igloo Posted September 23 Report Share Posted September 23 DEAD SOLDIERS BY RALPH PETERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Email Archives Print Reprint September 23, 2004 -- IMAGINE if, in the presiden tial election of 1944, the can didate opposing FDR had in sisted that we were losing the Second World War and that, if elected, he would begin to withdraw American troops from Europe and the Pacific. We would have called it treason. And we would have been right. In WWII, broadcasts from Tokyo Rose in Japan and from Axis Sally in Germany warned our troops that their lives were being squandered in vain, that they were dying for big business and "the Jew" Roosevelt. Today, we have a presidential candidate, the conscienceless Sen. John Kerry, doing the work of the enemy propagandists of yesteryear. Is there nothing Kerry won't say to win the election? Is there no position he won't change? Doesn't he care anything for the sacrifices of our troops in Iraq? And if he does care about our soldiers and Marines, why is he broadcasting remarks that insist — against all hard evidence — that the terrorists are winning? Has he seen the situation with his own eyes? I'll gladly tell him how to get there. I'll even be his guide. And he can smell what remains of Saddam's mass graves — with new ones still being discovered. He can taste the joy of freedom among the Kurds. He can see the bustling commerce throughout the country — despite the violence that alone makes headlines. Above all, he could see the magnificent performance of our troops, their dedication and professionalism. And their humanity, their goodness. But Kerry doesn't want to see those things. He's reverting to form. Just as he lied about our troops three decades ago, encouraging our enemies of the day and worsening the suffering of our POWs in North Vietnam, today he's pandering to a new enemy. Imagine the encouragement the terrorists, insurgents and global extremists draw from Kerry's declarations of defeat, from his insistence that our efforts in Iraq and in the War on Terror have failed. As he always does, Kerry slips in qualifiers. Of course, Iraq's important. And he'll fight terror, too. It's just that the Bush administration doesn't know how to do anything. A Kerry presidency would let us withdraw our troops, collect more allies, succeed where others have "failed" and win the hearts and minds of the whole, wide world. Earlier this week, Kerry made a much-ballyhooed speech offering four generalizations about how he would fix Iraq. But there was no detail, not a single nut or a lonely bolt. And the current administration is already doing most of what Kerry suggested. As for involving the French and Germans, the truth is that they'd do more harm than good. These are the corrupt cynics who made billions from the U.N. Oil-for-Food program while the Iraqi people suffered. The French kiss up to every dictator willing to wink in their direction. The German military barely exists — it's just an employment agency for uniformed bureaucrats — and the French military's sole competence lies in slaughtering unarmed black Africans. As for the United Nations, any day now we'll see a huge banner hanging from its Manhattan headquarters: Dictators For Kerry. Even if I detested everything about President Bush, I'd vote for him just to rub it in the faces of the Germans, the French and all of the tyrants rooting for the Iraqi people to slip back into despotism. We Americans choose our own presidents, and we don't take orders from Europeans or from any of Kerry's other Swiss boarding-school pals. I think it's great that Kerry speaks fluent French. I wish he'd go to France where he could speak it all the time. In an election year, our engagement in Iraq is a legitimate topic for sober debate. But Kerry isn't serious. All he does is to declare defeat. He certainly doesn't want to be al Qaeda's candidate, but he's made himself into their man through his irresponsibility. If Kerry were insisting, without caveats, that we're going to stay the course and win, while backing up his criticisms with convincing details of how he would improve our efforts, that would be fine. But his mad claims of disaster and his inability to maintain a firm position unquestionably give aid and comfort to the enemy. The terrorists and their allies already intended to increase the level of violence in Iraq before November. But Kerry's pandering has encouraged them to pull out all the stops. I wish it were otherwise, that our election process had more integrity, but the truth is that every roadside blast and car bomb in Iraq is meant to support John Kerry. Meanwhile, Kerry has assembled the most despicable cast of has-beens and failed officials in campaign history. He's represented by the likes of Jamie Rubin — a Clintonite who so loved America that he moved to London, returning to our shores only to tell real Americans how we need to vote. Putting Rubin on the talk-show circuit demonstrates how badly the Democratic elite is out of touch with the country it claims to represent. With his permanent sneer and his condescending snicker, Rubin represents nearly all that working Americans — and our troops — despise about today's Dems. In 1944, the Democrats had FDR. In 2004, they've got the stretch-limo version of Mike Dukakis. There was a wartime election in 1864, too. The Democratic Party's candidate, former Gen. George McClellan, ran on a platform that declared President Abraham Lincoln's policy a failure. The price of McClellan's rhetoric was a prolonged war and tens of thousands of dead Americans. In 1864, the citizens of the North were steadfast. They rejected the Democratic Party's warnings of defeat and saved the Union. In 2004, the American people, North and South, East and West, need to reject the cynical lies of John F. Kerry and vote to support our troops and save Iraq. Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk4 Posted September 23 Report Share Posted September 23 What were kerry last statement?And can we please refrain from using anything that compares iraq to ww2, and fdr to these candidates. They really do not even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence. Unless it is saying that these guys couldn't hold his jock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted September 23 Author Report Share Posted September 23 What were kerry last statement?And can we please refrain from using anything that compares iraq to ww2, and fdr to these candidates. They really do not even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence. Unless it is saying that these guys couldn't hold his jock.But there are parallels son (just kidding on the "son" ).......I guess if antiwar people want to invoke negative Vietnam comparisons, pro-war people can point to positive WW2 comparisons....And quite frankly, Peters makes an excellent point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk4 Posted September 23 Report Share Posted September 23 I do not see the connection between the two. I do not see the connection between vietnam either. Why do we have to try to compare, i think that leads us into trouble. These are different times. We are fighting a different war, and are really just trying to help these people become free instead of keeping them not communist. We have better intentions, as a country, then in vietnam. I hope the president has the same and this is not about oil, or hooking up friends with billion dollar contracts, or any of that shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRIANC1046 Posted September 23 Report Share Posted September 23 enough of these stupid articles from conservativenews.com... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobeton Posted September 23 Report Share Posted September 23 where are the quoted statements from Kerry this article seems to be the author’s interpretation of statements he heard. I would really like to know what exactly Kerry said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk4 Posted September 23 Report Share Posted September 23 according to that it sounds like he said "i hate america, our army sucks,we do not need an army, if elected president i will take a huge shit in the oval office"something like that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted September 23 Author Report Share Posted September 23 First off, as a man who served, and a well respected commentator on military affairs, Peters has a right to speak, has earned the right to speak, and is not just some bafoon you can cast off into "conservative.com" world.....Secondly, Peters is referring to Kerry's recent empty speech on Iraq, his anti-war remarks the last few days, his ABSURD and DESPICABLE flip-flops on Iraq, and worst of all...the defeatism and recklessness is his comments.Lastly, say what you want about Bush, but this guy Kerry and the campaign he is running is a disaster.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobeton Posted September 24 Report Share Posted September 24 today’s true disaster is Iraq.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted September 24 Author Report Share Posted September 24 today’s true disaster is Iraq..Perhaps it is, or perhaps it is in a small percentage of the country that gets all the play.....or perhaps it is because the brutality is overwhelming and overshadows what is good, or what progress has been made.....or perhaps it is because we are conditioned for 90 minute Hollywood movies with neatly tied endings.....perhaos it is because we lack resolve and patience, or perhaps it is just a disaster.......can certainly all be debated..But that does not mean it is going to be a disaster tomorrow, and certainly 10 years from now, , and if you think the shit Kerry has flying out of his mouth the past week is helpful or useful, especially when our enemies know exactly what time of year it is, and prey on defeatism, than you are not being fair...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobeton Posted September 24 Report Share Posted September 24 Perhaps it is, or perhaps it is in a small percentage of the country that gets all the play.....or perhaps it is because the brutality is overwhelming and overshadows what is good, or what progress has been made.....or perhaps it is because we are conditioned for 90 minute Hollywood movies with neatly tied endings.....perhaos it is because we lack resolve and patience, or perhaps it is just a disaster.......can certainly all be debated..But that does not mean it is going to be a disaster tomorrow, and certainly 10 years from now, , and if you think the shit Kerry has flying out of his mouth the past week is helpful or useful, especially when our enemies know exactly what time of year it is, and prey on defeatism, than you are not being fair......Kerry disagrees with the president’s position and policies regarding Iraq. this talk of Kerry undermining the mission in Iraq by opposing the Presidents positions, policies,etc is election year nonsense. now Bush is above approach, and anyone that questions him is undermining our efforts?? elections our about putting all the issues on the table and having spirited debate. using a war and/or terrorism to try and silence or weaken your opponent and/or critics is just plain tacky. it exposes a fundamental weakness Bush has; that he is as clueless as a virgin in a whore house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted September 24 Author Report Share Posted September 24 Kerry disagrees with the president’s position and policies regarding Iraq. this talk of Kerry undermining the mission in Iraq by opposing the Presidents positions, policies,etc is election year nonsense. now Bush is above approach, and anyone that questions him is undermining our efforts?? elections our about putting all the issues on the table and having spirited debate. using a war and/or terrorism to try and silence or weaken your opponent and/or critics is just plain tacky. it exposes a fundamental weakness Bush has; that he is as clueless as a virgin in a whore house.Kerry disagrees with Bush's position and policies on Iraq????..... I guess that depends on the day of the week, doesn't it?And I guess you missed one of the points of his article: Earlier this week, Kerry made a much-ballyhooed speech offering four generalizations about how he would fix Iraq. But there was no detail, not a single nut or a lonely bolt. And the current administration is already doing most of what Kerry suggested. ...Get it bafoon?And nice try with your bullshit comments about "Bush being above approach" and "anyone that questions him is undermining our efforts"....No one is saying that retard, so save the lame spin for when you hang out with your fellow retards on the "special" bus............but what Kerry is doing in NOT in the spirit of "spirited" and legitimate debate and "putting the issues on the table".........it is reckless and despicable "election year" nonsense from a desparate candidate who has run a shit campaign....case closed.As Peters said: In an election year, our engagement in Iraq is a legitimate topic for sober debate. But Kerry isn't serious. All he does is to declare defeat.Wake up retard and get a clue (and once again, nice job of missing the point of the article)...If there is anyone who is as clueless as a virgin in a whore house, you have certainly proved to fit the bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk4 Posted September 24 Report Share Posted September 24 Perhaps it is, or perhaps it is in a small percentage of the country that gets all the play.....or perhaps it is because the brutality is overwhelming and overshadows what is good, or what progress has been made.....or perhaps it is because we are conditioned for 90 minute Hollywood movies with neatly tied endings.....perhaos it is because we lack resolve and patience, or perhaps it is just a disaster.......can certainly all be debated..But that does not mean it is going to be a disaster tomorrow, and certainly 10 years from now, , and if you think the shit Kerry has flying out of his mouth the past week is helpful or useful, especially when our enemies know exactly what time of year it is, and prey on defeatism, than you are not being fair......or perhaps we have lost ground lost the security of cities that we once had.Or how about bush last month when he said that we will not win the war on terror. They are our enemys right, the terrorists would that be considered defeatism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobeton Posted September 24 Report Share Posted September 24 Kerry disagrees with Bush's position and policies on Iraq????..... I guess that depends on the day of the week, doesn't it?And I guess you missed one of the points of his article: Earlier this week, Kerry made a much-ballyhooed speech offering four generalizations about how he would fix Iraq. But there was no detail, not a single nut or a lonely bolt. And the current administration is already doing most of what Kerry suggested. ...Get it bafoon?And nice try with your bullshit comments about "Bush being above approach" and "anyone that questions him is undermining our efforts"....No one is saying that retard, so save the lame spin for when you hang out with your fellow retards on the "special" bus............but what Kerry is doing in NOT in the spirit of "spirited" and legitimate debate and "putting the issues on the table".........it is reckless and despicable "election year" nonsense from a desparate candidate who has run a shit campaign....case closed.As Peters said: In an election year, our engagement in Iraq is a legitimate topic for sober debate. But Kerry isn't serious. All he does is to declare defeat.Wake up retard and get a clue (and once again, nice job of missing the point of the article)...If there is anyone who is as clueless as a virgin in a whore house, you have certainly proved to fit the bill. predictable reply! "Kerry made a much-ballyhooed speech" where is the speech Igloo?? so we can discuss that and not the author of the articles interpretation of what Kerry said. what’s reckless and despicable?? Kerry questioning the president or your uncomfortable ness with the same?? please try as best you can to answer my queries, without having to rely or other peoples cut and paste rhetoric to reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk4 Posted September 24 Report Share Posted September 24 simpleton i figured i would beat him to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobeton Posted September 24 Report Share Posted September 24 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted September 24 Author Report Share Posted September 24 predictable reply! "Kerry made a much-ballyhooed speech" where is the speech Igloo?? so we can discuss that and not the author of the articles interpretation of what Kerry said. what’s reckless and despicable?? Kerry questioning the president or your uncomfortable ness with the same?? please try as best you can to answer my queries, without having to rely or other peoples cut and paste rhetoric to reply.You fucking moron.....as usual, has your head been up your ass?...you did not know Kerry gave a major policy speech the other day????.... clueless jerkoff....It was only shown live on the cable news outlets, dissected on every other show, written about, and excerpts shown all over the place.......and I guess you missed Kerry's first press conference in two months too where he answered every fucking question with " see my speech yesterday", because "Iraq is a failure"........and of course, the best was when he answered one reporters question with "I have only one position on Iraq"....classicGet a clue jerkoff......your fucking uneducated vomit is boring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobeton Posted September 24 Report Share Posted September 24 You fucking moron.....as usual, has your head been up your ass?...you did not know Kerry gave a major policy speech the other day????.... clueless jerkoff....It was only shown live on the cable news outlets, dissected on every other show, written about, and excerpts shown all over the place.......and I guess you missed Kerry's first press conference in two months too where he answered every fucking question with " see my speech yesterday", because "Iraq is a failure"........and of course, the best was when he answered one reporters question with "I have only one position on Iraq"....classicGet a clue jerkoff......your fucking uneducated vomit is boring.wow! it's fairly obvious from the article Kerry made a speech. since you seem rather fixated with the speech where is? or should I assume you just will not post the text of speech, and evade any discussion on what he actually said in the speech.? Iraq is a failure which has cost this country billions, caused the death of US Troops, caused countless civilian deaths, compromised our homeland security, and discredited us among our allies. If that is not a reason to call into question the choices President Bush has made; then we have some serious issues in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk4 Posted September 24 Report Share Posted September 24 Wait i just want to make sure Kerry did vote for the resolution, but is that the same as voting for war, or is it voting for authorize force as a last resort so that George Bush could go back to the UN and force Saddam to allow the inspectors back in. SO if he voted for that resolution and says that he would not go to war, and the bush guys say "he voted for the war (lie) and now he says he would not go to war, ohhhh look at the flip flop."He voted to strengthen the US hand. and before you say that is bullshit and that voting meant war. This was a quote from bush "approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means that "America speaks with one voice."Get the facts folks, get the facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk4 Posted September 24 Report Share Posted September 24 the myth of the vote for the 87 billion that bush says kerry did not vote for. Bush's cronnies claim that kerry does not support the troops. Wrong kerry had votd yes at first then when the appropriations changed, he did not like the way the money was being spent, George Bush threatened to veto this same bill if the manner of funding it changed--would this mean he did not support the troops? learn the truth people learn the truth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mursa Posted September 24 Report Share Posted September 24 How about todays flip flop courtesy of the bushmeister .. Alawi .."we have around 50,000 iraqui security officials" 5 minutes later Bush " there are currently over 100,000 iraqui security personel " NOW THATS A FLIP FLOP !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk4 Posted September 24 Report Share Posted September 24 Iraq is a failure which has cost this country billions, caused the death of US Troops, caused countless civilian deaths, compromised our homeland security, and discredited us among our allies. If that is not a reason to call into question the choices President Bush has made; then we have some serious issues in this country.I would not call iraq a failure. saddam had to go no matter what. We needed to get our troops out of saudi arabia but we had to keep them in the middle east. Well we will not be leaving anytime soon. We did not plan well enough to rebuild.speaking of that talking about flip-flop back when bush was running didn't he say we are not into nation building. Well i guess that flip floped all over the place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted September 24 Author Report Share Posted September 24 wow! it's fairly obvious from the article Kerry made a speech. since you seem rather fixated with the speech where is? or should I assume you just will not post the text of speech, and evade any discussion on what he actually said in the speech.? Iraq is a failure which has cost this country billions, caused the death of US Troops, caused countless civilian deaths, compromised our homeland security, and discredited us among our allies. If that is not a reason to call into question the choices President Bush has made; then we have some serious issues in this country.You should have known about the speech and Kerry's press conference BEFORE the article was posted retard....You would think that if you support Kerry, you would have been clued in to this already.....I have already saw the speech live, watched both sides dissect it, and watched Kerry's press conference live....and agree with Peters.....perhaps if your head was not entrenched in your rotted ass, you wouldn't be crying about an author's "rhetoric", and would have known about something given by someone you support....the question is why didn't you know about it....the answer is because you are a clueless blowhard....Iraq is not a failure.....period. Despicable use of the word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted September 24 Author Report Share Posted September 24 Wait i just want to make sure Kerry did vote for the resolution, but is that the same as voting for war, or is it voting for authorize force as a last resort so that George Bush could go back to the UN and force Saddam to allow the inspectors back in. SO if he voted for that resolution and says that he would not go to war, and the bush guys say "he voted for the war (lie) and now he says he would not go to war, ohhhh look at the flip flop."He voted to strengthen the US hand. and before you say that is bullshit and that voting meant war. This was a quote from bush "approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means that "America speaks with one voice."Get the facts folks, get the facts.It would seem that you fell for the Kerry "spin" on why he voted against the $87 billion.The bottom line: he voted against it.And the real truth on why he did had nothing to do with appropriations--that is spin. Ask Howard Dean why Kerry voted as he did (go check it out--I am not kidding.). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mursa Posted September 24 Report Share Posted September 24 Iraq is not a failure.....period. Despicable use of the word. Keep telling yourself that , you mongoloid . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.