.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
EIB Bumpersticker

Thursday, December 08, 2005


Attacking Non-UH liberalism 'John Kerry Calls American Troops Terrorists' (Here are some examples of American Soldiers terrorizing Iraqi kids)

Senator John F. Kerry, the man who Thank God was not elected President last year, recently said on a non-watched Sunday show that "there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Kerry, a man who lied his way out of Vietnam, only to come back to the US and stab his fellow soldiers in the back, should be run out of town along with the liberals that support his views.

I've served in combat in desert conditions and helped children just like those soldiers pictured. You get so heartbroken that you want to take them home with you, and it really hurts those in uniform when they find out that elected officials are stabbing them in the back during wartime.

I hope that out of all this liberal chaos there are "Reagan Democrats" being born. People are much more informed in this internet and cable era -- and the liberals playbook is still from the ABC, NBC, and CBS era, and true Americans have to be embarrassed at what they are seeing and hearing. Hence the Larry X's out there that are coming out of the Black and minority communities and embracing the Republican Party.

Hat tip: Rush Limbaugh

Screw the libs!

One of the veterans that I was privileged to know was a man of African ancestry born in Honduras named Juan. His first glimpse of an American soldier was when a group of soldiers went to his village to help build a hospital and give medical and dental care to the people who lived there.

Juan was only six years old at the time, but he never forgot the American soldiers that came. He especially remembered the ones that provided him and his neighbors with dental care as it was the only time anyone in his village had any.

When he came to the US at the age of 16 Juan knew that as soon as he graduated high school he was going to join the army so that he could be like those real life heroes he saw as a small boy.

He served four years as a dental technician, and then came to UH when his tour was up to get his degree and also to become an Army officer via UH's ROTC program. Last I saw him in the late 90's he was a lieutenant. I think his branch was now field artillery if memory serves me correctly. He had just got back from a peacekeeping tour of duty in Egypt's Sinai, (a legacy of the camp David Peace treaty between Israel and Egypt).

This proud army officer was once a child in a developing country who never forgot the kindness that America showed him and his countrymen. Now he was dedicating his life to paying back that kindness by joining the most honorable of professions, that of an American servicemember. So much for our soldiers being "terrorists".
Saved, that comment was beyond the comprehension of liberals.

Liberals are completely devoid of contact with the military seeing as less than 1% of the population actually serves at one time.

I wouldn't be surprised if most liberals haven't seen a military person in uniform, so why wouldn't they want to attack those whom they do not know at the same time supporting al-Qaeda with their comments.

Screw the libs!
Check out worldinternetnews.org
"I wouldn't be surprised if most liberals haven't seen a military person in uniform"

I guess I hallucinated the supply specialist with a Kerry sticker, then.

Internet Photoshop fakes don't count.
I know two neo-cons who never saw a uniform--George W. and Dickhead Cheney.
I know a democrat who never saw a servicemember that he did not denegrate. John Kerry
I couldn't have photoshopped B Co. 46AG, Ft. Knox, KY.
One John Kerry breeds another.

Liberals serve yes, but when they come back, they stab the rest of their fellow vets in the back.
I don't think it has anything to do with political affiliation. Some things are just wrong. I think liberals, conservatives, and moderates would all agree that the Vietnam War was a mistake in hindsight. The question is did we learn anything as a society from it?
Vietnam can be deemed as wrong in the way the war was prosecuted.

When President Johnson was chosing targets himself and leaving vital pieces of the VC infrastructure in tact that is not the way to go.

President Bush leaves the charge of the military to the generals. They run the show and make recommendation based on conditions.

What liberals don't understand is that from time to time war is a necessary evil for our nation to survive. 9/11 proved that.

To go thru life with want the liberals want is unrealistic. Its not a scripted show out there -- its real life.

Even if the liberals gain power and get their way they can never fully become doves. After a few more 9/11s even a dove has to fight.
I know plenty of South Vietnamese immigrants who had relatives trapped in the North during the incursion into Cambodia in 1970 and during the 1972 Christmas bombings. Every one of them who has ever commented on it stated that those in the North were close to giving up during the bombings and that the incursion into Cambodia to hit the safe havens should have happened long ago.

If Nixon had run the show from the beginning things would have been much different. Vietnam would be one country, but a free one not a communist one. Problem was by the time Nixon became president in 1968 Johnson had bungled it so badly that people started listening to the libereals in the media instead of the generals on the ground and were expecting an exit, victory or no victory. When Nixon called the war protestors "bums" he hit the nail on the head.

Yes if Truman had not supported the French in their colonalisim post WWII, the war probably would not have happened in the first place, and Eisenhower made the right decision in not supporting French colonalisim by graniting France's military requests for 3 atom bombs allong with carrier based air support at Dien Bien Phu in 1954.

Supporting French colonialisim was the problem that was causing more Vietnamese to go over to the communist side just to free themselves from the French. Had it not been for Truman's poor judgement Vietnam would not have been a colony or communist, but democratic and free with no American casualties.

However, had Kennedy, Daley, Johnson and all of those dead voters that got JFK elected in 1960 not intervened, Nixon would have been president, and the war would have been run better if it had to be run at all.

People beat the Watergate issue to death whenever Nixon is mentioned, but when it came to foreign policy Nixon had no equals as far as modern presidents go.

If you don't like how the Vietnam War ended up. Thank Truman, JFK, and especially Johnson. The democrats made it the shit sandwich that it was. The Republicans tried to stay out of it, and then secure an honorable peace once they inherited it.

The 1973 cease fire called for American Airpower to strike the North if they broke the cease fire. This did not happen in 1975 because the liberals had so weakened the presidency that the commander in chief Ford was not able to keep our promises to the South Vietnamese and we ended up abandoning our ally thanks to the liberals in the media and in congress.

Screw the libs!
You fail to mention the eight years of Eisenhower's presidency. Did he have nothing to do with the course we took in Vietnam?

I'm not going to disagree with you on Nixon's foreign policy. He was outstanding. He probably would have been better suited for Sec. of State due to his other shortcomings.

As to war, I don't disagree -- there are times that I believe we should be at war. This is not one of them. You make the connection to 9/11 as so many do yet there has been no proof linking Iraq to 9/11. If anything, the War in Iraq has made terrorism stronger as the children of the region are being taught to hate Americans.
Do your research on Ike. He tried to stay out of it. A few hundred advisors given to the South Vietnamese late in his presidency hardly equates to the thousands that Kennedy sent. Start with the book mentioned here, “How Presidents Test Reality” http://www.princeton.edu/~fig/TestReality.htm

Nixon as secretary of state instead of president? Ludicrous! He would get to give advice and not have the option of seeing it implemented if the president chose otherwise.

Iraq, you don't need a 911 connection to see why it was needed. The sanctions were not working only giving Saddam sympathy. Saddam would always pose a clear and present danger to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and thus our troops were there as per Saudi and Kuwaiti request. However the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia was another rallying point for OBL and his ilk. Now that Saddam is gone so are the US troops in Saudi.

Clinton should have solved this problem long ago instead of sticking his head in the sand and hoping it would go away while cleaning the European's privy in the Balkan's instead. America's security was left in jeopardy, while Clinton did the European Union's job for them. If this problem had been solved long ago we would have had a lot more international support. Clinton let the brilliant coalition that papa Bush put together erode and Bush junior inherited Clinton's mess of indecisiveness and poor leadership.

A lot of people believed the WMD intel including most of the Democrats in 2003. Clinton's justification for 1998's Desert Fox four days of pounding sand was that he was "degrading Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction capability" remember? It was not about Monica according to Slick Willie, yet we have learned that Iraq supposedly did not have stockpiles or an active program in 1998. We only were able to learn such things by having the kind of unfettered access that was only possible after the 2003 war. W never could have been sure otherwise but people forget that the patron saint of the libs sent our airmen and naval aviators in harms way in 1998 because he believed it too so he says.

The problem with Iraq had to be solved one way or another for the reasons I've given with a WMD or 911 connection, or without a WMD or 911 connection. Unfortunately there was no way to really solve it without going to war. We never could have been sure Saddam would behave and thus could have never pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia as a consequence.

Yet as bad as Saddam was, can you imagine the nightmare that awaited the world if Saddam did reconstitute his WMD programs and after his death his sons were in charge? The country would have erupted into chaos even worse than we have right now and there is a good chance that in such a scenario terrorists would be sold Iraqi WMDs.

Saddam would have just played another shell game with the inspectors, no one could have ever been 100% sure he did not have the WMD. He would have reconstituted them once the international eye was off of him, threatened his neighbors once again. The US would have once again been called to act and we would have Desert Storm 1 all over again only who knows what would have happened this time before our troops got in place if they had been removed from the region after the WMD shell game.

If our troops had stayed indefinitely in Saudi and the sanctions had stayed that would have encouraged terror as both were rallying points for terrorist. There was a connection between the Iraq situation and terror I have just described it in detail.

Screw the libs!
By the way anonymous, if even an ultraliberal like former New York Times Op-ed columnist Anthony Lewis can admit to being wrong for opposing the war in Vietnam. So can you. Here is a link to a copy of his June 23, 1997 article, ask a Cambodian if they were happy about us losing the war.


Enjoy and Screw the Libs!
You blog sure gets quite a few comments. I'm going to read thru your posts and see why you are generating so much interest. Bye. Ms. San Diego orthodontics
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?