Posted on 01/20/2006 7:06:55 PM PST by dennisw
When Kerry was a war hero in Vietnam he failed to capture Ho Chi Minh, too. Oh, that's right, he and Ho were on the same side.
Come to think of it, have we ever seen Kerry and Osama at the same place and the same time? ,,,,,
"When they do, then we can compare the two."
But you are comparing the two.
Two completely different enemies. AQ is not a country and there will never be a surrender - we just won't here from those types anymore. You're being naive and inanely idealistic.
That looks like fun! I'd pay to do that! Maybe some kind of amusement park or carnival booth idea would work.
He wasn't a failure. But using Kerry's standard, one could argue he was right up to the point of the surrenders of Germany and Japan.
Hitler was dead and Germany unconditionally surrendered within 3.5 yrs of declaring war. What did FDR fail at? Victory was achieved over the enemy in under 4 yrs.
You completely missed the point.
When did I say AQ had surrendered? Never. When did I say FDR was a failure? Never--I said by Kerry's silly standard he would be considered one.
Has AQ unconditionally surrendered yet? Has the Iraqi insurgency? When they do, then we can compare the two.
Nope--we never CAN compare the two.
You seem as out of it as Kerry. My original point was that it was silly to claim that the War on Terror was the failure Kerry is trying to make it seem merely by focusing on the capture of one leader. The WOT and WW2 are completely different, and they can never be compared as you seem to want to in your final points.
MY only point was that measuring success based on the capture of a leader within 4 years--Kerry's point--is stupid. Apparently you seem to think it's not, and I can't help you with that.
If even our own FReepers can't grasp the difference between the WOT and a conventional war, with conventional yardsticks for success, we surely are in deep trouble.
I believe most conservatives would be fair and reasonable in that respect.
I don't understand your strange focus on "3.5" vs "4" years or whatever--you've completely overlooked my point in your effort to criticize Bush for not getting Osama.
My point--which is clear for anyone except those who can only grasp the literal--is that it took 4 years to get Hitler--and no, not everyone knew it; for several years there were questions about the identity of the man the Russians claimed was Hitler.
If Osama is indeed dead--I don't believe he is--then Bush will have been a success without us knowing it. But that's completely beside the point.
My point, for those who need it explained, is that a war's success can't be determined by the survival or death of the enemy nation's leader; by that yardstick, we didn't defeat Japan until over 40 years later. (Get it--Germany...Japan...defeated...one leader dead, the other not...'kay?)
"That's about 3.5 years by my count." OK. So what?
So you seriously believe that if UBL were killed on 9-12 we wouldn't still be in a War on Terror? Then I've got a website for you--"Democratic Underground," where they believe we are in (as you seem to believe) a conventional war, where if we only knock of ONE GUY, it all goes away.
This isn't a war like that. Kerry seems to think it is. Defend his math all you want, because that's not the problem; UBL isn't the problem, either. But he, and you, both seems to think bringing him in would be the same as if we brought in Saddam, or Hitler, or any number of leaders of conventional conflicts.
Lurch Lurch Lurch......just go away Loser boy. Thank the good Lord you will never ever be President. Go smooch off Tereaaazzer Heinz's millions and leave us be. Schmuck!
BTW, I live in Massachusetts, and in all seriousness, you never would know he was a vet. He NEVER talked about that part of his resume...unless he got cornered on a military funding issue, and then we got all the war stories.
I went and read all the people that were prostrating themselves before Kerry at the daily Kos. There were some truly screwed up people responding to his inane comment about Osama Bin Laden.
Its worth a look!
That post really got to me..
Thank GOD that scum bag didn't win..
Ms.B
Ya know, I bet if he'd mentioned that during the campaign, he might have gotten a few more votes.
What a scum bucket. So different from a George HW Bush or Bob Dole as far as their military service goes. I hated that "I'm reporting for duty" crap.
Can't be no farther than the Vineyard to Nantucket.
Well there is nothing manly about a kept man. Probably not a homo but way too effeminate for my tastes. I guess they call them metrosexuals. Obviously not Teresa's cup of tea either if you've ever seen how she scrunches away from him when he tries to kiss her. Still a mystery why a woman with her money would marry someone she has so little respect for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.