No friend of the military serviceman

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Colonel, you think of Clinton as some "savior".

You won't be thinking that when Chinese troops pour out of Containers from the ports they aquired from Clinton.

You won't be thinking that when you're crawling through some chinese muck to bejing, under artillery fire.

The difference between us Conservatives, is we curse Clinton now for his crimes against the USA.

While you'll be cursing him in your grave in Chinese soil.




posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Thank you ,seekerof, I appreciate the good words.



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
Thank you ,seekerof, I appreciate the good words.



Anytime....I think if you had made some 'enemies', you would have no problem discerning them eh?
Your topics are obviously well looked at, hence the 'viewed' and are quite obviously remarked upon, hence the post count. Whats the old proverb....."fight the good fight?"


regards
seekerof



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I'm not on crack, but I do recognize an arse when I see it!


Seriously, you have acrued no enemies because of your thoughts (no matter how lacking in reality they are based) but because of your lack of civility and etiquette.

As far as your assertion that Clinton brought prosperity, I'll not buy into that nonsense. Reagan built the base for prosperity, and what Bush didn't screw up Clinton destroyed. It is now common knolwedge for all to see (if one wants to see it) that the economy was tanking before Clinton left. That was hidden by all involved to give Gore a better chance at the White House. Were it not for the terrorist attacks, we might have pulled out of it thanks to economic stimulation through tax cuts, etc. had it not been for that. The jobless rate can also be a bit misleading, but I'm not getting into that right now.

As far as laying off of Clinton, why? You mean to tell me only loud-mouth liberals are allowed to attack at will? I can imagine one not wanting Clinton brought up, he is quite the embarrassment. He served himself and the rest of the world better than he did this country. Not to worry, water under the bridge. I just hope the rest of the country learned the lesson and will be more careful next time.

Glad to see you're still here, by the way.



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Exactly, got to get the message out of the evil on this land in order to save the republic.



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I'm not on crack, but I do recognize an arse when I see it!


Seriously, you have acrued no enemies because of your thoughts (no matter how lacking in reality they are based) but because of your lack of civility and etiquette.

As far as your assertion that Clinton brought prosperity, I'll not buy into that nonsense. Reagan built the base for prosperity, and what Bush didn't screw up Clinton destroyed. It is now common knolwedge for all to see (if one wants to see it) that the economy was tanking before Clinton left. That was hidden by all involved to give Gore a better chance at the White House. Were it not for the terrorist attacks, we might have pulled out of it thanks to economic stimulation through tax cuts, etc. had it not been for that. The jobless rate can also be a bit misleading, but I'm not getting into that right now.

As far as laying off of Clinton, why? You mean to tell me only loud-mouth liberals are allowed to attack at will? I can imagine one not wanting Clinton brought up, he is quite the embarrassment. He served himself and the rest of the world better than he did this country. Not to worry, water under the bridge. I just hope the rest of the country learned the lesson and will be more careful next time.

Glad to see you're still here, by the way.


On the ememy issue, I don't mind. I'm accustomed to it (it makes for good battles).

On the Clinton thing, how can you spout those lies? 'It was Reagan, then it was Bush. So, it took 12 yrs for us to see prosperity, I think not. It just ook sound economics---not VOODOO economics to turn this country around and Clinton was at the forefront of that.

As forlaying off clinton, the reason is simple. He's no longer president.



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Since DarkH is away I will respond to your response to my question to HIM.

There was no question overall morale in the military was dropped undr clinton. He drastically accelerated the downsizing Bush1 was running.

His first break with the military was his social experiment-Don't ask, don't tell. A ludicrous promise he kept to the Gay lobby who gave his campaign coffers over 7million$$. What a cluster this caused.

Everyone knew he was a poser, he could not even (had to be taught) render a proper salute-he has no respect for our military men and women.

Thank God a patriot and not a dodger is in office after 9/11



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tyriffic
Since DarkH is away I will respond to your response to my question to HIM.

There was no question overall morale in the military was dropped undr clinton. He drastically accelerated the downsizing Bush1 was running.

His first break with the military was his social experiment-Don't ask, don't tell. A ludicrous promise he kept to the Gay lobby who gave his campaign coffers over 7million$$. What a cluster this caused.

Everyone knew he was a poser, he could not even (had to be taught) render a proper salute-he has no respect for our military men and women.

Thank God a patriot and not a dodger is in office after 9/11


You checked the morale now? It is at the LOWEST levels. Everyone hates Rumsfeld. He's firing career officers. Our servicemen want to come home from Iraq. There is no exit strategy in Iraq but for "Just bring it." (What the hell is that?)



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Man, you and the CBS news....



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Actually, it was an editorial I read in the Washington Post today from a serviceman.



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 07:19 PM
link   
I think when you say morale, you have to ask all of the military. Not those on station in a conflict soley.



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Well, don't you think they shold come home after serving in a conflict and not stay there to do policing/ On average, there is one serviceman killed A DAY since Bush said "Mission Accomplished."



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Sorry about the temporary absence, had a little problem to sort out here....
Want a blunt answer? Yes, I do.
I know that for the most part, the majority of my branch is glad for a good chance to stretch our legs(of course, we're a bunch of bloodthirsty Marines
) Seriously though, I would chop dead wood away if it was needed. I am not sure who you speak of specifically when you mention the career officers, but then again, I have been out of the news loop for almost a month now.
Perhaps with all the turnover in the JCOS seats, there have been some rapid policy changes. I know that's the case for our branch. With changes in policy, people get fired, from top to bottom. Either they adapt and overcome, or they get replaced.
As in all wars, the servicemen/women want to come home. I'm waiting as eagerly as anyone to see us pull out. But it would be foolhardy to just leave without a proper mop-up. I don't agree with us playing God over there, but we need to cover our 6, ya know? How do you know there isn't an exit strategy? What did we expect when we saw our men and women going overseas? I certainly didn't expect a quick, painless ass-kicking followed by a glorious return home. War is ugly from start to finish, and its never over until a couple of years after the loser gets beat. They just don't realize it yet. I was yelling at reporters on TV (from my room) during the war because they were complaining that it wasn't resolved within a week. PLEASE! What a ridiculous assumption. When Bush, Jr. commited us to this war,he commited us for the long haul. I would think that everyone had come to understand and accept this. Oh, well.
I think that if it had been someone else in office(a Democrat) we probably wouldn't have been in iraq, at least not this soon. however, our military would continue to shrink until we were merely a few underpaid, undertrained bitter citizens with really expensive weapons. As a fighting force, we would no longer be feared by our enemies, who have little enough respect for us as it is. At least this way, we have sent a clear message to our enemies that we will not hesitate to defend ourselves or our interests.



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
Actually, it was an editorial I read in the Washington Post today from a serviceman.


did you have time, this time, to check it? Unlike the link which started this thread, which I oWnD you on?



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Very funny--ha-ha. Its intodays editorial page which I am trying to bring up but having a difficult time.



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
Very funny--ha-ha. Its intodays editorial page which I am trying to bring up but having a difficult time.


You owe me one Colonel.

"Troop morale in Iraq hits 'rock bottom'.
www.csmonitor.com...

regards
seekerof

[Edited on 8-7-2003 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Don't worry, we're patient.



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 09:58 PM
link   
It looked to me like he was wearing standard flight gear for the type of aircraft that he arrived in.
In any case, it's understandable that you are upset, seeing as you made a statement and then were proven wrong. I've noticed that you don't take that very well.



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 10:04 PM
link   
OWW! Now, now. If you can't sayanything nice, make stuff up.
nah, let him keep going. Its fun to share my opinions on the side topics that come up.



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyeff
If you want to call Bush a jerk,that is fine,its your choice and you are free to do so.(your wrong
)
Now I wonder would you have posted this if it was Clinton or a future dem President? Or would you have responded the same we have and say its no big deal.


Why even bother saying he's wrong if you say he has a right to his opinion. I hate it when people do that.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join