Hey - maybe we can send the Viking Kitties to do border patrol...
Thank you for your husband's and your sacrifice. So glad he's back.
Posted on 10/06/2005 1:41:35 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
Read my dialogue with SFC Chromey above.
What do you want, another awareness ribbon?
This is just more symbolism is more important than substance crap that has nothing to do with the situation at hand. When it becomes necessary for the average American to sacrifice, the situation will force itself upon us and we will not have the luxury of deciding how, what, or if we will sacrifice this that or the other thing. There will be no choice -- except, of course, for those who wish to continue to aid and abet our enemies. And when it happens, it will show these discussions for the classic leftist, petty, emotionalistic, manipulative, Oprah-fied hooey that they are.
Lefties use this line to appear patriotic when their real intent is to force artificial, unnecessary inconveniences on 'unsophisticated, benighted members of the great unwashed' who voted for Bush (like me) as a way of turning us against the war.
You don't give a rat's rear end about noble sacrifice, you just want to beef up the numbers of average-looking Americans at your anti-war protests so that you're not always represented on the Mall by screeching anti-Semites (Sheehan), black racists, and disheveled, drug-addled weirdos picked up by the World Workers Party at the local Rent-A-Hippie.
Give it up, it ain't gonna happen because the Dan Rather Empire is dead.
Hey - maybe we can send the Viking Kitties to do border patrol...
Thank you for your husband's and your sacrifice. So glad he's back.
The use of continued "resolve" instead of "more sacrifice would have been more in keeping with the context of the wording but looking at the quotes included, I can't actually fault them this time.
Say it isn't so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nobody here cares about what you say. You have no valid or articulate arguments. If you don't like the sight of a yellow ribbon, then you don't belong on this website. Period.
Sure, but only if you know exactly what it is that needs to be prevented. What if we are sacrificing this when it turns out it needs to be that?
Perhaps if everyone wasn't driving around huge trucks running at 15 mpg we wouldn't be as strung out on foreign oil as we are. There is a sacrifice.
Proves my point that sacrifice has a way of finding us without us having to go out looking for it. When gas hits about $4.50/gallon, they will dump those trucks and in a hurry, and SUV sales will go way down.
As you well know, the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are STILL not adequately equipped - Humvee and body armor are still inadequate. And what are people worried about back here? The estate tax. "I've gotta get mine before you can get yours."
I do not well know this. This can only be from the perspective of one who thinks every casualty in war is preventable due to only cursory glances at the history of warfare.
My brother was in a little 3-vehicle convoy in Afghanistan on March 26 when the vehicle behind his -- that had just switched positions with him only minutes before -- was blown up by a remotely detonated IED made from a Russian anti-tank mine. The vehicle was flipped in the air and landed on what was left of its roof. All 4 men inside were killed, all thrown at least 50 feet from the vehicle and one blown through the roof. My brother showed me the photos when he was on leave and one poor guy had his small intestines trailing about 10 feet behind him -- it reminded me strangely of a fish in an aquarium with his fecal matter trailing behind him.
The only chance of crew survivability was if it was an M1 Abrams tank, and even then, whoever was sitting right over the mine was a goner. But this vehicle was an armored SUV and the armor didn't help much.
The point is the Humvee is a vehicle designed for speed to taxi some of the troops around behind the lines, not for surviving direct hits on the front lines from mines, IED's or artillery rounds. They are lightly armored to withstand bullets. Putting heavy armor only slows them down and keeps them in the kill zone that much longer. Perhaps if this vehicles hadn't been armored at all, these vehicles would have been moving faster and the 4 men would be alive today.
A jeep is not a tank and vice versa. In designing any military weapon, everything is a trade-off, whether it be speed vs. armor, or survivability vs. cost-effectiveness, overall effectiveness of the individual weapon vs. the ability to create the weapon in high enough numbers for it to make a difference. This is the case in every war and hyperventilating as if surprises or unexpected tactics by the enemy has never happened before and that it's proof of Bush's incompetence means it's time to crack a history book. The irony, I repeat, is that had these vehicles not been armored and were moving faster through the zone, maybe the 4 men whose remains my brother had to pour into the evac chopper and stare at the whole ride home would be alive now. Or maybe they would have been shot through the doors on their next mission due to lack of armor. You never know. Trade-offs, trade-offs, trade-offs. Accept it.
Yapping at people for being concerned about the estate tax or about their gas mileage changes is petty and pointless in the face of all that.
As for body armor, until very, very recently, there was no weight effective body armor that could stop a rifle bullet. The same story, speed vs. armor. Body armor that could stop a rifle bullet was so heavy that the soldiers were slowed down to the point that they were easy targets. Body armor light enough to move effectively was to light to stop a rifle bullet.
But now they have some at long last -- my brother sent me video (by a jihadi who was subsequently captured) of a soldier getting shot by a sniper. It knocked him down but did not penetrate. He got up and started firing back. This is new stuff.
They've got a defense budget for all this stuff, and it is coming on line. Again, griping about people wanting to keep more of their own money instead of having to sell off the family business they inherit because they can't afford to pay the tax (55%!!! YIKES!!!) and keep the business, has no effect on the war.
The pork laden transportation bill just sailed through, and there are dozens of projects and millions of dollars that could be pared from that. But it won't be.
You're going to tell me that Dems and lefties are leading the charge to cut pork? And besides, the pork we will always have with us, as long as we have a Congress. There was pork during Gulf I, Vietnam, Korea, WW2, WW1, Civil War, etc., etc., etc.
Huge no bid construction contracts went out after Katrina to firms thousands of miles from the Gulf. Perhaps if these contracts were actually bid upon, as a free market would demand, the price tag would go down.
And perhaps it would have taken a lot longer to sort out all the bids, with all the complaints of not enough minority firms hired, lobbying and interference from various members of Congress, threats of lawsuits over unfairness in the bidding, etc., etc., that would guarantee huge delays in the firms actually getting down and getting to work in the Gulf. I'm a free-marketeer but sometimes you've got to streamline.
And the excuse that competition was inefficient due to time constraints is hogwash, as all of the contracts are going to be rebid upon now - weeks after the event.
See what I mean?
We are in a war, and people are concerned with tax cuts. If the estate tax were repealed, where is that money going to come from?
Problem #1 with that statement: You forget that this country was FOUNDED on a tax revolt. Tax cuts are not the silly luxury of the upper class as you are implying. Tax policy is crucial to keeping markets and peoples free.
Problem #2: You assume that everyone who wants tax cuts doesn't really need them. Problem #3: You assume that tax cuts automatically mean reductions in tax revenue, and that tax hikes automatically increase tax revenue. The tax cuts of the 60's and 80's, and Bush Sr.'s tax hikes in 1990 proved these assumptions false. Significant tax cuts (especially capital gains and marginal rates for individuals) expand the tax base and result in higher revenues.
And while we're at it, why is that your blue-state colleagues ask only how tax cuts will be "paid for", but NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER ask this about new social programs?
Maybe we won't realize that it was time to sacrifice until it was too late. And then what? Even W is now calling on (gasp) conservation of fuel. And the problem is...?
I am not proposing "artificial inconveniences" on anyone. I never thought we should have gone into Iraq...
Why not?
...but the fact of the matter is that we are there, and we're neck deep in it. So there is no choice but total victory. To achieve that, for the good of the nation and the good of society at large, we should do what we need to get the job done.
And please tell me EXACTLY WHAT IT IS that needs to be done by the average American that will hasten victory by leaps and bounds -- no more vague, fuzzy generalities please. Fuel rationing and tax hikes won't do it.
And a factor in achieving success is to do more than pay lip service to "supporting the troops." It is W and his cronies that are in charge of skyrocketing spending.
You think Kerry and his cronies would have spent less?
And please, keep your inane personal jabs to yourself. You don't know a thing about me, and I don't presume to know a thing about you.
What personal jab? What name did I call you? As long as you speak in said fuzzy generalities that are based only on emotionalism, what choice do you leave me but to speculate on your motives when you know that none of this "sacrifice" nonsense is going to have any effect on the boots on the ground, except to make it harder for them by, as you seem to hope, turning more people against the war? If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...
E, you have totally misunderstood my whole point, or you have totally misconstrued it. Either way, try again.
My point is that there is a lot more that can be done for the troops and for this war than putting a sticker on a massive gas guzzling car. Think about it. Please.
That is what I think, fighting a politically correct is resulting in too many needless deaths IMHO. Of course, I am not a military expert.
That's the whole problem right there. We think and you don't. You're the type who wants someone else to be the grown-up; i.e., typical liberal. There's nothing new about your tripe.
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.