Has anyone here joined the military to "fight the war on terror"

Umm, we're due for a "sis boom rah" from AGS? Anyone know why the anti-American cheerleader is falling behind?

 

I think we have all found out that you are the real enemy of this country. Now if you would like to repent and join to bring our troops back to American soil.......

 

probably its his bed time...given he is in a different time zone.

 

Don't worry babe, the Anti-American Administration cheerleader is still here.

 

so your buds could take over? no thanks...if the libs would get behind our troops and support them, this war would have been over long ago...

 

at least you have the cheerleader and then anti-american part right!

 

There are two types of people....those that want our troops home and happy...and those that are happy with them being in Iraq fighting a war for wealth and greed. If only you were over there chickenhawk.....

 

wrong...there are three....the two you said, plus the group that supports our troops, wants them to finish the job, and then come home...libs love to put it in a "this or that" kind of situation, and everytime they get those situations wrong...I am not supporting for the troops so they can get rich, or for oil (considering Iraq is not even a major supplier of oil to the US!!), I support the troops for killing more of your buds everyday!

 

If my country were Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran or other similar country, you would be correct.

But since I don't want Iran to wipe out Israel or the US, like you, then we have to reverse these roles.

Did you say you were an American? Really?

 

Nope only two groups....try again.

 

Actually, that's incorrect. If a Republican President and Republican Congress had the balls to formally declare war, they would have had every constitutional (read:substantial) means to go to, win and end this war quickly.

Ironically, Ron Paul asked Congress to formally declare war and they refused. And people call him weak. No wonder the military donates to him so much. They know what Reagan knew about Ron Paul. Paul understands that you can't cripple the military and expect them to succeed.

 

I rest my case...the problems with liberals is that they wait for the govt. to think for them, which is obvious in your case...libs never can see the big picture, they have to be right about everything, especially defeat.

I never said they formally declared war, but they did vote for it.....don't you remember sKerry's "I voted against it before I voted for it" speech? Congress voted, the majority of democrats voted for it...and btw, RP is a nutjob..

 

The military was crippled (gutted) during the 90s. To this day, we are still not at the levels we were back then.

RP is an utter kook, not even a second tier candidate. I always get a kick out of his minions trying to suggest you don't support the Constitution if you don't support RP.

 

I know you never said it. The point I was making is that the Republicans had the opportunity at the beginning to formally declare war and pass a war measures act. That's why we are in another Korea/Vietnam-esque Police Action and not a proper war, with all of the funding and special powers that is allowed in that situation by the rule of law. So blaming the Dems or liberals (neither of whom I identify with) is incorrect.

If devoting your life to upholding the Constitution is nuts, if providing free medical service to the poor is nuts, if serving in the Airforce during wartime is nuts, if never voting to raise taxes is nuts and if turning down a Congressional pension is nuts, then yeah, Ron Paul is nuts.

What does that make the rest of us?

 

wrong...the dems and the libs all voted for the same things that the rest of congress did...whether they should have declared war is a mute point...the point is that people constantly only blame Bush (as YOU did) for something that congress was involved in, something that both libs and the GOP voted FOR....you can't keep blaming everything on Bush when there were others involved....if you really want to blame someone, blame the CIA for providing faulty info, then blame Clinton for letting his admin put up a wall between the FBI and CIA that did not allow them to communicate and to really get reliable info.

if those were the only issues that RP had, then he might not be nuts, but to stand in a presidential debate and claim that the US govt. was responsible for 9/11 (as he did, which was then shot down by Rudy) is nuts...he is nothing more than a troother...even the libertarian party, of which he is a part, is not backing him 100%...what does that have to say about him???

 

You mean moot point. Sorry, that particular misspelling is a pet peeve of mine.

Failing to declare war was a failure of the system and all of our politicians. But the Congress was primarily Republican, and Bush is a Republican (as am I) so don't tell me that it's all on the liberals or Democrats. That's partisan nonsense.

I'd blame Clinton, but it won't do any good. He's already gone. If we're going to do that, I could go all the way back to Woodrow Wilson and probably even further.

If you blame the CIA, GSpot jumps all over posters as being Anti-American, which I'm not afraid of, but seriously why give that wanker the platform to continue burying issues with vitriol and divisive rhetoric?

Well, we can't have it both ways can we? Is Bush "the leader" of this country? If he is the leader, and has the autonomy to declare wars and is doing everything in his power for the national defense, then isn't he also responsible for all of the agencies subordinate to him? If he is the Comander-in-Chief, isn't it his responsibility to exploit every means available (including a war measures act) to ensure the safety of our troops and their speedy return?

In the military, an officer is responsible for the actions of those under his command. That's how a leadership structure works. We can blame the weak knees until we're blue in the face but that doesn't mean that the fact the heart wasn't pumping is ok.

This has been refuted numerous times, and I am sorry to see that you haven't had an opportunity to be enlightened. The Michigan GOP Leader tried to ban Paul from the Michigan GOP Convention, until he was confronted on this, and quickly backtracked, inviting Paul to Michigan.

Paul has said numerous times that it was policy that caused 9/11. He is backed up by the 9/11 Commission Report.

And regarding 100% of the Libertarians, of course he doesn't have 100% of their support. He's not their candidate for President! Of course, one of the prominent Libertarian Candidates said that if he and Paul got the nomination for their parties, he would withdraw and back Paul in the election, which frankly a weak GOP could use if the hard party liners really want to see the next President as a Republican. In case people haven't noticed, the GOP membership is fractured and diluted.

Paul is a libertarian in most of his philosophies, but he's much closer to the legendary Republican Barry Goldwater, not in style, but most certainly in substance. He's already received the endorsement of UROC, the largest group of Goldwater Conservatives.

You can complain about and defame Paul all you want. I'll readily admit he is a weak public speaker, and is probably playing too clean to win. But if you're interested in Rule of Law, true conservatism and founding principles, it's damn hard to find many chinks in this man's armor.

All of the folks who laugh about Paul's weak national poll #s or his suggested "inflated" Straw Poll results are in for a bit of a shock, because almost all of the non-McCain, Romney and Giuliani candidates are nearly broke, and Paul's war chest is going to allow him to launch a 50 state campaign in Q4 of 2007.

It might fail, but at least Americans will have a choice to select someone who believes in the principles this country was built on.

 

Too bad the principles that the country was built on is long gone.

 

I think that more importantly than anything else you have pointed out is that there is a small break away from utterly controlled politicians like AFMG (Americas Fake Mayor Giulliani), Sh*t Romney, Insane McCain and Clinton.

It's a slow step in the right direction, of course Paul is ridiculed by utter puppets like Hannity but the fact is that there is a man that talks sense, of course because he's not a war mongering f*ck then he doesn't fit the agenda but it's great to see that he's making an impact, even though in the grander scheme of things it will not make a scrap of difference, Hillary will still win and of course the disaster will continue.

 

no prob...my firefox spell checker did it, I just checked and added "moot"...I also took it off auto-fix...

so if that is the case, why haven't they voted to pull out of Iraq? The congress is now in dem control? Also, I never said it was all on the liberals, go back and read my posts...they and the conservs are both responsible for this.

true, but it goes to show that not everything is always' Bush's fault, which was my original argument after that post that you made.

at least we both agree he is a wanker!

yes, he is commander in chief, as the constitution gives him this power. however, the libs seem to misinterpret that all the time, and try to take it away from him. However, we also have a system of checks and balances, which means that congress gets a vote on things such as war, which they did, and which they voted for. As CiC, he also has the authority to not declare a timetable and to urge congress to provide funding, which for the last few years has not happened properly, but has instead been an argument that results in a non-binding resolution condemning the war (and not supporting our troops).

the US govt has been on a consistent growth in its size since reagan left office...If the govt. weren't so big, maybe the pres would have more leadership, but as it stands, A) he is not supposed to be a micromanager, and B) the govt. has not stopped growing, so there is no way that he can be responsible. On the other hand, there are so many govt. employees that HATE Bush, that often he gets blamed for stuff he has absolutely no control over. My fav so far is that people actually think BUSH has control over Gas prices...

I'm going to see if this really happens..btw, now that we are in sept, we are in the 4th Quarter...so far all I see is that in every repub. debate he has gotten owned by the other candidates. My money is still on Newt...hes about the most conservative (potential) candidate I have seen for a long time.

 

He certainly is, I still can't understand why you back the guy up so much, I thought that you might be smarter than having to mirror some other fooks posts.

He's got nearly 13,000 posts and around 98% are supporting a terrorist like Bush.