As Casualties Mount, Bush Ignores Reality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sirach14
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
mike182d:
lol.

Actually, let’s go further back in history:

Civil War - Southern Democrats
WWI - Democrats
WWII - Democrats
Korea - Democrats
Vietnam - Democrats
Cambodia - Democrats
Somalia - Democrats

Notice a trend? 🙂

Anyone who says Republicans are “war-mogerers” have no idea what they’re talking about.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think the Democratic party during the civil war was more similar in its policies to the Republican party of today. Emancipation was a radical, northern republican thing, as far as I have heard. (Lincoln was Republican.) Also, the southern states were exercising their rights in seceding from the Union. They didn’t start the war. So, can’t blame the democrats for that one, sorry.
How were the other ones the direct responsibility of the Democrats? I’d really like to know, I’m not just being sarcastic. How did you deduce that?
 
40.png
Celia:
Actually, I think the Democratic party during the civil war was more similar in its policies to the Republican party of today. Emancipation was a radical, northern republican thing, as far as I have heard. (Lincoln was Republican.)
Click to expand...
Do you think freeing the slaves was WRONG?
40.png
Celia:
Also, the southern states were exercising their rights in seceding from the Union. They didn’t start the war.
Click to expand...
Ever hear of Fort Sumpter? The war started when the Confederates fired on that fort.
40.png
Celia:
So, can’t blame the democrats for that one, sorry.
Click to expand...
Actually, you can – they were the party of slavery, they were the ones who fired on American troops.
40.png
Celia:
How were the other ones the direct responsibility of the Democrats? I’d really like to know, I’m not just being sarcastic. How did you deduce that?
Click to expand...
Having been in combat in the Viet nam war – first as an adviser in 66-67 and a company commander in 68-69, I can quote you chapter and verse of how Johnson screwed that one up.
 
This morning I was reading an article in Townhall Newsletter titled The Irrationality and Recklessness of Appeasement by David Limbaugh townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20050603.shtml

He begins:
“For those of you who may be queasy about the way the Bush administration is approaching and prosecuting the War on Terror I invite you to consider, for purposes of contrast, the mindset toward foreign policy that springs from the worldview of liberalism”

“Generally, I refer you to the contrasting reactions of liberals and conservatives to charges against America. Specifically, I refer you to the May 27 column of liberal media icon Thomas L. Friedman, Middle East “expert” and New York Times columnist extraordinaire…”

He went on to discuss Amnesty International’s “libelous report” on US prisoner abuse just after the mess from Newsweek!
"…But the thrust of Friedman’s argument is not the veracity of the reports of torture, but their “toxic effect on us – inflaming sentiments against the U.S. all over the world and providing recruitment energy on the Internet for those who would do us ill…”

Near the end he says:
“If anti-American stories – whether true or not – are what stir up Arab sentiment against us, then why no outrage at Newsweek for stoking the flames of hatred among Muslims against us? Why no horror at the Left’s constant depiction of President Bush as deliberately fabricating our reasons for attacking Iraq?”

As I see it, the media and others in this country who look for and rush to announce to the world “sins of America,” do not really care about truth or right from wrong, and do not care what harm they do to America and its people across the world. Media across the globe anxiously pounce on such things, regardless of truth, to inflame people against “evil America.” I believe that for the most part, media is anti-american or at the very least, not pro-american.
 
Thekla said:
“Conservatives believe they know the best way to honor the sacrifices of our troops in Iraq: We must all pretend that the war is going fine, that progress is proceeding according to plan, that the insurgency is soon to be routed, and that victory is somewhere just over the horizon.”

Watch.
Click to expand...

And liberals thinks we should just appease evildoers, which worked really well for Hitler as he stuffed human cargo into trains on their way to quick and efficient murder.
 
40.png
TomK:
Whether anyone wants to admit it or not America’s culture has come up against a radical sub-culture that wants to replace us as big dog.
Click to expand...
And much of that subculture is Americans and Europeans. However, those that want to “replace” America go far beyond a subculture - they consist of states and world leaders. Many of these states see the state as God and are anti-Christian. Interesting that there are similarities between the subculture and the states.
 
40.png
Thekla:
I could easily make an argument that support for our deceitful government encourages terrorism. Howls of outrage would follow.
Click to expand...
Questions of sanity perhaps, but outrage, no.
 
40.png
Celia:
Actually, I think the Democratic party during the civil war was more similar in its policies to the Republican party of today. Emancipation was a radical, northern republican thing, as far as I have heard. (Lincoln was Republican.) Also, the southern states were exercising their rights in seceding from the Union. They didn’t start the war. So, can’t blame the democrats for that one, sorry.
How were the other ones the direct responsibility of the Democrats? I’d really like to know, I’m not just being sarcastic. How did you deduce that?
Click to expand...
I deduced that in jest 🙂 I get fed up when people call the Republican party a bunch of war-mongerers and label the Iraqi liberation as “Bush’s War.” You’ll never hear of Kosovo as “Clinton’s War” or Vietnam as “Lyndon B. Johnson’s War” or Korea as “Truman’s War,” et cetera.

In fact, I find it amusing that Vietnam was called Nixon’s War when he was the one that got us out of the “quagmire” that Lyndon B. Johnson started. Ironic.

Anywho…my point is that for whatever reasons, there are people just hate George W. Bush - sometimes foaming at the mouth - and they will do everything in their power to destroy him and his name, even at the expense of America and its troops. What they do is irrational and unprecedented for any other President in United States history…and we’ve had some pretty bad ones.
 
40.png
mike182d:
Anywho…my point is that for whatever reasons, there are people just hate George W. Bush - sometimes foaming at the mouth - and they will do everything in their power to destroy him and his name, even at the expense of America and its troops. What they do is irrational and unprecedented for any other President in United States history…and we’ve had some pretty bad ones.
Click to expand...
You’re dead on. Many of these people secretly chortle to themselves every time another American soldier is killed – the more casualies, the more their agenda advances.

Now for a prediction – there will be howls of “We have a right to freedom of speech!”

As if WE don’t! As if they can say any hurtful thing they like, and we somehow break the rules when we exercise our rights to point that out.
 
"Right of free speech" …with such a right comes something the media and some “others” have lost track, forgotten or just choose to ignore of – RESPONSIBILITY! They pull the US down and endanger the lives of our troups overseas and Americans at home…all in the name for their Free Speech and personal self-centered agendas! Sick in my opinion!

Bob
 
trailblazer said:
“Right of free speech” …with such a right comes something the media and some “others” have lost track, forgotten or just choose to ignore of – RESPONSIBILITY! They pull the US down and endanger the lives of our troups overseas and Americans at home…all in the name for their Free Speech and personal self-centered agendas! Sick in my opinion!

Bob
Click to expand...

And they’ll claim it’s “patriotic” to tear down the morale of the troops and to give encouragment to the enemy.

Fortunately, there are enough of us who served in Viet Nam who are determined that they not do to this generation of American soldiers what they did to my generation.
 
40.png
mike182d:
Let’s see…who got us involved in those wars?

Korea - Democrats
Vietnam - Democrats
Cambodia - Democrats
Somalia - Democrats

By electing a Republican we *did *learn from history, and the Iraqi war, and Afghanistan, has turned out far better than any other military operation since WWII.
Click to expand...
Too bad that when Korea and Vietnam took place the Democrats were considered conservative and the Republicans liberals.
 
is this war really about freedom, or materialism? i keep hearing about “freedom isn’t free”. true freedom only exists when we fully and freely consent to God’s will. i don’t see how free we are when we kill 4,000 babies a day based on conveniance. in fact, we are really slaves to sin -selfishness and materialism.

our country has to be involved in foreign affairs so that life back home is “better”. i don’t think al queda attacked us on religous premise but a nationalistic one since we have a strong presence in sw asia and for our support of isreal.

i know God punishes sin with war. maybe we should look in the mirror as a country before we decide to “liberate” a country when we are the ones who need to get liberated. i suspect that since we won’t turn back to God in repentence, we will continue to be punished with war and maybe something much worse.
 
vern humphrey:
Do you think freeing the slaves was WRONG?

Ever hear of Fort Sumpter? The war started when the Confederates fired on that fort.

Actually, you can – they were the party of slavery, they were the ones who fired on American troops.

Having been in combat in the Viet nam war – first as an adviser in 66-67 and a company commander in 68-69, I can quote you chapter and verse of how Johnson screwed that one up.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don’t know how to do that line by line quote thing so I’ll do it this way. Hope I don’t miss anything. Ok, no I don’t think that freeing the slaves was wrong. Why would you think that? I was using emancipation as an example of an issue that the parties differed on, and how that is different than the parties of today. For example, to be more clear, freeing the slaves was a new kind of radical idea. Not something a conservative party would most likely be a proponent of back then. But back then, parties had different standpoints then they do now. Do you see what I mean? Sorry for the confusion.
Yes, I’ve heard a lot about Fort Sumter. (no ‘p’). I’ve also heard that Lincoln had thousands of U.S. troops garrisoned on what was now CSA’s land. That would be enough to make me a little nervous. They were defending what was, by exercising their rights, their land.
The war was not about slavery. It was because the south wanted to leave the Union. The south was defending themselves from what they viewed to be the northern aggressor.
I always like to learn about history. 🙂 My Dad was in Vietnam, so I’d like to learn your views. And how the democrats caused every war in U.S. history. 😛 Maybe we should start our own thread though because this is a serious hijacking and I don’t want to get anyone mad! Sorry, guys…:o
 
vern humphrey:
Ah, yes – remember how Republican President Franklin Roosevelt and his liberal Republicans in Congress raised the income tax, created that rip-off known as Social Security, and instituted all those liberal programs.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Click to expand...
Korea and Vietnam didn’t happen during FDR’s presidency. The liberal Republicans that poster was referring to were Ike and Nixon. And they were indeed liberal by today’s standards. The Republican party would never nominate them today.
 
40.png
Celia:
Sorry, I don’t know how to do that line by line quote thing so I’ll do it this way. Hope I don’t miss anything. Ok, no I don’t think that freeing the slaves was wrong. Why would you think that?
Click to expand...
Then pretty clearly the Republicans were right, and the Democrats who defended slavery were wrong.

After Reconstruction, the Bourbon Redemptionists assumed political control of the South, and it became the “Solid South” – all the old Confederate states were Democratic. So much so that whoever won the Democratic primary automatically won the election – there were no Republicans running in any election.
40.png
Celia:
Yes, I’ve heard a lot about Fort Sumter. (no ‘p’). I’ve also heard that Lincoln had thousands of U.S. troops garrisoned on what was now CSA’s land. That would be enough to make me a little nervous. They were defending what was, by exercising their rights, their land.
Click to expand...
There was no “defense” to it – because there was no attack.
40.png
Celia:
The war was not about slavery. It was because the south wanted to leave the Union.
Click to expand...
They wanted to leave in order to maintain “the Peculiar Institution” as they called slavery. Read the articles of secession, state by state, and see what a big deal they make of slavery. You don’t see them offering high-minded reasons for leaving – it was slavery that caused secession.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top