War Protestors and Politicians PUT UP OR SHUT UP

Heres is your chance take it please

Published on January 26, 2005 By Moderateman In Politics

For all the whining crybabies protesting the war and bemoaning the treatment of the poor terrorist here is a great idea.

All you have to do is get a new bill together saying NO MORE FUNDING OF WAR>> THATS all

then sign your names to it, get on television and get together a coalition of the weak and cowardly to have petitions signed.

Its very simple really all you have to do is come out and tell america "we will not have part in the greater war on terror"

But of course then you have to live with all your neighbors knowing who you are.

The politicions knowing there re-election is in risk of failing WILL NOT HAVE THE BALLZ to do this.

If your so sure this war is a bad war, wrong war, wrong time, wrong reasons, step up to the national plate and take your swings, out front in view of everyone.

But since you value your jobs and eating at the public troth YOUR not going to do this, your just going to cry, and whine in the background, take sneak shots at the President.

Comments (Page 5)

Moderateman

on Jan 31, 2005

Reply By: whoman69Posted: Monday, January 31, 2005He did not leave early, just that his replacement was chosen early in order for him to prepare for the difficult events to follow. Nothing strange there. The Media and politicians has tried to hype this up as something strange, it was not.Nothing strange there except that its unprecedented in history and made him a lame duck.Do you have the same arguments to make for the Secretary of the Army?

Why do you bother asking questions? we all know any answere you get will not do, if someone answeres your questions , you just ignore it and ask new ones.... looking for some kind of affirmation that america is bad, sucks etc. The only answeres you will accept are the ones totally agreeing with your I hate america ideoligy.

Lee1776

on Jan 31, 2005

Do you have the same arguments to make for the Secretary of the Army?

No, I was only talking about Gen. Shinseki of the Army. Mainly because I know his story and how review boards meet. (I have been on some myself)

unprecedented in history and made him a lame duck.

Can you show me where it is unprecedented? He was moved out during a regular shift in upper commands as scheduled.

The review board (as I said above) was not only for him.

Army Commanders, unlike politicians are not lame ducks. They give orders and they are strictly followed up to the day they leave, after which they have no new personnel influence, but their orders still remain in affect. Now please do me a favor and not think like a citizen or politician for a second. Orders give by an outgoing commander are still followed and retained into the next commander. It is out of respect that any policies (like the d@#$ beret) is still in effect. If I refused to carry out an order on the last day of a command, even though I knew it would be changed the next day, I would be still charged. The new commander has no power until he takes command. The only power the incoming Commander has before the assumption of Command is to chose what type of flowers the outgoing Commander's wife will receive at the Change of Command ceremony and how long his speech will be.

It is hard to explain to someone who only thinks politically (not militarily) about command changes in the military. That is why most military personnel knew that Bush’s Guard Document from a former commander was fake, mean while some in the media still cling to them. All this hype about Gen. Shinseki just that hype. If there was any truth to the matter the man himself would say so. He is already retired and is not held back to do so. But to this date he has not siad anything, because if he had, you know the media would be plastering it all over the news.

That's My Two Cents

whoman69

on Jan 31, 2005

I ask questions because the answers I hear bring up new questions, point/counter point. You hate anyone in America who does not share your views. I spent 7 years in defense of my country, I vote in every election. I love my country. Sorry for you if you can't see that. I don't have to blindly agree with everything the President says to love my country. In fact, in this country I don't have to agree with anything the President says.

Army Commanders, unlike politicians are not lame ducks. They give orders and they are strictly followed up to the day they leave, after which they have no new personnel influence, but their orders still remain in affect.

They are lame ducks if the chain of command makes it that way. If they give an order that will be immediately countered by those higher in the chain, then he's a lame duck. Much of the power of the Chief of Staff is to give advice to those he serves under. If that advice will be dismissed summarily, he's a lame duck.

If you want to dismiss the unprecedented part, then find another person that was a Chief of Staff, Head of the Joint Chiefs, or any other high ranking general officer position where the replacement was named a year and a half early.

Lee1776

on Jan 31, 2005

If you want to dismiss the unprecedented part, then find another person that was a Chief of Staff, Head of the Joint Chiefs, or any other high ranking general officer position where the replacement was named a year and a half early.

I don't have to worry about dismissing it, you have to show where Shinseki's replacement was announced a year ahead. Because Bush did not announce it until 17 Jun 2003. Only 2 1/2 months before Schoomaker took command. That's standard because Shinski's appointment announcement by Clinton came in Apr 99, two 1/2 months before his replacing Reimer.

http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/8_24/national_news/23733-1.html

After doing some research I notice that not one article, dated before 17 June 2003, I had read stated that Schoomaker was even being brought out of retirement as Shinseki's replacement. It has only been Kerry's website and op-ed pieces from the New Yorker dated during the election saying this.

As for Shinseki's retirement, all of the Army Chief of staff except two (who became the Joint Chiefs of Staff) retired after their command time. There has not been one Army chief of Staff (of the 34) that has held that position for over 4 years. Why would Shinseki be different?

As for my review board statement above, I got the top five Army commanders chosen by the review board held in Dec of 2002 confussed with The Army Chief of staff. Sorry.

That's My Two Cents

ParaTed2k

on Feb 01, 2005

Lee, way to do your homework!!!

I still have little respect for the guy, but I learned very quickly in my Army career that, while I was requred to salute all commissioned officers, there would be times I saluted the person, and for others I saluted the rank.

Suspeckted

on Feb 01, 2005

sus???/ honestly, when and IF I call YOU a name there will be no doubt, ok?

There might be some doubt considering your typing skills parallel G.W. orating skills.

Take that sucka!

Love Suspeckted

Deference

on Feb 01, 2005

Fun post!

Good point(s), there must be action to follow words, but we've seen little from politicians. Many people will point out the problems we've run in to in Iraq and smartly hold the administration to task for throwing caution to the wind and embroiling ourselves in difficulty after difficulty, but hardly anyone has had the power / clout to take on the fast current to hell we've thrown ourselves in to. Most everyone seems to say, hey, there are problems, but we're already on this path, let's simply ride it out. Hopefully we'll somehow evade bankrupting our treasury ( by seeping further and further in to debt and counting on such countries as China to continue it's investments in us ) , somehow we'll evade fighting for a war sold on false pretense ( hell, if we run out of sons and daughters, we'll just borrow / bribe some more soldiers out of allied countries and / or engage in more "stop loss" programs ), and if all else fails and our personal lives become entangled with Iraq, we'll simply bury our heads in the sand while taking it from the back and pretend this whole thing is just a colonoscopy to ensure us of our good health.

Apologists for the administration and the handling of Iraq continue to attempt to portray the rosiest illustration of Iraq as possible and slam those in dissent as being cowards instead of debating and confronting the actual problems while ignoring the serious bumps in the road ahead, as they did all last year. For those in defense of the esteemed effort in Iraq I have this link:

http://www.tvnewslies.org/JOIN_UP2.pdf

Cut and paste in to your browser's address line, and I wish you well. After you do so make sure to see your local Army / Navy / Marines / Air Force recruiter immediately so that your fellow apologists know where your sincerity and loyalty lays. PUT UP OR SHUT UP and I'll SEE YOU IN IRAQ! (on tv, of course)

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!