Democrats versus Republicans

[PBzeer]

sck5 - I'm curious as to who wrote the piece you posted. Given the writing style and tone, I find it hard to believe it was you.

Basically though, if one wants to assume that nothing in life changes, that cultures do not grow, nor change, and the best way to deal with a 13th century culture is to leave it in the 13th century, then it makes sense.

For instance, the part about US soldiers knocking down the doors. Citizens are turning in terrorists as soon as they find them. The following would be beneficial reading on this point ..... washingtonpost.com . Making assumptions on too narrow a range regarding emotional behavior is never a wise thing. Especially when there is no precedent to be followed or guided by.

I am fortunate, in that I am not college educated. Thus, my biases are self inflicted, rather than taught.

[sailaway21]

Originally Posted by SailorMitch

OK, so let's look at the world today, and despite Sway's usual attempt to gloss over the Bushite campaign to start this war and then to find a reason to support it later--you have to look at history for the context of today's situation as Patrick Henry so eloquently put it, even if you really want to avoid looking at that history. and i have said what follows before on here, but there is a new twist to add. By taking out Saddam, Bush eliminated the one regional force that acted to keep Iran in check. With the absence of Saddam's influence in the area, Iran was free to step in and fill the void. We were powerless to do anything about it because of our comittment to the Iraq war.

So now let's look at Putin and Russia, newly resurgent because of a gross miscalculation on RUssia's intentions by Bush and Rice. Putin has sucked Bush in so far it's embarrassing. Bush always assumed Putin was a buddy. I think Putin saw Bush as a sucker. Even if we had wanted to intervene militarily to support Georgia, we couldn't because we lacked the military strength to do so because we are strapped for troops and hardware due to Iraq.

SO to get to Sway's question of what do we do today? The best we can do is diplomacy for both situations, but we are negotiating from weakness in all areas. Unfortunately we need Russia's support to help contain Iran. And we need to smack russia for the heavy-handed response to georgia, which the Georgian's did precipitate after all. On the whole, we can't do much beyond going back to the group of 7, etc., etc.

As for Iraq, pray the iraqis can run and protect their own country while we follow the Bush/Milaki timeline to withdraw our troops. (Gee, which politician was pushing for a timeline and which one was talking about a 100 year occupation in iraq> OH yeah, the latter one now suppoRTs a time line for withdrawal too, but that's not a flip flop to the blue Kool Aide crowd for some reason.

So those of you who think Bush's invasion of Iraq has made us safer. OH really?

Thanks for responding to current events Mitch. I expect Free is secretly relieved to have had the Iraqi war and Bush for an issue, allowing him to move forward from debating the correctness of Union actions at Fort Sumter.

Of course, I have a few bones to pick with your view of foreign affairs as outlined. (g)

1. It's incorrect to think that the US is incapable of responding to military events in Georgia or anywhere else in the world for that matter. While we desperately need a larger military we still have one that is global in reach and, while it might not have been ground forces or precision bombing, we could have lit up the Russian-Georgian border on fairly short notice if we'd desired. Some may poh-pooh that capability but let them name another nation that could do the same. The biggest issue would have been over-flight authority from other nations-something we'd probably be inclined to finesse the need for were it truly important to act. The troops in Europe and the Far East have just as much to do with any inability to respond to such events as those in Afghanistan and Iraq.

2. The sole reason, and the correct one, that we did not act in Georgia, and should not have acted in Yugoslavia, is that Georgia is not a strategic interest of the United States. Should Georgia and the Ukraine be admitted to NATO the real significance of such actions would be that the US was publicly saying that those countries are a part of the Europe that is of strategic importance to the US and that an attack on them is equivalent to an attack on the US. And, btw, that's what the NATO treaty binds it's members to agreeing upon.

3. Until Georgia and the Ukraine actually become members of NATO their relations with Russia will remain primarily a European concern, irrespective of NATO. Given the dithering about common to the EP and it's members it's unlikely that Georgia itself will become a strong US interest other than as it relates to Russian hegemony.

4. We are not dependent on Russian help with the Iranian situation other than the fact that they hold veto power in the UN Security Council. In fact, it's quite the contrary; Russia is a big part of the problem and is the single largest source of nuclear expertise the Iranian's have to draw upon. They don't have to help us but it'd be nice if they stopped working against us. Even if Russian support for Iran's nuclear program was withdrawn tomorrow there would still be an on-going problem with Iran, it's nukes, and it's goals within the region.

5. A time line for withdrawal was not appropriate in Iraq until it was apparent that the Iraqi's could largely govern and defend the country themselves. It was certainly not appropriate as long as al-Qaeda felt it worthwhile to continue to send in foreign fighters to battle us and the Iraqi's there. With Iraq taking over the control of a majority of it's regions it is certainly appropriate to start the discussion-always allowing for changing events upon the ground, some of which are Iranian. How, while occupied in Iraq right next door to Iran, you think that makes us powerless to respond to Iran is beyond common sense. There are a few "Patton"s out there who think it might not be a bad idea to roll on towards Tehran while the troops are in the neighborhood. A free and strong Iraq, unlike the remnants of Saddam's regime, will be a far better ally and counterbalance to Iranian interests.

6. Only an ostrich can view the capabilities of world-wide terrorism and not say that we are good deal safer today than we were prior to 11 September 2001. The proof is in the pudding. To imagine that the dithering about approach of the previous administration, complete with bombing of Sudanese aspirin factories while ignoring actual attacks upon the US military, would have yielded such results as we've seen not only in Iraq but the Lebanon, Libya, and Egypt is hubris pure and simple. There's been a readjustment of opinion within the Middle East on the will and might of the US and her military. A long overdue one at that.

7. Strategic interests often involve oil. Underreported and unacknowledged as one of the principle causes for the downfall of the Soviet Union was the cheap and ready supply of crude oil on world markets. Today's Russian resurgence is directly tied to the world crude oil market. Europe is particularly dependent upon Russian oil. Still today Russia has little to offer economically other than natural resources, oil being the principle of them. Thus US drilling and exploration and drilling elsewhere is not just an economic interest, it is a strategic interest of the US and her allies.

8. As the election approaches it is, much to Free's gratification, important to gaze upon history. History is very important just not the type of selective history Free is engaging in. Which party is looking for another "peace dividend" with the winding down of action in Iraq? Which party will be the one to say that we need a larger military to face the coming challenges of an oil-rich Russia and a nuclear Iraq. More to the point, which candidates for the presidency will avow those positions? Will it be Barack Obama who thinks somehow the Iranians have not understood our position of the last thirty years? Something that just a bit of diplomacy and a meeting between he and one of the very Iranian's who actually seized our personnel, and made them hostages for over 400 days, would resolve over lunch, perhaps. Would it be Joe Biden who voted against every successful initiative military and economic that crippled the Evil Empire in the 1980's and 90's? The same Joe Biden who saw no US interest in the liberation of Kuwait but was finally ready to act against Saddam in 2003? Or does a McCain administration properly equipped with a big stick seem more likely to continue world peace while confabulating our enemies? McCain may well be wrong on many issues, and I believe he is, but he's not wrong on this most important one. He is, simply put, not inclined to easily deploy US forces to areas of marginal US interest but, when deployed, he's much more likely to do so in a fashion that ensures a solid US victory. And, of particular gall to the Looney Left, he's not exactly going to lose sleep over what Europe thinks, as few should.

[serenity4u2]

Waterview, Thats a pretty tough call.... I grew up in SE CT and considered myself a Democrat as a 17 y/o kid... I really was not to engaged in the political process or really cared much as a young guy... I cared like most about cars, toys, starting a family, etc.... The military has changed over my THIRTY years of service... Exps; Drug testing, not excepting people into service without a HS diploma, Women serving in certain combat units, Increased military training do to our increased technology, a push for college education while on Active Duty (many enlisted people myself included obtained at least a BS/BA- Myself a Masters... A very BIG change is also the internet... Recall in 91', I relied on snail mail and TV access usually was provided by ARMED FORCES TV... The largest source of outside info that was pretty universal to most all service men and women was the Stars and Stripes News paper... Before I retiredd I was Logged on daily to the NET and could watch news reports from CNN and FOX, MSNBC etc... Despite the close military monitoring of our net activity we were better informed... Some times a little ticked off with what we heard from our leaders ands the typical pundits...

As far as Votes? I certainly would state that the Armed Services is a pretty diverse group of people... Myself, I was a USN Master Chief who served 20 plus years with the USMC... As a senior enlisted person a chief concern of mine was the morale of the younger personnel. Some times we aere the happiest when we were b i t ch i n g- lol....

Despite the diversity, I think the troops will vote mostly what each one feels is in there best interest.. I did and think most Americans do as well... Some factors to consider...

1. Very Few of us ever wanted to be in a war zone- it happens... Most ALL of us DESIRE to be Victorious... Now we ALL want to know the Government Political Leaders definition of Victory so we can achieve it... I felt pretty GOOD about what we accomlished in 91' and the people back home let us know it. Sure, we had WAR protestors back then too- still there voices were drowned out by the many who welcomed us home. I DID NOT GET THE SAME THIS TIME AROUND... In Fact I actually get criticised and people take verbal pot shots.. Keep in mind I reside in a VERY Liberal part of WA State.

2. Many of us feel a RIGHTOUS ANGER at BOTH political parties...

(a) Both Political Parties put us in a PROTRACTED War.. Many of us
Believe those same political leaders failed to explain this would be a
protracted War and also think Most Citizens thought IRAQ would be
like KUWAIT... Remember Kuwait was Short and we did not need to
help the Kuwati's establish a WHOLE KNEW Government... The Rep's
failed to make that point well established with the average Citizen.
Many of us Believe the Dem's used the bad aspects of a protracted
war to score political points with thier constituents- at OUR EXPENSE.
The US Media overwhelmingly reported and even distorted what we
actually were achieving... It seemed to us that the US citizens were
getting a different picture then what we were seeing... VERY MUCH
Negative reporting. There is enough regarding BOTH Parties to
bring a sense of disheartenment to the troops...

(b) Members of the Armed Services come from different mindsets do to
age, where they grew up, thier rank, level of education, race to
include just some of the many factors... Lets be honest: you have
seen a 95% vote by black people for OBAMA- over Hillary. That will
probably be the same with the troops. You have seen Hillary did well
with Rural white voters, Hispanics and Jewish Americans... Many of
them will be turned off by Obama and look at McCain. Many women
in our Military may be very attracted to Sarah Palin. Identity ppolitics
exists in our society and our military is made up from our society.

(c) Many of us Older people remember that it was Bush who gave us a
Pay Raise, extended our health care (Tri Care) with what is called
Tri Care for Life- esentially a Medicare Supplement-(as we lose our
medical care at age 65 and are forced into Medicare).. Bush gave us
ConCurrent Reciept- (very important to older troops who plan on
retirement as I did). Bush extended our GI Educational Benefits.
We lose them after Ten Years if not Used- Now we can pass them
on to our families... I have NO need for mine (I have an Education)
it is nice to pass them on to my kids... Remember that people vote
there pocket books and we in the military are no different in that
regard...

(d) McCain is viewed as One of us... His story is something WE ALL can
relate to and even ask ourselves what we would do in such a
situation... Keep in mind- they did "soften" / Modefy the Code of
Conduct Post Vietnam in case of enemy capture... It is Still Pretty
Tough and McCain earns much respect.

(e) McCain was publicly critical of Rummy when we were not able to be.
That scores points for many of us and we are so Glad He Called on
the Surge. Remember the Republicans attacked McCain at that time.

(f) McCain visted the region many times. I now learned that Gov Palin
went to Kuwait, Iraq and visted wounded Alaskans flown to Germany.
Thats straight out of the mouth of Alaska's senior Military Officer.
My Governor from WA state never visited us. I did hear that one of
Senators came and took the political Tour of Iraq.

(g) Most ALL troops I had contact with like myself REALLY want to WIN..
Many of us HATE the fact that Senator Ried already called us
Defeated. Many of us HATE the fact that soom in Politics want a
lost war so they can attribute that to Bush. It also seems to many of
us that this sentiment is in the media.

***** Let explain why this is SO IMPORTANT to us who served*****

No one wants to be labled a loser and/or be associated with a Fought War we
LOST... BTW the Men and WOMEN who served in Vietnam did NOT LOSE that WAR (Yes there are EIGHT WOMEN on the Vietnam Wall).. American Men and WOMEN SERVE our country and Fight the Wars- It is OUR Political Leaders who Win or Lose the War. We pay with our Sweat, Blood, Tears and Scarred Memories. They Pay with political campaigns and tax payer checks. From a Personal stand point, I can NOT put into words the APPRECIATION I have recieved from the citizens of Kuwait- when I visited that region on vacation. I could wear my Hat with the Saudi/Kuaiti Liberation medal on my head and so many Kuwaiti's just wanted to talk with me. It was hard and humbling to turn down offers for meals and gifts. There very sincere thank you was ALL and more then I wanted. Kuwaiti children to young to recall there country's invasion are taught about it and about us Americans in a VERY favarable manner. I and so many American troops I dealt with DESIRE the same type of response when we visit (what we hope) to be a Peaceful Iraqi Government 15 years from now. So, to many of us troops who experienced such appreciation from the Kuwaiti's and most Iraqi's today- Winning in Iraq is PERSONAL... Defeat is Also personal and NOT an option most of us want to live with nor desire the Iraqi people suffer as well.

**** I could mention the Regional political struggles as well. I really do not want to see Iraq turn into greater Iran and an Arab/Persian War.

3. The Military Vote is NOT a MONOLITHIC vote- just as the Veteran Vote is not a Monolythic vote...

4. As far as myself- I have enough reasons to be angry with Both Parties. I will Vote McCain/Palin because:

(a) winning means more to me then any Party

(b) Obama/Biden did not support the surge and was willing to claim defeat
with Harry Ried- vote for cutting needed funds to us while in the field.
I Believe also that was less about me or any other person serving in
country- rather more about Hostility Towards Bush.

(c) Biden & Clinton both stated Obama is not ready to lead this country.
Yes, thats Primary politics- but was not directed at anyone else.

(d) I am just an American- yet, since this country places additional
adjectives in order to further define / devide america. I will do so as
well.... I am a Jewish American (in Kuwait/Iraq) Just American.. Yet,
in this devisive country- I AM JEWISH- american.. Yes, the Obama's
Pastor of TWENTY Years really Bothers me... His words attacking
Jewish Americans is appauling... His words are spoken in the OPEN and
even considered as one of his Greatest Sermons. I realize there will
ALways be racist, sexist biggots.. Yet, most actually harbor such
quietly or atleast share them behind closed doors. The fact that this
Pastor is so OPEN and BOLD tells me what type of man he is and what
type of people would attend such a church for Spiritual Mentoring. I
notice how Obama tried to hide this Pastor and also had a hard time
calling this man what He is- a RACIST, SEXIST, ANTI SEMETIC,
BIGGOT.... My Wise Jewish Mother taught me long ago- 'you will be
known partly by the company you keep'....

[erps]

I DID NOT GET THE SAME THIS TIME AROUND... In Fact I actually get criticised and people take verbal pot shots.. Keep in mind I reside in a VERY Liberal part of WA State.

Grrrrr.. From one of the other types who lives in Washington that eats meat, drinks beer, exercises his 2nd amendment right and knows the difference between a socket wrench and a crescent wrench, this beer commercial sums up our view on your service:

[Freesail99]

8. As the election approaches it is, much to Free's gratification, important to gaze upon history. History is very important just not the type of selective history Free is engaging in. Which party is looking for another "peace dividend" with the winding down of action in Iraq? Which party will be the one to say that we need a larger military to face the coming challenges of an oil-rich Russia and a nuclear Iraq. More to the point, which candidates for the presidency will avow those positions? Will it be Barack Obama who thinks somehow the Iranians have not understood our position of the last thirty years?

Sway, while I know that typing lots of words makes many half truths stick perhaps you should have read what I said in post # 3814 which is below. This is what started this current conversation.

Let me first say, I don't like Obama. But the fact that the surge did work, also says, we never had enough troops to do the job right, in the first place. Soldiers being forced to do a second and even a third tour of duty, backs me up on that. That also says a lot about our present leadership.

[serenity4u2]

Erps... Thanks for the video... I was not issuing an inditement on ALL WA State citizens.. Think you know that. Hope those who read the ENTIRE post know that as well and see my bigger point. Yes Erps, political photo opps by Liberal Democrats in WA state are just that... There is a reason Senator Murray got the nick name Taliban Patti or Osama-Bin-Mama... Go put some USMC Sticker and other Pro Military ones on your car- then leave it parked in Bellingham WA... Hope you do not receive the same as I did. Since you live in WA state as I do- You are very aware of the politics in this state. Maybe you and I would chug a few beers and get along. WA state is very liberal leaning with many 'anti war" activist- as if those who actually served wanted to be in war... Look, it is what it is... As the Former Marine Commadant Gen Gray said- a Good marine learns to Adapt, Improvise and Overcome.. I can live amongst Liberal anti war activists- I am not residing here for them or anyone but myself and family. Sorry if you were offended as a WA state citizen- no offense was intended...

[sailaway21]

Originally Posted by Freesail99

Sway, while I know that typing lots of words makes many half truths stick perhaps you should have read what I said in post # 3814 which is below. This is what started this current conversation.

Let me first say, I don't like Obama. But the fact that the surge did work, also says, we never had enough troops to do the job right, in the first place. Soldiers being forced to do a second and even a third tour of duty, backs me up on that. That also says a lot about our present leadership.

Which does nothing to explain your apparent fixation on the early events of the war while ignoring all signs of progress since. I'm sure that you are aware of those events but your writings do not reflect it. I'm sorry but there's far more to the story than, "Bush lied-men died" and an acknowledgment of the surge working being only a waty of pointing out insufficient troops originally.

Some posters here display an ignorance of military history, as if there have never been tremendous miscalculations by generals and political leaders alike. Military operations are frequently fraught with misjudgments and even incompetence. What has always been most remarkable about the US military is it's ability to adapt to changing circumstances and even changing missions. It was perfectly reasonable to expect to have a "light footprint" in Iraq as the war unfolded. When that proved to be inadequate to the task the policy was changed. Whether it should have been changed sooner or should have been foreseen is a debate for military historians.

What is inarguable is that the policy was changed and our success was a result of that change. And, like it or not, GW Bush's hands were all over not only the original policy but the impetus to change that policy. Contrast that with the defeatists of the Reid, Biden, and Pelosi models and GW Bush gets both the blame and the fame for winning this war.

It really matter little, for purposes of this discussion, whether you like Obama or not since you seemingly cannot get past the fact that we are winning in Iraq largely due to GW Bush's leadership and resolve, admittedly with past mistakes, and that GW Bush is not up for re-election and so will not be C-I-C on 21 January 2009. The relevant argument is really between the cut & runners and those who said, git 'er done.

[Freesail99]

It really matter little, for purposes of this discussion, whether you like Obama or not since you seemingly cannot get past the fact that we are winning in Iraq largely due to GW Bush's leadership and resolve, admittedly with past mistakes, and that GW Bush is not up for re-election and so will not be C-I-C on 21 January 2009. The relevant argument is really between the cut & runners and those who said, git 'er done.

With the sheer power of the United States behind him, any president, no matter what his convictions, if he stuck to it long enough, would be successful. Might isn't always right.

[sck5]

PB you are a piece of work. You ask for a direct answer, I give you one and you dont believe I wrote it myself!! News Flash! Liberals do think for themselves - they just dont agree with Republicans! I guess you will never be satisfied - but do you really think (as it seemed you said) that going to college means you are biased? Yes, I went to college but I can testify that there were both Dems and Repubs there so I am not sure what the bias would be ...

[serenity4u2]

After reviewing the posts between you and PB... I agree with you on two issues... Going to college is a good thing and people do learn and expand there thinking. I completed both a BS and MS in Health Care Administration. I did this in a less then traditional manner. It was on weekends 8 hours Sat & Sun. Also located on Military stations, yet taught by SIU professors. It certainly enhanced my Military career as a US Navy Master Chief Hospital Corpsman. It also enhanced my thinking about the delivery of health care. Private vs Government. My thesis was done on the bloated expensive cost the The Dept of Veteran Affairs delivery system.

The second point I agree with you is that Liberals do think differently then Conservatives... My professors were very Liberal- (very few actually managed a hospital budget)... Now, different view points are healthy and USALLY welcomed by myself if they are not of contentious and personal in nature.. I disagreed with my professors on numerous occasions, while also pointing out that I was responsible for the procurement of millions of dollars of medical supplies and actually managing Hospital Field Units... The Doc's in all fairness were mostly young and new grads from school. I usually liked to point out what works on paper and in the theory of the classroom is not always what works in REAL life experience..

I have very little experience with Universities on campus in the traditional sense.. Just ONE experience... I had to Pull my daughter out of WWU in Bellingham WA.. Several professors (liberal) actually singled her out and in a very demeaning manner. She tended to take a more moderate to conservative
position on issues. She was also unfairly graded- since most her classes at the undergrad level are pretty subjective in nature, ie: sociology and the like.
My daughter essentially felt she was being indoctrinated and also punished for have a "less" then liberal view. So where I agree with you that Liberals can think and do think differently, I'd just like to see some tolerance for opposing views.. Thats just ONE university so not a very good sample.. Still I have been stationed in Northern CA and walked tilden Park behind Berkley. I would describe WWU as a small Berkley- pretty campus however..

sck5- Sometimes its BEST if People just AGREE to RESPECTFULLY Disagree!