How many more body bags?

Did you actually answer my question?

 

BiR,

I don't remember his name...but I certainly know who you are talking about. Now, what was that soldiers name who gave Rumsfeld an earful?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Yes, I read your post and, yes, I ignored it because I'm tired of that argument. However, since you insist, yes, I, as one of many, have served my country in the military, in war, and in combat as have others in my family - this generation and previous - some of whom have paid a high price for doing so ranging from death to permanent disability to several years in re-education.

Several others who've commented in this thread or other similar threads also have military experiences and a few are actively serving. None of us, to my knowledge, claim any "bragging rights" for anything we've done or are doing. I certainly do not! In fact, I don't even like getting into all that with a bunch of people I don't even know except to take up the fight for the benefit of my brothers and sisters in arms. Those who serve today - right now - are the object of our prayers and concerns. Defense of their performance of duty - not mine - is the primary goal I have in my postings. It is for the good of the nation. I'll also be happy to take on any irresponsible critics of my fellow veterans - including my Vietnamese friends and allies - of past wars our nation has fought.

Military service or lack thereof, per se, doesn't make the opinions of either group any more or less correct but it does mean some of us "know" - to some extent or another - what it's like.

I do not consider myself to be a "great" brother in Christ for having served my nation. In fact, I don't consider myself to be "great" at anything most especially as a follower of Christ. Most veterans, including those still on active duty, don't consider themselves to be so special. I consider our nation great and deserving of the my service as well as that of my peers, my ancestors, my descendants, or anyone else, to the extent needed, who lives in this great land that's been so blessed by God.

I don't mind asking - even demanding if necessary - that others serve to save that which so many others have bought and secured over many generations. It's worth fighting and dying for if necessary just as is my own dear family. Right now, the needs are being met with volunteers and I thank them, their families, and God Almighty for their service.

I don't know anything about you so I'll not lump you in one group or another. For all I know you may even be a veteran yourself. Everyone's entitled to a point of view and the expression thereof. Frankly, I'm getting aggravated with all this idiotic baloney from people who have no clue what they're talking about. I pray for strength and wisdom on how to deal properly with it.

Our nation needs resolve to win this long fight against terrorism and, potentially, even worse enemies to come. We'd best learn how to make the sacrifices required and support the causes we commit our troops to fight else they will one day rise up in revolt and then our enemies will roll right over us all. We often look like fools to our enemies because we waste our freedom - which we certainly have - on fighting amongst oneanother verses fighting them. For you younger puppies, who don't remember or never knew it or refuse to believe it, we were headed dangerously down that path not that long ago. Let us not go there now!

I hope this answers you question from at least my point of view.

 

I am an expeditionary medal recipient. U.S. Navy, '79-'83.

My brother Timmy has been to Iraq 3 times in two wars, and just re-enlisted.

My daughter is 13.

But thanx for YOUR service, P.P.7.

 

My dad was in the Air Force and served during Vietnam, although not in combat. He was a mechanic for C-130's. My son is 2 years old. I have many friends who just returned from Iraq. They support the mission also.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Did a google search, and came up with US Army Specialist Thomas Wilson.
Now, did he really give Rumsfeld "an earful," or did he simply ask two questions? I seem to recall that it was the latter.......

Regards,
BiR

 

Are you now saying that he was not criticizing the administration? Interestingly enough, many in the media seemed to think he was at the time.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Did he mention the Administration?
I seem to recall he asked a question about armour for their vehicles.

 

People who are from the Midwest and the heartland
who are saying "either do it right or get out"
is important because it is coming from the
last bastion of support for bush and his war
of choice.



Reflecting the public mood, some members of Congress have sharpened their criticism. Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), who is considering a run for president, called on the Bush administration to set a target of December 2006 for withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq. Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a maverick Republican, said the war reminded him of Vietnam: "We're not winning. We should start figuring out how we get out of there."

Even Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a strong Bush ally who will face a tough race for reelection in 2006, said he had privately expressed "concerns" over the administration's management of the war. "I have a very clear track record of being supportive of the policy but not necessarily all of the tactics," Santorum told the Philadelphia Inquirer.

But the most outspoken critics are, for now, lonely voices.

Among Democrats, no other senator has seconded Feingold's call for a withdrawal date, although Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) was considering it, a spokesman said. Among Republicans, none of Hagel's colleagues endorsed his view of Iraq as a second Vietnam. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), usually a Hagel ally, said the comparison was mistaken and instead called for more troops.

Again I think the above comments are reflecting
what that couple had to say on Hardball from
middle America. Bush needs to discern we have
a defined victory now and be able be careful
about quagmire...He needs to manage this a whole
lot better and quit with the stupid excuses. I think the mantra from middle america is still going to be "do it right or get out"

Our troops deserve better performance and policy
from this Administration. imho

 

What exactly is this "do it right"?

Do you mean the war that our Congress - our duly elected representatives - have supported from the beginning by their resolution?

So which is it, ASLANASPAL, do we have a "defined victory" or are we "not winning"? Do we need to have another victory celebration or do we need to walk or run away and let 'em sort it out?

Specifically, what are the alleged "stupid excuses" President Bush makes?

Exactly what happens on "December 2006" that makes that the date for "withdrawing" all US troops from Iraq? Will that be the date of the "defined victory"? How does Feingold know this is the right date? Are we mission driven or schedule driven?

How does this "defined victory" need to be managed "a whole lot better" so it doesn't become a "quagmire" while we "either do it right or get out"?

What our troops deserve is support from all America's citizens they are doing exactly what we expect of them and we're pleased with their accomplishments.

Let's see if our impatient little hearts and minds can muster up enough resolve to actually do that this time rather than do what we shamefully did when we left Viet Nam unfinished under the guise of "peace with honor".

 

I remember the guy now. He's the National Guardsman that had never set foot on a battlefield but was complaining about the armor of humvees.

I remember him , but I can't remember the name of the reporter who gave him the questions to ask.

 

Let's see if our impatient little hearts and minds can muster up enough resolve to actually do that this time rather than do what we shamefully did when we left Viet Nam unfinished under the guise of "peace with honor". </font>[/QUOTE]Today's Democrat Party is certainly not your parent's Democrat Party.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Click on the latest video: Not your parent's Democrat Party

 

And he has also said that we would leave when the Iraqi people want us to leave. So which is it? </font>[/QUOTE]I don't see any conflict between the two. It is very likely the Iraqis will want us to leaves when they have a constitution and a functioning,secure democratic government.

 

How many of you great brothers in Christ with all of your sublime political ideaology have served or have a son serving in this "war on terrorism"?

Not that it matters, as several others have pointed out, but:

My uncle served in Viet Nam 3 tours, wounded twice.

My father served in Viet Nam, killed.

I served Gulf War 1, disabled.

My sister is currently in Afghanistan (CIA, 2d tour).

Her husband is in Iraq (CIA, 3d tour).

My other brother-in-law is in Stryker Bde, Iraq, 1st tour.

My step-father is somewhere (he can't say, CIA).

All of them volunteered, and all of them want to stay until the mission is complete.

My family is military/civilian intelligence (except for me -- I broke the pattern by going infantry) all the way back to the Civil War, where we lost several of them.

 

I'm too old. My sons are too young.

I was in the USAR for 7 years. My father retired after 21 years in the Army and served in Korea.

My brother-in-law just returned from Kosovo.

I don't have any close relatives who are the right age to be in Iraq.

What is your military experience? That seems to be a fair question don't you think?

 

You premise your whole argument on unproven opinions and media generated perceptions.

Contrary to the political micromanagement of Vietnam, the Bush Administration is giving wide latitude to the military. They have rebuffed politicians for suggesting troop levels different from those asked for by the commanders in the theater and have to my knowledge not denied them any resource that was within their power to provide.

The operation in Iraq is accomplishing political goals, it is rebuilding that country's infrastructure, it is killing terrorists in their own back yard, and all this with low casualties from a historical perspective.

What exactly is it that the Administration is not doing that you want them to do?

We forced the Japanese to adopt a western style secular democracy. Is that what you want now? If so, go ahead and drop the "get out" part... because we will be there in large numbers for at least 10 years to accomplish such a goal.

Of course, this line of questioning is based on the premise that you actually want this effort to be successful and not a failure so that Bush and the GOP will be damaged politically.

 

You premise your whole argument on unproven opinions and media generated perceptions.

Contrary to the political micromanagement of Vietnam, the Bush Administration is giving wide latitude to the military. They have rebuffed politicians for suggesting troop levels different from those asked for by the commanders in the theater and have to my knowledge not denied them any resource that was within their power to provide.

The operation in Iraq is accomplishing political goals, it is rebuilding that country's infrastructure, it is killing terrorists in their own back yard, and all this with low casualties from a historical perspective.

What exactly is it that the Administration is not doing that you want them to do?

We forced the Japanese to adopt a western style secular democracy. Is that what you want now? If so, go ahead and drop the "get out" part... because we will be there in large numbers for at least 10 years to accomplish such a goal.

Of course, this line of questioning is based on the premise that you actually want this effort to be successful and not a failure so that Bush and the GOP will be damaged politically. </font>[/QUOTE]Excellent points!

 

That's certainly true! My parents were Democrats before they become Republicans although, as best I recall, that change took place before President Kennedy.

By the way, President Kennedy was never one of my favorites but, with respect to this speech, he said the right things.

 

Edward Lee Pitts.
How nice of you to question Thomas Wilson's service to our country. According to my President, he is over there defending freedom. I hope you aren't suggesting that Wilson has to "set foot on a battlefield" before he has any credibility? Now that would be a new low......

And what about those troops who had the audacity to cheer? I suppose they were planted in the audience too.

I guess that you can't support the troops without supporting the cause; however, you can support the cause without supporting one of our troops.

Speaking of that soldier, did he ever mention the Administration?
Joseph wrote this:

I looked and cannot find where he "[criticized] the Administration."

Regards,
BiR