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.
OK, Since the majority of you defending Bush's questionable military record explain to me how someone can spend 5-6 years as and officer and only obtain the rank of 1st Lt? Every veteran on this post would proably like to know this also. To those of you (nonmilitary) who like an explanation, The rank of 2nd Lt and 1st Lt are pretty much automatic within the first two - three years but during a time of war making rank comes a little bit easier as long as you do you what you are told and attend your drills. Whoever doctored(?) Bush's military record could not fix his rank to match the time that he served(?) Why? because the average joe and his defenders who never served would overlook this seemily unimportant fact. So regardless if his paperwork was missing his rank pretty much did not change in 5-6 years. What does this mean? Either he did not attend the required training, was a screwup, or just could not hack it. You see even daddy's influence could not change that.
I'm still waiting for you Bush defenders to answer the question
explain please why he was released as a 1lt? Which said alot about his service/integrity/compentence of his military career
i dont know enough about guard or reserve service to be able to answer that one, except through supposition. perhaps there were no slots available? perhaps he only did the minimum required time? not enough flight hours(the reason he was rejected for service in vietnam)? i couldnt tell you. i know that my aunt served four years in the navy, full time and reached the rank of lieutenant. is she supposed to have gone higher? i dont know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simetime
To be the president does NOT mean that you have to serve in the military, but I have probelm with people who CLAIM to have served honorably and than start an illegal war and possibly profited from it. It is either you serve or you dont! Yes there were some who did and some who did not but he was the ONLY one from your list that pretended to serve and acted like he did honorably....this is what I have a probelm with.
the records show that bush served honorably in the guard, and until you come up with real certified proof that he in fact did not serve honorably, despite several attempts by his opponents to prove it, then you need to honor his service. for instance i believe that john kerry used every loophole to get out of vietnam service early, and there is evidence that at least one of his purple hearts was awarded for no good reason, BUT i still accept that kerry served in vietnam honorably, and that the military felt he deserved his purple hearts, and thus i accept that.
as to the iraq war, there are a few things you are conveniently forgetting;
1: there was never an end to the gulf war in 1992, just a cease fire. thus a state of war still existed between iraq and the coalition forces.
2: there were terms associated with the cease fire agreement including that saddam would submit to un weapons inspectors, that there would be two no fly zones set up for iraqi aircraft, and that coalition aircrart would enforce the no fly zone.
3: the iraqis continually violated the cease fire agreement by firing on coalition aircraft
4: saddam continually tried to stop the un inspectors from doing there jobs, and even kicked them out of the country a few times.
5: there was intelligence that saddam had WMD's in his possession, we know that he in fact DID use chemical weapons against the kurds, and the iranians, and that he was still hiding those weapons. the democrat leadership made those claims starting in 1998, a full tow years BEFORE bush was elected to office. so if bush lied, then so did clinton, kerry, gore, gehpardt, kennedy, and many other democrats.
6: there were a total of 23 reasons why we restarted the war in iraq, only two of them had to do with WMDs.
7: clinton signed into law the iraqi freedom act which REQUIRED the US to work for regime change in iraq, thus bush was following the law.
8: both the UN AND congress voted for the use of force in iraq, which makes the war LEGAL.
Moderator note: This discussion was off-topic for its thread, so I've split it off.
Reality check! Bush did not give a damn about the military! He proved that during his own enlistment(?) What little that he did was for his cronies in the military complex, can you say haliburton? Bringing up the POTUS in this discussion as no baring on anything. Obama did not serve and NO ONE in Bush's administration served either (don't count Colin Powell b/c they did not listen to him anyway) but yet started the crap in Iraq!
Hello....Hello...earth to caller....Bush is no longer the president...it IS time to let go little ones Why don't we instead discuss the anointed ones military record eyh
Hello....Hello...earth to caller....Bush is no longer the president...it IS time to let go little ones Why don't we instead discuss the anointed ones military record eyh
i dont know enough about guard or reserve service to be able to answer that one, except through supposition. perhaps there were no slots available? perhaps he only did the minimum required time? not enough flight hours(the reason he was rejected for service in vietnam)? i couldnt tell you. i know that my aunt served four years in the navy, full time and reached the rank of lieutenant. is she supposed to have gone higher? i dont know.
the records show that bush served honorably in the guard, and until you come up with real certified proof that he in fact did not serve honorably, despite several attempts by his opponents to prove it, then you need to honor his service. for instance i believe that john kerry used every loophole to get out of vietnam service early, and there is evidence that at least one of his purple hearts was awarded for no good reason, BUT i still accept that kerry served in vietnam honorably, and that the military felt he deserved his purple hearts, and thus i accept that.
as to the iraq war, there are a few things you are conveniently forgetting;
1: there was never an end to the gulf war in 1992, just a cease fire. thus a state of war still existed between iraq and the coalition forces.
2: there were terms associated with the cease fire agreement including that saddam would submit to un weapons inspectors, that there would be two no fly zones set up for iraqi aircraft, and that coalition aircrart would enforce the no fly zone.
3: the iraqis continually violated the cease fire agreement by firing on coalition aircraft
4: saddam continually tried to stop the un inspectors from doing there jobs, and even kicked them out of the country a few times.
5: there was intelligence that saddam had WMD's in his possession, we know that he in fact DID use chemical weapons against the kurds, and the iranians, and that he was still hiding those weapons. the democrat leadership made those claims starting in 1998, a full tow years BEFORE bush was elected to office. so if bush lied, then so did clinton, kerry, gore, gehpardt, kennedy, and many other democrats.
6: there were a total of 23 reasons why we restarted the war in iraq, only two of them had to do with WMDs.
7: clinton signed into law the iraqi freedom act which REQUIRED the US to work for regime change in iraq, thus bush was following the law.
8: both the UN AND congress voted for the use of force in iraq, which makes the war LEGAL.
i dont know enough about guard or reserve service to be able to answer that one, except through supposition. perhaps there were no slots available? perhaps he only did the minimum required time? not enough flight hours(the reason he was rejected for service in vietnam)? i couldnt tell you. i know that my aunt served four years in the navy, full time and reached the rank of lieutenant. is she supposed to have gone higher? i dont know.
the records show that bush served honorably in the guard, and until you come up with real certified proof that he in fact did not serve honorably, despite several attempts by his opponents to prove it, then you need to honor his service. for instance i believe that john kerry used every loophole to get out of vietnam service early, and there is evidence that at least one of his purple hearts was awarded for no good reason, BUT i still accept that kerry served in vietnam honorably, and that the military felt he deserved his purple hearts, and thus i accept that.
as to the iraq war, there are a few things you are conveniently forgetting;
1: there was never an end to the gulf war in 1992, just a cease fire. thus a state of war still existed between iraq and the coalition forces.
2: there were terms associated with the cease fire agreement including that saddam would submit to un weapons inspectors, that there would be two no fly zones set up for iraqi aircraft, and that coalition aircrart would enforce the no fly zone.
3: the iraqis continually violated the cease fire agreement by firing on coalition aircraft
4: saddam continually tried to stop the un inspectors from doing there jobs, and even kicked them out of the country a few times.
5: there was intelligence that saddam had WMD's in his possession, we know that he in fact DID use chemical weapons against the kurds, and the iranians, and that he was still hiding those weapons. the democrat leadership made those claims starting in 1998, a full tow years BEFORE bush was elected to office. so if bush lied, then so did clinton, kerry, gore, gehpardt, kennedy, and many other democrats.
6: there were a total of 23 reasons why we restarted the war in iraq, only two of them had to do with WMDs.
7: clinton signed into law the iraqi freedom act which REQUIRED the US to work for regime change in iraq, thus bush was following the law.
8: both the UN AND congress voted for the use of force in iraq, which makes the war LEGAL.
According to what ever records there are Bush completed his service, no one will be able to prove otherwise since the records are destroyed. Based on interviews with people he supposedly served with and the entire history only the truly naive would believe that he actually served his time as was required. I am kind of surprised that his father allowed this since he was a true war veteran.
Kerry did have a student deferment, nothing unusual there he actually enlist edin the naval reserve serving on active duty for 4 years. He faced hostile fire in his time in Vietnam regardless of your opinion regarding purple hearts he could have been killed. We can’t say the same for Bush yet the right seems to want to prop him up as the more honorable of the two.
Relative to Iraq there is enough blame to go around relative to the lack of debate and the approval of both sides of the aisle but President and his staff were at the head of the debate. Almost all the reasons you cite for going into Iraq make me wonder why we didn’t choose North Korea, WMD’s, refusing inspections and a total mad man at the helm. So didn’t the white House make the case for North Korea?
The debate rages on in the end because Bush entered into the longest war in US history sending soldiiers off to die while he made sure that he would never be in that position.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,373,658 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
If he was trying to stay out of Vietnam, joining the National Guard was a poor choice. Because they were among the first to be sent to foreign wars.
Can you document that during the Vietnam era? I don't recall that being the case. It would seem if that were the case it wouldn't have taken daddy pulling strings to join the guard.
According to what ever records there are Bush completed his service, no one will be able to prove otherwise since the records are destroyed. Based on interviews with people he supposedly served with and the entire history only the truly naive would believe that he actually served his time as was required. I am kind of surprised that his father allowed this since he was a true war veteran.
i can only go by the records that were released. as far as i am concerned, bush served the full time, and was honorably discharged. unless you have concrete evidence otherwise, nothing changes those facts.
Quote:
Kerry did have a student deferment, nothing unusual there he actually enlist edin the naval reserve serving on active duty for 4 years. He faced hostile fire in his time in Vietnam regardless of your opinion regarding purple hearts he could have been killed. We can’t say the same for Bush yet the right seems to want to prop him up as the more honorable of the two.
again, i will not denigrate kerrys service to this country. he served in vietnam, and even though there is some evidence that one of his purple hearts should not have been awarded, I ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THE MILITARY MADE THE AWARDS, did you not read that the first time i wrote it? until concrete evidence comes out that in fact kerry did not deserve one if his purple hearts, again i accept the fact that he was awarded them, and nothing changes those facts. kerry also was honorably discharged. i will NOT denigrate the service of ANYONE who serves in ANY branch of the military, with the possible exception of those who in fact committed crimes while in the military, and were convicted of said crimes, and as a result received a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.
Quote:
Relative to Iraq there is enough blame to go around relative to the lack of debate and the approval of both sides of the aisle but President and his staff were at the head of the debate. Almost all the reasons you cite for going into Iraq make me wonder why we didn’t choose North Korea, WMD’s, refusing inspections and a total mad man at the helm. So didn’t the white House make the case for North Korea?
in 2001, north korea may have had a nuclear weapons program, but there was never any no fly zone established, the north koreans had never used chemical weapons, and while a state of war still exists, again only a cease fire was signed not a peace treaty, the cease fire has remained intact for more than 50 years. and there was no condition that north korea had to submit to weapons inspectors, or any other UN inspection detail.
Quote:
The debate rages on in the end because Bush entered into the longest war in US history sending soldiiers off to die while he made sure that he would never be in that position.
again bush volunteered to go to vietnam but was turned down because he didnt have enough flight hours, and the F102 program was ending. but presidents through the ages have had to send soldiers to war, and in war soldiers die. it is an unfortunate consequence of war. as for the wars in afghanistan and iraq, both of those wars had the blessings of congress. clinton sent soldiers to bosnia, somalia, and other places, and i dont remember a vote from congress before hand authorizing the efforts. remember that the commander in chief has the authority to wage a war for 90 days WITHOUT approval from congress. after that congress can choose to defund the effort, which during the clinton years, congress chose to support the president, and it was a republican congress by the way.
i do my research, and i have been through these arguments before, many times.
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.
Why don't we instead discuss the anointed ones military record eyh 
