Originally posted by MCMLV [/i]
Some clarification are in order.


4.I do not think that anythig that Kerry can or would do could permanently hurt oue beloved country. I do believe that we are far stronger than that, that we can and will survive. Come now people have faith in this land of ours, have faith in our capabilites, our resilience. I also think that our biggest problem is the lack of unity, the partisanship, and willingness to undermine our leadership, regardless who it is, instead of supporting it to make the best of it, and then when the time comes make change as it has been done for generations.[/QUOTE]

This is where you and I disagree, Kerry was at the grass roots of the problem during the Vietnam conflict. His actions caused a lot of grief and hard ship for those of us serving there, and the POW's interred at the time.

He was all for pulling out of the war without any thought about what that action would do to the people involved. Just as he is now preaching again. He has shown what he truly stands for, we don't have to "guess" what may or may not happen, his record clearly shows what he is really about.


I do not doubt this for a moment, while we may disagree on the issues, I certainly do not question your patriotism or loyalty.

 

I can see your point too Larry, and belive me I respect it too.

I want to ask you something related to the issue, not as a dispute, but because knowing that you have "been there, done that" you may have a perspective which I can find.

Why are our troops skirting those "stay out" zones? Much like not bombing Hanoi. It angers me to no end.

Thanks, Peter

 

The on ground commanders originally by passed some hot spots so they would not get bogged down in their goal of reaching Baghdad. They had a timing issue to stick with so that the other units racing there would not be left out in the cold without support.

Sound judgment at the time, but it seems faulty now when looking back on it. They know they still have to clean out some areas, and they are trying to do so using some of Iraq's own newly trained and organized security troops, along side our own.

A good thing to try to let them clean up as much of their own mess for several obvious reasons. One of which is the sensitivity we are trying to show toward their historical religious centers and mosques.

This is helping to show that we are not attacking the Iraqi people's religious foundations, but rather the thugs who are trying to shove them around.

Unfortunately these same thugs are hiding in these places of worship, and forcing us to take a stronger stance in these areas, this plays into their hands for calling us bad guys, and the Liberal media eats it up and Kerry fuels his campaign with it.

Personally I think it is time to take off the gloves and finish the job, but the current administration is trying to use diplomacy to solve the problem, much to their credit, but it just isn't working.

The only good terrorist, is a DEAD terrorist, and unfortunately since they are hiding among the citizens, some of them are destined to be hurt.

I think the doctrine is to hope some of the locals will rise up and toss off the chains that are binding them, but there are just TOO many years of torture and oppression burned into their memories for them to act.

Maybe as we get some of the areas more under control with the use of Iraqi soldiers, they will see that freedom really is within their grasp and reach for the brass ring.

just my opinion

 

I wouldnt be surprised to see a little more aggressive stance in Iraq once the elction is over and GW wins.

 

This may amuse some of you. It's hilarious.

http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/20...-up-madtv.html

 

Kerry never stops making plans to destroy the USA. Read the following story:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COUNTDOWN TO ELECTION DAY
Kerry: U.S. should've given nuclear fuel to Iran
But intelligence shows Tehran on its way to producing bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 2, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

In a little noticed remark during the first presidential debate, Sen. John Kerry said he believed the United States should have provided Iran's hardline, cleric-led Islamic regime with nuclear fuel even as intelligence reports indicate Tehran is on the verge of producing a bomb.

"I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes," Kerry said in a critique of the Bush administration's handling of Tehran's nuclear program, which the Iranians claim is only for civilian purposes.

The comments came during Thursday night's debate in Miami in reponse to a question about whether diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the "nuclear problems" with North Korea and Iran

"If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together," Kerry said of Tehran. "The president did nothing."

But Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has urged his country's weapons developers to step up work on making a nuclear bomb, a U.S. official said, according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.

Citing an authoritative source in the Iranian exile community, the official said Khamenei met recently with senior government and military leaders regarding the nuclear weapons program.
Khamenei told the gathering, "We must have two bombs ready to go in January or you are not Muslims," the official said.

Tehran has said the recent International Atomic Energy Agency resolution calling on Iran to halt uranium enrichment could lead to the country's withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Iran test-fired a Shihab-3 medium-range ballistic missile, capable of reaching Israel, Sept. 18 and also in August.

During the debate, Bush said he wants to continue to work with the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Great Britain to "convince the Iranian mullahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions."

Responding to Kerry, Bush noted the U.S. already has sanctioned Iran.

"We can't sanction them any more," he said. "There are sanctions in place on Iran."

Israel has said it wants to await the outcome of international pressure on Iran before it considers a pre-emptive military strike on reactors as it did in 1981.

Israeli officials say Iran could produce atomic weapons by 2007.

At another point in the debate, Kerry also said he wants to end research on bunker-busting nuclear weapons, which presumably could take out an Iranian reactor if his sanctions are ineffective.

Kerry said it "doesn't make sense" for Bush to be pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons when the U.S. is trying to tell countries such as North Korea to disarm.

"You talk about mixed messages," he said. "We're telling other people, You can't have nuclear weapons, but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using."

"Not this president," Kerry said. "I'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation."

 

Yeah I guess most of the Kerry supporters missed these comments he made

The guy is determined that we all end up speaking any language but English

 

That is what I meant when I said in another post "listen to what Kerry is saying" He rambles on in his own world, you can't argue with him as not much of what he says is dependant on real facts. Not in the article, was that Bush stated that the sanctions were put in place way before Bush was President. In the next debate he will change all that so it sounds better.

 

Chris sitting in the corner, shaking at the thought of all these liberals putting sKerry in the White House.

What a doosie of an election, and my first time voting, WHAT TO DO?!?!

 

I've already ordered mine!

http://www.wketchup.com/

 

The latest news:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=40744

 

I see a lot of our Liberal friends slam the war but have a question for you was it ok the Clinton got us stuck in Bosnia?? And they are still there? Why not outcry about this? And that was a civil war not just genocide? Iraq was one sided the armed Madman against the unarmed population???

 

The Muslim American Political Action Committee has formally endorsed Sen. John Kerry for president.

"What does it mean for Muslim Americans if President Bush is re-elected?" asked Mukit Hossain, president of MAPAC, in making the announcement. "It means more constricting laws and policies to curtail the civil liberties of the Muslim Americans, and harsher foreign policies toward Muslim countries - in the name of combating terrorism. It also means a continuing and menacing rise of anti-Muslim sentiment in America, covertly nurtured by the neoconservatives, and openly fanned by government officials like Lt. General (William) Boykin and Attorney General John Ashcroft."


Hossain, a telecommunications entrepreneur who emigrated from Bangladesh, said the decision to endorse Kerry came after months of considerations, discussions with Muslim American leaders across the country, and extensive dialog with the Kerry campaign and the Democratic Party leadership.

"Since Senator Kerry is not controlled by religious and political ideologues, the possibility of an open and productive dialog with the Kerry administration for the Muslim Americans remains alive," he said. "The Kerry campaign has already shown an eagerness to be inclusive, and an inclination to engage in such a dialog. So, the only viable option open to the Muslim Americans is to strongly support John Kerry and assert ourselves as an important part of the electorate - as the swing votes in the battleground states, we are poised to do so. At the same time, before the election, we must extensively strive to impress on the Kerry campaign the crucial importance of the Muslim American voters through active engagement."

But will the formal endorsement of a Muslim American group help or hurt Kerry?

If another group's poll is correct, it could backfire. According to a poll released by a the Council on American-Islamic Relations, one in four Americans holds negative views of Muslims generally.

 

 

Teamropin is that a current picture of Kerry?