Just to call attention to an obvious, but otherwise overlooked point:
The D's say the Iraqis, their security forces, their government, their army should do more to secure their own defense.
THANK YOU, UNITED STATES MARINES, SOLDIERS, AIRMEN, SAILORS--on those ships in the Gulf RIGHT now!-- 
GEORGE BUSH AND DONALD RUMSFELD FOR THE SECURITY FORCES THE DEMOCRATS CRITICIZE, FOR THE GOVERNMENT THE DEMOCRATS CRITICIZE, FOR THE ARMY THE DEMOCRATS CRITICIZE 
AND FOR RIDDING THE WORLD OF ANOTHER DESPOT.
ARE THEY LISTENING TO THEMSELVES?
More pictures here.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF IRONIES
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I like the war, my dad is getting rich as hell off it. He is working with a bunch of guys that sell fence supplies and ship cars. I will be rich when daddy dies and its all cause of the war, yaay, War is great. When I was in the military I never had the chance to defend oil companies equipment or a parking lot of SUVs for a construction company.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Wouldn't it be great if the lefty's ever researched a quote instead of lifting one sentence from a much parger speech, out of context?
"This particluar speech was given before the American Society for Newspaper Editors, shortly after the death of Stalin. Also known as the "Cross of Iron" speech. Eisenhower contrasted the Soviet Union's post-World War II doctrine as one of force, while the United States pursued peace and cooperation in the world. The President notes that the belligerence of the Soviet Union brought free nations together to avoid atomic war, and he challenges the new Soviet leadership to reject Stalin's style of governance,"
Some other quotes from the same speech;
In the light of these principles the citizens of the United States defined the way they proposed to follow, through the aftermath of war, toward true peace.
This way was faithful to the spirit that inspired the United Nations: to prohibit strife, to relieve tensions, to banish fears. This way was to control and to reduce armaments. This way was to allow all nations to devote their energies and resources to the great and good tasks of healing the war's wounds, of clothing and feeding and housing the needy, of perfecting a just political life, of enjoying the fruits of their own free toil.
The Soviet government held a vastly different vision of the future.
In the world of its design, security was to be found, not in mutual trust and mutual aid but in force: huge armies, subversion, rule of neighbor nations. The goal was power superiority at all costs. Security was to be sought by denying it to all others.
>>snip<<
The amassing of the Soviet power alerted free nations to a new danger of aggression. It compelled them in self-defense to spend unprecedented money and energy for armaments. It forced them to develop weapons of war now capable of inflicting instant and terrible punishment upon any aggressor.
It instilled in the free nations-and let none doubt this-the unshakable conviction that, as long as there persists a threat to freedom, they must, at any cost, remain armed, strong, and ready for the risk of war.
Given April 16th, 1953.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
President D. Eisenhower
fizzi, refreshing to see you rely on words of a Republican, even if you do take them out of context.
Again, from the same 1961 speech;
"We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment."
"Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad."
"Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment."
"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction."
"Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea."
"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations."
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society."
When will you lefty's actually research something, instead of relying on liberal snippets taken out of context?
I find it troubling that the left (kucinich, earl blumenauer et.al) appear to be more concerned with war profiteering than with defeating the enemy.
Well, do you think the loss of 9 billion dollars in unaccounted for US Funds in Iraq might have the least bit relevancy to our predicament?
What dollar amount do you place on your families freedom, fizzi?
Profiteering isn't new and yes, many get caught and prosecuted, as they should. But, to use that as a means to cripple the supplies or efforts of our troops during the battle just gets more troops killed.
You remember them, don't you? The ones the left "supports?"
The point being, if the administration cannot account for 9 billion dollars in Iraq, how can it account for the safety of the soldiers, or our safety for that matter?
fizzi, I find it remarkable that you that feel funds unaccounted for by career government employees is a worthy reason of bringing the U.S. to defeat, but turn a blind eye to the U.N. Oil for Food scandal and all the missing and unaccounted for funds there.
The left would have had us placed under the UN and not worry about all the dollars worth of money skimmed, pay backs to UN Officials to the tune of some $11 billion.
Nothing like selectively relying on two and three year old accounts.
What about let's win this war then hold hearings into Bremer's mishandling or poor accounting practices?
Unless, of course, you also desire to see the US lose.
Not to worry, fizzi, most of that money may have been found
When Senator Harry Truman heard rumors of war profiteering, he got into his car and, during a Congressional recess, drove 30,000 miles paying unannounced visits to corporate offices and worksites. The Senate committee he chaired launched aggressive investigations into shady wartime business practices and found "waste, inefficiency, mismanagement and profiteering," according to Truman, who argued that such behavior was unpatriotic. Urged on by Truman and others in Congress, President Roosevelt supported broad increases in the corporate income tax, raised the excess-profits tax to 90 percent and charged the Office of War Mobilization with the task of eliminating illegal profits. Truman, who became a national hero for his fight against the profiteers, was tapped to be FDR's running mate in 1944.
The Senate is going to vote on the anti-military resolution against sending 21,000 more troops to Iraq. By voting for this resolution, the Senate will be confirming that they are comfortable with the troops not having additional backup in their efforts. This resolution will also help the insurgents (read "terrorists") in their nefarious actions. But that is apparently what this Senate wants, for the terrorists to win, so they can tell Bush, "We told you so!"
Remeber this when election time comes next year.
Scottiebill: "By voting for this resolution, the Senate will be confirming that they are comfortable with the troops not having additional backup in their efforts."
Why haven't they been there from the start, then?
Why don't the troops currently there have enough armor?
Don't blame the Democrats for this. Blame the President and his misguided underlings.
Don Rumsfeld: "As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want."
Democrats, havn't wanted America to win a war since WWII. You Treasonus Cowards. MOVE to Canada Cuba or!
Klatu,
Do you consider me to be your enemy, simply because I am a liberal?
Post a Comment