I am reading Chesty, a biography of Lewis Puller, famed USMC General of WWII and Korea. He and his men were disgusted over Harry Truman’s handling of the war. They felt that the US did NOT want to win the war. (Sound familiar?)
Their resolve, their dedication, and their morale were severely damaged by Democrat’s politicizing the war, could it be any different now?
Of course, the same thing happened in Vietnam. Are Democrats so callous and cold as to conduct themselves in a manner that clearly damages our military men and women? How many Soldiers and Marines have to die so Democrats can win a seat or two in Congress?
Last 5 Posts
No, & they haven’t for the last 4 decades.
why would I want to try and answer this, it’s not a question, just a bunch of meaningless opinions with question marks at the end, it’s obvious that you posted this just to confirm your own views
You do know, don’t you that winning in Korea would have meant pushing the Chinese army back up to their boarder with North Korea and probably beyond into china itself? There is more involved in a war than just what is happening on the battlefield. That’s the purview of the military commanders. The bigger picture, the political and diplomatic picture, is handled by the civilian leadership they report to. You can’t compare Korea to Iraq because in Korea there was a very real possibility that we could end up in a third world war. That’s what Truman was trying to avoid.
BTW, it was Eisenhower, a republican, who pulled us out of Korea. Another republican, Nixon, pulled us out of Vietnam but only after 4 more years. Didn’t those Republicans even Care about the Military men and women?
You ask ” how many marines and soldiers have to die”? Ask you hero, Bush , that question. he doesn’t seem to mind how many.. long as it isn’t him…
As a liberal who has a number of family members in the army. I could say that morale has been affected by the lack of WMDs in Iraq and the fact that it is kind of obvious that we are fighting a war that only the President wants. If we really supported the troops we’d bring em home.
Looks to me like it was Bush that vetoed the bill to fund the troops. Seems to me you have a strange definition of care.
During Korea there was very defined issue at hand. Who is Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, Douglas MacArthur or Harry Truman? Gen. Mac ignored Truman on several occasions regarding some military movements during the war. It was a divisive time. Truman ended up firing Gen. MacArthur. Some in the military brass were ticked off because of it. Second, to say Dems don’t support the troops is absurd. We want them safely at home where they belong with their family and friends, not in a country who doesn’t want them there, and where they have become occupiers. The longer the war lasts, the more seats Dems WILL win. That’s the nature of war and politics.
What else did Chesty want us to do? Invade China?
The war was prolonged as long as it was because MacArthur pushed all the way up to the border of China, causing China to flood troops in to the conflict and overwhelm us, eventually leading to a stalemate.
That led to us not invading North Vietnam to prevent triggering a similar reaction, which incidentally Republican president Richard Nixon also thought was a good idea.
You assume that the most hawkish response in war or conflict will save lives, it won’t.
If Kennedy had responded more hawkishly in the Cuban Missile Crisis, he could have easily started a nuclear war.
Likewise, if Bush attacks Iran, it could set off a chain reaction leading to more terrorism abroad and possibly a world war.
Both Democratic and Republican presidents have had a bad habit of using our military to “show the flag,” as Reagan did in Lebanon and got our troops killed.
Unless there’s a very clearly (and honestly) defined military objective as there was in the first Iraq War, we are bound to get in more situations like Iraq & Vietnam.
A similarity of those two conflicts is that they both could not be solved by more military power. If the people resent an occupation, you can kill enough to make them submit, but as long as they feel their country is not their own and someone else is there to take advantage of them, there will be some resistance.
Bush harmed the troops severely by first putting them in an unnecessary war and second doing such a poor job of putting on even a pretense of caring about the Iraqis that they weren’t fooled for long if at all. Allowing the looting while guarding the oil ministry, assigning all the rebuilding to Bush cronies instead of Iraqis, and going in with a plan to force the Iraqis to privatize everything so it could be bought for bargain basement prices sent a clear message: we are here to steal.
Ironically, it has been the Democrats who have been more concerned about how troops are treated when they get home, whether they get adequate medical care, can go to college, or buy a house with the GI Bill, and Democrats who think it is wrong that some enlisted people with families qualify for food stamps.
You are unfortunately wrong about Democrats in one sense: many of them love a good war as much as their republican peers as long as their donors can profit from it.
But the real way to show you support the troops is to only use them when the United States is under attack or facing an undeniable imminent threat–not the trumped up threat of a boogie man halfway around the world blackmail us with a handful of nukes when we have 10,000. And not when some handful of corporations want to make sure they control as much of the world’s oil as possible.
We have not faced a real military threat since the collapse of the Soviet Union. China is decades away from being a conventional threat to us, and both the Russians and Chinese can only use their nukes as deterrence.
I support the troops right to life, to have a decent standard of living, and to be well-cared for if they are injured.
Bush supports their right to die for him and his cronies.
Incidentally, some of what Bush called “pork” in that Iraq bill was funding for injured troops.
if Republicans cared about the Military, they would have sent them to iraq with proper armor and weapons.
Democrats care enough to want to bring the military home…ALIVE and not in body bags!
Sorry Bud. This war was poltical from the get go. You know some history apparently. Read some more on how this war got started and what the plausible reasons were for getting it going.
People who care about service men and women don’t send them into wars under false pretense and then avoid letting the press photograph plane loads of flag draped caskets.
Hmmm…let me think.
US soldiers killed in combat 1992-2000 (8 years): 18
US soldiers killed in combat 2001-present (6 years): 3,742.
I get it. Do you?
support the troops = bring them home
hate the troops = lie about WMDs
seems like the current desm are in support of troops, passed spending bill, though don’t agree with the whole pull out dates, where as Republicans= walter reed scandel, poor equipment ie no body armor, Bush when first in office actaully wanted to cut benifits of military familes, shall we continue?
NO never have and never will
Our United States Military Troops are not in a tactical military war like World War II. Our troops are an unwanted Occupying Army that are sitting targets for death-104 of our troops died in April (during the “Surge”.)
The Woolsey-Lee-Waters Ammendment, ignored by Move-On and Speaker Pelosi, would have funded bringing our troops home by the end of 2007-what the Iraqi people wanted. The mainstream Democrat bill at least put forward a timetable with benchmarks, but even that was Vetoed by Bush who wants yet another blank check for Blackwater, Halliburton, and the completion of permanent Military Bases and the U.S. Embassy in the Green Zone.
why do republican think we all have share the same political view?
NO. the reasoning is real simple here. whining about iraq masked the power grab from the razor thin madate of 06, what the electorate asked for was a solution to iraq. what they recieved is the installation of alot of tax and spend failed policy and little to nothing done. someone had to take the fall for the power grab and whining about the soldiers and pork barreling the support bill as pelosi;reid is doing now was the easy choice.
The Democrats during WWII were not the Democrats of today, party politics basically switched in the 1960’s. Study party history before trying to draw to mistaken conclusions.
My belief is that since WWII the democrats are fearful of the military. The know if they tried to pull some communist crap in AMerica that the military would not support it. And that is what I believe.
The socialists (democrats), to succeed, must take away our ability to defend ourselves from them, and the military is part of that.
So you think the negative vibes ‘democrats’ send brings down the morale of soldiers and makes them die more?
That’s just silly. Actually PUTTING them there makes them die. Look to the people who go to wars for unscrupulous causes for that answer.
I think it’s amazing that some cons really feel that liberals send out negativity brain waves and can control time and space that way,
it’s really true they believe that and it’s an amazing ability you must think people have.
get real.
You just sound pro-war, no matter what the ulterior motives.
Do you expect everyone to not say a word about anything the corporate government decides to do? ridiculous.
When that happens, we know we have lost our country completely. I’m not sure if that hasn’t already happen.
They care more than you that is why they would like them to leave Iraq where they can only get hurt and who is being helped? Not Americans.
You should be careful what you wish for.
Our current military leadership is far better educated than old Chesty.
Brains over braun, baby.
And our officer corps are not singing that song anymore!
Wow, you really made a powerful statement that should be repeated often, especially in light of whats going on today!!!
You are so right! It is a real shame that republicans have to win wars in spite of the democrats!