I’ve been a very bad citizen, I’ve never voted for federal elections. I became so angry at politicians of both parties during the Vietnam War that I didn’t trust either. I ignored government for decades because of my experiences during my service time. The reason I’m passionate about fighting for victory is I was drafted for the Vietnam War and politicians allowed the war to happen and end the way it started and ended, they were the only winners. I did register to vote in 04 but my absentee ballot arrived too late. I registered because the left seemed to have red knees from praying, begging or something worse in addressing brutal enemies of America.

Again, I don’t release any politician from responsibility for talking down the democratically decided mission objective. I don’t have a problem at all with those like Kennedy who voted no on the war decision. Dennis Kusinish (SP), sorry Dennis, Department of Peace comes to the floor almost every day in minute speeches and curses out the administration until his elf ears glow bright red, I dismiss it as 97% of America dismissed him when he ran for president. BUT, when a politician votes to send soldiers to die and be wounded and then changes their minds because the political wind chills their finger when pointed in a certain direction I refuse to excuse them.

War is cruelty and there is no refining it! Not my words but every Senator and Congressperson should say it out loud when they vote supporting it. I think the American people should hold them to a contract based on yes to cruelty that they must support the action until the cruelty is ended in victory or the enemy’s flag flies over Washington or they are replaced by voters. Enough said!

You'll have another chance in 2006 -- or does PR have Congressional elections? How does that work -- are you really a citizen of a state somewhere? PR is a territory, so are citizens of the territory also citizens of the US? I'm just unclear on how PR fits into the politics of the US.



The moral highground indeed does belong to those who opposed the Iraq war before it began. We did not have a chance to do this with Vietnam. The beginnings of that war went back too far, and public discourse was not provided or maybe not possible. With Iraq, everything was laid out on the table. Well, maybe some of the evidence was fudged. Probably. I thought so, as did many others.



Except there is no flag to fly over Washington, is there. When Saigon fell, the North Vietnamese flag did not fly over Washington. That's because the NVs didn't want to conquer the United States, just SV, and the war ended.

What do the insurgents (or whatever clumsy name is current) want? To conquer the US or Iraq? I do believe it is Iraq. Terrorists might want to hurt the US, but they can't conquer us. They have no flag to fly over Washington.

Conversely, by putting Iraqi concerns above US concerns, we fly the flag of Iraq above our own and thus voluntarily allow conquest. I saw no convincing reason to invade in the first place, and I'm seeing little reason to keep on going in this direction. Iraq has been liberated. Freedom means responsibility. Iraqis should take on their responsibilities to themselves. I want to yank their flag from above Old Glory and restore our focus on the United States.

We have problems, big ones. Our poverty class is growing. The economy isn't producing enough jobs. Our prison systems are overwhelmed. Our health care is too expensive. Our disaster response is so poor that we are giving it over to the military. We are doing to ourselves what enemy nations could not do, and that is becoming a nation under martial law, even in peace.

Vote in '06.

From day 1 the criteria included – finding WMD, deposing Saddam, setting up a legitimate Iraqi government through elections, Training Iraqi’s to defend the country and democracy when we leave, start the rebuilding process (infrastructure) etc.

If you want me to believe that Congress voted to go to war with no criteria for victory that included the above then please show me this logic.

As for Kosovo I do not “blame” anyone. Even though our “national interests” there are not nearly as important as they are in Iraq IMO it was the right thing to do. My point is that it takes time to get the job done and leave and the Dems seem unusually quiet about this war. And my strong belief is that the reason for this is because it was begun under Bill Clinton and they would not like to deal with explaining why we should stay/go from their right now – as they advocate bailing out of Iraq.

Puerto Ricans are born US citizens but may not participate in federal elections. We elect a representative to the House of Representatives but he also is not allowed to vote on federal issues. More Puerto Ricans live in the US mainland and vote in the representative states of residence than live in PR. I cannot legally vote no more than a Mexican illegal in America can vote but I would justify my illegal vote using my home state of residence WV and my military service to bring me up to illegal alien status voting rights that is so valued by both parties. Oddly enough when I registered in WV I received a letter form the county that indicated I was changing my political party, someone had been voting for me as a liberal Democrat for all of those decades realizing I had not used my vote.

America was war tired after the UN experience in Korea. Eisenhower refused to enter Vietnam but when his term ended the friends of France couldn’t resist to come to their aid. While I studied loose blouse buttons in high school I remember clearly all events leading up to the Vietnam War because there was a draft and members of my family were still licking the wounds of Korea. The Cold War had its grips on America and more focus was on Europe than a perceived skirmish in Vietnam, WWIII seemed to be looming after the events in Berlin and the Arms Race. During my basic training in 1967 the spirit of the bayonet fighter changed from KILL, KILL, KILL to INCAPACITATE, INCAPACITATE, INCAPACITATE! The change was made by a congressman that had voted to send soldiers to die in Vietnam and many of my basic training class were killed in the 68 Tet offensive as they were willed by American leaders to incapacitate the enemy.

AuthorMusician the North Vietnamese were our allies in WWII aiding the US in China, they helped us fight in China and aided our wounded there. Outside of friendship for France there was no reason to be there, we could have taken on Cuba if we wanted to fight communism. The only thing that Vietnam and Iraq have in common is they both fought with an insurgency.

On 9-11 an enemy attacked America, an enemy without a flag. It wasn’t the first attack on America but the other deaths of American soldiers, sailors, Marines and allies were excused as “criminal actions”, a matter for courts to resolve.

I see Iraq as the president sees Iraq... Iraq went to war with Kuwait and once removed signed a cease fire which it violated. It was no longer up for debate after the UN Security Council voted serious action would happen if Saddam didn’t live up to his contract. The necessity for action was equal to reprisal to the attack on the twin towers... Saddam had declared America as his enemy.

The insurgency in Iraq is comprised of Saddam clones, nationalist and terrorists equal to those who flew planes into the twin towers, did the Cole, the embassy’s, the Marine barracks and targeted free nations around the world. Failure isn’t an option, the problem of terror and Islamic fundamentalism isn’t a matter for the courts. Rather it is a matter equal to a rabid dog in your front yard that will not allow you out to enjoy your yard or even to get to your car safely. The choice is to kill the dog or build a fence to keep it out. We live in an open society so the fence isn’t a viable option.

I cannot see a value in failure in Iraq. We end the loss of life of soldiers and civilians for a period, but how long of a period? We have no greater problem in America than victory in Iraq, the rabid dog lives and we can‘t build a fence strong enough to keep him out.

The domestic problems in America are a result of a very weak culture of liberalism promoted by the left. Political greed and promotion of irresponsible actions from those in the liberal side of our culture fruit is now in season. A person breaks the law then treat him or her nicely, fix the broke citizen and apologize for the environment that caused the crime as the fault of the government. Do the same with marriage, welfare, race, use of slavery workers from Mexico to the advantage of political and monetary power.... America sends out thousand dollar checks to Puerto Ricans who pay no federal tax because they are poor... they do the same to poor in America. Americans insist on cable TV, climate control, state of the art fitness centers and facilities for law breakers and wonder why the crime rate is high? The culture excuses illegal acts of gangsters and promotes their acts in video games and music as a virtuous part of society. Why don’t we insist on the end of wasted tax money on broken systems that prop up irresponsibility? Why do you and others think soldiers should go to war and die and be maimed for life until “you decide” it isn’t worth it... you aren’t the ones facing the bullets and bombs. Black granite walls of defeat will be jack-hammered by those who finally defeat a culture of irresponsibility that fails to value the warriors that protect their freedoms.

OS,

Thanks for the info on PR.

You were doing okay until this part. Now you're walking on thin ice, indeed. My protest of the Iraq invasion ended the day it was decided to be carried out. Just because I see no reason to continue on in this direction does not mean I am against the troops out there taking the brunt of poor political decisions. My protest was to avoid sacrificing our troops needlessly, and it occurred before this whole thing happened. I am sorry for the death and misery that has come out of Iraq, sorry as in sorrowful, not in contrition for being responsible. That contrition is owned by those who pushed for the invasion.

I might add that my Vietnam veteran brother (Class of '68) agrees with me on this issue. He voted for Kerry in the last election, and up until then he voted Republican. I don't need to be lectured on Vietnam, its causes, how the course of that conflict evolved, or the arguments that were used to elongate the conflict. They are similar to the arguments being used today to elongate the Iraq, um, either war or rebuilding.

You blame the American people for 9/11. That is sad, because airline security was an issue before 9/11, and had the victims' families of other terrorist attacks in which airliners were bombed had their way, 9/11 would not have happened. A terrible lack of security allowed the mostly Saudi terrorists to gain access and use our own transportation system as a weapon. Now it was not the liberal side of things resisting airline security; it was the conservative airline industry.

You connect Iraq with 9/11, although no reliable source can draw such a connection. If that makes you feel better, fine. It just has no credibility, and did not have credibility at the time of the Iraq invasion push.

Again, I am sorrowful for the death and misery brought upon us by politicians. I see no reason to change my stance on Iraq, and you have provided less than none. It went into negative numbers with the personal attack, and as you sink into the freezing waters of unjustified disdain for the American people, I also feel sorrow. However, you're on your own.

There is so much of what you say that I disagree with that I could spend a great deal of time responding; however, I will confine myself to a few corrections of mistaken history.

It is true that Ho Chi Mihn was an ally against the Japanese occupation of South East Asia. It is also true that he discussed becoming an American Protectorate with the Roosevelt Administration. Had Roosevelt lived, given his vehement anti-colonial commitment, it is unlikely that the French would have been allowed to try and reestablish their SE Asia colonies after WWII. The Truman Administration, worried about France itself electing a communist government permitted the return of the French. From 1947 to 1954 both the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations secretly supported both the French and the Viet Minh. After the French defeat, North Vietnam was recognized as an independent country and South Vietnam was established as a provisional government that would hold future elections to determine its status. Most observers felt this would have led to reunification. Instead, the election process was derailed and the Eisenhower government began to send military advisors to South Vietnam in 1955. (It is true that Eisenhower, himself, cautioned against getting bogged down in a land war in Asia with American troops). The Kennedy Administration greatly expanded the number of military advisors and the Johnson government began the involvement of American Combat troops in 1964.

As for your reference to Cuba, the Castro led revolution didn't triumph until 1958. It took some time to sort out American attitudes toward the new government. American and other foreign property wasn't nationalized until August of 1960. As for fighting communism in Cuba (or should we say defending private property rights), the Eisenhower Administration began organizing Cuban exile groups without the knowledge of the political opposition. When Kennedy took office he was confronted with an organized invasion force and his own hard line rhetoric during the campaign. This resulted in the disastrous Bay of Pigs Invasion. Subsequently, a number of attempts were made by the CIA to assassinate Castro, some of them using Mafia figures who had also lost a great deal of property in Cuba. All of this was thoroughly documented by the Church Senate investigation of the CIA. Thus it wasn't a question of obsessively opposing communism in Cuba or Vietnam but of opposing everything that looked like a communist regime wherever it appeared and no matter how popular. A good example of this was the CIA sponsored overthrow of the Arbenz government in Guatemala in 1954 because of its attempts to redistribute land.

I have no idea how you jumped to the conclusions you leaped to? Many want to relate Vietnam with Iraq when the only association is the death, carnage and insurgency. My expression of contempt for the anti war or more explicitly the “let’s cut our losses” crowd and leave while we are behind remains. The original Iraq War, Desert Storm was a valid action... the return to hostilities was a valid action. I believe it was a valid option within months after Desert Storm because of Saddam’s delay in living up to the cease fire conditions. My opinion is the original UN force should have camped in Southern Iraq until the cease fire agreement was fulfilled. So, even had 9-11 not happened the soldiers who perished in Desert Storm should have been vindicated when Saddam refused the international body. Many technical and tactical decisions could be debated but not the mission as I see history.

Again, you are reading into my discussion on liberalism and the liberal American culture that supports irresponsibility and you are dead wrong. I blame politicians of both parties for all the terrorist acts leading up to 9-11. When politicians fail to stand with resolve, revisiting the Vietnam era again, the world watches. When America shows weakness by not acting immediately to the terror acts leading up to 9-11 it shows America as a weak nation. I see the weakness of our nations resolve to have started during the progressive liberalism that started in the 60’s and has progressed until today. Progressive liberalism is property of the left in politics and so I blame the left for all of America’s shortcomings. I would consider that without a terror force on the planet, I simply think the left promotes irresponsibility. I disagree with almost every social program the left supports and would turn America back to the 50’s in a heartbeat if I could. I don’t understand how any citizen that pays taxes could support irresponsibility like sending $1,000 tax refund to millions of Americans that don’t pay taxes, in the case of Puerto Ricans they have to claim the $1,000 as income and pay Puerto Rican taxes on the income the next year. How can the progressives complain about the Medicare and Social Security funds dwindling and then give $1,000 back to each poor person who paid their share? The same progressive people prop up the minorities like they don’t have a backbone to stand on their own. The same were the ones who convinced politicians to put a wet finger in the wind of political power based on progressives ability to sway the majority away from a mission they previously committed soldiers to die for. These liberal touchy feely people despise holding citizens responsible for personal actions. They demand comfort for prisoners in American jails and forget about the victims of the crimes that caused the prisoner to be in jail. In a word, progressive liberals are the “blight” of America. I blame promotion by liberals of irresponsibility as the reason 9-11 and all negative acts I mentioned could happen. America is numb to liberalism and even conservatives didn’t seem to be upset with the Cole? When a liberal progressive smiles and says he supports the Sheriff in the desert southwest that puts prisoners in tents, feeds them bologna sandwiches and does ball and chain work details I’ll admit I’m wrong about how I feel about liberals.
TedN5 I still say Kennedy had the choice of Vietnam or Cuba and he certainly changed Eisenhower’s mission against Cuba and did the “left” kind of thing leaving the Americans in the hands of Cuba for years... sickens me like Carter with his handling of Iran hostage situation...WEAK!

Well, if you care about the environment, don’t like the idea of religion in government, or corporate government, or care about rights of minorities as some simple points of talking you are pretty much declared a liberal. I have to conduct myself as an independent simply for how I think. I feel only base things in society should be paid for by tax, and only those things should come from a wallet in the forms of a tax, like public education of course, or maybe even roads. I do not agree with the current tax codes, but my opinion means little when you basically find your views so small it makes you very much a minority.

I don’t care about whom says what and then raps themselves in an American flag. If someone had the real deal on everything it would become evident, as things would work for those people, like clockwork or magic even. The thing to me is the two current parties in American politics basically take turns at taking shots in the dark, and I could care less about such anymore to be honest.

Gay bashing and tax cuts and killing fear basically was a huge talking point of the last presidential elections. I am sorry if someone takes offense to me not liking that at all, and I guess if someone wants to call me un-American for that particular take on it, well, then lets get rid of the constitution and make America simply reflect on how some feel about things, that sure is the patriotic way no doubt.

No party opts for a libertarian society, the both opt for there vision of how things should be. I would rather die then become religious right off the bat, so I am faced basically with having to use what little political power I do have to make votes that basically protect me from certain elements in American politics that I feel suck basically. So if this results with me overall having to vote for liberals, well hey you know, it’s the American thing to do right, express yourself in some form of a free manner and be happy.

I agree with the natural law party. I don’t agree with everything they say of course, but I want science to be used in respects to reality, and real fact, the kind you can’t debate or twist or propaganda out to become the real force in shaping my ecology. The core engine of the natural law party is what I like for that very reason. The want to know why, not just talk about it and make decisions based on how you feel, that never has worked and never will. So when I signed up to vote at state level this year, I felt good going for the nat party, vs. all the other crud that I have become so disgusted with actually that its not even funny anymore, simply because I view it all pretty much as ignorance that in itself will probably foster the edge of extinction homo sapiens will have to come in contact with before that central nervous system kicks in, but then who knows what you will get, prolly mass suicide.

Talking about people in groups pretty much takes the personal responsibility out of things anyways, so I don’t really know how far that will go. If you simply want to call certain aspects of a society unpatriotic because they do not agree with how you think things should be run or what not, that’s fine its your right, but it should not strip rights or its basically committing the very “evil” that was so hated in the first place. Liberal outlets in politics basically absorb a diverse amount of thought, I am sorry if you cannot see that. Conservative means what it says, so if you are not down with that and care to live, you are liberal in that regard. Anyways, it all has to come from liberalism, being it would be going against the current grain, anything you can think of is a product of change or cultural evolution, languages, religions, nations, whatever.

I pointed out, a while back, what some Republican Politician said about Kosovo.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...topic=10922&hl=


That thread was closed because: Reason: Question to debate too inflammatory to debate in a civil fashion.

So I can now ascertain form my experience here that using a using a source, like FauxNews with its many documented lies, and attacking Democrats, by implying that they are Treasonous, is not “Inflammatory”; and will not lead to a "Warning".


As for 9-11: What changed? We can now check our brains at the door when dealing with other countries?

QUOTE

Will the DNC punish Senator Leiberman for his support for the war effort?

Well here is some news on Lieberman. Looks like the Dems in CT are trying to lynch him for not toeing the party line. DNC could be next.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179075,00.html

WASHINGTON — Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman may be some Republicans' idea of a good Democrat, but a growing number of fellow party members in his home state couldn't disagree more.
"It's at the point where he's no longer interested in his own party's opinion, he's really out of touch with reality," said Mitchell Fuchs, chairman of the Fairfield Democratic Town Committee in Connecticut. "For me, he's crossed the line a number of times."

So it appears that General Casey admits Bush is giving aid and comfort to al-Qaeda.

Less troops, now is better. So “Staying the course in Iraq”™ is helping the enemy. I wonder if those who questioned Murtha and other Democrats, know that they too were giving aid and comfort to al-Qaeda with their comments regarding troop deployments in Iraq?

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2005/20051223_3740.html
"In fact, in Iraq, less coalition at this point in time, is better. Less is better because it doesn't feed the notion of occupation, it doesn't work the culture of dependency, it doesn't lengthen the time for Iraqi forces to be self-reliant, and it doesn't expose coalition forces to risk when there are Iraqi forces who are capable of standing up and doing it."

[QUOTE]Do you think Dean and Kerry's recent comments were given in such a manner that they offer "aid and comfort to the enemy?" If so why and if not why?

No! From what I hear, it's pretty much the feeling of "our opponents there", and of the people of Iraq.

Could easily be "Spun" that way though; but, I think the spinning act is/would be, the counter productive action here.

This issue is tightly controlled by the US Planners and, to their credit, their system runs as smooth as glass. It's all a red herring tossed from the cart onto the submissive population. What's the last refuge of a scoundrel? Yes. Patriotism.
It's an interesting though unfortunate phenomenon when people actually argue that stating a contrary opinion is tatamount to feeding your nation's enemy, arming your nation's enemy, supplying your nation's enemy, risking your life for your nation's enemy, etc.. And that's where the control of the Planners comes out so brightly. Consider this sad fact:
What's the worse kind of "treason"? Watching your country go down the path of a wartime quagmire and speaking out against it, or going into an illegal war with less troops than the senior US military commanders were requesting, then inviting yes inviting the enemy to come and attack your own troops all the while sending them there with inadequate armor leaving family members to buy the good armor themselves and shipping it to the war zone? I think Bush telling the enemy to come try kill and maim his own troops is immoral and illegal and worthy prosecution. Not to mention d-uh unpatriotic. So let's leave Dean and the Dems alone and change focus from the trivial and pointless to what really matters. Today's real and true events. Shame on Bush for asking the enemy to kill his own while dodging his own service duties so he could help some Bush family crony win some Texan election.