Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/9/2004 8:50:54 PM EST
So The family goes out tonight to dinner to a nice open 'mall' type deal. We meet up with this guy who tells us his kid is in Iraq. We asked him when is he coming home ... guy looks sad and said, he was supposed to come home in September but they extended his stay.

Right now we are thinking "Uh no, this guy is not a Bush fan"

We asked him how does he feel about the presidential race then?"

He says "Well who do you think will get our troops back sooner? If you think Kerry, you MAY be right BUT, it means that the job is not finished and we will have to go back. I would rather have my kid gone an extra few months and KNOW he is home than to have him back sooner with the uncertainty of him being called back for ANOTHER year or so"

So, he is a Bush man. Now this guy was a realist.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:22:22 AM EST
Being a parent of one of these kids has got to be tough as hell. I am not impressed with the way this ahs been handled by the President or the manner in which the socialists have undermined the effort. I've long felt that the President should have ignored the polls and did what was right over there which meant stomping Fallujah and Najaf before this crap got out of hand.

I wouldn't let my kid join the .mil right now. No way. There is not currently a single politician that I feel is really fit to be CIC. Sometimes I just have to wonder how this nation became as great and strong as it is.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:25:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By drjarhead:
Being a parent of one of these kids has got to be tough as hell. I am not impressed with the way this ahs been handled by the President or the manner in which the socialists have undermined the effort. I've long felt that the President should have ignored the polls and did what was right over there which meant stomping Fallujah and Najaf before this crap got out of hand.

I wouldn't let my kid join the .mil right now. No way. There is not currently a single politician that I feel is really fit to be CIC. Sometimes I just have to wonder how this nation became as great and strong as it is.



I want to criticize what you said about not wanting to send your kid, but I can't find one logical and honest way to do it. Bottom line is that we have to be willing to send our kids no matter what, or we shoudl change our name to "france."
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:27:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By drjarhead:
Being a parent of one of these kids has got to be tough as hell. I am not impressed with the way this ahs been handled by the President or the manner in which the socialists have undermined the effort. I've long felt that the President should have ignored the polls and did what was right over there which meant stomping Fallujah and Najaf before this crap got out of hand.

I wouldn't let my kid join the .mil right now. No way. There is not currently a single politician that I feel is really fit to be CIC. Sometimes I just have to wonder how this nation became as great and strong as it is.



If we did the same shit in WWII, we'd all be speaking German now...
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:27:48 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/10/2004 5:28:00 AM EST by fight4yourrights]
Did you buy him a beer?
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:50:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By Tortfeasor:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:
Being a parent of one of these kids has got to be tough as hell. I am not impressed with the way this ahs been handled by the President or the manner in which the socialists have undermined the effort. I've long felt that the President should have ignored the polls and did what was right over there which meant stomping Fallujah and Najaf before this crap got out of hand.

I wouldn't let my kid join the .mil right now. No way. There is not currently a single politician that I feel is really fit to be CIC. Sometimes I just have to wonder how this nation became as great and strong as it is.



I want to criticize what you said about not wanting to send your kid, but I can't find one logical and honest way to do it. Bottom line is that we have to be willing to send our kids no matter what, or we shoudl change our name to "france."



No, you are wrong.
Having been there, done that I know what it is like to be a pawn to be used or sacrificed by incompetent politicians. Now, while I will admit to never completely coming to terms with that sense, I was able to accept it for the reality it was. I would be willing to go over myself to prevent my children and grandchildren from having to die later. Of course, that is not going to happen-I am 46.
However, I will not sacrifice my child to incompetent politicians who are not fit to govern over us. And yes, I would include GWB in that group. I will vote for him but it is a lesser of two evils. You would suppose that I should sacrifice my son for little more than nothing. I will not. Nor would I expect it of others. Perhaps we should fix our own country first.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:53:01 AM EST
drjarhead, what you're doing is little more than Monday Morning QBing, the same thing the Democrats are trying to do. Bottom line is, no battle plan survives contact with the enemy and you simply do the best you can. You're expecting perfection and it simply isn't going to happen.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 6:12:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
drjarhead, what you're doing is little more than Monday Morning QBing, the same thing the Democrats are trying to do. Bottom line is, no battle plan survives contact with the enemy and you simply do the best you can. You're expecting perfection and it simply isn't going to happen.



I disagree. I think it was obvious from the start that we didn't put enough boots on the ground, nor did we crush their insurgency with haste as should've been done. Hardly monday morning quarterbacking. I have said this from the start as well as saying on 9/11 that this country didn't have the stomach to do what it needed to.
I do not expect perfection at all. The enemy will always have some successes. But I do expect that our guys will be freed up to fight if they are going to be put in harms way. Further, I do not expect that the domestic enemies of this nation will be left to dictate the terms of this struggle. Fuck them. All of them.

The only parallel between the Iraq War and Viet Nam is the self-fullfilling defeatist predictions of the socialists. Perhaps our finest are fighting in the wrong hemisphere.

All that said, I would gladly fight for my country. My son will stay right here.
It seems laughable that we are sending our young men to die while we still allow the infidel into our country. At least it might be laughable if not so utterly pathetic.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 6:15:31 AM EST
Yeah man the dems can't seem to mae up there minds, Kerry really burned my butt when he voted to go to war and then when our young men and women are over there not to give them better vests and equip. My vote is going for GW, and hope for the best, at least he doesn't change his mind every minute.

Improvise overcome addapt
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 7:21:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By drjarhead:
I disagree. I think it was obvious from the start that we didn't put enough boots on the ground, nor did we crush their insurgency with haste as should've been done. Hardly monday morning quarterbacking.



Yes, it is. We put the number of troops in that we did because certain assumptions were made about how the Iraqi military would react. It was expected that if they gave up, they would surrender and thus their insertion into society would be handled in an orderly manner. Instead, they simply took off their uniforms and went home, which made their reintegration much more difficult---with no source of income, they either looted and became criminals or joined the Sunni insurgents. Was our calculation wrong? Yes. Was it predictable? Not really. If the military HAD surrendered, they could have been reorganized into a security force to handle keeping order much quicker than happened, and we wouldn't have needed more troops on the ground.

But the bottom line is this: if Kerry had made the call, we wouldn't have overthrown Saddam Hussein at all. Iraq would still be a safe, unopposed haven for terrorists and would still be funnelling money to various terrorist organizations. It's not a matter of whether the invasion could have been done better, but whether it would have happened at all. If we allow John Kerry to be elected President, we are basically surrendering to the terrorists. I know you know this and I am not saying you were advocating his election, I just wanted to boil the problem down to its basics.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 7:55:10 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/10/2004 7:55:43 AM EST by warlord]

Originally Posted By drjarhead:
Being a parent of one of these kids has got to be tough as hell. I am not impressed with the way this ahs been handled by the President or the manner in which the socialists have undermined the effort. I've long felt that the President should have ignored the polls and did what was right over there which meant stomping Fallujah and Najaf before this crap got out of hand.

I wouldn't let my kid join the .mil right now. No way. There is not currently a single politician that I feel is really fit to be CIC. Sometimes I just have to wonder how this nation became as great and strong as it is.


I personally abhor war just as much as the next American, but an entity has declared war on us. GWB Jr. said in a news conference, that he does not go with the polls and he does what he thinks is right. He also said that if the military wanted more men, he would give it to them. The thing is that the military has not requested more men. What more can you say. GWB Jr. already said that sending our men & women of the military to Iraq and Afghanistan was the toughest decision he ever made in his life.

Now, if you look at John Kerry's voting record in the Senate on OIF/OEF, it speaks for itself. There people who just talk the talk, but never the walk. This Middle East B.S., should've been answered by the previous administration, but he was only concerned with domestic issues, and practically ignored them. Until GWB Jr had to step up to the plate and take the bull by the horns.

Now a word from our sponsor: Want to help send a muslim scum bag insurgent to meet Alluh? Here's how, check out Adopt a Sniper, see below.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 8:42:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By warlord:

I personally abhor war just as much as the next American, but an entity has declared war on us. GWB Jr. said in a news conference, that he does not go with the polls...



You honestly believe that?


....and he does what he thinks is right.


He does what he think give him the best chance of getting re-elected. Interestingly enough, he is wrong and it has cost him dearly in this election, IMO.


He also said that if the military wanted more men, he would give it to them.


And you believe that too?


The thing is that the military has not requested more men.


Uh-huh...


What more can you say.


I would say that the military has done what it is told.
Just like it is supposed to.
Like GWB said, he is the one who is responsible.


GWB Jr. already said that sending our men & women of the military to Iraq and Afghanistan was the toughest decision he ever made in his life.


No doubt. I'll bet LBJ felt the same. Didn't make the effort any less ineffectual.
In any event, there is only one way to fight a war.


Now, if you look at John Kerry's voting record in the Senate on OIF/OEF, it speaks for itself. There people who just talk the talk, but never the walk. This Middle East B.S., should've been answered by the previous administration, but he was only concerned with domestic issues, and practically ignored them. Until GWB Jr had to step up to the plate and take the bull by the horns.


Agree with all of that, of course.

Link Posted: 10/10/2004 8:46:14 AM EST
drjarhead: I would also like to add: In a Q&A by the press, GWB Jr. was asked about CIA's mis-assesement of the WMDs in Iraq, GWB Jr's answer was, "they're always right."
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 8:53:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By warlord:
drjarhead: I would also like to add: In a Q&A by the press, GWB Jr. was asked about CIA's mis-assesement of the WMDs in Iraq, GWB Jr's answer was, "they're always right."



I do not oppose the need to go there and take care of business. We really had no choice and no matter how you shake it the invasion of Iraq is a necessary part of the War on terror, which really is the war against Islam. But I have a real problem with fighting a war half ass. Our young men die in wars and it should not be in vain. Allowing the socialists to dictate the terms of this struggle is a mistake and ensures failure. It will also cost many more american men their lives.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 9:44:53 AM EST
Well Fortunately and UNfortuately we as parents dont have a say if our kids go or not. Sounds kind of "middle of the road-ish" but lets face it. As parents, it is NOT our control nor decision to have our kids in the military. It is NOT our control or decision to send them to war. These kids are adults making adult decisions THEMSELVES. Then when they are G.I's (Government Issue) they are now property of the US Government. I was ready to accept this fact when I was looking to join. I didnt.

My best friend who is a Marine told me, when I told him that I was sad to see him go to Iraq, He said "Why? That's my job. I knew what I was getting into when I joined"

Link Posted: 10/10/2004 10:04:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By DrFrige:
Well Fortunately and UNfortuately we as parents dont have a say if our kids go or not. Sounds kind of "middle of the road-ish" but lets face it. As parents, it is NOT our control nor decision to have our kids in the military. It is NOT our control or decision to send them to war. These kids are adults making adult decisions THEMSELVES. Then when they are G.I's (Government Issue) they are now property of the US Government. I was ready to accept this fact when I was looking to join. I didnt.

My best friend who is a Marine told me, when I told him that I was sad to see him go to Iraq, He said "Why? That's my job. I knew what I was getting into when I joined"




And so did I.
If my son joined, then I would have to accept that he was property of the .Gov and may go into combat. Or in this case maybe I should say, Target. But I would oppse that. And even with that said, it would not mean that I would have to accept the incompetency of our nations leadership. Our kids deserve better. We deserve better.

Well, I'm going to reconsider that. Maybe we don't deserve better. Afterall, it is gov't of the people, by the people and for the people. WE have made it what it is. With that in mind, I guess I'd be even less likely to want my kid to go Iraq or elsewhere. Not sure where that leaves me. Except that it leaves me less than optimistic. Perhaps we can turn the corner and improve the situation over time. Don't see it happening until the Roosevelt Dems and the Hippy Gen are gone.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 10:11:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By drjarhead:
I wouldn't let my kid join the .mil right now. No way. There is not currently a single politician that I feel is really fit to be CIC. Sometimes I just have to wonder how this nation became as great and strong as it is.



I am a 19 year old college sophmore. I go to MEPS in a week, with a aimed ship time of January. (Army, aiming for MP) My father hasn't talked to me since I did my application. I will sign anyways. Its not because I don't want to see my dad happy, but its because it's the right thing to do. I don't want to see my little brother and sister get caught in a school takeover in the US, I dont want to see my friends caught in a suicide bomb on the bus; We have to stop this shit...and stop it in a country other than ours, before it comes home.

It just simply has to get done. We have to buck up, and do what needs to be done.

John
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 10:21:30 AM EST
The problem is the same one we always face.
The politicians run the war instead of those who are trained and able to run the war.
If we let our warriors loose to do whats needed this would have been over long ago. Sure, it wouldn't be pretty, but war isn't pretty, it's hell.
But thats just not PC enough for our politicians. Politicians have no more business running a war than a football team owner has calling plays instead of his coach.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 10:24:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By JSteensen:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:
I wouldn't let my kid join the .mil right now. No way. There is not currently a single politician that I feel is really fit to be CIC. Sometimes I just have to wonder how this nation became as great and strong as it is.



I am a 19 year old college sophmore. I go to MEPS in a week, with a aimed ship time of January. (Army, aiming for MP) My father hasn't talked to me since I did my application. I will sign anyways. Its not because I don't want to see my dad happy, but its because it's the right thing to do. I don't want to see my little brother and sister get caught in a school takeover in the US, I dont want to see my friends caught in a suicide bomb on the bus; We have to stop this shit...and stop it in a country other than ours, before it comes home.

It just simply has to get done. We have to buck up, and do what needs to be done.

John



And I appreciate that you are courageous and honorable. We need more like you, especially in government. I feel the same, but what if you die and we turn tail and run--10years from now we are in WWIII. I understand that you can accept that. You would say that it was necessary and better to give your life for your country and for freedom. When you are a father you will see things differently as it is not your life that is in jeopardy, it is your child's.

If they were there kicking ass it would be another story. I am not buying into the PC bullshit police action they have going on now. Hopefully in the end it will be worth it. I remain wholly unconvinced at this point. At the beginning, yes. Not anymore.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 10:33:19 AM EST
Thats my father's POV, that we arent hitting them hard enough and in the right places. I agree with him, but I also think that we will ramp things up a little after the election (assuming Bush wins.) because he wont need to pay attention to the polls so much, as he doesn't need to worry about being relected. We are kicking ass....just not as much as I would personally like. But I have a number of friend's in-theatre, and their general consensus is for every casualty (injury or KIA) we are killing 5-10 of them.

They gotta run out before we do, right?

John
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 10:40:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By JSteensen:
Thats my father's POV, that we arent hitting them hard enough and in the right places. I agree with him, but I also think that we will ramp things up a little after the election (assuming Bush wins.) because he wont need to pay attention to the polls so much, as he doesn't need to worry about being relected. We are kicking ass....just not as much as I would personally like. But I have a number of friend's in-theatre, and their general consensus is for every casualty (injury or KIA) we are killing 5-10 of them.

They gotta run out before we do, right?

John



Ahhhh...a war of attrition. Didn't work out so well the last time. The defender has a virtually endless supply of bodies. We do not.

I agree with your Dad
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 11:52:16 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/10/2004 12:31:29 PM EST by warlord]

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
The problem is the same one we always face.
The politicians run the war instead of those who are trained and able to run the war.
If we let our warriors loose to do whats needed this would have been over long ago. Sure, it wouldn't be pretty, but war isn't pretty, it's hell.
But thats just not PC enough for our politicians. Politicians have no more business running a war than a football team owner has calling plays instead of his coach.


I respectfully disagee. Our form of govt has the military reporting to a civilian secy of defense and a civilian president for a reason. In many countries around the world, if you have a coup, you need support of the military for the obvious reason they've got the guns. If you think about all of the military around the world, it is ruled by a military dictatorship with a general of the army in charge with limited or zero constitutional rights and is not accountable to anyone.

The USA military reports to a civilian which is accountable to the people.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 12:56:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By warlord:

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
The problem is the same one we always face.
The politicians run the war instead of those who are trained and able to run the war.
If we let our warriors loose to do whats needed this would have been over long ago. Sure, it wouldn't be pretty, but war isn't pretty, it's hell.
But thats just not PC enough for our politicians. Politicians have no more business running a war than a football team owner has calling plays instead of his coach.


I respectfully disagee. Our form of govt has the military reporting to a civilian secy of defense and a civilian president for a reason. In many countries around the world, if you have a coup, you need support of the military for the obvious reason they've got the guns. If you think about all of the military around the world, it is ruled by a military dictatorship with a general of the army in charge with limited or zero constitutional rights and is not accountable to anyone.

The USA military reports to a civilian which is accountable to the people.



That's right. And I'm calling for accountability.
If you are going to send the military to fight, then let them fight, otherwise keep them home. GWB will never make the socialists happy. In attempting to do so he is alienating his base and making himself and our country appear weak.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 1:02:51 PM EST
drjarhead: Hear Hear!
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:54:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By JSteensen:


I am a 19 year old college sophmore. I go to MEPS in a week, with a aimed ship time of January. (Army, aiming for MP) My father hasn't talked to me since I did my application. I will sign anyways. Its not because I don't want to see my dad happy, but its because it's the right thing to do. I don't want to see my little brother and sister get caught in a school takeover in the US, I dont want to see my friends caught in a suicide bomb on the bus; We have to stop this shit...and stop it in a country other than ours, before it comes home.

It just simply has to get done. We have to buck up, and do what needs to be done.

John



You sir...are a REAL TRUE AMERICAN! I challenge any sKerry moss eating crapfuck supporter to hold a candle against you. G-d bless you and dont worry about your Dad, he is a proud man. And if he isnt, I'll adopt ya!
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:58:06 PM EST
drjarhead: I too would like to nuke'em and forget'em, but that is not how the real world works.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 10:25:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By warlord:

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
The problem is the same one we always face.
The politicians run the war instead of those who are trained and able to run the war.
If we let our warriors loose to do whats needed this would have been over long ago. Sure, it wouldn't be pretty, but war isn't pretty, it's hell.
But thats just not PC enough for our politicians. Politicians have no more business running a war than a football team owner has calling plays instead of his coach.


I respectfully disagee. Our form of govt has the military reporting to a civilian secy of defense and a civilian president for a reason. In many countries around the world, if you have a coup, you need support of the military for the obvious reason they've got the guns. If you think about all of the military around the world, it is ruled by a military dictatorship with a general of the army in charge with limited or zero constitutional rights and is not accountable to anyone.

The USA military reports to a civilian which is accountable to the people.



In no way would I want to change the way we have things set up.
I agree with having civilian control of the military, BUT.........the politicians who send the military into harms way MUST ALLOW the military commanders to make the needed decisions for the simple reason that THEY KNOW WHAT IS NEEDED !!
Not some pencil pusher in D.C.
Having ultimate control over WMDs and approval of major operations are an exception.
The troops shouldn't have to stop and allow the enemy to hole up somewhere just because that same enemy decides that particular mud hut is a "holy site".
Top Top