A New Moral Compact

[LineInTheSand]

Good point, because when I think of people who lead us into protracted and bloody wars, I think "democrats."

With the exception of the Civil War.... I would. Wilson (DEM) for WWI, FDR (DEM) for WWII was far more bloody than the wars today. Truman (DEM) for Korea. Kennedy (DEM) got the U.S. in Vietnam. Clinton and Kosovo...

So we have George H.W. Bush in Desert Storm and George W. Bush for Iraq and Afghanistan, both wars that as far as deaths/injuries are concerned don't come CLOSE to the Dem lead wars before them.

So, I guess it's good you think of Democrats when you think of "protracted and bloody wars".... so do I.


Of course, the War on Drugs has claimed FAR more lives than the war in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[scoutpilot]

With the exception of the Civil War.... I would. Wilson (DEM) for WWI, FDR (DEM) for WWII was far more bloody than the wars today. Truman (DEM) for Korea. Kennedy (DEM) got the U.S. in Vietnam. Clinton and Kosovo...

So we have George H.W. Bush in Desert Storm and George W. Bush for Iraq and Afghanistan, both wars that as far as deaths/injuries are concerned don't come CLOSE to the Dem lead wars before them.

So, I guess it's good you think of Democrats when you think of "protracted and bloody wars".... so do I.


Of course, the War on Drugs has claimed FAR more lives than the war in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

There's a difference between being pulled into war and going looking for one...or two. Or three.

I'm sure Fox News would agree with your "analysis."

 

[LineInTheSand]

There's a difference between being pulled into war and going looking for one...or two. Or three.

I'm sure Fox News would agree with your "analysis."

Tell me exactly how the U.S. was "pulled" into Korea and Vietnam, and not Afghanistan.

Time to put Mother Jones down.

 

[scoutpilot]

Tell me exactly how the U.S. was "pulled" into Korea and Vietnam, and not Afghanistan.

Time to put Mother Jones down.

First you'd have to understand Afghanistan, the Taliban, and the relationship of AQ prime and Mullah Omar. Then you could explain to us how that required us to fight an 11-year war in which only a sliver of effort has gone against those forces and factors.

I won't disturb your carefully crafted mythology of how the evil liberal dens are out to destroy America. Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are happy to feed you those stories.

 

[LineInTheSand]

First you'd have to understand Afghanistan, the Taliban, and the relationship of AQ prime and Mullah Omar. Then you could explain to us how that required us to fight an 11-year war in which only a sliver of effort has gone against those forces and factors.

I won't disturb your carefully crafted mythology of how the evil liberal dens are out to destroy America. Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are happy to feed you those stories.

I haven't WATCHED the news in 3 weeks (Comcast taking it's sweet time, and a move from VA to MD to mix it all up). My news each day comes from 4 printed sources.... the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, New York Times and the Washington Post. Online I get my news from www.cnn.com (it's just easier). If I was watching news, I'd probably watch Fox News, because we generally watch the things we agree with. You do too, so don't feel guilty about it. Unlike Fox News, I would agree that the Dept. of Defense needs to make serious cuts, including to man-power. But likely falling in line with Fox News, I believe the current spending in the U.S. is unsustainable, and I think the President of the United States, Barack Obama, has made huge mistakes in the fiscal cliff talks.

As for your point on Afghanistan...
So of those 11 years, over 1/3 has been under a Dem. I'm still trying to figure out how you attribute "long bloody wars" to Republicans, without ignoring WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo (and I won't even back it up to pre-WWI Dem leadership).

"Oh yeah, but 11 years in Afghanistan."

Of thos 11, 7 were under a Republican, and 4 a Democrat. Apparently Democrats don't just stop "long bloody wars"... although, historically, they've been very good at starting them.

But please, enlighten me. Maybe pilots in other branches don't get the same geo-political briefings. Tell me about the relationship. But more importantly, how the actions by a Republican president in Afghanistan was worse, more bloody, than any of those OTHER wars that saw far more American's killed. I may have just missed that lesson. Teach me professor!

 

[scoutpilot]

I haven't WATCHED the news in 3 weeks (Comcast taking it's sweet time, and a move from VA to MD to mix it all up). My news each day comes from 4 printed sources.... the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, New York Times and the Washington Post. Online I get my news from www.cnn.com (it's just easier). If I was watching news, I'd probably watch Fox News, because we generally watch the things we agree with. You do too, so don't feel guilty about it. Unlike Fox News, I would agree that the Dept. of Defense needs to make serious cuts, including to man-power. But likely falling in line with Fox News, I believe the current spending in the U.S. is unsustainable, and I think the President of the United States, Barack Obama, has made huge mistakes in the fiscal cliff talks.

As for your point on Afghanistan...
So of those 11 years, over 1/3 has been under a Dem. I'm still trying to figure out how you attribute "long bloody wars" to Republicans, without ignoring WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo (and I won't even back it up to pre-WWI Dem leadership).

"Oh yeah, but 11 years in Afghanistan."

Of thos 11, 7 were under a Republican, and 4 a Democrat. Apparently Democrats don't just stop "long bloody wars"... although, historically, they've been very good at starting them.

But please, enlighten me. Maybe pilots in other branches don't get the same geo-political briefings. Tell me about the relationship. But more importantly, how the actions by a Republican president in Afghanistan was worse, more bloody, than any of those OTHER wars that saw far more American's killed. I may have just missed that lesson. Teach me professor!

Nah, you've clearly got it all figured out. Republicans are peace-loving isolationists who are never wrong, and who certainly would never push us into a bloody and (worse yet) pointless conflict. Those gosh darn evil socialist satanical democrats and their bloodthirsty ideals. When will they learn?!

It's quite evident you would watch Fox News and agree with them. There's a whole world of facts out there. It's pretty interesting. As for what briefings I receive vs. what others receive...well, "a verified need to know" is part of the SCGs for a reason.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Nah, you've clearly got it all figured out. Republicans are peace-loving isolationists who are never wrong, and who certainly would never push us into a bloody and (worse yet) pointless conflict. Those gosh darn evil socialist satanical democrats and their bloodthirsty ideals. When will they learn?!

See now, we are in agreement. And people said you couldn't be reasonable!


But come on, some good did come out of it... it allowed special operators to shake of the rust and do something, and it grew the Pentagon's budget.


And Magellan, let me know when you happen upon that world of facts. Maybe publish it. I know Huffington Post seems to have a special place for credible West Pointers.

 

[scoutpilot]

See now, we are in agreement. And people said you couldn't be reasonable!


But come on, some good did come out of it... it allowed special operators to shake of the rust and do something, and it grew the Pentagon's budget.


And Magellan, let me know when you happen upon that world of facts. Maybe publish it. I know Huffington Post seems to have a special place for credible West Pointers.

I'd say its the Coast Guard's turn to shake off the rust, but if they did that they wouldn't have many of those boats left.

 

[bruno]

It's pretty sad when some of you can't have an intelligent and thoughtful discussion about an issue that affects not just our audience on board here, but how the society makes decisions on going to war. This was neither a political discussion nor an interservice one and it's sad and telling that some can see nothing without applying those blinders. This is closed.