Originally Posted by phoenix80

That's how Democrats weaken the US military. Same with Jimmy Carter who cancelled B-1 Lancer bomber and reduced the number of the US ballistic missiles and ICBMs.

They're no fan of US military at all.

Yeah, thats why so many of them have served in the military. People like Kerry, Cleland, Kerrey, Gore, Webb, Carter, and of course several of our fellow members here at Milforum. They all served, because (according to you) they hate the military.

As opposed other people whose idea of serving in the military was to talk a lot of Hot Air about Defense and then make OTHER people go to war.

Real heroes, I tell you...

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Hmmm... I'll take your word for it.
But for one, the CIA did suffer under the Clinton administration and that had been crucial in the runup to 9/11. Also the ROEs he placed on TFR is also of his own doing. In terms of how he handled the Yugoslavia conflict... I guess he did alright considering how bad the rest of NATO did then.
But you know what? I think I really should learn more about this one before I go on posting about it too much.

CIA suffered during Jimmy Carter, too, by not being able to predict the late Shah's downfall. Democrats like other socialists of the world have done no better in matters of intel and armed forces since late 1960s

I didn't know that ROEs changed during Clinton preisdency but it didnt surprise me.

I'd say automatically attributing the CIA's inability to measure the late Shah's downfall to Jimmy Carter isn't something you can present without some kind of evidence though to show some kind of significant cut of funds etc. The CIA, though it tries, is not perfect and often doesn't pick up these things. Besides, during these times they were more preoccupied with the USSR.

And mmarsh, many people (not saying all) who serve actually end up hating the military more than people who didn't serve.
Just a note. I've seen some retired people who won't even speak a word of it even though they've never been in a war or anything.

I'm pretty mixed about certain sides etc. right now because it seems like a lot of these people who are too eager to go to war are from a more business sort of background. They of course hold a lot of power due to their financial wealth and connections with people in various industries... and also seem to ignore warnings of professionals who really know their stuff.
I dunno. I had a long day today. My mind's kinda jumbled up.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

I'd say automatically attributing the CIA's inability to measure the late Shah's downfall to Jimmy Carter isn't something you can present without some kind of evidence though to show some kind of significant cut of funds etc. The CIA, though it tries, is not perfect and often doesn't pick up these things. Besides, during these times they were more preoccupied with the USSR...

It's well documented. I can offer you some serious and unbiased books on that if u have time to read!

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

I'd say automatically attributing the CIA's inability to measure the late Shah's downfall to Jimmy Carter isn't something you can present without some kind of evidence though to show some kind of significant cut of funds etc. The CIA, though it tries, is not perfect and often doesn't pick up these things. Besides, during these times they were more preoccupied with the USSR.

And mmarsh, many people (not saying all) who serve actually end up hating the military more than people who didn't serve.
Just a note. I've seen some retired people who won't even speak a word of it even though they've never been in a war or anything.

I'm pretty mixed about certain sides etc. right now because it seems like a lot of these people who are too eager to go to war are from a more business sort of background. They of course hold a lot of power due to their financial wealth and connections with people in various industries... and also seem to ignore warnings of professionals who really know their stuff.
I dunno. I had a long day today. My mind's kinda jumbled up.

Thats true, some people don't like military life. But I bet you almost all of them were proud to have served even though they didn't like it. Thats probably where I would have fitted in had I gotten off my lazy ass 10 years ago.

P80 like to portray the Shah as a gentle leader, thats one interpretation, usually of those living in exile. There is however a more common one. The Shah (who in turn, overthrew the previous, democratically elected, Shah in 1954) was overthrown in 1979 because the people of Iran were tired of the 30 year old Absolute Monarchy (who ruled with an Iron Fist), of having its strings pulled by the West, and of the Shah's plundering of Millions of Dollars in the countries Oil revenues. Had the Shah been more in tune with the peoples wishes, (and not been a thief) maybe the 1979 revolution wouldn't have happened.

But apparently, according to our resident Iranian its was all Jimmy Carter's and the Democrats inability to divine the future from his crystal ball. Or rather, Carter's unwillingness to rescue a corrupt, petty tyrant, and his sycophants whom were all ridden out of the country on a rail, tarred and feathered. Is it any wonder that most Iranians (despite their angry at the current system) do NOT want the Shah back (were he still alive). I suspect our friend here (and this is strictly my own observation) was one of those that was driven out with the Shah which would explain he rabid willingness to invade Iran at any cost in order to reclaim what he lost. After Ahmed Chalabi and Iraq, The US has wisely decided to get out of the 'kingmaker' business.

Marsh I've had the privilege to speak with men who served in Vietnam while Kerry was there and also some men who saw Gore on his one trip outside the wire. They didn't serve... they were there because of someone else's foresight and planning for their political careers. Bush is no better and Clinton takes the cake, like Spike said Polies are not to be trusted and they never do anything for anyone's benefit but their own. But some of them through malfeasance or ignorance do actual harm and get soldiers killed. Far better to send a man into a fight then to send him into a fight with both arms tied behind his back. That's my beef with Bill. He didn't listen to his Generals and got good soldiers killed because he wouldn't allow them to do what they needed. He treated the military like it was the armed peace corps or world police... "Stop or we'll use harsh language." At least Bush is allowing our troops to do their ing job like they've been trained to do.



^^^ ****ing pathetic but at least he didn't lie and run away like his boss did.



Or this war hero up there in the background lurking like some loser, hands in pockets with the dumbest expression ever... guess some things remain constant.

Well, I can't say much on the grounds of those because I haven't been able to get into a combat zone, in or outside the wire.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Well, I can't say much on the grounds of those because I haven't been able to get into a combat zone, in or outside the wire.

Redneck, whether one gets the chance or not is not really the point. If you made yourself available and were willing to do your duty,... In my books that's as good as a man can do.

The persons under discussion here didn't do that. in fact if I'm not mistaken some went out of their way to hinder our troops.

Runaround Hsu

Bulldogg

I know the people to whom you refer. Don't you think its slightly obvious that these people always show up when there is an election close by? Like flies on s***. Where were these people 10 years ago? And why is it they getting their funding by the GOP? Another oddity is the people they always accuse are always Democrats, they have never accused a Republican.

But about Kerry, how come those that claimed to have been 'there' didn't actually serve in his unit. Of all the people that claimed to know John Kerry, only one man was actually in Kerry's unit, -only he was in the unit AFTER Kerry had been rotated home. Oddly enough, The people who did serve with them, that was to say those shipmates who were on his boat the same time he was have all swear by him. The guy Kerry rescued credits Kerry for saving his life too -and he's a lifelong Republican.

Thats a lot of coincidences...I smell a rat.

There are two types of Kerry Detractors in 2004. Those that were openly working for the Bush Campaign and those who have not accepted the fact that the entire Vietnam war was a mistake (like the war in Iraq) and have decided to blame Kerry because of his antiwar views after he left the Navy.
Neither one was being very objective.

Look, I don't like John Kerry. Kerry isn't very popular even amongst the Dems. He (like the Kennedy's) is stereotypical New England Elite: Arrogent, Aloof, and a Snob. He had his chance and he blew it. He was a weak candidate and I am certain he would have been a bad president. But despite all this, I KNOW a political set-up when I see one. There is no way you can coinvice me these attacks and those on Gore and Cleland weren't motivated by politics. It has all the earmarks of a political smear job.