Pass The Ammo

Four of the six friends of mine serving right now are liberals, and one of my friends in Iraq is as against this conflict as I am, and yet is over there proudly serving.

Liberals have served in every single conflict. Oh, but I guess only conservatives are “real” soldiers? That’s an insult to every Democrat and liberal soldier who has fought bled, and died for this country.

The Senate has 16 Democrats who have served in the military, and there are 48 Democrats in the House who have served. They’ve served in WW II, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, and Kosovo—and during times of peace—and well as in the Reserves and the National Guard.

Prominent Democrats like Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle, Al Gore, Bob Kerrey, Daniel Inouye, John Kerry, Charles Rangel, Max Cleland, Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin have all served in the military or in wars while prominent Republicans like Dennis Hastert, Dick Armey, Tom Delay, Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft all avoided the draft, and other prominent conservatives like Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, Trent Lott and Karl Rove just didn’t serve.

And those are all hawks, so I think it needs to be noted that most of the pro-war Republicans didn’t serve and have no frickin’ idea what they’re talking about either (at least Rumsfeld went though).

I think it’s also worth noting that two of the most prominent Republicans who have served are John McCain and Colin Powell, who are often referred to disdainfully as “RINOS” (Republican In Name Only) and are hardly extremely conservative.

What an idiotic poem.

Oh, and this part:

Standing safe on the sidelines,
Do you never feel shame,
When you’re bawling at us
That we’re blowing the game?

That’s a total Straw Man. Those of us who oppose this war do NOT sit here and “blame the troops”—we blame the civilian leaders.

Far from being unsupportive of the troops themselves, it could be argued that liberals care more about the troops than the chickenhawks who sent them there. And last time I checked, it was Democrats who were fighting Republican-sponsored bills to cut veteran’s benefits.

Yeah, as you can see, this entry really pissed me off.

Guav,

You were right about the Terri Schiavo thing. My heart broke for that woman and I felt like crying on a couple occasions. But lets stick to the topic shall we?

The amazing thing about the military is that you have people for all over the country and from all walks of life having to work towards the same goal. I was a outpatient mental health counselor and I was able to learn so much about my fellow paratroopers. I dug into their past and tried to understand what makes them tick. I was indeed able to find out how soldiers (from all over the country) feel about their job, their life, and their country.

I was just giving you my perspective from my experience. But it sounds like you have things figure out already. You have all that first-hand knowledge about liberal servicemen and women. You also have them fancy CNN statistics, too.

Also, take your “republician chickenhawk” propaganda comments and blow it out your pie hole. You sound like the John Kerry campgain. We had our fill of that traitor.

It was nice chattin with you as usual.

Heath, I wish all people thought more along the lines that you do.

And Guav, the list of Democrats that served in the military…ehh…does it seem a bit “comical” to anyone else?

Heath: JJ and I are not scurred of you. If you try to separate us, we will form like Voltron and destroy you.

JJ:

“I was just giving you my perspective from my experience.”

I know you were, but you said it in that dickheaded way that you haven’t been towards me for some time.

And look, it’s not my fault hardly anyone in this administration has served. Don’t get mad at me for pointing out that they’re all talk. It’s not “propaganda,” it’s just true. Calling Bill Clinton a draft dodger isn’t GOP propaganda, it’s just true.

Point is, it’s easy to talk tough about “bring ‘em on” when neither you nor your children are in harm’s way.

(Oh, and I didn’t vote for John Kerry, so insult him all you want. He ain’t my boy.)

Eric: You guys aren’t getting the point of my list. It’s not that those are people you guys are going to like—I only like one of them, personally—the point is that many prominent Democrats, whether you like ‘em or not, have served their country in the military. And most of the current administration simply has not.

It might not make a differance to u guys, but my cousin from texas, stuart decasmo,(on my moms side) entered the military as an infantryman when he was 18. Hes like 28 now and has done everything from mp to training tank cadets to s.w.a.t. for a year on the east coast. In 2002 he was offered to join delta force, and u guys probably know that no one gets offered delta force. He turned it down for his wife and his family back in houston. He’s pretty much seen it all. And if you still don’t think hes the most badass guy ever…..get this, hes a third degree black belt. He could probably kick rambos ass twice. Hes been everywhere there is to go and has always been a strong republican. In all the places hes been hes only meet a handful of strong liberals in the military. And has pretty much developed a sub-consious that all military personell are republican. I don’t relly know, but if you join the military and don’t support fighting the enemy…its like working at krispy cream and being against obesity. I don’t know. heres a pretty little picture of a beer-:beer::wink:

You are right Guav, repeating something over and over doesn’t make it true. So quit trying to convince us that your opinion is truth and Iraq was not a major player in global terrorism. We here at PTA agree that to truly be safe and terrorist free we must be proactive. Your (and many other liberal’s) theory of waiting around till a formalized Army attacks us is ridiculous. Quite frankly it’s getting old. Take your own advice and quit repeating yourself over and over cuz we aren’t gunna one day, outta the blue, agree with your nonsense.

Ok I am finished. I hope that wasn’t too “dickheaded” of me.

no it hit the nail on the heaD

I think everyone knows that there were no WMDs, Guav. Thanks for the article, anyways. Thanks again for being such an arrogant ass in your response, too. I laugh when liberals try to belittle me

Here’s an article for you.

Scapegoating the Spies
The real WMD in Iraq was the Ba’athist regimes and its machinery of oppression and war — which was found and dismantled.

Dude, what is your malfunction? Giving me an article about how there are no WMD’s in Iraq isn’t stating the obvious either? WTF? You bring this up all the time like we don’t know already. This article was posted because I can care less that there was no WMD, Saddam needed to go.

AS for his connection to terrorism, you can’t change history, Guav. There is plenty of intellegence over the last 20+ years linking Saddam to all types of bad stuff. Just because you post an article from October saying that there is no evidence Saddam was buddies with Al-Zarqawi doesn’t mean crap. You sound like like Jonny Cochran.. “if the glove don’t fit, you must acquit.”

Here’s the thing, I believe that state sponsors always have been, and remain, crucially important to terrorist organizations. Let us not forget that al-Qaida was a state-supported organization from its inception. Maybe I was a bit over zealous when I said Saddam was the Kingpin… but innocent, I think not?

-CBS 60 Minutes correspondent Leslie Stahl reported on captured documents provided by the Israelis, which revealed that Saddam’s closest deputy, Vice President Taha Yasin Ramadan, personally had signed checks made out to Palestinian terrorist leaders who had organized suicide-bombing attacks. Captured documents include ledgers of “martyrs” who have carried out suicide operations against Israel, showing how much and when each was paid and the number of the check. It includes internal memoranda, computer disks, hard drives, videotapes and bank statements. In many cases the Israelis managed to seize checkbooks showing the stubs of these payments; in others, they have the actual wire transfers from Iraq.

Saddam was a terrorist period.

JJ, look at the context in which I posted the WMD article: We have a poem criticizing people against the war. Evan chimes in to say that they “don’t believe in self-defense.” I say that “Iraq didn’t attack us, and there were no weapons,” and that Iraq was no threat to us—therefore, it was not self-defense. You then say that the things I’m saying are not true and go on to say that Saddam was “a major player in global terrorism.”

I’m just responding to the things you guys are saying. If there weren’t still people trying to paint this war as one of self-defense, I wouldn’t have to point out that it wasn’t. That’s all.

Saddam “innocent”? I never said that. You can’t change history, JJ. All the worst stuff Saddam did was 15-20 years ago when we were fully supporting him. And when he was using poison gas on the Iranians and gassing the Kurds, it was liberals and human rights organizations that were condemning him and saying he was a monster and we shouldn’t be backing him, while our conservative Republican administration was authorizing the transfer of chemical and biological weapon elements to him and backing him diplomatically.

But for the last 15 years, Saddam has been a disarmed, toothless tiger. No threat whatsoever. Is it a good thing he’s no longer in power? Of course. That doesn’t mean that I think deposing him is worth the cost—billions of dollars, thousands of Americans soldiers dead, tens of thousands maimed for life—all to find out that the WMD weren’t there.

A few notes on Saddam’s payments to Palestinians:

1. The Palestinian terrorists are not international terrorists. They are focused against Israel, and don’t attack America. Saddam helping them doesn’t make him a “major player” in “global terrorism.” But you’ve acknowledged that.

2. The money he paid wasn’t to terrorists, but to the families—widows and children—of those killed in the conflict with Israel. This includes militants, innocent standersby, and suicide bombers (so-called martyrs). The families left behind, not the terrorists, got the money. Most families got $10,000, but families of “martyrs” got more, $25,000. This is because the Israeli government goes and bulldozes the homes of suicide bombers afterwards, leaving their families—who usually didn’t know that the retard was going to martyr himself—homeless and all of their belongings destroyed. And most of the suicide bombers are going off without the permission of their parents and families.

3. Saddam was not the only person who did this. Our friends and close allies the Saudis also have the exact same policy (as do a few other countries I believe):

The Saudi Arabian government has paid out at least $33 million to families of Palestinians killed or injured in the intifada and earmarked another $50 million for the payments, according to the Saudi Embassy’s Web site.

Saudi Arabia makes no distinction in compensation to families of suicide bombers and those killed by Israeli military action. There have been more than 50 suicide bombings since the intifada began in September 2000.

As of January 2001, the Saudi government had paid $33 million to families of 2,281 prisoners and 358 “martyrs,” as well as to 8,000 wounded, 1,000 handicapped and another 102 Palestinians who have been treated in the kingdom’s hospitals. In addition, food hampers were distributed to more than 200,000 families, according to the embassy Web site.

The Bush administration avoided commenting on the Saudi fund.

It’s certainly a questionable policy, but no suicide bomber kills him/herself for money. They don’t do it for cash. There were suicide bombers BEFORE Saddam paid them, and there have been more now that he has been stopped, unfortunately.

Saying that the liberal’s are ill-equipped to deal with conflict because they’ve never served is a poor argument, seeing as by and large they don’t serve because they oppose war. That’s tantamount to having said, oh, I don’t know… Nobody should listen to what Christ might say about war because he would never willingly take another human’s life.

You should rethink the argument and come up with something less asinine.