Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now, why don't you make a valid reply to my post? Do you think G.W. Bush was "AWOL?" If so, provide facts, please. Show me where in his official military record where he was "AWOL."
Air strikes in the Balkans and Special Ops in Somalia do not in any way whatsoever equate to boots on the ground for ten years. I am not much of a Clinton fan, personally -- but the guy was / is smart as hell and never committed those kinds of monumental errors that would affect -- and take -- lives by the thousands upon thousands ... especially based on pure adolescent-like hubris.
If Clinton was "smart" he would not have...
- Agreed to supply North Korea with nuclear material at our cost (for "energy" purpose) which, of course, N. Korea instead uses to build nuclear weapons.
- Change the way the CIA could obtain information. The CIA could no longer obtain info from informants with a felony record. This severely hurt intelligence gathering and led to some long-time CIA agents to retire and were replaced with inexperienced agents.
- Not taking Bin Laden into custody when offered several times.
- Agreed to supply North Korea with nuclear material at our cost (for "energy" purpose) which, of course, N. Korea instead uses to build nuclear weapons.
- Change the way the CIA could obtain information. The CIA could no longer obtain info from informants with a felony record. This severely hurt intelligence gathering and led to some long-time CIA agents to retire and were replaced with inexperienced agents.
- Not taking Bin Laden into custody when offered several times.
And he would not have sold the Chinese long range missle "targeting" technology that will allow Chinese missles to more accurately hit US cities.
The grimly amusing part about Romney being a chickenhawk is that the US was asking Australia to send more troops to Nam while he was having a great time in France.
Why on earth did ANY students or married men get deferments ? did they not have more to fight for ?
The grimly amusing part about Romney being a chickenhawk is that the US was asking Australia to send more troops to Nam while he was having a great time in France.
The fact that you're even saying that blows my mind. The fact that you're saying that at all means you know nothing about what he was doing in France. You can't date, go sight seeing, listen to modern music, go to movies, party, grow your hair long, etc. You have to stay well clear of the beaches and pretty much everywhere fun. You live poor, generally in crappy little apartments because that's all you can afford. Talk to any former or current Mormon missionary and ask all about it. Having lived for a number of years in Utah myself, you come to realize that it's something of a rite of passage in the Mormon religion. Because they are out there to help people, most will say it is the best time of their life. Kinda like the Peace Corps "the toughest job you'll ever love" etc. That sort of thing. But just about everything the typical person associates with the word "fun" is against the rules.
Quote:
Why on earth did ANY students or married men get deferments ? did they not have more to fight for ?
The Vietnam War was the last gasp of obligatory military service in American history. They didn't need a nation-wide draft, but they definitely needed more than what they had in the standing military
So if you don't need every single young man in their 20's, how would YOU have decided which people got drafted and which ones didn't? The US government decided that students and family men didn't have to go. What would you have done differently and why?
This is how desperate the Democrats are. Nobody cares about this. It has all been explained ad nauseum and the Democrats are famous for 'draft dodging'. How much time in the military has Obama served? I wouldn't call his foreign policy exactly 'peaceful' either. Mitt Romney will not be one to engage in warfare unless it is an absolute last resort. His wanting to keep our military strong is to be a deterrent to having to use it in a war...which is the way it should be.
Democrats are famous draft dodgers?
The list of "chicken-Hawk" Republicans in your face and you try to set this as a partisan trait?
Democrats are famous draft dodgers?
The list of "chicken-Hawk" Republicans in your face and you try to set this as a partisan trait?
The primary partisan trait is democrats will vote for murderers, crack smokers men who have sex with 17 year old boys who work for them, then tell republicans they should not vote for a republican because he got some deferrals for Vietnam.
So if you want to talk about Romney/Obama from a policy perspective then let’s have debate.
But if you are going to rant about our guys morals, you abdicated your right to enter that discussion. By rights, if Mitt ran a gay prostitution ring out of his house, you STILL have abdicated your right to lament that since you sent that same kind of person back to congress YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR.
Democrats are famous draft dodgers?
The list of "chicken-Hawk" Republicans in your face and you try to set this as a partisan trait?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
The primary partisan trait is democrats will vote for murderers, crack smokers men who have sex with 17 year old boys who work for them, then tell republicans they should not vote for a republican because he got some deferrals for Vietnam.
So if you want to talk about Romney/Obama from a policy perspective then let’s have debate.
But if you are going to rant about our guys morals, you abdicated your right to enter that discussion. By rights, if Mitt ran a gay prostitution ring out of his house, you STILL have abdicated your right to lament that since you sent that same kind of person back to congress YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR.
Huh. Aside from you and I being polar opposites ... my point was the same in essence. Either side claiming moral high ground is "nullified" in all these issues. That is not to say, however, that an individual candidate's personal history is immaterial. It is to say that party affiliation on either side is not a guarantee of sanctity.
As for your last claim / line -- I have no idea who / what you refer to ... illuminate me ...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
