- Banned
- #21
Why are asking the question I already answered?215 in the House 48 in the Senate.
How many Republicans voted against the Iraq War?
AGAINST....not FOR
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why are asking the question I already answered?215 in the House 48 in the Senate.
How many Republicans voted against the Iraq War?
The wars of the 20th century were or at least were perceived to be a fight for survival of the nation. We fought nations not bands of terrorist and insurgences. In WWII, the enemy was clearly defined. In today's war, the enemy is mixed into the general population. The Taliban is estimated to have only a few thousand actual fighters in a country of 40 million. Attacking the civil population would turn the thing into a Vietnam.properly fighting a war means to break the enemies will !!! not just their military but their populace as a whole ... we have not accomplished this since WW2 !!! the reason is very simple .....the political left !!! name an instance that the left has rallied around our troops and our country in a time of war in the past 50 yrs !!! they protest ,march,boycott,and rally in sympathy on behalf of our enemies example [Jane Fonda ] .... with the political clout the leftist carry our leaders are afraid to do what needs to be done against our enemies !!! and now with the UN [whom the lefties love ] dictating what we can and cannot do in a time of war we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs !!! if we would have been allowed to wage the 2 wars we are currently involved in like we did in WW2 our troops would have come home yrs ago !!
properly fighting a war means to break the enemies will !!! not just their military but their populace as a whole ... we have not accomplished this since WW2 !!! the reason is very simple .....the political left !!! name an instance that the left has rallied around our troops and our country in a time of war in the past 50 yrs !!! they protest ,march,boycott,and rally in sympathy on behalf of our enemies example [Jane Fonda ] .... with the political clout the leftist carry our leaders are afraid to do what needs to be done against our enemies !!! and now with the UN [whom the lefties love ] dictating what we can and cannot do in a time of war we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs !!! if we would have been allowed to wage the 2 wars we are currently involved in like we did in WW2 our troops would have come home yrs ago !!
You could completely destroy the cities, kill thousands of people, destroy their infrastructure and still the Taliban would still be there because they are a very small part of the population. The major effect of attacking the civil population would be to increase the number terrorists.I've made the same argument many times. 67 years ago, we beat 2 enemies into submission. We killed thousands of troops, but hundreds of thousands of civilians. They were completely demoralized, both militarily and domestically. Now we wage war casually, without conviction or fortitude. We avoid "collateral damage" like the plague.
All killing Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters does is breed more fighters.
If you're going to start a war, be ready to finish it. Completely destroy cities, kill thousands of people. Destroy their infrastructure and if necessary, turn deserts to glass.
Yes it's cruel, cold, horrible even. War is SUPPOSED to be horrible! The mere thought of going to war should terrify us, but it should terrify those that would attack us, even more.
I've made the same argument many times. 67 years ago, we beat 2 enemies into submission. We killed thousands of troops, but hundreds of thousands of civilians. They were completely demoralized, both militarily and domestically. Now we wage war casually, without conviction or fortitude. We avoid "collateral damage" like the plague.
All killing Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters does is breed more fighters.
If you're going to start a war, be ready to finish it. Completely destroy cities, kill thousands of people. Destroy their infrastructure and if necessary, turn deserts to glass.
Yes it's cruel, cold, horrible even. War is SUPPOSED to be horrible! The mere thought of going to war should terrify us, but it should terrify those that would attack us, even more.
Anyone remember the post-war occupations of those countries we bombed flat?
The wars of the 20th century were or at least were perceived to be a fight for survival of the nation. We fought nations not bands of terrorist and insurgences. In WWII, the enemy was clearly defined. In today's war, the enemy is mixed into the general population. The Taliban is estimated to have only a few thousand actual fighters in a country of 40 million. Attacking the civil population would turn the thing into a Vietnam.
It's a different kind of war and one we should not be in.
properly fighting a war means to break the enemies will !!!
The wars of the 20th century were or at least were perceived to be a fight for survival of the nation. We fought nations not bands of terrorist and insurgences. In WWII, the enemy was clearly defined. In today's war, the enemy is mixed into the general population. The Taliban is estimated to have only a few thousand actual fighters in a country of 40 million. Attacking the civil population would turn the thing into a Vietnam.properly fighting a war means to break the enemies will !!! not just their military but their populace as a whole ... we have not accomplished this since WW2 !!! the reason is very simple .....the political left !!! name an instance that the left has rallied around our troops and our country in a time of war in the past 50 yrs !!! they protest ,march,boycott,and rally in sympathy on behalf of our enemies example [Jane Fonda ] .... with the political clout the leftist carry our leaders are afraid to do what needs to be done against our enemies !!! and now with the UN [whom the lefties love ] dictating what we can and cannot do in a time of war we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs !!! if we would have been allowed to wage the 2 wars we are currently involved in like we did in WW2 our troops would have come home yrs ago !!
It's a different kind of war and one we should not be in.
You could completely destroy the cities, kill thousands of people, destroy their infrastructure and still the Taliban would still be there because they are a very small part of the population. The major effect of attacking the civil population would be to increase the number terrorists.I've made the same argument many times. 67 years ago, we beat 2 enemies into submission. We killed thousands of troops, but hundreds of thousands of civilians. They were completely demoralized, both militarily and domestically. Now we wage war casually, without conviction or fortitude. We avoid "collateral damage" like the plague.
All killing Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters does is breed more fighters.
If you're going to start a war, be ready to finish it. Completely destroy cities, kill thousands of people. Destroy their infrastructure and if necessary, turn deserts to glass.
Yes it's cruel, cold, horrible even. War is SUPPOSED to be horrible! The mere thought of going to war should terrify us, but it should terrify those that would attack us, even more.
I've made the same argument many times. 67 years ago, we beat 2 enemies into submission. We killed thousands of troops, but hundreds of thousands of civilians. They were completely demoralized, both militarily and domestically. Now we wage war casually, without conviction or fortitude. We avoid "collateral damage" like the plague.
All killing Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters does is breed more fighters.
If you're going to start a war, be ready to finish it. Completely destroy cities, kill thousands of people. Destroy their infrastructure and if necessary, turn deserts to glass.
Yes it's cruel, cold, horrible even. War is SUPPOSED to be horrible! The mere thought of going to war should terrify us, but it should terrify those that would attack us, even more.
Mmmm mmm, nothing like hundreds of thousands of dead civilians to get your patriotic dick ROCK HARD.
You could completely destroy the cities, kill thousands of people, destroy their infrastructure and still the Taliban would still be there because they are a very small part of the population. The major effect of attacking the civil population would be to increase the number terrorists.I've made the same argument many times. 67 years ago, we beat 2 enemies into submission. We killed thousands of troops, but hundreds of thousands of civilians. They were completely demoralized, both militarily and domestically. Now we wage war casually, without conviction or fortitude. We avoid "collateral damage" like the plague.
All killing Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters does is breed more fighters.
If you're going to start a war, be ready to finish it. Completely destroy cities, kill thousands of people. Destroy their infrastructure and if necessary, turn deserts to glass.
Yes it's cruel, cold, horrible even. War is SUPPOSED to be horrible! The mere thought of going to war should terrify us, but it should terrify those that would attack us, even more.
At that point the civilians would actively seek out and neutralize those that wanted to carry on.
I've made the same argument many times. 67 years ago, we beat 2 enemies into submission. We killed thousands of troops, but hundreds of thousands of civilians. They were completely demoralized, both militarily and domestically. Now we wage war casually, without conviction or fortitude. We avoid "collateral damage" like the plague.
All killing Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters does is breed more fighters.
If you're going to start a war, be ready to finish it. Completely destroy cities, kill thousands of people. Destroy their infrastructure and if necessary, turn deserts to glass.
Yes it's cruel, cold, horrible even. War is SUPPOSED to be horrible! The mere thought of going to war should terrify us, but it should terrify those that would attack us, even more.
Mmmm mmm, nothing like hundreds of thousands of dead civilians to get your patriotic dick ROCK HARD.
You miss my point entirely. War should be horrible. The mere thought of waging it should terrify everyone. My point is, we've sanitized war to where it is almost an acceptable alternative to diplomacy. I have no desire to wipe out large portions of any culture or civilian population. I desire for there never to be any doubt that attacking the United States will be met with the most strenuous retaliation possible.
When in the past 50 years has the U.S. been at war?properly fighting a war means to break the enemies will !!! not just their military but their populace as a whole ... we have not accomplished this since WW2 !!! the reason is very simple .....the political left !!! name an instance that the left has rallied around our troops and our country in a time of war in the past 50 yrs !!! they protest ,march,boycott,and rally in sympathy on behalf of our enemies example [Jane Fonda ] .... with the political clout the leftist carry our leaders are afraid to do what needs to be done against our enemies !!! and now with the UN [whom the lefties love ] dictating what we can and cannot do in a time of war we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs !!! if we would have been allowed to wage the 2 wars we are currently involved in like we did in WW2 our troops would have come home yrs ago !!
Specifically who is this "enemy" you speak of? How do we recognize them? What uniform do they wear? What language do they speak? What government do they represent? Most important, why are we fighting them?That is precisely why the mere threat of war would keep the peace. No one wanted to go there. Now countries benefit because we are such wussies and play games and our own government speaks out against our troops. Sad when you can tell the far left is against the US and sympathetic towards the enemy.
[...]
That's a very good question. It's been hanging in the air and I'm glad you asked.****************************************Anyone remember the post-war occupations of those countries we bombed flat?
No, nor have read of any. And who "protested" Korea?
properly fighting a war means to break the enemies will !!!
Ronald Reagan
Shortly after the barracks bombing, American president Ronald Reagan appointed a military fact-finding committee headed by retired Admiral Robert L. J. Long to investigate the bombing.
There was no serious retaliation for the Beirut bombing from the Americans
1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Possibly in a few areas it might work but for the most part, I think it would have a negative effect creating insurgents groups who have little liking for the Taliban but who hate the American invaders. Only about 1 in every 10,000 civilians is a Taliban fighter.You could completely destroy the cities, kill thousands of people, destroy their infrastructure and still the Taliban would still be there because they are a very small part of the population. The major effect of attacking the civil population would be to increase the number terrorists.I've made the same argument many times. 67 years ago, we beat 2 enemies into submission. We killed thousands of troops, but hundreds of thousands of civilians. They were completely demoralized, both militarily and domestically. Now we wage war casually, without conviction or fortitude. We avoid "collateral damage" like the plague.
All killing Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters does is breed more fighters.
If you're going to start a war, be ready to finish it. Completely destroy cities, kill thousands of people. Destroy their infrastructure and if necessary, turn deserts to glass.
Yes it's cruel, cold, horrible even. War is SUPPOSED to be horrible! The mere thought of going to war should terrify us, but it should terrify those that would attack us, even more.
At that point the civilians would actively seek out and neutralize those that wanted to carry on.
Good post. The underlined portion should ALWAYS be the default position when the government begins to look at going to war. Such a thing should always be a last resort.That's a very good question. It's been hanging in the air and I'm glad you asked.****************************************Anyone remember the post-war occupations of those countries we bombed flat?
No, nor have read of any. And who "protested" Korea?
The actions of our military forces during WW-II had left the American people with a kind of hangover from the glorious pride and sense of justice in that victory. So when the government saw fit to send troops to Korea to resist the advance of communism, while only one out of every ten thousand Americans had the slightest idea of what communism was or why we should be concerned about it, we were still hung over with pride and trust in our government -- even though we didn't know why. Simply stated, we were comparatively innocent and naive back then and we just went along.
My father fought the Japanese on Guadalcanal. His unit was one of those that relieved the Marines on that island and he always spoke with great respect and reverence for them. Which is why I chose to join the Marine Corps in 1956 rather than be drafted into the Army. I was so affected by the patriotic hangover from our WW-II glory it never entered my mind that our government would send us into harm's way for any reason but expedient defense of the Nation.
I was separated from the Corps in 1960. My inactive reserve obligation was completed in 1962, so luckily I couldn't be called back for service in Vietnam. And by the time that debacle started heating up I had learned enough to be thoroughly and painfully disillusioned by what I painfully perceived as an incredibly wasteful and unnecessary action by a corrupt and incompetent government. I became an active protester of the Vietnam debacle in the mid-60s and have been increasingly distrustful of and critical of our government ever since.
So the short-form answer to your question is; almost nobody protested the Korea "conflict" because most of us were politically ignorant and blinded by prideful innocence.
This is part of the problem and one of the points that I think the OP was getting at though he is misguided by the idea that the problem is being too careful with civilian casualties, an asinine idea if you ask me. We do have a problem with muzzling the military out of fear though and when we do go to war we need to commit fully and not play games like we have been doing (not sending enough troops, the correct equipment, playing political games with local forces ect).Possibly in a few areas it might work but for the most part, I think it would have a negative effect creating insurgents groups who have little liking for the Taliban but who hate the American invaders. Only about 1 in every 10,000 civilians is a Taliban fighter.You could completely destroy the cities, kill thousands of people, destroy their infrastructure and still the Taliban would still be there because they are a very small part of the population. The major effect of attacking the civil population would be to increase the number terrorists.
At that point the civilians would actively seek out and neutralize those that wanted to carry on.
Unlike wars of the 20th century, the primary consideration is not accomplishing the military objective but rather avoiding deaths both military and civilian. When a military campaign is conducted in this manner, it can drag on for many years. It could even last decades as long as lost of life is relatively low and the commitment of resources don't require any major sacrifice from most of the country. There are a lot more people who die from falls in their bathroom than soldiers that die in Afghanistan. Wars today extracts a huge cost on a relative small part of the population. Most people would not even know a war was in progress, if it wasn't in the news.
properly fighting a war means to break the enemies will !!! not just their military but their populace as a whole ... we have not accomplished this since WW2 !!! the reason is very simple .....the political left !!! name an instance that the left has rallied around our troops and our country in a time of war in the past 50 yrs !!! they protest ,march,boycott,and rally in sympathy on behalf of our enemies example [Jane Fonda ] .... with the political clout the leftist carry our leaders are afraid to do what needs to be done against our enemies !!! and now with the UN [whom the lefties love ] dictating what we can and cannot do in a time of war we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs !!! if we would have been allowed to wage the 2 wars we are currently involved in like we did in WW2 our troops would have come home yrs ago !!