It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Veterans Don't Want to Hear it.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Veterans wearing "B.S. Protector" ear flaps sat silently in the audience of the 106th convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Monday in Salt Lake City while Bush tired to compare his failed war in Iraq to both world wars and other great conflicts of the 20th century.
With the anti-war movement finding new momentum....


As a side note, Bush was reported as saying to his aides, " tell those VFW assholes that I’ll never speak to them again if they can’t keep their members under control." What amazing respect the "Commander in Chief" has for people who have actually fought in a war.




posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 08:27 PM
link   
A few things here that you have failed to take into account, CyberianHusky:
1: The VFW is split about 83% in supporting the troops to 17% who do not, despite their feelings concerning the war itself. It is thus pretty self-evident that there would be those within the VFW that do not support this war or Bush.

2: Your article cites this:


The deaths have taken a toll on national support for Bush, with an AP-Ipsos poll taken earlier this month showing 38 percent approve of his handling of Iraq.


Apparently, that has changed as of today?
President Bush Job Approval Rating at 49%
Factor in the redundant 3%+.

3: Furthermore, your linked article does NOT cite this:


....tell those VFW assholes that I’ll never speak to them again if they can’t keep their members under control.

You pulled that from where exactly, cause I am finding a few of bogus sites saying such, here.






seekerof


[edit on 28-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   
I thought the BS Protectors were pretty funny. There's a German site that tells how to make one of your very own!


I first saw Bush's VFW quote here. Warning: Presidential Obscenities.

Seekerof, both of those numbers seem right to me. There's a difference between his overall Job Approval Rating (49%) and his handling of Iraq rating (38%). Those are two different ratings.



[edit on 28-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   
The difference being what? Overall rating versus the issue of Iraq?
The reflection given for the the handling of Iraq are nothing but a mere gauge for how the weak-kneed American public has always acted and responded to US death tolls, be it Vietnam or Iraq or anywhere else.

To me, polls are misleading anyhow and are representative of nothing, for they definately do not translate into real voters. Then, of course, being polls are mostly sanctioned by the anti-war media, do you really think that they would equally represent all [ie: democrats and republicans, etc.]? I highly doubt it.

Anyhow, I have been a registered voter for nearly 20+ years, since I was 18, and I have yet to get a call or email or anything from these so-called poll takers and their respective representing firms and interests. Must be because I do not have one of those BS Protectors yet.....





seekerof

[edit on 28-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
The difference being what? Overall rating versus the issue of Iraq?


Yeah. Overall, (including economy, jobs, environment, other foreign policy, etc.) do you approve of the president's performance? 49% say yes.

Specifically, do you approve of the president's performance in Iraq? 38% say yes.

There's even another poll for his performance in the War on Terror (not just in Iraq, but globally.)



The reflection given for the the handling of Iraq are nothing but a mere gauge for how the weak-kneed American public has always acted and responded to US death tolls, be it Vietnam or Iraq or anywhere else.


Americans have a long history of being able to tolerate high death tolls when they determine the cause is worth it (WWI & WWII). The Vietnam and Iraq wars were started on false pretenses and share the characteristic of being fundamentally unwinnable because of no clear military goal. That is why the American public turned against the Vietnam war and is turning against the Iraq war. Not the death toll per se.

To accuse Americans of not being strong enough to handle a high death toll is selling them short, in my opinion. They can. They just dont like to do it for 'BS' reasons, hence the BS protectors.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Specifically, do you approve of the president's performance in Iraq? 38% say yes.

Here's my beef with polls and the polls taken on how Bush is handling Iraq:
79% Say Success In Iraq is Important, 48% Say Success is Likely

Read it, look at the numbers a few times, then contrast and compare to those numbers indicating Bush's handling of Iraq. See anything out of wack here? Let me help you: the American people, as par, are torn between death toll numbers and what is the right and proper thing to do in Iraq. Again, the polls indicating Bush's handling of Iraq are meaningless and amounts to weak-kneed reactions.






Americans have a long history of being able to tolerate high death tolls when they determine the cause is worth it (WWI & WWII).

Erm, no.
As a student of American and European history, let me assure you with history as my witness, that the American people were vehemently against US involvement in WWI, thus they were not tolerate of high death tolls. The media was censored, etc. You are wrong on this account, very wrong.






The Vietnam and Iraq wars were started on false pretenses...

Again, history indicates otherwise.
Read up on why and when the US first became involved in Vietnam. Hint: US involvement in Vietnam was 25 years.
Read about the Cold War policies of that historical time period.
Read up on the Domino Theory/Effect, among a host of other things you have failed to take into account when you mention Vietnam and "false pretenses". You may fool those who have little clue on the origins of US involvement in Vietnam, but you cannot fool a student of history. Nada.
As for Iraq, that is still debatable to you and I, and certainly is still debatable in the realm of active historians.






....and share the characteristic of being fundamentally unwinnable because of no clear military goal. That is why the American public turned against the Vietnam war and is turning against the Iraq war. Not the death toll per se.

Your partially correct here Benevolent Heretic.
The characteristics and unwinnable have a number of similarities, mainly the anti-war press/media and meddling weak-kneed politicians who kept the military's hands tied. You know, like going to a bar fight with one hand tied behind your back? The American people turned against the Vietnam war because the Vietnam war became the first televised war to be brought to the American dinner table, Benevolent Heretic, all courtesy of the anti-war media. Day-in-day out viewing of war in its most horrific fashion, and all available for the evening news viewing crowd. No, the American people mainly turned against the Vietnam war because of one main factor: the anti-war mainstream news media. Again, the very same media today that is doing its utmost best to do the same with Iraq.





To accuse Americans of not being strong enough to handle a high death toll is selling them short, in my opinion. They can. They just dont like to do it for 'BS' reasons, hence the BS protectors.

I'll stick with what I asserted.
In general terms, the American people are weak-kneed when it comes to death tolls, and always has been, even when fighting a so-called just war or conflict.







seekerof

[edit on 29-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 04:44 AM
link   
How dare those veterans snub their noses, or ears, at a man who was smart enough to get the hell out of dodge when he had the chance! How dare people who have actually fought in a war even think about going against a cokeheads lies!

Sorry but that sounds bad, so do anyone who think Bush knows better then these people.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Maybe they should of heard: If we don't secure oil resources for the markets, you can go back to plowing with horses, that is if you don't die from famine first.

This PC warspeak for a touchy feely new world order smells as bad as a flatulating fatman on a 3 month bean diet. Bushco should of been upfront about it from the start and would of had a better perception how the masses will react instead of blowing smoke up their arses.

War is bloody hell, consider it as hell or don't go to war.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join