Why is the U.S. war weary?

[Lynn7]

Sunday, May 06, 2007
From Col. Marc, Inside The Green Zone, On War Weariness
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 10:56 AM
From my friend, Col. Marc, inside the Green Zone:

I have not been following the news much, just too busy, but occasionally while in the Dining Facility the TV has on CNN. Mostly at the time I am there it is Lou Dobbs. He and some other media outlets have talked about the war weariness of the American people. I have heard him speak of the Presidents poll numbers being down because the American public is tired of four years of constant war. I don't understand it.

I want to look at this war in perspective. First, why is the American people weary of the war. They certainly are not fighting it. The great majority are not even involved or knowledgable of this war. The war is being fought by a very few of the American people. It is they who sacrifice and defend the nation. Of the 300,000,000 people in the US only about 1.5 million are in any way engaged in fighting this war. That is the 150,000 who are overseas deployed in a war zone and the 1.35 million who support or have rotated into and out of the war zone for their combat tour. That is .05% of the Nation carrying the burden of the war. All of those who are making that sacrifice are doing so as volunteers because they believe in the nation in its greatness and in the mission that we are doing. The American people are not even asked to sacrifice for the conduct of the war. There is no rationing, there is no limit on travel, there is no censorship. I can post this email to you and say anything I want as long as it does not contain classified material or contain insubordinate statements. There is no one cutting and pasting my letters. The taxes are not up because of the war. They may go up, but that is a Democratic tactic to gain a bigger budget. It is not to fund the war effort. In fact they want to unfund the war, yet taxes would still go up.

So I ask you how are you all weary of the war? How is it impacting you? Only those who fight it and the few who are related or friends of those in the war zone are really impacted by the war. The casualties are not even heavy. Certainly not the 480 a day during WWII. Those who have given their lives for the safety of the nation in a large part are forgotten by the public at large, only their loved ones know the weariness of loss. Not the public. So again how is the nation weary of the war? Many of them don't even know what is going on over here. They don't pay attention.

What I think is that the news media likes to make the public weary of the war. They constantly mis-state the situation and constantly speak of the weariness. Well I have been here for 41/2 months I work every day. I am tired and separated for my friends and family but I am not weary of the war. Nor are my brother and sister Soldiers Sailors Airmen and Marines. We know the cost and we know what we buy every month we are here. We kill more of the terrorists we draw them from all over the Middle East and kill them here. We have chosen the place and the time for this fight and now the American people must stand up and support their soldiers in the conduct of a war that was voted upon and approved by the Representatives of those same people. The Congress and the people committed us to this war, not just The President. Once you have committed your army to the field you must support it in the field. To do anything else puts us at great risk while fighting to defend you. Tell Harry Reid and Lou Dobbs the war is not lost and you are not weary of it. I am not ready to end this in defeat, so can you do any less?

[jolanar]

Of the 300,000,000 people in the US only about 1.5 million are in any way engaged in fighting this war.

That's funny I didn't realize only 1.5 million people payed taxes!

ZING!

Ok ok, I had to get that out of my system.

[Vong]

Originally posted by Lynn7
So I ask you how are you all weary of the war? How is it impacting you? Only those who fight it and the few who are related or friends of those in the war zone are really impacted by the war.

I guess I can't blame a soldier for having such a limited and small view on the Iraq war.

First off, the war is affecting the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians more than the US soldiers. Hundreds of thousands have died since the US invasion, through air assaults, ground combat, criminal activity, political violence, lack of health care and poor living conditions. They didn't ask for the US to fuck their country over and create anarchy. These people are the true victims of this war.

And as jolanar said, the people at home are paying the taxes that are keeping them there. Of course they are being affected!

This article is basically a soldier telling people at home to "shut the fuck up" under a subtle context. Not to mention blantantly using partisan politics in support of the Republicans and George Bush.

Thanks for the article Lynn! :D

[jeo4]

Originally posted by jolanar
That's funny I didn't realize only 1.5 million people payed taxes!

ZING!

Ok ok, I had to get that out of my system.

But it's a valid point. Everyone pays for this war. And many people have lost loved ones in the war already. And we all pay for the war.

[Thrizzle]

We should dream of the day when humanity loses its taste for war.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Vong
I guess I can't blame a soldier for having such a limited and small view on the Iraq war.

First off, the war is affecting the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians more than the US soldiers. Hundreds of thousands have died since the US invasion, through air assaults, ground combat, criminal activity, political violence, lack of health care and poor living conditions. They didn't ask for the US to fuck their country over and create anarchy. These people are the true victims of this war.

And as jolanar said, the people at home are paying the taxes that are keeping them there. Of course they are being affected!

This article is basically a soldier telling people at home to "shut the fuck up" under a subtle context. Not to mention blantantly using partisan politics in support of the Republicans and George Bush.

Thanks for the article Lynn! :D

Yet another post that reflects the facts as they really are, as opposed to the despicable, partisan bullshit offered in that article.

And since you brought it up, Lynn. I have a nephew that spent a good portion of his childhood being my closest relative aside from my wife. He's headed to Iraq. And we've known about it just about since he arrived in training. We've dreaded it because we know exactly what can happen. And if one person touches even a few lives, then there are probably more than 1.5 million people suffering through this war.

And I haven't even brought up the thousands upon thousands that have been a friend or family member of one of those lost in combat.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I can post this email to you and say anything I want as long as it does not contain classified material or contain insubordinate statements.


And that statement alone invalidates this article.

Enlisted servicemen and women are not allowed to criticize or question the commands and motives of elected civilian officials, which is why the majority of this article is directed towards members of the media and the American public.

It is because of this restriction that generals and colonels in this Iraq war quit their careers and turned down promotions to alert the public of the mismanagement of the war, and directly questioned the strategy of this administration, especially Donald Rumsfeld, which most likely led to this stepping down.

The real question that should be asked is if the military is war weary?

This week on C-Span the military surgeon general released a psychological assessment of deployed military troops of every branch of the armed forces No less than 31% (up to 45%) suffered from psychological battle fatigue. The marines suffered less because their tours of duty are much shorter than their other military counterparts.

[The Postmaster General]

With so many soldiers being sent home, and having massive headaches getting Uncle Sam to help with medical, education and all the other things promised to them by enlisting: I wouldn't say anything bad either.

[Lynn7]

People magazine has an article about two heartbroken mothers whose sons were both killed on Mother's Day of last year. They were both soldiers (one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan). The two soldiers both beleived in what they were doing. One said the humantiraian side of the job was more meaningful to him than the hunting of terrorists- the other said (10 minutes before he died as he was invloved in a gunfight with terrorists) that he lived for this stuff.

Why do so many anti-war people use the excuse of getting out for the sake of the poor soldiers as if they are weak imbeciles or something? That is what I find so puzzling and why I have used the police analogy before. We do not cry about the young men who sign up for dangerous police duty- we do not try to protect them as if they are weak and in need of our concern.

As far as taxes goes, the author said that our taxes have not been raised so he addressed that issue.

[QUENTIN]

Lynn, the war in Iraq has cost this country 6.4 BILLION dollars a month, or $418,000,000,000 so far and launched America into its greatest debt EVER. My generation will have to pay that back our entire lives. I will not collect social security, despite paying my taxes, I will not receive medicare, despite paying my taxes, I will not be able to retire until well after 65 and my taxes will go up significantly as soon as Bush is out of office. Not because democrats like taxing, but because they realize that money is tangible and we need some way to pay for Bush's incredibly liberal spending over the past seven years. In addition to the thousands of innocent men, women, and children that have been murdered in Iraq, and the hundreds of thousands who will die as a result of our invasion, from a strictly financial standpoint we all pay dearly for this war and will feel its repercussions for a very, very long time.

Kind of off-topic for this thread, but related to everything we talk about on this forum, I have a couple straight-forward questions for you Lynn. Would you like to see America expand its influence around the globe and control more countries via either simple dominance or political/economic influence? Would you like America to become a Christian nation, divesting itself from secularity and functioning based on the principles set forth in the Bible and the ten commandments?

I look forward to and appreciate your response.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
People magazine has an article about two heartbroken mothers whose sons were both killed on Mother's Day of last year. They were both soldiers (one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan). The two soldiers both beleived in what they were doing. One said the humantiraian side of the job was more meaningful to him than the hunting of terrorists- the other said (10 minutes before he died as he was invloved in a gunfight with terrorists) that he lived for this stuff.

Why do so many anti-war people use the excuse of getting out for the sake of the poor soldiers as if they are weak imbeciles or something? That is what I find so puzzling and why I have used the police analogy before. We do not cry about the young men who sign up for dangerous police duty- we do not try to protect them as if they are weak and in need of our concern.


Well for one thing, if they're not injured or killed in the line of duty, police officers get to go home at end of the day, and they're not fighting crime under questionable evidence, at least not the whole of it.

And no one here (as far as I know) has described or even has thought of the soldiers as weak imbeciles. My father's a Vietnam vet, I had a cousin who served in this Iraq war, and my best friend's brother served as well before becoming sick, I don't consider either of them as weak and imbecilic. What I argue on my end is that our proud military is being misused; that their great power and skills are being squandered by bad management. A number of former generals, colonels, etc have testified to this.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
Lynn, the war in Iraq has cost this country 6.4 BILLION dollars a month, or $418,000,000,000 so far and launched America into its greatest debt EVER. My generation will have to pay that back our entire lives. I will not collect social security, despite paying my taxes, I will not receive medicare, despite paying my taxes, I will not be able to retire until well after 65 and my taxes will go up significantly as soon as Bush is out of office. Not because democrats like taxing, but because they realize that money is tangible and we need some way to pay for Bush's incredibly liberal spending over the past seven years. In addition to the thousands of innocent men, women, and children that have been murdered in Iraq, and the hundreds of thousands who will die as a result of our invasion, from a strictly financial standpoint we all pay dearly for this war and will feel its repercussions for a very, very long time.

Kind of off-topic for this thread, but related to everything we talk about on this forum, I have a couple straight-forward questions for you Lynn. Would you like to see America expand its influence around the globe and control more countries via either simple dominance or political/economic influence? Would you like America to become a Christian nation, divesting itself from secularity and functioning based on the principles set forth in the Bible and the ten commandments?

I look forward to and appreciate your response.

Social Secuirty was in deep trouble long before 9-11. Why do you think they raised the age of retirement? The gov has been robbing the social security money to pay for all the huge gov waste for many years.
I agree that Dems will raise taxes but it will be cause they would anyway- they like the money to spend as they will. Them having tax dollars to spend is the way they can stay in power-people depnd on them for jobs etc and they will keep voting them in.

Of course I disagree with your way of saying we have killed all these inncoent people. We have been there standing for the Iraqis to have freedom from murderers. The murderers have killed the citizens.

"Would you like to see America expand its influence around the globe and control more countries via either simple dominance or political/economic influence? "

No

"Would you like America to become a Christian nation, divesting itself from secularity and functioning based on the principles set forth in the Bible and the ten commandments? "

No.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by electriclite
Well for one thing, if they're not injured or killed in the line of duty, police officers get to go home at end of the day, and they're not fighting crime under questionable evidence, at least not the whole of it.

And no one here (as far as I know) has described or even has thought of the soldiers as weak imbeciles. My father's a Vietnam vet, I had a cousin who served in this Iraq war, and my best friend's brother served as well before becoming sick, I don't consider either of them as weak and imbecilic. What I argue on my end is that our proud military is being misused; that their great power and skills are being squandered by bad management. A number of former generals, colonels, etc have testified to this.

Well, even business men who travel can't always go home at the end of the day. There are people who are away from home much of the time so i don't agree with that point. Also the fact that it is a volunteer military says that people know what they are doing when they sign up. People who are missionairies in Darfur also cannot go home at the end of the day and they also may die in the course of their job- but do we need to protect them from that choice?

Questionable evidence- police dont know what is going to be successful in court or not. They just try to get who they think are the bad guys off the streets. The evidence may prove different in the courts. The point is that people volunteer to be cops- they volunteer to risk their lives. And they go where they are assigned. They don't get to choose.

The media presnts the soldiers as if they are imbecliles and need to be protected. Listen to the way they patronize our brave soldiers.

I know people here don't beleive in this war and that is the real issue. But the fact remains that there is a big problem if we withdraw early from Iraq and you know, as much as the Dems talk big about pulling out of Iraq, if they are in charge they will NOT do it either cause they would not want to be responsible for what happens. They would love to pressure Bush to withdraw so they can blame everything on him and then be heroic and pick up the pieces. A dem president will not withdraw from Iraq and the whole world would turn on us if we did.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Mostly at the time I am there it is Lou Dobbs.

First, why is the American people weary of the war.


I'm starting to think what John Kerry said about the troops might actually be right.

I'm so fucking sick of people using the same old argument that the war isn't that bad because only 3000 people have died in comparison to the 400,000 that died in WWII. It's like people who say the Virginia Tech shootings were worse than the Columbine shootings. Numbers ultimately do not matter. This asshole needs to count to 3000 and put a face on each number he counts, THEN it would seem like a lot.

[jolanar]

Originally posted by Lynn7
As far as taxes goes, the author said that our taxes have not been raised so he addressed that issue.

Taxes hasn't been raised yet, but that's only because George Bush is still in office. Yes, If a Democrat gets office he would probably have raised taxes regardless, but now even if Republicans stay in office the war has to be payed for somehow. Even if they never raise taxes thats billions they could be using to fight poverty or to pay off our massive debt etc.

Anywho, I'm not completely against the war and I think there is lots of good things that will come out of it. But I was just arguing that it's pretty obnoxious to say that only the soldiers are effected by this war.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Social Secuirty was in deep trouble long before 9-11. Why do you think they raised the age of retirement? The gov has been robbing the social security money to pay for all the huge gov waste for many years.

I agree with you that the government has been robbing the social security money to pay for government waste, like costly unnecessary wars and bridges to nowhere. But after Clinton oversaw the longest period of economic growth in U.S. history, created 22.5 million jobs (more than any other president), raised the average family income by more than $6,000 a year, and had us on track to be debt-free for the first time ever with a surplus of $237 billion dollars, the biggest surplus our country has ever had...Bush raided that money to cut taxes for the rich and spend liberally, with most of that money going towards the Iraq war, creating the biggest deficit our country has ever had.

Originally posted by Lynn7

I agree that Dems will raise taxes but it will be cause they would anyway- they like the money to spend as they will. Them having tax dollars to spend is the way they can stay in power-people depnd on them for jobs etc and they will keep voting them in.

Well how do you expect to help reverse the biggest deficit our country has ever faced? We'll fall into another Great Depression, of which we are already on the outset of, if we aren't quickly able to recoup the trillions of dollars we owe. If we don't raise taxes, where will that money come from? The problem is that Bush likes money to spend as he will, but has no plan for how to pay it back or understanding of where it came from. He'll be out of office soon, so it doesn't seem to matter if our recession only furthers.

Originally posted by Lynn7

Of course I disagree with your way of saying we have killed all these inncoent people. We have been there standing for the Iraqis to have freedom from murderers. The murderers have killed the citizens.

What do you call it when we drop bombs on a city? Not a military base or the hideout of a despot, but a major city? We know before we do it that thousands of innocent civilians will die and the outcome is always that thousands of innocent civilians die. That's pre-meditated murder. We knowingly and willingly accept that we will kill lots and lots of innocent people, because non-American lives aren't as important to our government or military. Why is it murder when an Iraqi "insurgent" accidentally shoots and kills an innocent Iraqi bystander when aiming for U.S. troops, but it isn't murder when a U.S. troop accidentlly shoots and kills an innocent Iraqi bystander when aiming for an Iraqi "insurgent"?

Originally posted by Lynn7

"Would you like to see America expand its influence around the globe and control more countries via either simple dominance or political/economic influence? "

No

"Would you like America to become a Christian nation, divesting itself from secularity and functioning based on the principles set forth in the Bible and the ten commandments? "

No.

Well the simple question now is...then why do you routinely support and advocate policies that would see America expand its hegemony around the world via simple dominance and political/economic influence and routinely support and advocate policies that would see America become a Christian nation and lose its secularity? If you claim that you don't do that, I've got 3 years of evidence on this board that would prove you're lying.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Well, even business men who travel can't always go home at the end of the day. There are people who are away from home much of the time so i don't agree with that point.

And when the businessmen go away for more than a day 9 times out of ten, they're going to stay at the Hilton and sample the continental breakfast in the morning, not handed an M-16 and be sent on patrol through Baghdad. Come on!

Originally posted by Lynn7
Also the fact that it is a volunteer military says that people know what they are doing when they sign up. People who are missionairies in Darfur also cannot go home at the end of the day and they also may die in the course of their job- but do we need to protect them from that choice?

Who the hell is trying to protect them from choice? What I'm bitching about is that being under the order of imbeciles is something they didn't sign up for! Soldiers get trained to how to fight wars, kill enemies and survive at the end of it. They're also taught to never publicly question the orders of the Commander-in-Chief. What they're not taught to handle is their jobs being used as political pawns to further the careers and motivations of political parties!

Originally posted by Lynn7
Questionable evidence- police dont know what is going to be successful in court or not. They just try to get who they think are the bad guys off the streets. The evidence may prove different in the courts. The point is that people volunteer to be cops- they volunteer to risk their lives. And they go where they are assigned. They don't get to choose.

The police follow a book of procedures on how to behave, how to collect evidence to be used in criminal court proceedings, they don't receive "mission objectives" for their entire career from the governor. They are allowed to question superiors, and as dangerous as their job is, they can come home at the end of their shift, as I said.

Unless you're a rapper, enough people have respect for cops, unless said cops step out of line and disgrace their badges.

Originally posted by Lynn7
The media presnts the soldiers as if they are imbecliles and need to be protected. Listen to the way they patronize our brave soldiers.

You care to offer specific examples? Everytime I tune in I see pictures of recently killed soldiers, a summarization of their life and a listing of their survivors. Not once have a caught any snideness.

Originally posted by Lynn7
I know people here don't beleive in this war and that is the real issue. But the fact remains that there is a big problem if we withdraw early from Iraq and you know, as much as the Dems talk big about pulling out of Iraq, if they are in charge they will NOT do it either cause they would not want to be responsible for what happens. They would love to pressure Bush to withdraw so they can blame everything on him and then be heroic and pick up the pieces. A dem president will not withdraw from Iraq and the whole world would turn on us if we did.

Well yes, a lot of us here noticed that the reasons for going into this war have changed each year the previous reason for going in proved to be unsubstantiated. Its hard to believe in a war when the people who started it flip-flop every year as to why they went in the first place!

So you can understand on our end, that we'd be a bit pissy and hyper-critical of a certain administration, if so far to their credit all they have a shaky, shifting argument for war, and then to add insult to injury they're doing a bad job of managing the military strategy as well!

Hard for the world to turn on you after the first time.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
I agree with you that the government has been robbing the social security money to pay for government waste, like costly unnecessary wars and bridges to nowhere. But after Clinton oversaw the longest period of economic growth in U.S. history, created 22.5 million jobs (more than any other president), raised the average family income by more than $6,000 a year, and had us on track to be debt-free for the first time ever with a surplus of $237 billion dollars, the biggest surplus our country has ever had

I was just popping in for a minute so though I read all the posts I don't have time to respond but this point was intriguing to me- what did Clinton do to get these fantastic results? Did he have help from anyone (like a Republican congress?)



By the way, the numbers for the present day economy are great but because everyone in the media hates Bush, they are minimized or almost ignored. Teh future world will see that this Bush hatred is based on the way the media has treated this president. Minimizing his good and maximizing his errors (wheras in the Clinton years it was the reverse). And of course Bush's great economy was after the devastating financial impact of 9-11 so his economic recovery is REALLY impressive. Another example of how Bush is underestimated.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by electriclite



You care to offer specific examples? Everytime I tune in I see pictures of recently killed soldiers, a summarization of their life and a listing of their survivors. Not once have a caught any snideness.





Again I just have a minute but I would like to respond to this point- in no war has there ever been such personalization of the loss of soldiers. On its surface it seems like a beautiful thoughtful thing to do to show the face of the soldiers, the family, the stories but often these are used to make people really see the personal pain so that the loss becomes hateful and will make us want out of the war. Every week, Stephanopolous shows the pictures of the dead soldiers, their names and plays really sad music. It seems so nice and I was touched by it. But if we get really weepy over the loss of soldiers then we won't be able to stand up to evil. Throughout the world's history there have been millions who have fallen in wars. That is just a way of life in our world. Not everyone can be a soldier. Not everyone has the courage to risk their lives. But let me say that there are people who have courage to do death defying acts every day and we know people who risk their lives doing things that don' t amount to anything. These soldiers are risking their lives to make a big difference. They are helping the Iraqis. And us too but you probably won't agree with me on that point.

I'm sure even in World War 2 there were many who thought we should not send in our troops. No population is ever in total agreement. If we had ignored the Pearl Harbor attack what would've happened?and imagine if we had not used the bomb? How long would the war have gone on for? Amazing stuff to think about! How do the choices we make or don't make affect history?

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I was just popping in for a minute so though I read all the posts I don't have time to respond but this point was intriguing to me- what did Clinton do to get these fantastic results? Did he have help from anyone (like a Republican congress?)



By the way, the numbers for the present day economy are great but because everyone in the media hates Bush, they are minimized or almost ignored. Teh future world will see that this Bush hatred is based on the way the media has treated this president. Minimizing his good and maximizing his errors (wheras in the Clinton years it was the reverse). And of course Bush's great economy was after the devastating financial impact of 9-11 so his economic recovery is REALLY impressive. Another example of how Bush is underestimated.

What a bunch of crap.

1. Congress was nothing short of obstinate and belligerent to Clinton. They outright hated him and they made no attempt to even pretend to cooperate. Republicans never once gave him a chance. So don't you EVEN DARE to say Republicans were behind any success of Clinton's.

2. From a record budget surplus to a record budget deficit. Yeah, everyone sure picks on Bush too much. And Heaven knows Clinton never took shit for anything. :rolleyes:

You villify Democrats for the same hostility your precious Republican party has had from the get-go. You'd think these sons of bitches deserved sainthood the way you chatter on about them. Especially Bush. The truth is Republicans are every bit more selfish, scandalous and evil. Focusing all your hostility on Democrats doesn't change the facts.

[shoe1985]

I don't listen to Lynn anymore because her opinions don't matter. She doesn't have a friend or family member fighting in this war and it is about HER FREEDOM.

All the money being spent on this war could be going somewhere else, like giving money to people for gas, or putting towards social security. Wait until it is gone and the amount of people are suffering because they weren't able to have a 401k plan because they had to put all their money to their family just to survive.

If you know anything about economics, which it shows you don't, Bush's great economy is very poor right now. All of those jobs we lost and the new jobs replacing them are paying much lower wages. People that used to make $20 an hour are lucky to make $10 an hour now. Look in your local newspaper, the only jobs I see are temp jobs or fast food jobs. How can people live off of working 2 or 3 days a week, or working for $6.25 an hour? Answer me this Lynn because you have all the answers.

Also, with gas prices about to rise to $4 a gallon job losses are going to be huge. Reserves need to be open for a month or two to lower prices and get these refineries fixed. What was the point of taking over Iraq when we are not using them for what we went there for? Oh wait it was to make Cheney and friends more money.

There is a reason why people are against Bush. The middle class is close to becoming extinct because of him and his staff's ideas.

I do feel bad for him because anything he does is now under so much scrutiny. Everything he does is shot down, mainly cause his ideas are not that good. He is a person who never had to work for anything until now, and he has no idea what to do.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I was just popping in for a minute so though I read all the posts I don't have time to respond but this point was intriguing to me- what did Clinton do to get these fantastic results? Did he have help from anyone (like a Republican congress?)



By the way, the numbers for the present day economy are great but because everyone in the media hates Bush, they are minimized or almost ignored. Teh future world will see that this Bush hatred is based on the way the media has treated this president. Minimizing his good and maximizing his errors (wheras in the Clinton years it was the reverse). And of course Bush's great economy was after the devastating financial impact of 9-11 so his economic recovery is REALLY impressive. Another example of how Bush is underestimated.

Sorry Lynn, but you are just flat-out WRONG here. You say people attack you, but this is more like the frustration that comes with arguing with someone who over and over again insists that 2+2 = 5. There can't be debate about facts, and your statements here are simply absolutely contrary to facts. You obviously don't know what you're talking about, and there's no nicer way to say that.

Clinton's budget surplus and how he was able to turn the country around and see the best economy, at all levels (employment, average household income, federal budget, etc) was a feat he was able to accomplish IN SPITE of a republican congress, never because of them. They always voted against every single thing Clinton tried to do for the economy, and it was with very narrow wins from democrat voters that he was able to achieve those wonderful things I talked about.

From Wikipedia:

A major problem with the economy at the time was the issue of the massive deficit and the problem of government spending. In order to addresss these issues, in August of 1993, Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 which passed Congress without a single Republican vote. It raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers, while cutting taxes on 15 million low-income families and making tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses.[12] Additionally, it mandated that the budget be balanced over a number of years and the deficit be reduced.[13] This was to be achieved through the implementation of spending restraints.



and

Clinton's presidency included the longest period of economic growth in America's history, credited in large part to budget reforms as well as the peace dividend following the demise of the Soviet Union. After numerous reports revealed that the federal budget deficit would be far greater than expected, Clinton quickly made cutting the deficit a high priority. Clinton submitted a budget that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.[17] It also imposed a new energy tax on all Americans and subjected about a quarter of those receiving Social Security payments to higher taxes on their benefits.[18]

Republican Congressional leaders launched an aggressive opposition against the bill, claiming that the tax increase would only make matters worse. Republicans were united in this opposition, as it were, and every Republican in both houses of Congress voted against the proposal. In fact, it took Vice President Gore's tie-breaking vote in the Senate to pass the bill.[19] After extensive lobbying by the Clinton Administration, the House narrowly voted in favor of the bill by a vote of 218 to 216.[20] The budget package expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) as relief to low-income families. It reduced the amount they paid in federal income and FICA taxes, providing $21 billion in relief for 15 million low-income families. Improved economic conditions and policies served to encourage investors in the bond market, leading to a decline in long-term interest rates. The bill contributed to dramatic decline of the budget deficit in the years following its enactment–in 1998, for the first time since 1969, the nation achieved a budget surplus.[21] The surplus money was used to pay down the national debt, which had risen to $5.4 trillion by 1997. The economy continued to grow, and in February 2000 it broke the record for the longest uninterrupted economic expansion in U.S. history—lasting ten years.[22] In the year 2000, the nation was on track to be debt free for the first time in history by 2008.


Here is the page to check the sources, which I left in intentionaly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Administration

To claim the media minimized Clinton's faults or problems...c'mon. The Whitewater "Scandal". "Troopergate," which it turned out the troopers were paid to lie about. The Lewinsky scandal, which was the biggest news story in the country for over a year and was about him getting a blowjob and lying about it. He was not courted by the press, they're hard on more or less every public figure, and always have been, except, for some reason, Ronald Reagan.


As for the economy under Bush --what the hell are you talking about? Our country went from the biggest budget surplus EVER, to the biggest budget deficit EVER. Wouldn't that bear to reason that his economic policy is the worst EVER? I'm not making any numbers up here and the media can't distort that too much, it's just unfortunately how it is. It is also of note that the economy plummeted with Bush in office and a Republican congress (and judiciary), so while they can't be held responsible for the vast economic progress during Clinton's years, because they voted against everything that ended up passing and working so well, they can be held responsible for fucking up the economy so terribly, because they voted for everything that passed and didn't work at all.


Oh, and since you said you do not support America expanding its influence around the globe and controlling more countries via either simple dominance or political/economic influence...perhaps you should know that all of the Bush cabinet members you defend on here all the time, including Bush himself, are members of the Project for the New America Century, an organization whose stated goal is to have America dominate the entire world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_a_New_American_Century

Does that matter to you?

[bowieee]

*edit*

Why is the US war weary.

If your in a war and you arn't allready weary of it from day one, there is something seriously wrong with how you run things.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
People magazine has an article about two heartbroken mothers whose sons were both killed on Mother's Day of last year. They were both soldiers (one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan). The two soldiers both beleived in what they were doing. One said the humantiraian side of the job was more meaningful to him than the hunting of terrorists- the other said (10 minutes before he died as he was invloved in a gunfight with terrorists) that he lived for this stuff.

Why do so many anti-war people use the excuse of getting out for the sake of the poor soldiers as if they are weak imbeciles or something? That is what I find so puzzling and why I have used the police analogy before. We do not cry about the young men who sign up for dangerous police duty- we do not try to protect them as if they are weak and in need of our concern.


I don't see what the first paragraph has to do with the second. It seems like all you are doing is presenting a heartfelt story, that can inspire anyone regardless of political beliefs, then attributing it to a second paragraph that is politically motivated. One can express concern for a person, while at the same time respecting that person as one of superior survival capabilities. This is exemplified when a child weeps for a parents safe return, or when an elderly parent worries about their adult child.

When I drive by and see window cleaners, steel workers on skyscraper frames, road workers on busy freeways - I think, "Wow, that's a really dangerous job. I hope they don't get hurt, because they probably have loved ones." - obviously not in those words, but as more of an emotional instinct. But when I see a road worker out there every day, and every day after, and I don't see much road improvement - I think any complaint is valid, and my complaint is not my burden.

I don't have to explain why I'm complaining because I'm a citizen and these are the rights afforded to me. On the other hand it is a politicians job to address concerns and hold themselves accountable for being able to explain how our concerns came to light. So far this administration has failed at that essential job function, and in response, tried to make us feel guilty for being concerned citizens.

[Lynn7]

Shoe and Quentin- I have stated my opinions and I have given the reasons why I beleive the way I do but you guys have declared that I am wrong.

So- and that is symptomatic of the modern philosphy of the Democratic party and the liberal way of thinking: Fall in line with what they beleive or you are not worthy of respect. I have the right to have a different opinion. I am disturbed at how personal the attacks are against conservatives but it doesn't seem to disturb you guys.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I don't see what the first paragraph has to do with the second. It seems like all you are doing is presenting a heartfelt story, that can inspire anyone regardless of political beliefs, then attributing it to a second paragraph that is politically motivated. One can express concern for a person, while at the same time respecting that person as one of superior survival capabilities. This is exemplified when a child weeps for a parents safe return, or when an elderly parent worries about their adult child.

When I drive by and see window cleaners, steel workers on skyscraper frames, road workers on busy freeways - I think, "Wow, that's a really dangerous job. I hope they don't get hurt, because they probably have loved ones." - obviously not in those words, but as more of an emotional instinct. But when I see a road worker out there every day, and every day after, and I don't see much road improvement - I think any complaint is valid, and my complaint is not my burden.

I don't have to explain why I'm complaining because I'm a citizen and these are the rights afforded to me. On the other hand it is a politicians job to address concerns and hold themselves accountable for being able to explain how our concerns came to light. So far this administration has failed at that essential job function, and in response, tried to make us feel guilty for being concerned citizens.

I used the story to show that many of the soldiers (the huge majority of the soldiers) believe in the mission and want to be there. The way the Dems are conducting the war debate is that we need to bring the soldiers home cause there are too many people dying. That is what happens in war.

They have the right to say we should leave because although we are capturing terrorists, we are mostly holding down the fort for the iraqis and they don't want to do that. Fine. Say that. Say you do not want to help the Iraqis and that you want to pull out. But they should not say they are supporting the troops because they are not supporting the troops in anyway. Talk is cheap.

Yes, you have the right to complain if the road work is not done well. and using that analogy you have the right to say you don't like the results our soldiers are getting in their work. We have a government in place that is designed for dissent. There is a process for making changes. If 2/3 of the congress loses faith in the president there is an avenue to get out of this war. That has not happened.

President Bush has been the first one to say people have the right to disagree with the war. He has not called names although he is called names constantly- vile, disrespectful names. He says he does not mind cause he beleives in what he is doing. He says he knows he is doing what is right. I happen to agree with him and his philosophy of fighting the terrorists from an offensive position.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I have stated my opinions and I have given the reasons why I beleive the way I do but you guys have declared that I am wrong.

So- and that is symptomatic of the modern philosphy of the Democratic party and the liberal way of thinking: Fall in line with what they beleive or you are not worthy of respect. I have the right to have a different opinion. I am disturbed at how personal the attacks are against conservatives but it doesn't seem to disturb you guys.

BS. Don't cop out like that or don't come here for discussion. You haven't been categorically declared wrong in your opinions, rather certain statements of yours that are clearly contradictory to the facts have been proven otherwise and you've shown to be wrong on certain things. Your suggestion that a Republican congress was responsible for the wonderful economy under Clinton is provably false as I showed because every single Republican in the congress voted against the acts and bills that narrowly passed and resulted in a great economy.

The "attacks" aren't on you personally, they're on your disregard of facts, figures, and history to assert things that don't fall in line with facts, figures, or history, it has nothing to do with liberal vs conservative ideology, it has to do with the way you choose to "debate".

You said you don't dodge questions, and that if it happens, we should just re-ask and you'll answer them. Well talk is cheap, so show us you're not a liar...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lynn7
Social Secuirty was in deep trouble long before 9-11. Why do you think they raised the age of retirement? The gov has been robbing the social security money to pay for all the huge gov waste for many years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I agree with you that the government has been robbing the social security money to pay for government waste, like costly unnecessary wars and bridges to nowhere. But after Clinton oversaw the longest period of economic growth in U.S. history, created 22.5 million jobs (more than any other president), raised the average family income by more than $6,000 a year, and had us on track to be debt-free for the first time ever with a surplus of $237 billion dollars, the biggest surplus our country has ever had...Bush raided that money to cut taxes for the rich and spend liberally, with most of that money going towards the Iraq war, creating the biggest deficit our country has ever had.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lynn7

I agree that Dems will raise taxes but it will be cause they would anyway- they like the money to spend as they will. Them having tax dollars to spend is the way they can stay in power-people depnd on them for jobs etc and they will keep voting them in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well how do you expect to help reverse the biggest deficit our country has ever faced? We'll fall into another Great Depression, of which we are already on the outset of, if we aren't quickly able to recoup the trillions of dollars we owe. If we don't raise taxes, where will that money come from? The problem is that Bush likes money to spend as he will, but has no plan for how to pay it back or understanding of where it came from. He'll be out of office soon, so it doesn't seem to matter if our recession only furthers.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lynn7

Of course I disagree with your way of saying we have killed all these inncoent people. We have been there standing for the Iraqis to have freedom from murderers. The murderers have killed the citizens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What do you call it when we drop bombs on a city? Not a military base or the hideout of a despot, but a major city? We know before we do it that thousands of innocent civilians will die and the outcome is always that thousands of innocent civilians die. That's pre-meditated murder. We knowingly and willingly accept that we will kill lots and lots of innocent people, because non-American lives aren't as important to our government or military. Why is it murder when an Iraqi "insurgent" accidentally shoots and kills an innocent Iraqi bystander when aiming for U.S. troops, but it isn't murder when a U.S. troop accidentlly shoots and kills an innocent Iraqi bystander when aiming for an Iraqi "insurgent"?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lynn7

"Would you like to see America expand its influence around the globe and control more countries via either simple dominance or political/economic influence? "

No

"Would you like America to become a Christian nation, divesting itself from secularity and functioning based on the principles set forth in the Bible and the ten commandments? "

No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well the simple question now is...then why do you routinely support and advocate policies that would see America expand its hegemony around the world via simple dominance and political/economic influence and routinely support and advocate policies that would see America become a Christian nation and lose its secularity? If you claim that you don't do that, I've got 3 years of evidence on this board that would prove you're lying.



Sorry Lynn, but you are just flat-out WRONG here. You say people attack you, but this is more like the frustration that comes with arguing with someone who over and over again insists that 2+2 = 5. There can't be debate about facts, and your statements here are simply absolutely contrary to facts. You obviously don't know what you're talking about, and there's no nicer way to say that.

Clinton's budget surplus and how he was able to turn the country around and see the best economy, at all levels (employment, average household income, federal budget, etc) was a feat he was able to accomplish IN SPITE of a republican congress, never because of them. They always voted against every single thing Clinton tried to do for the economy, and it was with very narrow wins from democrat voters that he was able to achieve those wonderful things I talked about.

From Wikipedia:

A major problem with the economy at the time was the issue of the massive deficit and the problem of government spending. In order to addresss these issues, in August of 1993, Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 which passed Congress without a single Republican vote. It raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers, while cutting taxes on 15 million low-income families and making tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses.[12] Additionally, it mandated that the budget be balanced over a number of years and the deficit be reduced.[13] This was to be achieved through the implementation of spending restraints.



and

Clinton's presidency included the longest period of economic growth in America's history, credited in large part to budget reforms as well as the peace dividend following the demise of the Soviet Union. After numerous reports revealed that the federal budget deficit would be far greater than expected, Clinton quickly made cutting the deficit a high priority. Clinton submitted a budget that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.[17] It also imposed a new energy tax on all Americans and subjected about a quarter of those receiving Social Security payments to higher taxes on their benefits.[18]

Republican Congressional leaders launched an aggressive opposition against the bill, claiming that the tax increase would only make matters worse. Republicans were united in this opposition, as it were, and every Republican in both houses of Congress voted against the proposal. In fact, it took Vice President Gore's tie-breaking vote in the Senate to pass the bill.[19] After extensive lobbying by the Clinton Administration, the House narrowly voted in favor of the bill by a vote of 218 to 216.[20] The budget package expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) as relief to low-income families. It reduced the amount they paid in federal income and FICA taxes, providing $21 billion in relief for 15 million low-income families. Improved economic conditions and policies served to encourage investors in the bond market, leading to a decline in long-term interest rates. The bill contributed to dramatic decline of the budget deficit in the years following its enactment–in 1998, for the first time since 1969, the nation achieved a budget surplus.[21] The surplus money was used to pay down the national debt, which had risen to $5.4 trillion by 1997. The economy continued to grow, and in February 2000 it broke the record for the longest uninterrupted economic expansion in U.S. history—lasting ten years.[22] In the year 2000, the nation was on track to be debt free for the first time in history by 2008.


Here is the page to check the sources, which I left in intentionaly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Administration

To claim the media minimized Clinton's faults or problems...c'mon. The Whitewater "Scandal". "Troopergate," which it turned out the troopers were paid to lie about. The Lewinsky scandal, which was the biggest news story in the country for over a year and was about him getting a blowjob and lying about it. He was not courted by the press, they're hard on more or less every public figure, and always have been, except, for some reason, Ronald Reagan.


As for the economy under Bush --what the hell are you talking about? Our country went from the biggest budget surplus EVER, to the biggest budget deficit EVER. Wouldn't that bear to reason that his economic policy is the worst EVER? I'm not making any numbers up here and the media can't distort that too much, it's just unfortunately how it is. It is also of note that the economy plummeted with Bush in office and a Republican congress (and judiciary), so while they can't be held responsible for the vast economic progress during Clinton's years, because they voted against everything that ended up passing and working so well, they can be held responsible for fucking up the economy so terribly, because they voted for everything that passed and didn't work at all.


Oh, and since you said you do not support America expanding its influence around the globe and controlling more countries via either simple dominance or political/economic influence...perhaps you should know that all of the Bush cabinet members you defend on here all the time, including Bush himself, are members of the Project for the New America Century, an organization whose stated goal is to have America dominate the entire world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projec...merican_Century

Does that matter to you?


If I went through the trouble of responding to each of your individual points and responding with counterpoints backed up by research and supplied my sources and supplied you with information and you respond with a fucking cop out like that and not responding to anything I said, that's a far more disrespectful move than anything anyone here has ever said to you.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Shoe and Quentin- I have stated my opinions and I have given the reasons why I beleive the way I do but you guys have declared that I am wrong.

So- and that is symptomatic of the modern philosphy of the Democratic party and the liberal way of thinking: Fall in line with what they beleive or you are not worthy of respect. I have the right to have a different opinion. I am disturbed at how personal the attacks are against conservatives but it doesn't seem to disturb you guys.

QUENTIN said a lot that I agree with. Democrats are far from perfect, I will agree with you on that. Now it shows you will only vote Republican, instead of the best choice. I am a Democrat, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for a different party. Like I said before, if McCain is the Republican candidate he is getting my vote over anyone.

See, I am not someone who believes everything my party says. Republicans needed to go out of Congress because the fact is that they lost sense of what they were supposed to be doing. Big business controls Congress then and right now. Until we make changes there we will be in trouble.

Bush is getting criticized for poor decisions. Not enough is being done at home to keep things going in the right direction. This time next year we will be more than likely in either a recession or depression. Gas prices are going to kill the economy, and what can be done?

We need drastic changes. I hope someone from any side can do something.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by QUENTIN

You said you don't dodge questions, and that if it happens, we should just re-ask and you'll answer them. Well talk is cheap, so show us you're not a liar...




If I went through the trouble of responding to each of your individual points and responding with counterpoints backed up by research and supplied my sources and supplied you with information and you respond with a fucking cop out like that and not responding to anything I said, that's a far more disrespectful move than anything anyone here has ever said to you.

I am not trying to disrespect you but I am mentally tired right now. I am overwhelmed as I read through that long post and I don't even know where to start and if i did try i am not sure I would not be told I missed some point you were making so I am discouraged, to tell you the truth. Sorry.