Wow love him or hate him, another week of approval rating drops. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/eveningnews/main1005982.shtml Approve 35% Disapprove 57% http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7000858495
This war is for real by Major General Vernon Chong, USAF, ret. October 1, 2005 To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war, and even fewer who realize what losing really means. First, let's examine a few basics: 1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979 - 22 years prior to September 2001 - with the following attacks on us: Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon, Embassy, 1983; Beirut, Lebanon, Marine Barracks, 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland, Pan-Am flight to New York, 1988; First New York World Trade Center attack, 1993; Oklahoma City - Murrah Federal Building, 1995; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Khobar Towers Military complex, 1996; Nairobi, Kenya, U.S. Embassy, 1998; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, U.S. Embassy, 1998; Aden, Yemen, USS Cole, 2000; New York, World Trade Center, 2001; Pentagon, 2001; Shanksville, Pennsylvania, Plane Crash, 2001 (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide). Why were we attacked? Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the Presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter. Who were the attackers? In each case, the attacks on the U.S. were carried out by Muslims. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25 percent. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful? Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominently Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration, or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews, or of taking over the world - German, Christian, or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the attention of the world on the U.S., but kill all in the way - their own people, or the Spanish, French, or anyone else. The point here, is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders, and what they are fanatically bent on doing - by their own pronouncements - killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do - if the choice was shut up, or die? So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct, and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win, if you don't clearly recognize, and articulate who you are fighting. So with that background, now to the two major questions: Can we lose this war? What does losing really mean? If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions. We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question: 2. "What does losing mean?" It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is: a. We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorists to attack us, until we were neutered, and submissive to them. b. We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals, and for the reason that they would see that we are impotent, and cannot help them. c. They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train, and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done. Spain is finished. d. The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20 percent Muslim, and fading fast! e. If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life will all vanish, as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims? f. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore, are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost. Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite, and really put 100 percent of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And, it is going to take that 100 percent effort to win. So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves, by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win! Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life-and-death seriousness of this situation. President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily, or we will most certainly lose all of them, permanently. And, don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory, and in fact, added many more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict, and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head. Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause. Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type of prisoners, who just a few months ago, were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues, and otherwise murdering their own people, just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago, these same types of prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was, and is, providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held. Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who, for several days, have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners - not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them. Can this be for real? The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle, as Rome burned - totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in, and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists' stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into all non-Muslims - not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense. We have been criticized, for many years, as being "arrogant." That charge is valid, in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart; that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us; and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world! We can't! If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it, will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive, if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone, equal status, or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world. This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war, or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written, or read. If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France, and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them, and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar? Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically-correct piece. And, they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom, and will not apply it to you, or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other, over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"? I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope, now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it. After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country, and the World. Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, and that includes the Politicians and media of our country, and the free World!
That was answered in 2778, before you posted the question in 2780 and again in 2860. If you need help reading it, please don't ask yo-yo for assistance.
I love how gworld accusses people of saying things and then when asked to show where they said it, he is at a loss.
Well duh, of course. He is a lame duck now. He is kinda like the pope. Unless he retires or is (God forbid) assasinated, it is not like he is able to run again. He can do pretty much anything he wants at this point, without fear of being ousted. Anyway, show me a president whose approval ratings did not drop at the end of their term? Also, his approval ratings were dropping like mad when the LARGEST MAJORITY OF US VOTERS IN ALL OF HISTORY voted him in for a second term. What does that say? Hmmmm words to ponder.
No? So, only Christians and straight people? It was a joke son, sort of like the racial slur you made against people of African descent. I was commenting upon your poor reading comprehension skills, not your economic background. I was also commenting upon the incredibly low level of quality in America's public schools. Actually no, not inferring that at all. Are you sensitive about something? I did get to go to a church-sponsored school for a couple of years, and the education was far superior to public school education. It was like night and day. I ended up dropping out of school entirely in the 9th or 10th grade. But don't worry about me, I was teaching on the college level at the age of 18. Well see, that's the great thing about hard work, you get to make money and buy stuff that you want. Like, for example, the 4,100sq. ft. house in the burbs that I am sitting in right now. My wife grew up extremely wealthy, but she does seem strangely fond of my dysfunctional screwball family. Of course, her family is supposed to murder her for marrying a dirty heathen, so I suppose that my family seems wonderful in comparison. If I did, would I see you there? For the record, I have not visited that place in almost a decade. I wouldn't want to get unearned kudos from the socialist crowd. In general, your personal attacks have been humorous. Please do continue, my furry little playmate. And please do tell us what gerbiling is like from the gerbils point of view.
Will, excellant post btw. What it proves is the point that no one on the news will ever talk about. They (terrorists) hated us, (us meaning the US, Christians, Jews, basically anything non-muslim, including some muslims) long before Sept, 11, and long before any Bush ever hit the White House. It's pretty much always been that way. Meanwhile the nar do wells, will have us all beleiving that GWB created this mess. Of course I know and am glad he is here fighting the mess. I can only hope the next President continues on that path.
35% puts him in about the middle of the pack: Bush Sr. 29% LBJ 35% Clinton 37% Reagan 35% Nixon 24% Ford 37% Carter 28%
Ahh but these are the lowest of the low correct? Doesn't it matter if the number stays there, or was just there for a poll cycle or 2? Big difference from going from lets say 50% to 35% in a month then back up, compared to staying in the 30% range for an extended period of time. Right now I'm looking at it for nothing more than a stat to look at, something that will be in history good or bad Yes but he still needs his party behind him, the populace to a degree and most presidents love to leave a legacy they can be proud of. A drop is one thing, a continued downward spiral is another. Well populations go up so I don't see that as anything to be trully screaming about, of course the higher the population the easier the chance you'll get the 'highest majority' he did not win the highest percentage ever which would be the main item to be proud of, or make a stink out of. The highest majority is just pretty much a given when populations go up is it not, or when you have a high voter turn out compared to previous years?
Who says the party is not behind him? I like thinking of the Clinton legacy when I have those day dreams at work about the hot secretary I don't have.... Not that Monica was hot, but I think you get the picture. That's about the only legacy I see, that and (forget it, that is a whole other thread) Just like in football, there is still a lot of game left. No it was the highest percentage. And the largest ever voter turn out percentage. Dare I say land slide.
When it comes to history it takes on average from 20 years to understand and appreciate the affect a presidents decisions in office have on the country as a whole. Save for perhaps Clinton, or Carter Time will tell.... Think about it. It is only recently the world and the US has begun to realize the brillance in the decisions that Reagan made.
Why am I not surprise that you are a high school drop out? Can you tell me in what collage were you teaching at age 18? As far as I remember most collages require Master degree for teaching and don't hire people who don't have high school diplomas.
My grandfather was a 9th grade drop out. He did so during the depression to help support his sibblings and parents. He went on to fight for his country flying 75 missions in WWII on a B-17, was a successful business man, had all the toys, boats, planes, cars, cycles, and three homes. But who the hell is he... Look at guys like Bill Gates.... College drop out. The list goes on.
Because he's ten fold more articulate with words than you will ever be and his posts represent a very well educated person. Yet you *probably* paid untold fortunes for some degree that affords you some of the stupidest posts *many* here have ever seen. Or, you may very well have just bought one from the back of a mail order catalog. One does not need a college degree to teach at college. Some schools, perhaps, but not all. I know for a fact