In article , says...

"jps" wrote in message

Like Vietnam, we're bogged down in a war without reason.

We are in a war for the survival of the western culture. If you can't see
that then you are part of the problem. Islam is like communisim in its goal
which is that utopia will only be available when the whole world is Islamic
or communist.

We did not actively try to destroy communism through wars of aggression.
We matched resource for resource and they spent themselves into
bankruptcy, just as we're doing now.

This is a war of oil. Kissinger pointed out in the 1970s that, given
the waning power of the Soviets, a lack of our presence in the mid east
would leave that big pool of oil to be controlled by China or India. The
Neocons have kept that in mind for the past several decades and couldn't
wait to push King George into taking over.a

Unfortunately, the present administration doesn't share Nixon's resolve
to properly protect our troops. Inferior vests, unarmored humvees and a
calloused approach has cost many of our citizens their lives or their
sound bodies. It's an u necessary risk that could have been solved with
a bit more money. Our men and women are again cannon fodder.

Congress, the House and the Senate, are the ones that control how much money
is appropriated. And, Bush hasn't vetoed a single spending bill. Call your
Representative or Senator and complain to them.

Ever hear of a little place called the Pentagon? They and Don Rumsfeld
determine the resources necessary for managing and maintaining our
fighting forces. The real military minds thought we underestimated our
needs but Rumsfeld things we can get by with a smaller fighting force
and fewer resources.

They make recommendations to congress, not the other way around.

jps

jps wrote:
In article ,

says...

"Tamaroak" wrote in message
...
And a very high percentage of these liberals, like me, are
decorated
Vietnam era vets who really know what it was like to be in the
service, a
concept lost to "leaders" like AWOL bush,
"had-better-things-to-do"
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of these chickenhawks
who think
nothing of sending our troops into battle to enrich themselves
and their
friends.

Where were you from 1962 to 1972? Defending your country or
shooting off
your mouth like you are today?

Capt. Jeff

With respect Sir: I was here during those years and I heard all
the
rhetoric and saw what was being done. The horrible waste of men
who died
while the generals were forced to fight a war micromanaged by
President
Johnson. I remember when President Nixon was elected, he mined the
harbors
in N. Vietnam to keep arms from our allies (France, Germany, Russia
and
England) from being delivered to Vietnam. This killed no one and
saved our
soldiers lives. WHY didn't Johnson do that???????

He didn't have the guts to stand up and defend our guys, they were
cannon
fodder to him. He was more concerned with world opinion. A Kerry,
Clinton
or liberal viewpoint. There are Democrats, many of them who are
NOT of this
mind set but they would never get the nomination in the current
Democrat
party.

It is not healthy for our country for one party to hold the reigns
of power
for too long. We, all of us need to do something to change the
leadership
of the Democrat party or this will become a one party country and
we are
headed down the tubes. Belittling the Republicans won't do it,
changing the
democrat party to reflect the values of the red states (who are
mainly
democrat anyway) is the way to go.

Well said.

Like Vietnam, we're bogged down in a war without reason.

Unfortunately, the present administration doesn't share Nixon's
resolve
to properly protect our troops. Inferior vests, unarmored humvees
and a
calloused approach has cost many of our citizens their lives or their

sound bodies. It's an u necessary risk that could have been solved
with
a bit more money. Our men and women are again cannon fodder.

jps

Ah, some people would rather goose-step to the party, than think for
themselves. This type of fool takes anything, and everything that
BushCo says as absolute truth, and does exactly as they are told.
That's exactly the way the Nazi's gained so much power, by persuading
people that they were right.

I'm a liberal and I agree with the statements in your post. I'm
crossposting it to alt.politics and misc.legal because I don't think it
belongs in rec.boats. I believe, as you mention, that soldiers are merely
cannon fodder that have been brainwashed by their social groups (esp. the
church) or economically forced into the military. Once you've been handed a
gun and stuck on the battlefield to face death all you really have is your
God, and that means they're usually very religious and conservative and
breed more of themselves. And of course if you're hurt in the line of fire
you're going to rationalize that you were fighting a "just" and "necessary"
war, because it would be too painful to realize your life was ruined just to
feed the people in power.

I have to say you're right in general.


"Freddy Smithers" wrote in message
...

When there's an election coming up, you hear a
lot of talk about how liberals "support the troops"
and in rare cases, it's true. There are certainly
liberals out there who respect the bravery, sacrifice,
and risks our troops take to keep this country
protected from its enemies.

However, the ugly truth is that there are a lot of
liberals in this country, a large majority of them,
who don't support the troops, who -- as one poster
on the Democratic Underground put it -- look at the
our troops as "Cannon fodder and killers doing what
they're told to do".

Of course, since most Americans have a very high
opinion of our soldiers, liberals would face enormous
political ramifications if they were honest about what
they thought. So instead, we get surreptitious assaults
on our military.

For example, part of the reason Abu Ghraib has gotten
so much attention & the press keeps churning out 2 and
a 1/2 year old stories about soldiers teasing it to smear
the troops. "See? That's what they're all like behind
closed doors! Sadistic savages."

Here are some other examples that have come to light
over the last couple of days that might not seem to be
connected, but they're all products of the same liberal
mentality when it comes to the military:


Yesterday was the first day military recruiters have
been on campus since the Garfield High School PTSA
passed a resolution seeking to oust them from public-
school campuses. The resolution, first of its kind in
the state, passed May 9.

"Given the seriousness of what they are requesting people
to participate in, we'd just prefer they not be on school
grounds, which are supposed to be protected space for
students," said Hagopian.

...Other anti-recruiting movements are also picking up
steam.

In recent months, college students in California and New
York have forced recruiters off campus, and in Boston,
activists dumped 5 gallons of fake blood on the doorstep
of a recruiting center.

In the Puget Sound area, a group of students and parents
stopped a Blackhawk helicopter from landing on fields at
Bainbridge Island High School in April. The students
said the helicopter, used for Army National Guard
recruiting tours, was war propaganda.

Earlier this month, a student at Foss High School in
Tacoma sent e-mails to thousands of activists across the
country, urging them to call school officials after plans
for an anti-recruitment "teach-in" hit administrative
roadblocks.

Some students at Garfield are planning a walkout Monday
and a march on Army recruiting headquarters down the street.


Oh yeah, the liberals harassing military recruiters really
"support the troops." So much so that they don't believe the
military should even be able to recruit on their campuses.
Here's mo

NBC's "Today" show aired unsubstantiated claims on Tuesday
that U.S. troops had desecrated the Quran on at least two
occasions, in a report that echoed a now retracted Newsweek
story that has inflamed the Muslim world and led to deadly
riots.
...The NBC newsman then sourced an allegation by a female
terrorist suspect who had been detained at Abu Ghraib,
who aired her claim in an Iraqi newspaper.

"[She said] she was raped every night by six American
soldiers," Engel reported, before adding that U.S. officials
deny the claim.


Here's a question: you think the "Today" show would air
unsubstantiated allegations that the ACLU desecrated the
Bible at board meetings? If someone with the same level
of credibility as a "female terrorist suspect," like let's
say an escaped mental patient, claimed that she was gang
raped at DNC headquarters, you think the "Today" show would
report that? Not a chance in hell. But any old charge aimed
at the military, no matter what it is, just gets tossed out
there. Here's another story:

The president of a group representing reporters worldwide
is accusing U.S. soldiers of committing atrocities without
offering any evidence to back the charge up. Appearing in
St. Louis on Friday, Newspaper Guild President Linda Foley
complained:

"What outrages me as a representative of journalists is
that there’s not more outrage about the number, and the
brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military
toward the killing of journalists in Iraq."

In case anyone missed the point, Foley restated her
allegation:

"They target and kill journalists ... uh, from other
countries, particularly Arab countries like Al -, like
Arab news services like Al-Jazeera, for example. They
actually target them and blow up their studios with
impunity. ..."


To believe that the troops are deliberately murdering
journalists, you must have a very low opinion of them
and apparently this belief is quite widespread in the
media because we keep hearing it again & again. Does
anyone believe that the military is going to be treated
fairly by journalists who think the military has marked
them for death?

Sure, there are always going a few bad apples in the
bunch. But, the work our troops are doing in Iraq and
across the world is valiant, honorable, and should be
praised, not constantly derided and treated with suspicion.

Unfortunately, when we get to the point where ridiculous
& unsubstantiated allegations against our military are
constantly being hurled about and military recruiters
aren't even welcome in American high schools, then
liberal hostility to the military has gone too far and
it's time for more people to call it what it is and speak
up for the troops.








-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.

Freddy Smithers wrote:
snip...
Unfortunately, when we get to the point where ridiculous
& unsubstantiated allegations against our military are
constantly being hurled about and military recruiters
aren't even welcome in American high schools, then
liberal hostility to the military has gone too far and
it's time for more people to call it what it is and speak
up for the troops.




I say let 'em back in when the recruiters start telling the truth about
the 'real world' the soldiers will soon discover.

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Freddy Smithers wrote:
snip...
Unfortunately, when we get to the point where ridiculous
& unsubstantiated allegations against our military are constantly being
hurled about and military recruiters aren't even welcome in American high
schools, then liberal hostility to the military has gone too far and it's
time for more people to call it what it is and speak up for the troops.



I say let 'em back in when the recruiters start telling the truth about
the 'real world' the soldiers will soon discover.

The truth is that if you join the military you might be put into a position
where you could die in both training and in actual war.

How many commercial fishermen die each year? That is a civilian occupation
where you are more likely to die catching a fish than being a bullet catcher
in the military.