't support what you're doing?

 

eta tell ya what, if you have children, a daughter maybe, tell her you support her, you just don't support her cheerleading, or her 4h or whatever, see if she thinks you're supporting her.

 

"If you were in the military and disagreed with the reasons you were going to war, but didn't have the option to go, are you not being supportive either? Doeas that mean that you agree with the government's choice to go to war no matter what?"

 

Not certain what your questioning with that.

Edited April 23, 2009 by buzzsawBeaver

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Difference in marines response to bush, to their response to obama

this is fun to watch, you might consider the difference and draw conclusions on what troops want and agree with yourselves.

 

http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topics/marines-response-to-bush?xgs=1

[fieldgeneral 10]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7272544&page=1

 

"CHEERED WILDLY"

 

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2006/12/tns.troopspol06l1229/

 

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/

 

I mean we can find media outlets to say what we want to some extent.

 

My last two links have research conducted from active duty personell.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7272544&page=1

 

"CHEERED WILDLY"

 

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2006/12/tns.troopspol06l1229/

 

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/

 

I mean we can find media outlets to say what we want to some extent.

 

My last two links have research conducted from active duty personell.

 

 

 

Polls know who to poll to have results to reflect their bias, if they prefer more anti war propaganda, the best they can do is go to some reserve unit of non combat soldiers who's orders in iraq were extended for a few months and poll them, knowing their moral, or another poll could poll marines and infantry or cavalry and show overwhelming support basically 100% of the time. Regardless, there can be bias.

Never though was there a time when during the war when the military wasn't overwhelmingly confident in their ability to be successful there. I could care less how out of context some questions must have been used to achieve any results that say otherwise, of the few liberals in the military, some are in journalism as with any other field. The military times and the military overall have been very American and good enough to always show an opposing voice from the other side, even if outnumbered, something that's rare, if not non existent, from the left.

There isn't bias in the numbers of votes in elections however, this past election was over 80% republican, that's with me lending the democratic vote the benefit of the doubt.

 

Of course all that's a big reason I often just toss down the trump card and question if someone was there or not, or if they've ever served or not, because media and articles can be biased, and most anyone who was there knows the military has been overwhelmingly for the war, anyone who has ever served knows the military is overwhelmingly conservative.

Consider that I wrote conservative, it wouldn't be fair to use democrat or republican in that because it's only been in more recent presidential elections that the democrats moved so far left. In past other generations there was a lot more common ground between democrats and republicans.

That's not the case present time, liberals and liberal opinions overall in the military are very uncommon.

Any attempt to suggest otherwise on and on only reduces the petty amount of credibility you have..

[fieldgeneral 10]

Polls know who to poll to have results to reflect their bias, if they prefer more anti war propaganda, the best they can do is go to some reserve unit of non combat soldiers who's orders in iraq were extended for a few months and poll them, knowing their moral, or another poll could poll marines and infantry or cavalry and show overwhelming support basically 100% of the time. Regardless, there can be bias.

Never though was there a time when during the war when the military wasn't overwhelmingly confident in their ability to be successful there. I could care less how out of context some questions must have been used to achieve any results that say otherwise, of the few liberals in the military, some are in journalism as with any other field. The military times and the military overall have been very American and good enough to always show an opposing voice from the other side, even if outnumbered, something that's rare, if not non existent, from the left.

There isn't bias in the numbers of votes in elections however, this past election was over 80% republican, that's with me lending the democratic vote the benefit of the doubt.

 

Of course all that's a big reason I often just toss down the trump card and question if someone was there or not, or if they've ever served or not, because media and articles can be biased, and most anyone who was there knows the military has been overwhelmingly for the war, anyone who has ever served knows the military is overwhelmingly conservative.

Consider that I wrote conservative, it wouldn't be fair to use democrat or republican in that because it's only been in more recent presidential elections that the democrats moved so far left. In past other generations there was a lot more common ground between democrats and republicans.

That's not the case present time, liberals and liberal opinions overall in the military are very uncommon.

Any attempt to suggest otherwise on and on only reduces the petty amount of credibility you have..

 

 

You crumble any credibility you have by making statements about people as you just did. It's pretty ridiculous and unfortunate. I feel sorry.

 

I simply posted information similar to the information that started this thread. Don't tell me that you have never tried it. Troops will never speak out against a war in their units. They have to believe in what they are doing. But, there are many who disagree.

 

We can both go all day long finding articles and video that supports our side. The truth is, polls can be biased as you can choose who to poll. Elections are non biased, but the actions of some can deter voter turn out. Nevertheless, our last presidential election spoke for a large part of our country. The part that voted for Obama.

[bucfan64 307]

You crumble any credibility you have by making statements about people as you just did. It's pretty ridiculous and unfortunate. I feel sorry.

 

I simply posted information similar to the information that started this thread. Don't tell me that you have never tried it. Troops will never speak out against a war in their units. They have to believe in what they are doing. But, there are many who disagree.

 

We can both go all day long finding articles and video that supports our side. The truth is, polls can be biased as you can choose who to poll. Elections are non biased, but the actions of some can deter voter turn out. Nevertheless, our last presidential election spoke for a large part of our country. The part that voted for Obama.

 

Election polls can be biased, by way of misinformation, which I believe is what you were referring to when you said that some can deter voter turn out. What I mean is whether it be political, racial or ethnic bias, it could determine the outcome of an election. Unfortunately it is allegiances like this that prevents a person from being elected who might otherwise had done a better job and in some cases it puts the best person in office. I agree that Barack Obama won the election based on Electoral votes and on popular vote. Of those that voted he was the clear choice for president, if all of America voted, I still think the result would have been the same. I disagree with the choice, but I understand many of the circumstances that brought about his election and I respect the honest ones.

 

I also know that several folks were ready to get rid of "W" after he was elected by the PEOPLE. Facts are, if we want to "change" the situation it needs to be done at the polls.

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

You crumble any credibility you have by making statements about people as you just did. It's pretty ridiculous and unfortunate. I feel sorry.

 

Whoah. Lets back up the train. What did Buzzsaw say in the post you, FG, quoted, that was so bad about anyone? Am I missing something? Nothing jumped out to me as rediculous.

 

Oh, and before you contradict yourself again, yes I can read. ;)

[fieldgeneral 10]

Election polls can be biased, by way of misinformation, which I believe is what you were referring to when you said that some can deter voter turn out. What I mean is whether it be political, racial or ethnic bias, it could determine the outcome of an election. Unfortunately it is allegiances like this that prevents a person from being elected who might otherwise had done a better job and in some cases it puts the best person in office. I agree that Barack Obama won the election based on Electoral votes and on popular vote. Of those that voted he was the clear choice for president, if all of America voted, I still think the result would have been the same. I disagree with the choice, but I understand many of the circumstances that brought about his election and I respect the honest ones.

 

I also know that several folks were ready to get rid of "W" after he was elected by the PEOPLE. Facts are, if we want to "change" the situation it needs to be done at the polls.

 

I agree with you completely.

 

It runs both ways. There were reports of men being hired to drive around in black unmarked vehicles, walking around CERTAIN neighborhoods, carrying clipboards in suits with certain law enforcement pins or insignias on them. This was done only on the day of the election in Philadelphia.

 

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/09/21/intimidation/print.html

 

It was also reported to have happened in Florida during the Bush / Gore race.

 

I'm not saying it was all true, just saying this is an incident that had been reported that could change the outcome. It happens in all facets of elections. It's happened for as long as the country has been alive. During the early elections of this country, they would post law enforcement officials at the polls to catch or deter those who have yet to pay their taxes. Before someone says they shouldn't be allowed to vote, think again, everyone has that right, at that time the men who didn't get to vote had the right too.

[fieldgeneral 10]

Whoah. Lets back up the train. What did Buzzsaw say in the post you, FG, quoted, that was so bad about anyone? Am I missing something? Nothing jumped out to me as rediculous.

 

Oh, and before you contradict yourself again, yes I can read. ;)

 

 

Congratulations! Whoah, hit the brakes. Where was it that I was talking to you? I was just simply replying to his last statement.

 

 

Any attempt to suggest otherwise on and on only reduces the petty amount of credibility you have..

 

To me it was just a silly jab. Maybe I read into too much, but I doubt it. He can correct me if I'm wrong since he was the one to state it. Anyway, thanks for your concern.

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

Congratulations! Whoah, hit the brakes. Where was it that I was talking to you? I was just simply replying to his last statement.

 

 

Any attempt to suggest otherwise on and on only reduces the petty amount of credibility you have..

 

To me it was just a silly jab. Maybe I read into too much, but I doubt it. He can correct me if I'm wrong since he was the one to state it. Anyway, thanks for your concern.

 

The way you said "people" I thought you meant he was talking about a group of people, such as people in the military, or people who run polls. Thats why I was so confused to why you got so mad.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

You crumble any credibility you have by making statements about people as you just did. It's pretty ridiculous and unfortunate. I feel sorry.

 

I simply posted information similar to the information that started this thread. Don't tell me that you have never tried it. Troops will never speak out against a war in their units. They have to believe in what they are doing. But, there are many who disagree. "

 

We can both go all day long finding articles and video that supports our side. The truth is, polls can be biased as you can choose who to poll.

 

 

Here's the big problem I have with you in this matter, you, never served, you were not in Iraq, you are not in any position to suggest that you know better than me or lecture me on what troops will never do or what they will do in their units, or to tell anyone anything about troops, that's a fact you simply can't comprehend.

You, are wrong, troops in their units will speak out against almost anything, "especially" in their units which are close nit. There's a saying that the only time you ever worry about a soldier or a marine is if they aren't complaining.

The fact is those in the military are overwhelmingly a different breed than you or your liberal friends, with a very few liberals in it. You obviously can't accept that fact.

This is the big reason more than anything I know you don't support the troops, because you simply can't even accept who they are, that there might be a lot of plain ol warmongers in the country, or people with complete opposite ways of life than you in matters of safety and sacrifice. You can't even just accept them as that, say you appreciate them and move on, you have to convince yourself and anyone else who would listen to your rhetoric that so many of them are a lot more like liberals, that they all hated bush, that they didn't think they could win the war, that they didn't believe in it ect.,

this is the reason you don't have any credibility.

I already wrote put any media or articles aside, I know what I'm talking about from experience, you don't, yet you show the typical liberal arrogance and ignorance in telling others who would know something better than you, that they don't really know as much about their way of life as you.

And it doesn't matter about the election results, that's the american public, this was an argument about the military, and the military was over 80% republican in their vote.

I wrote this "was" an argument about the military, because I'm not going to argue this point about the military with you any longer, I'm simply not even going to dignify any more of your suggestions that the military is any less than it really is or has different beliefs than what it really does.

[jets 10]

UVA, what the hell do you expect him to fix in 2 months. Explain to me this?

 

Just because you didnt vote for him doesnt mean you should be able to put him down every chance you get. I think that's bullshit to be honest. You're judging him on 2 months of what he's done, that's B.S. UVA.

 

If it was John McCain doing these things all of you would say exactly what we're saying...give him time right?

 

 

 

 

I'm a little intoxicated at this point in time at 3:10AM, off Southern Comfort. But I mean everything I say

 

If it was McCain in Obamas shoes, all of the Republicans would be saying "give him more time, he's only been in office 2 months"

 

 

if it were mccain in obamas shoes we could all be proud to be an american.... cause our leader would be proud to be an american... your man hates all this country stands for... you voted for him you can keep him now.... time will only make things worse for someone like him... more debt when he promised less... and where are those jobs?.... people around here are losing thier jobs ... just like he promised he would do... bankrupting all coal