A Real Patriot Speaks Out

Denial of reality on your part does not alter reality one iota!

I quoted the part where it mentioned starting a war!

Here it is AGAIN!

 

I don't follow you mate, what's wrong with Don urging US companies to do that?

 

Why don't you go up to a US Navy Seal or Army Ranger and try to tell them that they are not an elite fighting force. See what their reaction would be.

 

Incidentally, Obama made John Kerry Secretary of State, you couldn't make it up!
Here are some of the things Kerry has voted against over the years-

B-1B Lancer
B-2A Spirit
F-15 Eagle
F-16 Fighting Falcon
M1 Abrams
Patriot Missile
AH-64 Apache Helicopter
Tomahawk Cruise Missile
Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser

And Kerry was for-
Cutting the number of Navy submarines and their crews
Reducing the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one
Reducing tactical fighter wings in the Air Force
Terminating the Navy's coastal mine-hunting ship program
Forcing the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year.
http://www.koreanwaronline.com/history/Kerry3.htm

 

Should I repeat my response again, and use bigger letters so you might understand it? BTW, the argument can easily be made that G.W. Bush started the Iraq/Afghanistan war since neither country posed a threat to the US, nor did they have anything to do with 911 which was the basis for the 2001 AUMF.

 

Where are his items, or Ivanka's, made?

 

I don't know mate, you tell me..
Personally I always try to buy stuff that's made in my own country (even if it costs me a bit more) but it's harder than you think, for example the other day I bought a pack of apples and it wasn't til I got home that I noticed in the small print (with a magnifying glass)- "Produce of South Africa".
No offence to S. Africans, but why the hell do we import stuff from other countries?

 

Saddam was spouting anti-American propaganda and was rumoured to have WMD's, so he had to be taken out, so good riddance; if he'd kept his trap shut he might still be sitting pretty..
No doubt GWB hoped to be able to cut oil deals with a new regime but it didn't work out like that because insurgents are keeping the country unstable and simply blow up the wells, pipelines and workers.
Same with Afgh and its oil, our politicians hoped to get a friendly regime installed but that was a terrible idea too.
Western politicians want every last drop of oil they can get their hands on before it runs out ("sometime this century" according to oil industry experts), because without oil our planes, ships and tanks won't be able to GO, and we'll be back in the stone age having to fight with sticks and stones, right General?

"Ugh"...

 

Why not use quotes to support your claims? Here's the complete text of the George Bush speech on Iraq.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/18/usa.iraq

Do you recall there were other countries also who recognized Saddam did present a danger? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_–_Iraq

 

They wanted to lower the standards by letting women serving in these units that #1 99.99 percent of women could not even qualify for, and #2, having women in any fighting military unit with men creates negative moral issues. Women have a non-deployment rate about 4 times higher than men.

Would you buy a car that broke down 4 times more often?
Would you want our military to buy a tank or plane that broke down 4 times more often?
Why would you want troops that did the same in a combat environment?

 

Would you go up to a US Navy Seal or Army Ranger and tell them that they are not an elite fighting force? I'd love to see what they tell you. Under your scenario we may as well disband the special units and move everyone back into regular units and take our chances.

 

Here are YOUR posts and YOUR exact words!

You DENIED that you were attempting to blame Dems for "starting" wars even when your own post shows you alleging that with a link to a blogger that was factually WRONG!

Then you denied that the blogger used the term "start" when it was right there in headline of the blog.

And now you are still trying to deny your own words!

Both YOU and your inane blogger used the term "start" and erroneously blamed Dems!

Try dealing with the FACTS for a change!

 

So, now we should take out No. Korea based on their comments? We should have taken out Venezuela based on their comments?

The Constitution does nto allow for starting wars based on comments, and rumors.

So, we sent soldiers to die, and killed innocent civilians, so Bush could profit from oil contracts, and revenge threats made on his father.

Well, fewer people would die that way. And now we have a glut of oil, and still some are not satisfied.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nishth...-new-renewable-energy-champions/#5296aa0b6099

 

Did you not read the article I posted.http://rense.com/general39/waron.htm Anyway, as it turns out the information Bush used was false, and either he lied, or just denied the reality of the matter.

Just as there were other countries that warned against going into Iraq, or Afghanistan

http://www.newsweek.com/iraq-war-bushs-biggest-blunder-294411


States like [Iraq, Iran, and North Korea] and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil. . . . By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. . . . I will not wait on events while dangers gather.

—President George W. Bush, State of the Union, January 29, 2002

For us, war is always the proof of failure and the worst of solutions, so everything must be done to avoid it.

—President Jacques Chirac to a joint session of the French and German parliaments, January 2003

President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq on March 20, 2003, was not a blunder on the scale of those of Napoleon, Hitler and Tojo.

There was a case to be made on several grounds for operations against Saddam Hussein. The initial phase of combat was highly successful, and some still argue that the American investment was worth the cost of toppling the Saddam regime.

Bush was reelected in November of 2004 as much because of as despite his invasion of Iraq. His subsequent 2007 decision to launch the “surge” did limit some of the damage.

The main premise for the war was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that these were at risk of falling into the hands of terrorists. In the end, however, there were no such weapons, and Saddam’s links to al Qaeda were unproven. This robbed the invasion of legitimacy.

The insurgency that ensued after initial combat operation robbed the invasion of success. Today, the United States has less influence in Baghdad than Iran does. Iraq is a Shia-dominated state with an alienated Sunni minority, rampant violence and virtually no control over the Kurdish north. At least 134,000 Iraqis died as a direct result of the American invasion, and the violence there continues.

 

Not in America, or by Americans. Ivanka's is made mainly in China where she was just given three more trademarks to use. Trump himself has his made in China, where he was just given 30+ more trademarks to use, and other countries, not in America, or by Americans.

I am quite well aware of how hard it is to buy American especially when it comes to fresh fruit. Watermelons are coming from Mexico, Avocadoes from Guatamala, etc. However, while the American consumer continues to pay higher prices we ship millions of tons of beef, pork, poultry, wheat, corn, clothing, oil, etc. out of the country. It is called globalism, and we are not benefiting from it.

 

We have the same issues in Australia. There are many Chinese tradesmen in shops in the shopping centre, all selling the same Chinese sh$t. It's the balance of trade. Coal, beef and iron ore out and Chinese and cheap consumer stuff in.

 

You say that the main premise of the war was WMD and that claim of WMD in Iraq was made by most politicians everywhere, including members of both US political parties and their leaders.

Of course the US has less influence in Iraq now because Obama pulled the troops in December, 2011 claiming he ended the war in a sovereign and stable Iraq. That's where the big lie was.

And yes, Iraqi's were dying and continue to die in Iraq as well as other areas of the Middle East, and around the world. This is the work of the Islamists, who were killing more Iraqis than the Coalition forces did.

 

Only point was that it is not just the poor that serve in the military. In fact many congressmen and their family members have served. The poster tried to make the point that the government was sending only the poor and minorities into combat too die. The service's today are all voluntary.

 

And it was all a lie, and the ones who told the truth were ignored. And still you ignore the Constitutional requirements for entering a war.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/07/usa.iraq1

Not sure when Obama declared Iraq to be stable, however, you again ignore reality. One of the major reasons we withdrew, and Republicans like John McCain agreed with at the time, was the lack of immunity from the Iraqi government for American troops from criminal charges by the Iraqi government. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/07/usa.iraq1

Iraqi's were dying under Hussein long before American troops went in just as the No. Koreans are now dying. Trouble is the deaths increased following the invasion.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/mar/19/iraq

"Lieutenant General Tommy Franks, who led the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan during his time as head of US Central Command, once announced, "We don't do body counts." This blunt response to a question about civilian casualties was an attempt to distance George Bush's wars from the disaster of Vietnam. One of the rituals of that earlier conflict was the daily announcement of how many Vietnamese fighters US forces had killed. It was supposed to convince a sceptical American public that victory was coming. But the "body count" concept sounded callous - and never more so than when it emerged that many of the alleged guerrilla dead were in fact women, children and other unarmed civilians.

Iraq was going to be different. The US would count its own dead (now close to 4,000), but the toll the war was taking on Iraqis was not a matter the Pentagon or any other US government department intended to quantify. Especially once Bush had declared "mission accomplished" on May 1 2003 - after that, every new Iraqi who died by violence would be a signal that the president was wrong, and would show that a war conducted in the name of humanitarian intervention was exacting a mounting humanitarian toll of its own."

 

Why would the wealth volunteer? As to Congress, the percentage in Congress that have served is around 11%, and the numbers of their children is less. In fact, do some research and you will find only about 6% of Americans have seen any military service, and only about 3% have seen combat.

 

Like I said, Kim Jong-un is full of hot air and can't harm America, so there's no need to invade him.
Trigger-happy Don might decide to knock out a few of his nuclear sites with surgical cruise/drone strikes as a clip round the ear.
Bush had no choice but to trash Saddam in self-defence because he was rumoured to have WMD's and was urging terrorists to go to America.

 

Has Trump offered an explanation or excuse for doing that?
Incidentally, lots of people buy foreign-made cars, why don't they buy cars made in their own countries?

 

I know. I was at a Terry Fator show in Vegas and he asked all the Vets to stand. When I looked around there were only a handful of us in the audience that stood. If only 6% volunteer, and 11% of our Congressman have, I would say that it is likely that those willing to serve their nation in public office is about twice as much as the nation on the whole. This is a reason to run them down and trash their character?

I notice you have a few Bible quotes. It is always easy to be self righteous and feel morally superior when you can club someone with the word of God. Done a few times myself. The Nation had two realistic choices Clinton and Trump. Now if I used the God scenario and trusted what the Bible said about who appoints Kings and Rulers I guess the decision was already made. If I also believed in the authority scheme of things, in the Bible, that men are better suited to be the leader of Nations then I guess the election turned out as it was suppose too. I do believe Trump is more moral than Clinton. (We have all sinned) I believe Trump also wants our country to turn away from lawlessness and I like it when he ends every speech with " God Bless America"

 

Sorry to butt in, I must have missed the Bible quotes post, but I can quote a truckload of verses on the side of the military, for example-
God said "Raise a banner on a bare hilltop, I have summoned my warriors to carry out my wrath..they come from faraway lands..to destroy the whole country..and destroy the sinners within it" (Isaiah ch 13)

 

Part of his signature quotes.