More from John Kerry

Where did you get the idea that 138,000 US troops were being slaughtered? That kind of statement is grossly devoid of the truth.

Soldiers do lose lives in wars and that is detestable. But there are no US troops being slaughtered, and certainly not 138,000.

 

Hippie talk, 2004.

 

Pastor Larry's comment was correct!

It's not your grammar that was the problem but, rather, your message. Following is a communication of essentially the same facts but with a completely different tone:

Bush put together a very strong coalition force of 160,000 troops of which 138,000 are U.S. Several hundred thousand troops have served in the effort since it began and some from various coalition members, including a little over 1,000 U.S., have died in the fighting.


The word slaughtered suggests the killing of animals for food or the killing of large numbers of people in an out right massacre with little resistance on their part. Neither meaning fits the situation! Our troops have not been and are not being slaughtered in Iraq.

Perhaps your knowledge of Greek grammar is better than your knowledge of English grammar . I did not use the present perfect tense or any other tense describing or suggesting completed action, but a tense describing action that has begun and is continuing, and, therefore, my post was factual rather than "grossly devoid of the truth."

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

Actually, some troops of other nations have died in Iraq. Not nearly a thousand or so, but we aren't the only nation losing people in that mess.

A bit less than 1100 US troops have died in the fighting.

Sixty-eight UK troops have died, and about 70 from other nations.

 

Slaughter is the wrong word, wrong place, and wrong time! The meaning has more to do with the situation than the number. The dictionary is correct. Your use of the word was not. The answer to your question is that the situation would have to change. We have, relative to what we've accomplished, lost very few troops. They're certainly in harms way but they're doing very well and have always been on the winning side. We haven't experienced anything even remotely close to a slaughter in this war.

How many more Americans will have to die before the number is large enough for you to call it a slaughter?


</font>[/QUOTE]

 

How many Iraqi troops have died alongside American troops fighting for their freedom. It is just like liberals like Craig and Kerry to discount the sacrifice of others, while trying to exploit the death of Americans. They have one agenda really: To demoralize the coalition into retreat. They are willing to say and do anything to get rid of Bush, even if it means weakening our nation and emboldening the enemy with their seditious hate speech. But hey, they think they could build a better coalition to come with us and fight the "wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time". Yeah, right.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Great, I'm glad you understand the misuse of the word slaughter!

Now the next problem is that you suggest the number of troops killed, and those who may be killed in the future is irrelevant. That's not correct - it is very relevant.

The liberty and security we enjoy has always been paid for at high cost yet we have consistently considered it relevant that our troops fight to protect it and pay that price if necessary. We know, going into it, that some may be killed and yet we send them anyway. They (the troops) know they may be killed and they go anyway. The reason is that they put their nation before themselves. They serve willingly and proudly to defend and pass on to the next generation what we've bought in blood. They know this must be done if we have any hope of holding on to what our ancestors also fought so hard to attain. They know they can't run away, abandon the cause, nor turn against one another when some of them are taken in battle.

No war should be expected to be painless, quick, nor with out cost in precious lives. It is all very relevant! They (the troops) must be strong and so must we.

Now we can rejoice that Iraq is building its own military and police forces, which we've generously helped them start, in order to continue the fight for liberty and security in their nation. They are now willing to pay the price themselves and are doing so daily.

That is also very relevant and a cause to be happy that we've been able to give them a chance to start establishing what has taken us a long time to build up. It will not be easy for them and it will not happen over night. The process may suffer setbacks and, if we or they loose faith, they may suffer defeat. Let's help them be victorious just as we have in the initial phase of this struggle.

 

No one who knows me would call me a liberal or link me with Kerry or say that I discount the sacrifice of others. But some people care nothing about the facts, and as long as they get the opportunity to insult Christians, they find great pleasure in life.

</font>[/QUOTE]And you are living and breathing proof of that. You care absolutely nothing about the facts and are more than willing to insult the sacrifice of American soldiers and our allies. You are a liberal and nothing can change that. You can run, but you cannot hide.

Joseph Botwinick

 

There is nothing wrong with being a liberal any more than there is with being a conservative.

 

Are you a liberal Ken?

Joseph Botwinick

 

No, but I am not a knee-jerk conservative, either.

 

BTW,

Here is what I see is wrong with being a liberal:

1. They are always on the wrong side of National Defense: The want to cut the military, intelligence. They are appeasers who want to try and use diplomacy with terrorists instead of defeat them. They cannot be trusted with our nations security.

2. They are always on the wrong side of the economy: They want to raise taxes and spending. They want bigger government instead of allowing Americans the freedom to spend the money they earned the way they choose.

3. They are always wrong on social issues such as abortion, stem-cell research, the 2nd ammendment, and gay rights. They have no morality and cannot be trusted to be moral leaders.

Joseph Botwinick

 

On one and three I agree with you. On number two, however, using the Bush administration as an example we can very easily come up with the following description of conservatives:

2. They are always on the wrong side of the economy: They want to raise spending and the deficit. They want bigger government instead of allowing the next generation of Americans the freedom to spend the money they earned the way they choose.

 

I think you are going to have a hard time making a case for that in light of how many tax cuts in the past few years?

Joseph Botwinick

 

So you like the fact that your child is already hundreds of thousands of dollars in the hole at his very young age? And it's only going to get worse for him thanks to the prescription drug bill that President Bush pushed through the Congress last year.

Oh, I know the argument: He is(for example) $500,000 in the hole with the Republicans in charge but with the Democrats in charge he would be $600,000 in the hole.

You can explain that to him when he's paying 30% in Social Security and Medicare taxes alone when he starts working.