[quote=Guest;1072350]

Originally Posted by Guest

Dear Guest: Actually I am for reinstating the draft. Far too many people simply have no skin in the game anymore. They are so engaged and they are unenlightened about what is going in the world. Too busy with their lives to care anything about anything except their selfish pursuit

Of course there are two sides to every story and well old fat white guys fought sacrificed life, limb and untimely interruptions in their lives to keep America safe and in return they find America turned over to the crazies that have absolutely no concept of how great traditional America was and that those values are what made America great./QUOTE]

Us old fat white guys (and old fat black guys) did volunteer or get drafted and too many did lose lives, limbs, or others - but Vietnam was not about keeping America safe. It was a civil war that the US should not have been involved with in any way.

Americans would not back a reinstatement of the draft.

Dear Guest: Forgive my oversight of including blacks etc from serving that was not my intent as I witnessed that they all served proudly

My comments were to draw distinctions between traditional America vis a vis the "new normal" Under the new normal white guys are the instigators of all this is bad and evil since the beginning of time. As an example a black woman refused to study the classic because it was mostly written by white guys whom she believed created all of human man kinds problems.

My cousin served in the Air Force and then upon discharge re-enlisted and went to Vietnam on two separate deployments. I was in the US Navy at that time.

The Vietnam war was not wrong the politicians were mistaken in bowing to the pressures of the same people who have been waging a cultural war in America since the 1960's.
So let me restate I am focused on traditional values and not ethnicity

Look what those 50 years of decadence ,social upheaval, push for secularism and disrespect for authority has yielded. You can see it in most movies, television shows, on colleges campuses or high schools, single mother percentages ..................................

But the pendulum swings both ways and I believe in the basic goodness of people and a return to Patriotism God and America's greatness.


Personal Best Regards:

What we need in the White House are some battle-tested, tough-minded former service men who know what war is like first hand and served honorably and would send our boys to battle only after seeking all other options. Men such as George W Bush, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld.

Originally Posted by Guest

I think some, who second guess America's resolve and are against sending in troops....consistently think in terms of the last 7 years.

Do not engage. If you see something call me, Obama, first, then I will consult with whoever it is I consult with and I will get back to you.....

How about using the prewe have new leadership that is not afraid to delegate to the military the objectives.....then tell the military leaders to do what they think needs to be done to win....and then let's the military do what we all know they can and will do.

We all know they have not been allowed to engage the enemy at Obama's direction. He, under the guise of using talk to soothe the enemy was and is still more interested in not causing ANY Muslims any harm.

Those of you who subscribe to Obama's version of war so be it.

But please don't think for a minute that the patriots here in America would respond to a call to arms to protect our way of life, our families and the country most of us love.

Some of us responded to the call many years ago and we did what we had to do to win....not the case today.
Some of us do have grandchildren and many other family members who are presently in the service, some of which have been to both Iraq and Afghanistan. And they would go back again if and when ordered to do so.

If one asks them or any other member of the armed services what is the single biggest action that the USA could do differently to change the outcome. CHANGE THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So those of you who do not have the time of day about the military, their use or what they can do......stop beliittling them from your arm chair, safe in TV behind a keyboard.

We are not asking you to change what you believe or support. Just stop pi$$ing all over anybody who does not support your position.

You are spot on about the ROE ... they cripple us and prevent us from winning.

To make war is to kill the spirit, as well as the body, of the enemy, so terribly as to make sure they would not rise again. Our ROE since 9/11 has not even come close to that.

Originally Posted by Guest

What we need in the White House are some battle-tested, tough-minded former service men who know what war is like first hand and served honorably and would send our boys to battle only after seeking all other options. Men such as George W Bush, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld.

Not needed! We already have THE fiercest warrior on the planet as POTUS ... Barack Hussein Obama. Actually, probably the fiercest since Attila the Hun or maybe Russell Crowe?

Baracko makes enemies cringe in cold fear at the mere mention of his name. When he draws red lines, the enemy c***s in their pants. He is THE ONE after all, one who can also heal the planet and make the oceans recede.

All hail Baracko, and watch as he effortlessly delivers America from evil

Originally Posted by Guest

...and you are one of the keyboard heroes willing to send Americans to fight in a war that even the invaded country will not fight in?

You, as usual, have proved yourself to be ignorant with yet another brainless post.

I've thought about your brilliant comment and concluded you're right. War is not the answer ... but rather peaceful negotiations and understanding will win the day.

Thus, I suggest we air drop you into Raqqa and you can negotiate directly with ISIS to prevent war. Thanks in advance for your service.

Originally Posted by Guest

What we need in the White House are some battle-tested, tough-minded former service men who know what war is like first hand and served honorably and would send our boys to battle only after seeking all other options. Men such as George W Bush, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld.

Isn't that exactly what the Regressives are always saying? You picked perfect examples. Mission accomplished!

Originally Posted by Guest

Isn't that exactly what the Regressives are always saying? You picked perfect examples. Mission accomplished!

Sounds like a sound bite from pulling the string in the neck of a party parrot doll!

Originally Posted by Guest

Isn't that exactly what the Regressives are always saying? You picked perfect examples. Mission accomplished!

a sound bite from pulling the string in the neck of a party parrot doll?

Here is a real hero -

WHAT PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT…

Keith Broomfield. Yesterday, the US State Department said that the 36-year-old American was killed while fighting ISIS in Syria. Earlier this year, he took it upon himself to join the Kurds in Syria – aka the semi-autonomous ethnic group that's also in parts of Iraq and Turkey. They've been the most successful group in the fight against ISIS. Because of that, some Westerners have jetted off to Syria to join in. Reminder: the US is leading a coalition of countries launching airstrikes against ISIS, but hasn't committed any ground troops. Broomfield was a civilian who went on his own, and is thought to be the first US citizen to die while fighting with the Kurds.

Originally Posted by Guest

I've thought about your brilliant comment and concluded you're right. War is not the answer ... but rather peaceful negotiations and understanding will win the day.

Thus, I suggest we air drop you into Raqqa and you can negotiate directly with ISIS to prevent war. Thanks in advance for your service.

I agree. Drop all those off over in Syria who believe war isn't the answer. Let them sit and negotiate with the enemy on co-existing. The stupidity of Americans who think this is possible is mind blowing. Enjoy the experience while the rest of us face reality and are prepared for what's coming

Originally Posted by Guest

I agree. Drop all those off over in Syria who believe war isn't the answer. Let them sit and negotiate with the enemy on co-existing. The stupidity of Americans who think this is possible is mind blowing. Enjoy the experience while the rest of us face reality and are prepared for what's coming

The irony is this ... even though many Americans get weak at the knees at the very mention of war (a product of our cushy suburban lifestyle, made possible by WWII vets who beat the Nazis), ISIS doesn't give a s*** what the liberals think.

That's because, whether they like it or not, THEY have already declared war on us. The question is ... what are WE going to do about it besides whine and insult the people who make the points we all need to ponder?.

Anyway, for the lefties, go back to watching your television game shows and stuffing your face with popcorn and soda. Nothing to worry about yet.

Do not forget that Iraq is a soverign nation. Their prime minister told the US to leave the country. The US had no choice but to leave. It was determined by the Iraqis that their army was well trained and they could hold their country by themselves.

Originally Posted by Guest

Do not forget that Iraq is a soverign nation. Their prime minister told the US to leave the country. The US had no choice but to leave. It was determined by the Iraqis that their army was well trained and they could hold their country by themselves.

As (almost) usual, your post is a total crock. Being uniformed is one thing ... ignorance is another. Iraq didn't "tell" us anything ... they could read the tea leaves the Baracko wanted out one way or the other. STOP with the making of excuses for what even you can now recognize has turned into a complete disaster which stems from the 2011 withdrawal ... after we had it stabilized. Yes, would have been better never to have gone to Iraq BUT we were there so it had to be dealt with.

A leader leads ... Barack is not cut from that cloth. His latest (non) strategy is too timed to even merit contempt.

Originally Posted by Guest

Do not forget that Iraq is a soverign nation. Their prime minister told the US to leave the country. The US had no choice but to leave. It was determined by the Iraqis that their army was well trained and they could hold their country by themselves.

While no where as simplistic as you state, you are correct.

That is history.

Iraq has asked at least twice for help in fighting ISIS. Our President has said the U.S. and the coalition of 60 countries would destroy ISIS. They began their requests about two years ago. Syrian Rebels asked for help about 3 years ago when the gassing was taking place. We left Yemen and said it was "solid", a great example of our work.

The questions seems to be.....

Where is the 60 nation coalition ?

How much help are we willing to give Iraq, and what is our resolve in doing what we said, ie. Destroying ISIS ?

Since ISIS has now spread to Syria, Libya, Yemen , etc. and even to the continent of Africa, what is our resolve to destroy them ?

If we do not mean to destroy ISIS, why did we say it ?

If terrorism is our enemy, why are we negotiating with the ONLY state in the region that officially sponsors terrorism; Iran ?

Why are we saying that the leading sponsor of terrorism in the region, Iran...may have nukes, but we want them to wait a few years ?

Why are we not arming (and I might paraphrase this because it seems by reports to be changing) the tribes we were told by our military in the first place needed to be armed..the Sunnis ?

A few questions I have anyway.

Originally Posted by Guest

As (almost) usual, your post is a total crock. Being uniformed is one thing ... ignorance is another. Iraq didn't "tell" us anything ... they could read the tea leaves the Baracko wanted out one way or the other. STOP with the making of excuses for what even you can now recognize has turned into a complete disaster which stems from the 2011 withdrawal ... after we had it stabilized. Yes, would have been better never to have gone to Iraq BUT we were there so it had to be dealt with.

A leader leads ... Barack is not cut from that cloth. His latest (non) strategy is too timed to even merit contempt.

So, in your vast (or half vast) mindset, the US should have maintained a 30,000 troop presence in Iraq, given Iraq even more money, and be the security force for Iraq for the next umteen years? What a great idea!

Bring back the real military warriors of GW Bush, Rumsfield, and Cheney and parachute them into the mess they created. You can go along with them, too, as their puppy dog.