Moderateman Moderateman

War Protestors and Politicians PUT UP OR SHUT UP

▼

War Protestors and Politicians PUT UP OR SHUT UP

Heres is your chance take it please

from JoeUser Forums
For all the whining crybabies protesting the war and bemoaning the treatment of the poor terrorist here is a great idea.

All you have to do is get a new bill together saying NO MORE FUNDING OF WAR>> THATS all

then sign your names to it, get on television and get together a coalition of the weak and cowardly to have petitions signed.

Its very simple really all you have to do is come out and tell america "we will not have part in the greater war on terror"

But of course then you have to live with all your neighbors knowing who you are.

The politicions knowing there re-election is in risk of failing WILL NOT HAVE THE BALLZ to do this.

If your so sure this war is a bad war, wrong war, wrong time, wrong reasons, step up to the national plate and take your swings, out front in view of everyone.

But since you value your jobs and eating at the public troth YOUR not going to do this, your just going to cry, and whine in the background, take sneak shots at the President.
politics
16,740 views 67 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's My Two Cents


I do love your two cents.. keep them solid opinions comming, please..
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top

hey, did you get any? 

Fish! 

Shame for those who read this wrong!

Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #53 from PolMach Forums Top
Lies are cheap, allegations cheaper. The truth costs a lot and you have none. How about providing your backup for your OPinion?

if not, that is all it is, and I am glad he is Sec Def, and you are not!


You need to pay more attention to the news.
"In a contentious exchange over the costs of war with Iraq, the Pentagon's second-ranking official today disparaged a top Army general's assessment of the number of troops needed to secure postwar Iraq. House Democrats then accused the Pentagon official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, of concealing internal administration estimates on the cost of fighting and rebuilding the country.

Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops.
"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said. General Shinseki gave his estimate in response to a question at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point — something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers — are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." He also said that the regional commander, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, would determine the precise figure.

A spokesman for General Shinseki, Col. Joe Curtin, said today that the general stood by his estimate. "He was asked a question and he responded with his best military judgment," Colonel Curtin said. General Shinseki is a former commander of the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia."

Link

The administration also fired the Secretary of the Army over the disagreement on amount of troops needed.

"The former civilian head of the Army said Monday it is time for the Pentagon to admit that the military is in for a long occupation of Iraq that will require a major commitment of American troops.
Former Army secretary Thomas White said in an interview that senior Defense officials "are unwilling to come to grips" with the scale of the postwar U.S. obligation in Iraq. The Pentagon has about 150,000 troops in Iraq and recently announced that the Army's 3rd Infantry Division's stay there has been extended indefinitely.

"This is not what they were selling (before the war)," White said, describing how senior Defense officials downplayed the need for a large occupation force. "It's almost a question of people not wanting to 'fess up to the notion that we will be there a long time and they might have to set up a rotation and sustain it for the long term."

The interview was White's first since leaving the Pentagon in May after a series of public feuds with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld led to his firing.

Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz criticized the Army's chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, after Shinseki told Congress in February that the occupation could require "several hundred thousand troops." Wolfowitz called Shinseki's estimate "wildly off the mark."

Rumsfeld was furious with White when the Army secretary agreed with Shinseki.

Last month, Rumsfeld said the United States would remain in Iraq as "long as it takes." But the Defense chief was not specific about the size of the force.

White said it is reasonable to assume the Pentagon will need more than 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq to provide stability for at least the next year. Pentagon officials envisioned having about 100,000 troops there immediately after the war, but they hoped that number would be quickly drawn down."

Link

Now how about some backup for your opinion.
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
The question was not whether I was being called names, it was whether there was name-calling at all.

-suspeckted


sus???/ honestly, when and IF I call YOU a name there will be no doubt, ok?
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #52 By: Dr. Guy - 1/29/2005 9:03:49 PM
hey, did you get any?
Fish!
Shame for those who read this wrong!


yep did!! keeper, mostly given away and eaten.
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #53 By: whoman69 - 1/30/2005 8:15:06 PM


can YOU do anything besides tearing america and her policies apart? hmmmmm???
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army


Not to take this off subject anymore then it needs to be but: You do know that Gen Shineski was one of the most despised and least respected Army Commanders of his time by those who served under him? As a 1LT. stationed in Germany, his soldiers placed warning letters on the Company 1SG desk, that he would be shoved in a wallocker and thrown out a third story window if he remained a platoon leader. Not one person I know questioned his departure or was not happy that he left.

New commanders are appointed after every Command review board once a year. His replacement was picked the year before he left at a board that did not only chose his replacement, but most of the Armies upper command. That year's review board was held a few months early because to the coming activity that would have made holding the board impractical and it's members unable to attend. He did not leave early, just that his replacement was chosen early in order for him to prepare for the difficult events to follow. Nothing strange there. The Media and politicians has tried to hype this up as something strange, it was not.

But I do wish to say one thing about that man. He could take that useless piece of S$%# %$^$^ french looking #$@#$% bleep... black beret and S$%^& @#$ #$@#$% $%#% where the sun don't F$%#^ shine. The only reason why we have to wear the G#^&% things is because as the USAERA Commander he pruchased near 200 thousand of them without authorization and had to pay half of two months pay for them. Many say he just counted the days until he didn't need authorization after that.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yup, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki will always be remembered by those of us who served during his tenure as "the beret boy". It was pathetic how he stole the Black Beret of the head of the Rangers who revered it, (because they earned it) and forced it on the heads of those who resented it. I remember wondering how the good general would feel if General Officer stars were issued to all the E-4 and below for mandatory wear.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
It was pathetic how he stole the Black Beret from Ranger who revered it, (because he earned it) and forced it on the heads of those who resented it.


Ya, he wound up giving them buff berets. Nothing like adding insults to injury. The interesting thing is, I almost never see a Ranger in them anymore. Most Ranger commanders authorize their soldiers to wear the old BDU Cap now.

Even when he did order the Army to purchase them, he was in so big of hurry that he ignored procurement regulations. The Regulations required the contracts to go to US firms first then to Allies. But he went strait to the enemy (China). Nothing like giving millions of US Army dollars to a communist country. I wonder what ever happened to all of those things? I'm sure he put them in some warehouse someplace so he could roll around in them on the weekends. Those China made ones was never issued after the first soldiers refused to wear them and leaked the info to Rush Limbaugh, because of the China label.

Most soldiers are just waiting for the day the present Army Commander leave. The only reason why this one had not ordered them to be worn with the class A uniform only, is out of respend to Shinseki. The word is all the people on the short list for the postion is ready to do the change with the new combat uniforn arriving later this year.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #60 from PolMach Forums Top
He did not leave early, just that his replacement was chosen early in order for him to prepare for the difficult events to follow. Nothing strange there. The Media and politicians has tried to hype this up as something strange, it was not.


Nothing strange there except that its unprecedented in history and made him a lame duck.

Do you have the same arguments to make for the Secretary of the Army?
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: whoman69Posted: Monday, January 31, 2005He did not leave early, just that his replacement was chosen early in order for him to prepare for the difficult events to follow. Nothing strange there. The Media and politicians has tried to hype this up as something strange, it was not.Nothing strange there except that its unprecedented in history and made him a lame duck.Do you have the same arguments to make for the Secretary of the Army?


Why do you bother asking questions? we all know any answere you get will not do, if someone answeres your questions , you just ignore it and ask new ones.... looking for some kind of affirmation that america is bad, sucks etc. The only answeres you will accept are the ones totally agreeing with your I hate america ideoligy.
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do you have the same arguments to make for the Secretary of the Army?


No, I was only talking about Gen. Shinseki of the Army. Mainly because I know his story and how review boards meet. (I have been on some myself)

unprecedented in history and made him a lame duck.


Can you show me where it is unprecedented? He was moved out during a regular shift in upper commands as scheduled.

The review board (as I said above) was not only for him.

Army Commanders, unlike politicians are not lame ducks. They give orders and they are strictly followed up to the day they leave, after which they have no new personnel influence, but their orders still remain in affect. Now please do me a favor and not think like a citizen or politician for a second. Orders give by an outgoing commander are still followed and retained into the next commander. It is out of respect that any policies (like the d@#$ beret) is still in effect. If I refused to carry out an order on the last day of a command, even though I knew it would be changed the next day, I would be still charged. The new commander has no power until he takes command. The only power the incoming Commander has before the assumption of Command is to chose what type of flowers the outgoing Commander's wife will receive at the Change of Command ceremony and how long his speech will be.

It is hard to explain to someone who only thinks politically (not militarily) about command changes in the military. That is why most military personnel knew that Bush’s Guard Document from a former commander was fake, mean while some in the media still cling to them. All this hype about Gen. Shinseki just that hype. If there was any truth to the matter the man himself would say so. He is already retired and is not held back to do so. But to this date he has not siad anything, because if he had, you know the media would be plastering it all over the news.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #63 from PolMach Forums Top
Why do you bother asking questions? we all know any answere you get will not do, if someone answeres your questions , you just ignore it and ask new ones.... looking for some kind of affirmation that america is bad, sucks etc. The only answeres you will accept are the ones totally agreeing with your I hate americ


I ask questions because the answers I hear bring up new questions, point/counter point. You hate anyone in America who does not share your views. I spent 7 years in defense of my country, I vote in every election. I love my country. Sorry for you if you can't see that. I don't have to blindly agree with everything the President says to love my country. In fact, in this country I don't have to agree with anything the President says.

Army Commanders, unlike politicians are not lame ducks. They give orders and they are strictly followed up to the day they leave, after which they have no new personnel influence, but their orders still remain in affect.


They are lame ducks if the chain of command makes it that way. If they give an order that will be immediately countered by those higher in the chain, then he's a lame duck. Much of the power of the Chief of Staff is to give advice to those he serves under. If that advice will be dismissed summarily, he's a lame duck.

If you want to dismiss the unprecedented part, then find another person that was a Chief of Staff, Head of the Joint Chiefs, or any other high ranking general officer position where the replacement was named a year and a half early.
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you want to dismiss the unprecedented part, then find another person that was a Chief of Staff, Head of the Joint Chiefs, or any other high ranking general officer position where the replacement was named a year and a half early.


I don't have to worry about dismissing it, you have to show where Shinseki's replacement was announced a year ahead. Because Bush did not announce it until 17 Jun 2003. Only 2 1/2 months before Schoomaker took command. That's standard because Shinski's appointment announcement by Clinton came in Apr 99, two 1/2 months before his replacing Reimer.

http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/8_24/national_news/23733-1.html

After doing some research I notice that not one article, dated before 17 June 2003, I had read stated that Schoomaker was even being brought out of retirement as Shinseki's replacement. It has only been Kerry's website and op-ed pieces from the New Yorker dated during the election saying this.

As for Shinseki's retirement, all of the Army Chief of staff except two (who became the Joint Chiefs of Staff) retired after their command time. There has not been one Army chief of Staff (of the 34) that has held that position for over 4 years. Why would Shinseki be different?

As for my review board statement above, I got the top five Army commanders chosen by the review board held in Dec of 2002 confussed with The Army Chief of staff. Sorry.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lee, way to do your homework!!!

I still have little respect for the guy, but I learned very quickly in my Army career that, while I was requred to salute all commissioned officers, there would be times I saluted the person, and for others I saluted the rank.
Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
sus???/ honestly, when and IF I call YOU a name there will be no doubt, ok?


There might be some doubt considering your typing skills parallel G.W. orating skills.

Take that sucka!

Love Suspeckted
Reply #67 from PolMach Forums Top
Fun post!

Good point(s), there must be action to follow words, but we've seen little from politicians. Many people will point out the problems we've run in to in Iraq and smartly hold the administration to task for throwing caution to the wind and embroiling ourselves in difficulty after difficulty, but hardly anyone has had the power / clout to take on the fast current to hell we've thrown ourselves in to. Most everyone seems to say, hey, there are problems, but we're already on this path, let's simply ride it out. Hopefully we'll somehow evade bankrupting our treasury ( by seeping further and further in to debt and counting on such countries as China to continue it's investments in us ) , somehow we'll evade fighting for a war sold on false pretense ( hell, if we run out of sons and daughters, we'll just borrow / bribe some more soldiers out of allied countries and / or engage in more "stop loss" programs ), and if all else fails and our personal lives become entangled with Iraq, we'll simply bury our heads in the sand while taking it from the back and pretend this whole thing is just a colonoscopy to ensure us of our good health.

Apologists for the administration and the handling of Iraq continue to attempt to portray the rosiest illustration of Iraq as possible and slam those in dissent as being cowards instead of debating and confronting the actual problems while ignoring the serious bumps in the road ahead, as they did all last year. For those in defense of the esteemed effort in Iraq I have this link:

http://www.tvnewslies.org/JOIN_UP2.pdf

Cut and paste in to your browser's address line, and I wish you well. After you do so make sure to see your local Army / Navy / Marines / Air Force recruiter immediately so that your fellow apologists know where your sincerity and loyalty lays. PUT UP OR SHUT UP and I'll SEE YOU IN IRAQ! (on tv, of course)