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.

 

Why Won't Gen. Clark And Howard Dean Join Forces?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Why Won't Gen. Clark And Howard Dean Join Forces?

Clark can't win by himself............

Their platforms are nearly identical!

Is General Clark a Shill?




posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Forget about Clark! He's nowhere. And the more he speaks, the more he freaks people out.



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 12:03 PM
link   
And besides clark would shoot dean the first time he started screaming and getting all crazy during a function.

[Edited on 7-2-2004 by medic]



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by medic
And besides clark would shoot dean the first time he started screaming and getting all crazy during a function.

[Edited on 7-2-2004 by medic]


Hey Medic, howzit goin? So, what do the troops think about Clark's candidacy?



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Actually we don't talk about it too much...sorta other things going on.



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 12:34 PM
link   
It was when I was in the Gulf war that I realized I wanted to study political science. I really woke up to the political over there. Before that, I didn't pay much attention, other than loving Reagan. I was too busy partying. A war is a great place to get perspective!


Stay safe, man! And don't ever think I don't support the troops. I do 1000%



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Apreciated man...when I first started posting here I was alittle ignorant and was calling everybody anti-american and stuff. I think I was just pissed off at the world about being here...now I realize thatpeople were just agianst thewar and not the soldiers...Tho i have had my problems with people on here...anyways, thanks for the support man. It comes very welcome.



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by medic
Apreciated man...when I first started posting here I was alittle ignorant and was calling everybody anti-american and stuff. I think I was just pissed off at the world about being here...now I realize thatpeople were just agianst thewar and not the soldiers...Tho i have had my problems with people on here...anyways, thanks for the support man. It comes very welcome.


I hearya, buddy.

I get really pissed off and emotional over this whole thing. It's been really hard watching the numbers of KIA and wounded escalate. My biggest fear going to war was that I would come home as an amputee. I would have rather died. And I damn sure don't want anyone else coming home like that. It's devastating.

As I veteran I feel I have a duty to speak up for the soldiers best interest. How could I not? I was there myself. It's burned into me. And for our leaders to betray the trust of our troops is something that burns me up, especially. Those cowards that lied everyone into this quagmire oughtta be over there enduring it. If it was their chickenshyte *sses on the line, we wouldn't even be there. I guarantee it. But they got you, fodder unit qualified.

Did you know that 99% of those fools who got you all into this NEVER SERVED A DAY IN THEIR LIVES? So what the frock do they know about defending America? NOT A FROKKEN THING. All they know is how to send other people's people off to get shot at. It's unconscienable.

Medic - how many girl GI's have you treated? What do you think the data is on that? (KIA's and wounded) NOBODY's talkin about that!



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 02:50 PM
link   
No offense meant, but a soldier is a soldier, male or female. I don't see any reason to make an issue out of it.



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
No offense meant, but a soldier is a soldier, male or female. I don't see any reason to make an issue out of it.


When I was in the big issue being hotly debated was should women be in combat?

The debate is over. Women are in combat. During the Gulf War Scuds being shot at our positions did not differentiate between the girls and the boys. They were an equal opportunity destroyer.

The reason I'm curious is because the media has been deafeningly silent on this issue. If someone made it an issue, Bush would go down hard. Americans by and large cannot deal with the idea of women being shot up, blown up, taken prisoner and abused. I am simply pointing out that the media is protecting this despicable administration by NOT covering the issue as it should. Once again, indicting itself as a co-cospirator, as far as I'm concerned.

Everyone should understand there are no front lines in today's warfare. And the girls are coming home killed and maimed, too.



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Do you find it strange that we're losing more troops now than we did in Gulf War 1, when the Iraqi army was massive and had all kinds of ordinance?



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx
Do you find it strange that we're losing more troops now than we did in Gulf War 1, when the Iraqi army was massive and had all kinds of ordinance?


No.
We never truly "invaded" Iraq in that war. We were able to use our technological superiority to take out the majority of what we needed to. Basically, they never really saw what hit them.
The problem we face now is MUCH worse. Trying to occupy the country we face urban combat. Technology means nothing when you need to fight on city streets surrounded by non-combatants. It's ugly and it will probably continue to be so for the next few years (at least).

Medic,
Though I'm not a vet, I just want you to know that my family and I are all behind all of you 100% and hope you all get home safe, and soon!



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx
Do you find it strange that we're losing more troops now than we did in Gulf War 1, when the Iraqi army was massive and had all kinds of ordinance?


Good question, Flinx. My answer is no. It's not surprising at all. Rumsfeld threw out the entire playbook (Tipfid), dismissed those around him who were the most knowledgeable b/c they weren't saying what he wanted to hear and he basically took our troops to war at the direction of a bunch of maniacle idealogues who know absolutely NOTHING about warfare - other than what they learned sitting on their arses in the fishbowl of higher education. This Army went over there essentially with an arm tied behind their back. It was such a pathetically, horribly thrown together plan, I'm just staggered by it. And I blame many, many deaths for it. I've contended all along that Rumsfeld should have fired LONG AGO!

When we fought the Gulf war, we had a MASSIVE military force over there (750,000 troops as compared to their paltry 250,000) We controlled the sea and skies with ease. Our supply lines were FAT and well in place before we launched the air war. We had a world full of allies to help us in every logistical, economic and military manner. We followed the Tipfid to the last detail and it was the most frokken amazing show of force the world has ever seen! NO JOKE, man! I get chills thinking about what I saw there. You cannot even imagine the power we displayed and unleashed. Their Army, even being the fourth largest in the world was no match for our coalition. They fell, literally, in waves out of sheer terror at facing us. (Being pounded incessantly from F-16's and A-10's will do it every time. One more thing I cannot ever forget, we had the mighty, mighty support 1000% of the American people and most countries as well. That belief and support gave us a strength unmatched. I love the American people for that.

And I have to mention one more thing. Leadership. Back then we had GREAT leaders. Leaders who learned their lessons in the jungles of Vietnam - from my Sgt's up to Gen. Schwartzkopf. They were committed to not allowing the same mistakes to be made. And they truly looked out for us. The ones I saw, anyway. They were men you'd follow to hell and back. I'll never forget the rousing speech Stormin' Norman gave us on the eve of the war, he said "You are the thunder and lightning of Operation Desert Storm!" That man was sumthin' else. And I shall never forget the inspiration he gave us. He was OUTSTANDING.


The men that took us to war this time are nuthin but yes men.



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fry2

Originally posted by Flinx
Do you find it strange that we're losing more troops now than we did in Gulf War 1, when the Iraqi army was massive and had all kinds of ordinance?


No.
We never truly "invaded" Iraq in that war. We were able to use our technological superiority to take out the majority of what we needed to. Basically, they never really saw what hit them.
The problem we face now is MUCH worse. Trying to occupy the country we face urban combat. Technology means nothing when you need to fight on city streets surrounded by non-combatants. It's ugly and it will probably continue to be so for the next few years (at least).

Medic,
Though I'm not a vet, I just want you to know that my family and I are all behind all of you 100% and hope you all get home safe, and soon!


Don't mean to step on yer toes Fry2, but we did in fact invade Iraq. My unit, for example, completed the deepest air assault mission in the history of combat. We had Baghdad completely surrounded. We invaded North/Northeast from the border of Saudi Arabia (first shots of the ground war were fired near there from an Apache from the 101st) and from Kuwait.



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Three things are different:

1. We had a MASSIVE force. 750,000 troops. BIG difference. We had enough troops to keep security in check.

2. We were fully supplied, armed and protected with layers and layers of force. The troops there now do not enjoy those fundamentals.

3. At the time, the Iraqi people were much more inclined to let us take Saddam out. We had not yet betrayed them as we did later.



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   
No offense taken. Thats why I put invade in quotes. I know you guys got in and dirty but "someone"*coughUNcough* stopped you from completing the job when it should have been.
I remember that war like it was yesterday. There was an unbelievable amount of support for you. I was in Williamsburg at the onset and even the William and Mary students were in almost full support! You guys did an incredible job!



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkwraith
Why Won't Gen. Clark And Howard Dean Join Forces?

Clark can't win by himself............

Their platforms are nearly identical!

Is General Clark a Shill?


There's a HUGE difference in a major plank of their platforms. Clark wants to ELIMINATE taxes for those making less than 50k, and Dean wants to raise everyone's taxes. They are the two most extreme opposite candidates running regarding the only issue people give a crap about.



posted on Feb, 8 2004 @ 12:01 AM
link   
EastCoast Kid, To answer your question about female soldiers, I have treated several for combat injuries, but most were from heat injuries, or illness. One Combat injury that comes to mind is a Female MP who was a combat lifesaver and was working on a Wounded Iraqi in the streets, and some one dropped a grenade on her from the roof of a building. She caught shrappneal from the waist down. Had liver damage. It was disturbing. So yeah, women are getting hurt. Some of our Guntrucks here run with women gunners on the .50s. So they're is deffinatly alot of women combatents out here.



posted on Feb, 8 2004 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by medic
EastCoast Kid, To answer your question about female soldiers, I have treated several for combat injuries, but most were from heat injuries, or illness. One Combat injury that comes to mind is a Female MP who was a combat lifesaver and was working on a Wounded Iraqi in the streets, and some one dropped a grenade on her from the roof of a building. She caught shrappneal from the waist down. Had liver damage. It was disturbing. So yeah, women are getting hurt. Some of our Guntrucks here run with women gunners on the .50s. So they're is deffinatly alot of women combatents out here.


equality is a bitch' ain't it?



posted on Feb, 8 2004 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Yeah I see your point Fry and ECK, the first war was kind of a "wham bam thank you ma'am" type thing were this one more....drawn out.

I do have to wonder....if we had taken out the regime and occupied Iraq back in '91, would the same terrorism and insurgency have happened? Could it have jumpstarted this terrorism cycle even earlier?

The occupation would have been UN though, so the the world might have shared the ire of the Islamic fundamentalists. Who would they attack? The US? France? Britain? Saudi Arabia? Turkey? Who would have been the occupiers?




top topics



 
0

log in

join