A comment i left some one who questioned my voting for Bush and commented on vietnam vs iraq
I vote for Bush because following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in January 1991, Kerry broke with the majority of senators and voted against authorizing the first Gulf War. He said on the Senate floor, “It is a vote about war because whether or not the president exercises his power, we will have no further say after this vote.”
Kerry thus voted against war after Iraq took aggressive military action. He said a vote in favor of military action was tantamount to giving Congress “no further say” on the war.
In October 2002, he supported the current war in Iraq, despite the fact that Iraq took no aggressive action against its neighbors.
In announcing his candidacy for president, in September 2003, he said his October 2002 vote was simply “to threaten” the use of force, apparently backtracking from his belief in 1991 that such a vote would grant the president an open-ended ticket to wage war.
Then... he says "We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today." "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, I would not have gone to war. That's plain and simple."
But on Aug. 9, 2004, when asked if he would still have gone to war knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have.” “Although I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has."
The Kerry campaign says voting to authorize the war in Iraq is different from deciding diplomacy has failed and waging war. But Kerry’s nuanced position has contradicted itself on whether it was right or wrong to wage the war.
Furthermore, in September 2003, Kerry implied that voting against wartime funding bills was equivalent to abandoning the troops.
"I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running,” he said.
Then, in October 2003, a year after voting to support the use of force in Iraq, Kerry voted against an $87 billion supplemental funding bill for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He did support an alternative bill that funded the $87 billion by cutting some of President Bush’s tax cuts.
But when it was apparent the alternative bill would not pass, he decided to go on record as not supporting the legislation to fund soldiers.
Kerry complicated matters with his now infamous words, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”
Then he acknowledged that his explanation of his Iraq war votes was "one of those inarticulate moments."
In October 2003, Kerry said Israel’s unilateral construction of a security fence was “a barrier to peace.”
“I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the decision to build the barrier off the Green Line," he told the Arab American Institute National Leadership Conference. “We don't need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis.”
But less than a year later, in February 2004, he reversed himself, calling the fence "a legitimate act of self-defense," and saying "President Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians.”
Kerry joined with 97 other senators and voted for the Patriot Act in October 2001. Campaigning in New Hampshire in June 2003, he defended his vote, saying, “it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on Sept. 11.”
But last December in Iowa, Kerry advocated “replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time.”
In 1996, then- Massachusetts Gov. William Weld asked Kerry, a longtime opponent of capital punishment, whether the death penalty should be applied to terrorists. Kerry replied that the idea amounted to a “terrorist protection policy.”
He said then that such a policy would discourage other nations from extraditing suspects because many U.S. allies preclude extradition to countries that impose the death penalty.
Kerry now favors the death penalty for terrorists, though extradition remains a problem.
Kerry still opposes the death penalty in general, but says if elected he would not interfere with state executions.
In 2000, Kerry called the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve “not relevant” to solving the problem with high fuel prices.
But in recent months, Kerry has pressured President Bush to start pumping oil into the government's emergency reserves. Kerry has called for the release of some of the reserves, as well.
In a switch from his earlier position, Kerry now argues that a sizable release would lessen U.S. demand and thereby fuel lower prices.
Though he has long supported affirmative action, in a speech at Yale University in 1992, Kerry called the program "inherently limited and divisive," and said it had "kept America thinking in racial terms." He added that it was failing those most in need of assistance: African-Americans.
At the height of the Democratic primary race in January, Kerry reiterated his support for affirmative action. Kerry’s critics question how he can support a program that he once called “divisive.” Kerry says he was speaking about racial quotas, which he opposes.
Kerry backed trade pacts with Chile, Singapore and Africa. In 2000, he voted to grant China most-favored-nation trading status.
Having supported the major trade deals of the last decade - including the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) - Kerry was heavily critical of U.S. trade policy during the Democratic primaries.
As the primary race heated up against now vice-presidential nominee John Edwards, who criticized Kerry for supporting NAFTA, Kerry received the prized endorsement of the AFL-CIO by insisting he will insure “workers rights” in trade agreements. Kerry also blamed trade for creating "a race to the bottom" among poverty-stricken nations.
Kerry voted for President Bush's "No Child Left Behind Act” but now campaigns against it. He says Mr. Bush failed to adequately fund the legislation by not linking student-testing requirements with school funding.
Though the legislation requires rigorous testing in the states, Kerry said in August 2004 that the new federal testing mandates were “punitive.”
My question to you is... How can you vote for Kerry? How can you believe any thing he says? Even if he says it chances are hell change his mind any way...Now George Bush has always seemed to be to be a man who sticks to his opinions and ideas that is what i want to be leading my country. Obviously every ones opinions are going to differ for what they want. I do try to keep in mind there is plenty they can not tell the American people because they could cause an uproar or fear in the country this is good for no one .. also inside information is kept inside to protect us. They CAN NOT make moves for retaliation or protection against the "enemy" if the enemy know we know whats going on because it gives them the chance to prepare for any thing we may throw at them... No one is happy about this war. How can they be? Unfortunaely it is necessary. This is not junior high where you tellyour self if you ignore them, they will go away...It just doesnt work that way.
Now let compare the Vietnam war to the War in Iraq with facts. No opinions. As i did above with my examples of Kerrys flip flopping...
Everybody wants to compare the two wars. I might as well give it a try:
Vietnam was a country divided in half with the northern half possessing a government that had the backing of cold war superpowers.
The entire country of Iraq is under the control of the United States with pockets of "insurgents" holding approx. one city and three quarters of another. There is no opposing government or super power support.
The Viet Cong waged a guerilla war in the south by successfully infiltrating the countryside. Once again the Viet Cong was controlled by the north and had NVA (the regular army of North Vietnam) support and, indirectly, support from cold war super powers.
Iraq has some "insurgents", some are real, many are not. They are in a couple of cities, not the countryside. These insurgents have no safe haven with a separate Iraqi government. Many are foreign fighters hoping to destabilize the region. It is possible (even likely) that Syria and the Iranian governments are supplying jihadists to the fight. That still pales in comparison to the might of the Soviets and the Chinese.
Vietnam was jungle.
Iraq is desert.
The NVA never won a battle in Vietnam.
The Iraqi forces under Saddam ran away.
North Vietnam and their leftist accomplices in the American media won the battle of propaganda.
The Iraqi "insurgents" and their Al Qeada buddies are attempting to employ the same successful strategy. The American press and the far left are champing at the bits to relive the glory days of their Vietnam propaganda victory. The old playbook has been dusted off.
The Tet offensive was a monumental failure for North Vietnam resulting in a devastating military defeat. To the left, Tet is spoken of in hushed reverent tones. Tet was the battle when those brave NVA communists soundly defeated the imperialist invaders. The facts never got in the way of the reporting.
Sen. Biden has already compared the current troubles in Iraq to the Tet offensive on the Senate floor. They hope and pray for a repeat of one of their greatest propaganda victories.
The U.S. military in Vietnam consisted of a large number of conscripted fighting men. Morale and motivation was a huge problem. This contributed greatly to the wars eventual unpopularity. The draft was key.
The U.S. military in Iraq is comprised of volunteers. The morale is high and the soldiers are extremely motivated. This so troubles the left that they have suddenly started suggesting re-instating the draft, once again to do all they can to recreate the conditions of that most glorious war. The only thing the left can latch onto is the occasional disgruntled national guardsman. But it's hard to get the nation's ire up over volunteers. Even guardsmen volunteered. But they try mightily. See today's lead stories about the sisters not returning for combat duty.
Vietnam was a cold war proxy fight.
Iraq is a terror war proxy fight.
We cut and ran in Vietnam and for all intensive purposes… lost.
In Iraq we will win, we will not cut and run...
This should cover my reasoning and any questions you people asked me. Keep in mind i do study from relevant sources. That will display only fact no opinions.
My sources for information....
http://www.refstar.com/vietnam/online_study.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/29/politics/main646435.shtml
*CNN
*CHANNEL 29 Fox News
Kerry thus voted against war after Iraq took aggressive military action. He said a vote in favor of military action was tantamount to giving Congress “no further say” on the war.
In October 2002, he supported the current war in Iraq, despite the fact that Iraq took no aggressive action against its neighbors.
In announcing his candidacy for president, in September 2003, he said his October 2002 vote was simply “to threaten” the use of force, apparently backtracking from his belief in 1991 that such a vote would grant the president an open-ended ticket to wage war.
Then... he says "We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today." "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, I would not have gone to war. That's plain and simple."
But on Aug. 9, 2004, when asked if he would still have gone to war knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have.” “Although I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has."
The Kerry campaign says voting to authorize the war in Iraq is different from deciding diplomacy has failed and waging war. But Kerry’s nuanced position has contradicted itself on whether it was right or wrong to wage the war.
Furthermore, in September 2003, Kerry implied that voting against wartime funding bills was equivalent to abandoning the troops.
"I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running,” he said.
Then, in October 2003, a year after voting to support the use of force in Iraq, Kerry voted against an $87 billion supplemental funding bill for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He did support an alternative bill that funded the $87 billion by cutting some of President Bush’s tax cuts.
But when it was apparent the alternative bill would not pass, he decided to go on record as not supporting the legislation to fund soldiers.
Kerry complicated matters with his now infamous words, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”
Then he acknowledged that his explanation of his Iraq war votes was "one of those inarticulate moments."
In October 2003, Kerry said Israel’s unilateral construction of a security fence was “a barrier to peace.”
“I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the decision to build the barrier off the Green Line," he told the Arab American Institute National Leadership Conference. “We don't need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis.”
But less than a year later, in February 2004, he reversed himself, calling the fence "a legitimate act of self-defense," and saying "President Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians.”
Kerry joined with 97 other senators and voted for the Patriot Act in October 2001. Campaigning in New Hampshire in June 2003, he defended his vote, saying, “it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on Sept. 11.”
But last December in Iowa, Kerry advocated “replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time.”
In 1996, then- Massachusetts Gov. William Weld asked Kerry, a longtime opponent of capital punishment, whether the death penalty should be applied to terrorists. Kerry replied that the idea amounted to a “terrorist protection policy.”
He said then that such a policy would discourage other nations from extraditing suspects because many U.S. allies preclude extradition to countries that impose the death penalty.
Kerry now favors the death penalty for terrorists, though extradition remains a problem.
Kerry still opposes the death penalty in general, but says if elected he would not interfere with state executions.
In 2000, Kerry called the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve “not relevant” to solving the problem with high fuel prices.
But in recent months, Kerry has pressured President Bush to start pumping oil into the government's emergency reserves. Kerry has called for the release of some of the reserves, as well.
In a switch from his earlier position, Kerry now argues that a sizable release would lessen U.S. demand and thereby fuel lower prices.
Though he has long supported affirmative action, in a speech at Yale University in 1992, Kerry called the program "inherently limited and divisive," and said it had "kept America thinking in racial terms." He added that it was failing those most in need of assistance: African-Americans.
At the height of the Democratic primary race in January, Kerry reiterated his support for affirmative action. Kerry’s critics question how he can support a program that he once called “divisive.” Kerry says he was speaking about racial quotas, which he opposes.
Kerry backed trade pacts with Chile, Singapore and Africa. In 2000, he voted to grant China most-favored-nation trading status.
Having supported the major trade deals of the last decade - including the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) - Kerry was heavily critical of U.S. trade policy during the Democratic primaries.
As the primary race heated up against now vice-presidential nominee John Edwards, who criticized Kerry for supporting NAFTA, Kerry received the prized endorsement of the AFL-CIO by insisting he will insure “workers rights” in trade agreements. Kerry also blamed trade for creating "a race to the bottom" among poverty-stricken nations.
Kerry voted for President Bush's "No Child Left Behind Act” but now campaigns against it. He says Mr. Bush failed to adequately fund the legislation by not linking student-testing requirements with school funding.
Though the legislation requires rigorous testing in the states, Kerry said in August 2004 that the new federal testing mandates were “punitive.”
My question to you is... How can you vote for Kerry? How can you believe any thing he says? Even if he says it chances are hell change his mind any way...Now George Bush has always seemed to be to be a man who sticks to his opinions and ideas that is what i want to be leading my country. Obviously every ones opinions are going to differ for what they want. I do try to keep in mind there is plenty they can not tell the American people because they could cause an uproar or fear in the country this is good for no one .. also inside information is kept inside to protect us. They CAN NOT make moves for retaliation or protection against the "enemy" if the enemy know we know whats going on because it gives them the chance to prepare for any thing we may throw at them... No one is happy about this war. How can they be? Unfortunaely it is necessary. This is not junior high where you tellyour self if you ignore them, they will go away...It just doesnt work that way.
Now let compare the Vietnam war to the War in Iraq with facts. No opinions. As i did above with my examples of Kerrys flip flopping...
Everybody wants to compare the two wars. I might as well give it a try:
Vietnam was a country divided in half with the northern half possessing a government that had the backing of cold war superpowers.
The entire country of Iraq is under the control of the United States with pockets of "insurgents" holding approx. one city and three quarters of another. There is no opposing government or super power support.
The Viet Cong waged a guerilla war in the south by successfully infiltrating the countryside. Once again the Viet Cong was controlled by the north and had NVA (the regular army of North Vietnam) support and, indirectly, support from cold war super powers.
Iraq has some "insurgents", some are real, many are not. They are in a couple of cities, not the countryside. These insurgents have no safe haven with a separate Iraqi government. Many are foreign fighters hoping to destabilize the region. It is possible (even likely) that Syria and the Iranian governments are supplying jihadists to the fight. That still pales in comparison to the might of the Soviets and the Chinese.
Vietnam was jungle.
Iraq is desert.
The NVA never won a battle in Vietnam.
The Iraqi forces under Saddam ran away.
North Vietnam and their leftist accomplices in the American media won the battle of propaganda.
The Iraqi "insurgents" and their Al Qeada buddies are attempting to employ the same successful strategy. The American press and the far left are champing at the bits to relive the glory days of their Vietnam propaganda victory. The old playbook has been dusted off.
The Tet offensive was a monumental failure for North Vietnam resulting in a devastating military defeat. To the left, Tet is spoken of in hushed reverent tones. Tet was the battle when those brave NVA communists soundly defeated the imperialist invaders. The facts never got in the way of the reporting.
Sen. Biden has already compared the current troubles in Iraq to the Tet offensive on the Senate floor. They hope and pray for a repeat of one of their greatest propaganda victories.
The U.S. military in Vietnam consisted of a large number of conscripted fighting men. Morale and motivation was a huge problem. This contributed greatly to the wars eventual unpopularity. The draft was key.
The U.S. military in Iraq is comprised of volunteers. The morale is high and the soldiers are extremely motivated. This so troubles the left that they have suddenly started suggesting re-instating the draft, once again to do all they can to recreate the conditions of that most glorious war. The only thing the left can latch onto is the occasional disgruntled national guardsman. But it's hard to get the nation's ire up over volunteers. Even guardsmen volunteered. But they try mightily. See today's lead stories about the sisters not returning for combat duty.
Vietnam was a cold war proxy fight.
Iraq is a terror war proxy fight.
We cut and ran in Vietnam and for all intensive purposes… lost.
In Iraq we will win, we will not cut and run...
This should cover my reasoning and any questions you people asked me. Keep in mind i do study from relevant sources. That will display only fact no opinions.
My sources for information....
http://www.refstar.com/vietnam/online_study.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/29/politics/main646435.shtml
*CNN
*CHANNEL 29 Fox News