This is why we can't all just get along...

Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
In the column, Neuharth, noting the many soldiers far from home and in harm’s way at Christmas, called for a U.S. pullout from Iraq “sooner rather than later.” Neuharth served in World War II in France, Germany and the Philippines, but suggested that avoiding service in Iraq was proper today. He observed that WW II, on the other hand, was "highly moral" and troops were “properly equipped.”
Click to expand...

This from the boss at USA Today.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000742016

This man is a ####ing liar. And he is lying for one purpose only; his own vanity.

WWII was as good as won by late 1944 and everyone knew it, especially this piece of #### if he truly served.

So, what happened? Germany and Japan slogged on, killing as many US service personel EVERY day in an attempt to find a more favorable peace, IE, one in which the leadership could survive. How to do this? US public opinion as to when losses became unacceptable.

In case this idiot cares, Germany made not one attack on US soil. Why was it 'moral' to war with them when it isn't to war with another monster, Saddam Hussein?

They destroyed their armies. They destroyed their people. They destroyed their countries and every day, EVERY STINKING day, US troops kept on, bleeding, dying, suffering horrific wounds, knowing it was over and knowing that every man lost from then, late '44 on, until it actually stopped in April 1945 would lose his life or limb not for victory and not to protect the US (because the enemy was crippled) but for what kind of victory.

So now, an ALL VOLUNTEER force, is suffering the same unpredictable stabs of violence for a war long since over in terms of winning and losing. They are standing a post, driving past IED's, eating, sleeping and working far from home to ensure what kind of victory there will be.

This man is a disgrace. He is the best and ONLY hope of suicide bombers and their masters. This is vile.

Best equiped? Ask the ariborne units who defended Bastonge in the Battle of the Bulge, December 1944. They froze and fought under-equiped and under supplied, no winter clothes, little to no medical equipment and short of ammo BECAUSE most of the winter gear they should have had was STOLEN in France. Stolen by their fellow US service personel in supply untis to make money on the black market.

Ask the 2,000 who died in ancient battleships, bottled up in harbour because modern warfare had made them to vulnerable to patrol.

Ask the defenders of Bataan.

God, I HATE worms like this guy.

Just say it: You hate US troops. You HOPE enough die and get dismembered to support YOUR myopic world view.

Traitor.
 
Ken King

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Larry Gude said:
This man is a ####ing liar. And he is lying for one purpose only; his own vanity.

WWII was as good as won by late 1944 and everyone knew it, especially this piece of #### if he truly served.
Click to expand...
I agree Larry; this guy is nothing but a bleeding heart that sees only the war of his day as a just one. He has for years been of the liberal “peace at all costs” mentality and you won’t see anything but that emit from his mind.

Since he claimed service I did some checking and he claims he was in the 86th Infantry Division during WWII and claims a Bronze Star in his bio as well. But digging a little deeper and his record looks a lot like that of JF Kerry’s. The 86th ID from their history hit France on March 4, 1945. They were in Germany April 5, 1945. Back in New York on June 17, 1945 and didn’t leave for the Philippines until August 24, 1945. VE day was May 8, 1945 and VJ day was before he ever left for the Pacific taking place on August 15, 1945 (surrender actually signed September 2, 1945). Based on a quick calculation and he could have had at the most 10 to 11 weeks of combat duty to his credit.

His comment in the article claiming his Christmas hardships while he was 19 through 21 is highly suspect. While he might not have been home with loved ones he wasn’t under the threat of fire either.
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Ken...

...first off, Merry Christmas to you and yours from me and mine!

Thanks for checking. We owe so much to soliders, everything really, and the GREATEST honor we can bestow on them, especially the fallen is, to me, to NOT have to send anyone in their footsteps. They did the job. They set the standard. Let us live up to it. Let us not waste their sacrifice. Let's build on it through determination when we commit.

War represents a poltical failure first and foremost and political failures, in a representative government, are rooted in the will of the people. Globally, no one challenges our interests EXCEPT if they think they can get away with it.

Somehow, morons like this asshat think that by truly supporting US troops, by saying, 'yep, I did not agree with going to Iraq and still don't BUT, we're commited by our ELECTED leadership and now, we're gonna do the job and clean up these gomers once and for all' they think THEY sacrifice something. Protest duly noted. All togther now, let's finish the effing job!

My God man, join a dictatorship if you MUST have your way in all things. And, by the way, you better be boss.

Argh....

On a lighter note, my bro, hardcore lefty, had a great Bush joke last night:

He says there was to be a big protest on inauguration day, thousands lined up with their backs to the motorcade as W rolled past but they figured it wouldn't work. Ol' W would have the car stopped, hop out and say 'Hey! whatch'all lookin' at?"

Even their jokes reveal a man I admire at the most basic level. He's just a good, simple person.

Back to the rant, wonder how this dipshit felt being stuck at the tail end of a war, being asked to be the last man to die for a war long since over?

POS
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
vraiblonde said:
War represents a poltical failure first and foremost and political failures, in a representative government, are rooted in the will of the people.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with that statement. Wars are rarely a political failure. Most wars are simply the result of someone wanting what someone else has, and wishing to take it rather than earn it. "Politics", as conventionally defined, is actually the process of either giving in, partially or wholly, to those demands or challenging them. Aside from scale, there is really no difference from a common thug robbing someone on the street. You can either hand over your cash or run away, or you can attack the robber, take away his gun and shoot him or pull your own gun and shoot back.

I can't think of too many wars that were started due to politics, but I can think of many that were started due to someone wanting more personal power, more wealth, more control, more land, more natural resources, farmland, etc. I'm sure there may have been some wars that started solely because two political groups couldn't get along, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.

Iraq is a perfect example. Hussein had a burning desire to unite the Arab world, with himself in charge of course (more personal power motivation.) In doing so, he would threaten the national economic security of the United States (the weapon). We could either let him do this, or we could draw our own weapon and shoot him... which we did (just not in a literal sense.) "Politics" could not do anything to prevent Hussein because his actions were not politically motivated. He was supremely confident that he could win; he had plenty of Allies who were helping him and reassuring him that he could win; and he wasn't going to be happy until he had a throne in Mecca. Enaging in political debate short of acquiescence to his goals was a waste of time. It was like telling the robber with a gun pointed at you that "I want you to go home and think about what you're doing!"

I am just glad that we finally have a President who is willing to say if something walks like a threat, talks like a threat, and acts like a threat, it's a threat... so why wait until it bites you.
 
Pete

Pete

Repete
Bruzilla said:
I can't think of too many wars that were started due to politics, but I can think of many that were started due to someone wanting more personal power, more wealth, more control, more land, more natural resources, farmland, etc. I'm sure there may have been some wars that started solely because two political groups couldn't get along, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
Click to expand...
American Civil War, WW1
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Bruz...

...here's how I define politics vis a vis war:

In 1939, with war already clearly on the horizon, Chamberlain was unable to scare Hitler out of making bold moves and the reason he was unable to do so was because he failed, as Prime Minister, de facto President of Great Britain, to win support in prior years to build a strong, modern army and airforce.

FDR failed in the same way. He could not win votes to adequately arm the US.

Both men KNEW war was coming. Both governments, including war planners, knew what was coming if they did nothing.

Converesly, Hitler and Tojo both were able to be aggresive because they had succeeded in building large, modern forces.

The greatest example in mankinds history of political success is Ronald Reagan. He spent the Soviet Union into oblivion in our Congress. We won and were glad to do so and the world is better for it. Had we lost, a Soviet dominated world would look rather different.

As Pete mentioned, WW1, the 'Great War' was a monumental politcal failure. History says that had Austria asserted the right to quell the the Serbs after the assassinationm of Ferdinan, that Russia and France would have postured but done nothing. Instead, they, the Austrians, sought Germany's permission
upping the ante for the Russians and French. History says that still, war could have been averted had politcal protocals changed with the times.

Manners distated that meetings of such magnitude must take place in person, therefore a cooling of tmepers that could have been attained through telegraphed messages did not happen and Germany's defense plans demanded that they wait no longer or succcess would be impossible.

If Saddam had not so successfully corrupted the UN politically then we would not be there now.

Had Bush 41 made clear his intention to destroy him if he invaded Kuwaut, the last 13 years would have been more different still.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
Again... referring to political failures implies that the motivation for the war is political rather than a case of someone trying to gain something by force. Speculating that WWI could have been avoided by some "political" gamesmanship is no more accurate than saying that had Bush asked Hussein a few more times, and added a "pretty please" to comply with the UN resolutions he would have. The Civil War was a fight over free labor that has been covered over in tarp of "states rights." Again, nothing short of capitulation would have satisfied the Confederacy. They, like Hussein, Hitler, Tojo, etc., made the mistake of thinking that their needs were stronger than the will of the United States to oppose them.

I think that the "Cold War" serves as a better example of a purely political war. Putting aside all of the little proxy battles, the Cold War came down to the United States vs the Soviet Union. Both had completely opposite political and socio-economic systems, tremendous militaries, fantastic offensive and defensive capabilities, and both had governments that had demonstrated a willingness to use arms to settle disputes... yet they never went to war. Why? (And please don't offer up "MAD" as a reason as there were plenty of studies by both sides that showed one or the other could survive a nuclear attack.) It was because once you strip aside all of the dogma that was pronounced, you are left with the simple fact that there was no way that either country could pacify and rule the other due to the impossibly long logistics trail that would be needed due to geography. So you had two governments, diametrically opposed to one another and posturing for war, who never fought because there was no gain in it, which allowed a political resolution to the problem. Had there been a way for the USSR to dominate the US and sieze and hold our resources, we would have fought regardless of the outcome and regardless of any political negotiations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top