Conservative Patriots (accuse, regular, weapon, Kerry)

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by Acadianlion

We had no combat troops in Vietnam in 1954. We had no organized combat forces or "adivsors" until they were sent there during the Kennedy administration.

The United States entered the war to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment. Military advisors arrived beginning in 1950.

[floridasandy]

conversely, we have a president who is commander in chief who also never served in the military. i am not sure that whether you served or not does not does not allow you to have an opinion on the issue of wars and war spending.

if that was the case, most women wouldn't even be allowed to voice their opinion on the war. i don't happen to be in agreement with some other conservatives who are in favor of an escalating situation with iran, but remember that there are a lot of liberals with a war agenda, including the new york times and several congress people, and there are a lot of fiscal conservatives who totally oppose a war, like patrick buchanan, and you don't get much more "conservative" than him.

[jcarlilesiu]

When did Obama serve again?

[carterstamp]

It was not Bush alone.

No, he just lied us into it.

WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

[lilypad]

Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu

When did Obama serve again?

Maybe Community Organizing will become a new department within the military?!

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest

Clinton was not in the military and he never had a problem sending troops to war.

Obama wasn't in the military and he doesn't seem to have a problem with war. He sent troops into Afghanistan.

Hillary wasn't in the military and she has made noises about using force against Iran.

You all complain to anyone who will listen about the terrible policies of The Other Guy, but somehow Your Guy's policies, demonstrably no different, are better. LOLs.

The only thing that is LOL is your response. Ever heard of the term "relative" Relative to Bush, how many troops did Clinton send to war? Did Obama start this war?

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by carterstamp

It was not Bush alone.

No, he just lied us into it.

WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

if bush 'lied' then what are these

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1999

--------------

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US House of Representatives
October 10, 2002
Congressional Record, p. H7777
--------------------

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."

Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145
----------
"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on eve of military strikes against Iraq
March 17, 2003

----------
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts."

Congressman Henry Waxman (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Congress
October 10, 2002
---------------
"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1999
----------------
"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor, February 18, 1999
------------------------

[Quick Enough]

Poor Acad. Nothing is relevent to you except what is in your twisted mind.

facts are given and you cast them off as if they didn't happen. "You can't reason with an unreasonable person".

I will eave to wallow in your own sel pity. Good by.

[my54ford]

Originally Posted by GregW

I, as a Viet-nam veteran (Riverine forces Mekong Delta 1966-1967) find these people, along with any other "intellectuals" arguing for preemptive war to be beyond contempt and actively seditious and criminal. I also find using American Troops to protect an international oil company’s “right to loot” to be absurd. I don’t care if some oil company has to pay every Afghan warlord a “crossing fee” to keep their pipeline from being blown up. That is just paying a transport/protection fee. It should be paid by the companies, not by the blood of our troops.

Well that explains allot! I got an x-HAL3 seawolf guy in the office that must be related to you! He admits to smokeing some outlandish stuff during his tours

[Old Gringo]

Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu

When did Obama serve again?

He's been serving as president since January, 2009.