Democrats using soldier's coffins in advertisement

[pwd72s]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Did I miss the tongue-in-cheek? There is no question that the democrats start and cause more war and strife, both foreign and domestic. There is no question that how to administer war and how to make peace are subjects best left to republicans.

Democrats have mastered the art of creating war, turning it into a quagmire, and then prematurely surrendering.

Mul, maybe you're too young to remember the 1964 presidential election? The Dems slammed Barry Goldwater, labeling him a hawk who would send thousands of our young men to their deaths, and even perhaps start a nuke war. One ad at the time really upset me...it was merely a mushroom cloud, a young girl holding a flower in front of the image. The voice over urging a vote for LBJ. LBJ was the Dem candidate. JFK actually started our Vietnam involvement, Lyndon Baines (sp?) Johnson expanded it. But, during the campaign, I was told if I voted for Barry Goldwater, it would lead to serious war. I voted for Goldwater...he lost the election...a landslide for LBJ. The Dems warned me what would happen if I voted for Goldwater....hey, I voted for Goldwater, the Dems predictions all came true.
Yes, I was being VERY tongue in cheek.

[Dottore]

Originally posted by pwd72s
JFK actually started our Vietnam involvement, Lyndon Baines (sp?) Johnson expanded it.

Actually I think you'll find that your involvement in Vietnam began under Eisenhower.

[john70t]

The Chinese and the Frech both failed to hold Nam time and time again.
Puppet dictators will always fall with retribution, and occupation only lasts as long as the other side has a worse social policy.
I didn't live through the times though, but many forsaw the spread of the red "threat".

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Dottore
Actually I think you'll find that your involvement in Vietnam began under Eisenhower.

It was pretty minor under Eisenhower.

It's worth noting that there's a fair amount of evidence JFK was intending to pull us out.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/11/22/vietnam/index.html

[CRH911S]

True to pattern, the use of our primarily conservative soldiers' bodies as some sort of sickening rallying maskot, by democrats, is more sickening.

Mul, I want to see proof that the dead in those caskets are primarily dead conservatives.

[Dottore]

Originally posted by techweenie
It was pretty minor under Eisenhower.


http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/11/22/vietnam/index.html

Yes, but Ike started the ball rolling - and that is worth remembering.

[MichiganMat]

We're not the only ones talking about the ad:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-060713pols,1,3376709.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Seahawk
***I know folks in those coffins...and I hate both sides: Bush for his handling of the conflict and the DEMS for waffling in the face of a determined foe after they bet on the river card.

You make a good point. But I'd like to make the counterpoint.

Its not "waffling" to revise a failed policy. If it were, all of you pilots would fly into mountains. "Well, I set the course 3 hours ago, I can't adjust it now, that'd be waffling."

We made a big mistake going to Iraq. We made an even bigger mistake going there without a plan. We need to change course, and we need to do it now. That's not "giving in" to the terrorists, that's plain old common sense. To hang around hoping something good will happen, that the body count will drop, is as idiotic as saying "bring it on."

I don't "hate" either party, but right now, the only one offering any kind of change of direction are the Democrats. Bush has thrown 7 interceptions and been sacked 15 times. He and his line need to go. The back-ups might be untested, might not have a "plan" to make up the dozen touchdowns we spotted the other team, but do you really think they will do worse than what we have already seen from the first string?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

It's hard to have any kind of faith in a system where your choices are either (1) evil or (2) the lesser of two evils.

Sadly, that's the situation we're in, with little hope for meaningful change in the foreseeable future.

[Nathans_Dad]

I haven't seen any plan from the Democrats regarding...well anything.

Their entire platform is "We'll do what Bush isn't doing!" Then you ask them what that means and they say "This administration is incompetent!" Then you ask them what their plan is and they say "We need change!"

I have yet to see any plan put out by the Democrats. They can't even agree on what to do with Iraq, some want to pull out now, some want to set a timetable but refuse to vote for a resolution which sets a timetable, some don't want a timetable, yadda yadda yadda.

[Rodeo]

Yes you have, and you rejected it. You and I argued about it 6 months ago, it was Murtha's call for redeployment. You thought it was a terrible plan.

And it is a terrible plan.

Unfortunately for America, it's better than the only other plan Bush has left us, called "stay the course."

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Yes you have, and you rejected it. You and I argued about it 6 months ago, it was Murtha's call for redeployment. You thought it was a terrible plan.

And it is a terrible plan.

Unfortunately for America, it's better than the only other plan Bush has left us, called "stay the course."

No, that is Murtha's plan, it is not the Democrats plan. They have no chorus on anything.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Yes you have, and you rejected it. You and I argued about it 6 months ago, it was Murtha's call for redeployment. You thought it was a terrible plan.

And it is a terrible plan.

Unfortunately for America, it's better than the only other plan Bush has left us, called "stay the course."

"Cut and run" is always the liberal plan....and there is really no plan that it is better than.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Seahawk
I know folks in those coffins...and I hate both sides: Bush for his handling of the conflict and the DEMS for waffling in the face of a determined foe after they bet on the river card.

A few things with this opinion, and it is obviously an opinion.

1. The military leadership are running the war.
2. There has never been a more effective or humanitarian war in the history of mankind.
3. It is very possible, in fact probable, that the war couldn't have been waged better, in fact it could have been really SNAFU had it been waged any different.

It could have been a lot worse, a whole lot worse, had it not gone exactly like it has.

BTW...What the RATs are doing is not "waffling," they are wholesale undermining the war effort and, therefore, encouraging the enemy.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
A few things with this opinion, and it is obviously an opinion.

1. The military leadership are running the war.
2. There has never been a more effective or humanitarian war in the history of mankind.
3. It is very possible, in fact probable, that the war couldn't have been waged better, in fact it could have been really SNAFU had it been waged any different.

It could have been a lot worse, a whole lot worse, had it not gone exactly like it has.

1. No they aren't...they are doing heroic things with less than optimum civilian leadership. Rummy wanted to use this war as a validation of his, "transformation" of the military. Worked great when there were known objectives and a conventional foe. Make no mistake, civilians set the policy and objectives, which are always political in nature.

2. I agree...but, there was early acknowledgment that we were going to be engaged in a guerilla war and that we didn't have enough boots on the ground. The civilian leadership was painfully slow to react. Again, the military has done amazing, humanitarian things that stay below most peoples awareness. But, mistakes were made, get over it.

3. No.

BTW, YOU have opinions, I have INFORMED opinions.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Seahawk
2. I agree...but, there was early acknowledgment that we were going to be engaged in a guerilla war and that we didn't have enough boots on the ground.

That is a theory and always has been. Unproven theory. If our military, as I am sure you know, were allowed to do their job they, at their current or lesser numbers, they would be significantly more effective. Most "civilian" pressure, politically, is obviously coming from the left, detrimentally so. The evidence of this is enormous. I would imagine, not for certain, that Rumsfeld/Bush listen quite intently on what his uniformed leadership are suggesting. They, undoubtedly, are calling the shots on how to win.

BTW, YOU have opinions, I have INFORMED opinions.

Sometimes informed opinions are no more valuable than semi-informed opinions...Suggesting Bush's handling (given the fact this is war and waged at levels of success unprecedented) of the war is somehow poor, is opinion, nothing more...You and I both, the armchair quarterbacks that we are, obviously have hindsight to rely upon. You and I both, without hindsight, may have made the situation ultimately worse...We will never know.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
You and I both, the armchair quarterbacks that we are

Seahawk's in the game. You are not.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by nostatic
Seahawk's in the game. You are not.

Seahawk aint calling the shots, he knows little...His opinion is no more valuable than Bush or Rumsfeld, in fact his opinion is several generations more inferior (to put it politely).

Seahawk could be right, but he could also be catastrophically wrong...The top dogs seem to disagree with him, and they are waging the war quite successfully.

[island_dude]

Mul, I am waiting for you to call seahawk a LIB (or RAT) traitor. Of course he is saying many of the things I was saying early on, but I guess only someone of a conservative mind set is allowed to make these comments and not get painted with the treason brush.

Rumsfeld is a arrogant failure. He overrulled his general's advice about troop levels, tactics and overall stretegy. The did what they were told to do and the results have not been pretty. Rumsfeld isn't exactly a career military guy. He has never seen combat, and he spent very little time in the service. It takes a pretty outsized ego to handle things the way he did. We went in light and left a bad security mess to mop up -- This was absolutely predicted. He was warned as much. Even when it was clear that this was a problem he did not adjust to the situation. Instead he played this game of say he would only bring more troops if he was asked for them. Of course it was made plenty clear to the COs that they better not ask for more.

Anyway, I guess Bush and Rumsfield would have a much better idea of what is going on there on the ground than somebody plugged in.. Huh?

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Seahawk aint calling the shots, he knows little...His opinion is no more valuable than Bush or Rumsfeld, in fact his opinion is several generations more inferior (to put it politely).

Of course I am not calling the shots...I am just an 0-6 in a rock'n roll band. But the know little part is a grevious error of judgement on your part.

Don't think for one second I am denegrating the men and women on the ground. There are no better, regardless of service. I know since I have seen them both up close and personel as well as in weekly briefings on their progress and requests for assistance.

And not just in Iraq and Afganistan. Big world out their Mul, you should have known I was addressing the whole, not just Iraq.