Another reason to generally oppose war
- Thread starter anon_xl72qcu5isp39
- Start date
I replied to your question in the liberal image first president thread. Would like to hear your thoughts.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Gen Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff seems to think that ground troops may be needed. Who paid him or is that irrelevant? Who paid the doves as well? If you think the doves are not being paid big bucks to make their points as well you are mistaken.
If you choose to engage troops on the ground will be needed. President Clinton proved Air Power can not completely defeat an enemy (Iraq) yet. A partial air engagement is the worst possible thing you could do, yet that is what appears to be coming out of the WH. Gen Dempsey gets it, which gives me some hope for the military, but the Military is without a voice in this administration. I do wish the military could stand up to this president, and quit letting the worst person to happen to them use their troops as background for his uniformed, and misguided speeches.
If you choose to engage troops on the ground will be needed. President Clinton proved Air Power can not completely defeat an enemy (Iraq) yet. A partial air engagement is the worst possible thing you could do, yet that is what appears to be coming out of the WH. Gen Dempsey gets it, which gives me some hope for the military, but the Military is without a voice in this administration. I do wish the military could stand up to this president, and quit letting the worst person to happen to them use their troops as background for his uniformed, and misguided speeches.
Well, what dove are you referring to? And no, they generally aren't paid big bucks to show up and speculate. And you've completely breezed over the issue --being paid to show up and criticize is one thing. Doing it when you have a financial, vested interest in your advocacy and not disclosing it is another. Just don't pretend to be objective.
Why NOT disclose the financial interest in the outcome? Does that hurt anything? Since when does it hurt to disclose a potential conflict of interest? Of course some "dove" that has some obvious financial interest should disclose it.
I just love that conservatives defend conflict of interest when their side does it.
If this is news to you then you are a f*cking idiot. But don't don't start patting yourselves on the back, libs. Dems do the same shit. None of these Dem or Rep politicians/pundits have any convictions. None of them have their own opinions. They've all sold themselves to the highest bidder. They're serving up bullshit and all the sheep are sucking it down.
This whole system is one giant scam that everyone has either bought into or tolerates. All we care about is football and Dancing With the Stars.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
This whole system is one giant scam that everyone has either bought into or tolerates. All we care about is football and Dancing With the Stars.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
This entire so called strategy is a joke. Hit them hard and fast with troops. The worst president ever and it's not close. There are already boots on the ground.
Originally posted by gulfshorespoke:
This entire so called strategy is a joke. Hit them hard and fast with troops. The worst president ever and it's not close. There are already boots on the ground.
To paraphrase Slick Willy, it depends on your definition of boots!
Ladies and gentleman, linked to one of the most liberal friendly websites, The Nation. And sys, if you don't think every self serving bastard in ANY gov't position isn't taking a kickback, (that many of us in the REAL WORLD would be fired for) then you have your head too far up the Donkey's back end.
Squeak, you and I need to have some beers.
This post was edited on 9/18 10:13 PM by TPOKE
Similar threads
