WARNING POLITICS - questions for/about republicans

[streicher187]

Ok since I made the mistake of voting for Bush in 2000 a lot has happened but now we see it turning into Rep. Are for keeping America safe and the troops while Dems. aren't and don't support the troops.. So while the Republicans were in control the last 7 years

America was attacked on 9/11

Bin Laden is still alive and living in a terrorist sponsored state of pakistan that we call an allie

We screwed up a war in Iraq and not doing so well in Afg. turning it into one of the worlds biggest heroin producers..

Iran has become more powerful than ever and are working on a nuke(if you belive what you are told) and we took out the dictator in the middle east who would stand up to Iran.

Our borders/ports are no safter than they were on 9/11 and we have created more terrorists since 9/11 than we killed/captured

America has a black eye for torturing prisoners as well as holding them without trials, and now comes out they are throwing children in these camps and holding them prisoner without trial or supervision..

As far as troops

They didn't fund the armor needed which has been linked to the death of hundreds if not thousands of deaths that could have been prevented. In some cases families at home have to buy Bullet proof vests to send to their kids in Iraq..

They are sending soldiers who are unfit for duty, then neglecting them when they get home leading to high suicide rates. and the conditions at the military bases and VA hospitals are horrid.

They are giving billions of dollars to companies to do jobs in Iraq that soldiers should/can be doing and paying the people as much as 20x what a soldier makes a year (like cleaning cloths, setting up tents, feeding, guarding etc.)..

The soldiers are spending over 15 months in combat and less than a year at home putting strain on the miltary to it's breaking point..

And why are they sending the army reserve? they are fighting the war on the cheap(except for the companies like Blackwater and halliburton) why don't they send the reserve to the military bases around the world and send the Army to fight in Iraq?

Mccain voted against giving more money to the soldiers and their family for education and he voted against the anti torture bill..

So can someone explain to me why the Repulicans are looked at as the party who cares about the troops and who will keep us safe?

[TheTGB]

Democrats don't support the troops? That's a lie. They support our troops, however, they don't believe they should be there hence they are trying tactics to get them to leave and come home.

Bin Laden alive and in Pakistan (our ally)? Yeah, I'll give you that one. Pakistan could be doing a little more to help us.

Turned Afghanistan into the world's biggest heroine producer? They already were at the top of the list.

Iran transforming? Yeah, I give you that. However, I believe if they are making a nuke, it's for defensive purposes. If they decide to use it...well, they will be making a HUGE mistake and I believe they know that.

Borders and ports safer? Actually they are safer. Maybe not by much, but they are safer. Created more terrorists? Show me some proof.

Trials and holding prisoners? They totally messed that up, especially since they never declared war on anyone.

Armoring the troops? Well that's what happens when we spend more money than we have.

Troops unfit for duty? Probably right. It's been a problem for the last 70 years.

If the troops do it, how are they going to be in combat and "getting the bad guys"?

Sending the Army Reserve? Because supposedly we need more troops there and it's better than the draft.

McCain? That was a bad decision. But we don't have the money.

Propaganda.

[haybierman]

9/11 happened a whopping 9 months after Bush took office. During Clinton's campaign we had 2 WTC bombings, as well as OK City.

Bin Laden has been spotted living in the tribal regions of Pakistan. The Pakistani government has little to no control over that region. Most of the time when soldiers enter these areas they are attacked by guerillas.

As Spoodini stated, Afghanistan was already at the top.

I agree that Saddam was a huge player in keeping Iran is check but I think the idea here is that international pressure is supposed to keep Iran in check now.

Where exactly are you getting this info about our borders being less safe? There are a litany of programs, initiatives, hi-tech detection checkpoints, pre-shipment cargo checks, etc that have resulted in HUGE seizures of drugs, weapons, technologies, etc..

I agree about the torture. Torture, historically, has had very little effect in producing reliable info.

...I can't comment on the military part because I am not a veteran.

[11chaos]

Oh, someone is so naive it's not funny. Although I got nothing but love for my brother from another mother.

[angel0430]

This has been some interesting reading

[OnePimpTiger]

A lot of that, mainly the military aspect, I can't comment on because I'm not well enough informed about it. That doesn't stop most people (not referring to you, streicher, but people in general), but it should.

As for 9/11: As haybierman pointed out, Bush had been in office 9 months...how is that his fault? Also, I would like to point out that the beloved Mr. Clinton had a chance to kill Osama, who was a known threat to national security at that time, during his tenure and didn't do so. So in fact, more of the blame for 9/11 can be placed on Clinton than Bush.

As for bin Laden still being alive: See above...while he hasn't been captured or killed under Bush's administration, it's a leftover problem from the Clinton administration which Bush shouldn't even have had to deal with.

As for Iran: Yes, they have been allowed to do too much as far as developing the nuke in my opinion. But, if anything had been done to stop it, such as bombing or an actual attack, Democrats would have flown off the handle..."we're already fighting wars we can't win in Iraq and Afghanistan," "Bush is just a war monger," "why didn't we try more diplomatic actions?" Obviously diplomacy doesn't go very far in that region of the world and the only other option is force...but when force is used, we're the ones "starting wars", etc, not the unstable, openly aggressive, nuke building nation who has ignored every attempt by the UN to control the situation. It would be Iraq all over again...the vast majority, including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and the majority of Dems, wanted action against Iraq after 9/11. But when action was taken and soldiers actually die, then it's all Bush's fault and the whole thing was a mistake...that rant ended up a lot longer than I had intended...doh.

As for the borders: I have no stats/info on that one, so as I said before, I'm not well informed enough to have an opinion on that.

As for torturing prisoners: Honestly, I'm not so worried about that. I seriously doubt that any country that is hostile to the US is the slightest bit worried about how they treat American prisoners, so I'm not really worried about how we treat theirs. That may be cruel and inhumane, but c'est la vie.

As for the soldiers: All I can really comment on that is the fact that at the beginning of the war, the vast majority voted for it. As it carried on, politicians (mostly Dems) began voting against or drastically reducing the funding of the war. They did this to send a message to Bush that "his war" was not wanted, but it also has the effect of not providing the troops with what they need.

Also, you mention the fact that troops are spending 15 months on a tour, but then ask why the Reserves are being sent and why can't the Army just do it. That seems contradictory to me. If the Reserves aren't sent, then that means the already stressed Army has more responsibility...either the tours would get longer or the time at home would get shorter. You can't give the Army more rest while asking them to do more work at the same time....

Also, you've pointed out things that Reps have done wrong in dealing with national security and supporting the troops, but you haven't mentioned anything showing the Dems are doing any better...

[Bonds_25]

If you want to criticize Bush it is pretty damn easy.

Iraq and the economy.

[streicher187]

Show me some proof

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/24/usa.iraq

[streicher187]

9/11 happened a whopping 9 months after Bush took office. During Clinton's campaign we had 2 WTC bombings, as well as OK City

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...56C0A9649C8B63

There was more evidence there than evidence that Iraq had nukes but it was ignored. And It was Rudi G. who was in charge in NY who left the communications in the WTC even after they had been attacked the first time.

Mr. Clinton had a chance to kill Osama, who was a known threat to national security at that time, during his tenure and didn't do so. So in fact, more of the blame for 9/11 can be placed on Clinton than Bush.

Clinton came closer than Bush at this but the Republicans said he was only taking attention away from Monica not trying to really kill bin Laden. As for when Bin Laden was in custody EVERYONE had a chance at thim but they could not link anything to him to lock him up(something that they don't need today).. Clinton takes some blame I would would put just as much if not more on Bush..

the vast majority, including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and the majority of Dems, wanted action against Iraq after 9/11.. They were going on flawed intel that even Powell admits was wrong. When anyone spoke out against the intel they were discredited or had their wifes career ruined.

"but you haven't mentioned anything showing the Dems are doing any better"

They haven't had any power since Clinton left office, it has been all republican run for the last 7 years. That's why there are no investigations into any wrong doing and will not be. Yes the last year the Dems have had more people in senate but you can not get anything done with a 1 person majority and a veto by the president. They passed a law banning torture but the president when signing it used his signing statement giving him the power to torture.

As far as the funding they have not refused any of the funding for the last several years so that is no excuse for vehicles that are not properly armored. If you watch Iraq for sale you will see that the the mercinaries are better armed then the troops and have armored vehicles and the newes bulletproof vests available all at the expense of the taxpayers. What I wonder is why can they not buy this stuff for the soldiers and raise their pay?


As far as as the army what I am saying is not contradicting myself. As of May 2007, about 1,426,705 people are on active duty in the military with an additional 1,458,400 people in the seven reserve components. What I am saying is why don't they send the active duty troops and then let the reserves man their bases in Korea, Germany etc. and protect the homeland.

If you seriously think we are more prepared today than we were on sept. 11 just look at the response to Katrina. The homes are still not torn down and people are still living in dangerous trailors or on the street.

[11chaos]

Editorial articles in The Guardian are generally to the left of the political spectrum. This is reflected in the paper's readership: a MORI poll taken between April and June 2000 showed that 80% of Guardian readers were Labour Party voters [1]; according to another MORI poll taken in 2004, 44% of Guardian readers were Labour voters and 37% Liberal Democrat voters.[2]

Founded by textile traders and merchants, the Guardian had a reputation as ‘an organ of the middle class’ [3], or in the words of C.P. Scott’s son Ted ‘a paper that will remain bourgeois to the last’ [4]. "I write for the Guardian," said Sir Max Hastings in 2005,[5] "because it is read by the new establishment", reflecting the paper's growing influence.

Three of the Guardian's four leader writers joined the Social Democratic Party on its foundation in 1981, but the paper was enthusiastic in its support for Tony Blair in his bid to lead the Labour Party, [6] and to become Prime Minister [7].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian

Dude,
you quotes are coming from a paper/site that has curve. If I wanted to find one to support a different point of view it wouldn't be hard.