Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

VA NEWS:  "As part of the 2020 National Veterans Day Observance, the Honorable Robert Wilkie, Secretary for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, will lay a wreath, November 11, at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in recognition and commemoration of the Veterans who have served in the U.S. Uniformed Services."

If he loses, wonder if Trump will show up?

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, ElCid said:

Heard something interesting today.  There are no Vietnam Veterans under 65 years of age.

Well no American veterans under 65. ;)

5d2d850baecadac5df0540a56ec91c8b.jpeg

 

Reminds me of a "Good Time's"episode The Enlistment"

JJ.....But dad, the army builds men.

John Evans, Sr....Yeah but first they need all the parts.

MV5BN2E3Nzk0ODItZDliMS00ZWI4LTkzNjYtZGQ3

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, hamradio said:

One didn't need to happen!  :angry:

Poor Bush, his daddy was threaten.  :wacko:

Saddam DID NOT attack us or was involved with 9/11 !!!

I've had to point that out to some I know more times than it should have been necessary.  It would have been like biting the hand that fed him....

Remember....  there were strong sanctions placed on him and Iraq due to Saddam and his country's activity in Desert Storm and in Kuwait.  And too, there were several organizations  that collected funds and sent hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of food and medical supplies to Iraq because these organizations felt it unfair to punish the people of Iraq for the malfeasance of Saddam.  But Saddam managed to highjack the supply trucks and also seize the cargo of planes that brought all those supplies to the country.  Then he made literally millions selling it all on the black market.  How ELSE could he afford to build all those castles that were discovered in Iraq?   And people actually believed he was involved in the terrorist attack on his cash cow?  Really now......

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article HAM.   Shows the difference between getting involved in the European war in the '40's and the Pacific theater war and our seemingly needless involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

And I'll betcha that comment gets taken way out of context by armchair patriots.

Sepiatone

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

I've had to point that out to some I know more times than it should have been necessary.  It would have been like biting the hand that fed him....

Remember....  there were strong sanctions placed on him and Iraq due to Saddam and his country's activity in Desert Storm and in Kuwait.  And too, there were several organizations  that collected funds and sent hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of food and medical supplies to Iraq because these organizations felt it unfair to punish the people of Iraq for the malfeasance of Saddam.  But Saddam managed to highjack the supply trucks and also seize the cargo of planes that brought all those supplies to the country.  Then he made literally millions selling it all on the black market.  How ELSE could he afford to build all those castles that were discovered in Iraq?   And people actually believed he was involved in the terrorist attack on his cash cow?  Really now......

Sepiatone

There were ALLEGATIONS Saddam had a relationship with al-Qaeda and had all those "weapons of mass destruction" which couldn't be proven or untrue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations

Excerpt...On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

ALLEGATIONS being the operative word here.  Remember.....

OSAMA BIN LADEN  was a deep devotee of Islam, while Saddam was a Muslim like many Americans are Christians.  By association only.  Saddam didn't have the level of faith that would make Osama want him as a co conspirator.

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hamradio said:

I read the article twice and still find the reason for your posting it confusing.  It appears to me that it says US should have stayed out of WW II except to provide food to starving people and to be a negotiator between the waring parties.  Japan attacked the US and Germany declared war on the US.  Practically every nation in the world participated in the war on one side or the other.

Is the intent of the article that the US should stay our of all wars and also "alliances" with foreign countries?

As for the Founding Fathers, it was a far, far, far different world then than in the 20th and 21st centuries.  Americans tend to forget that without an alliance with France and their money, troops and navy America would have lost the war.  Then there is the whole issue of Manifest Destiny which required wars on Spain, Mexico, Native Americans and Britain again.

Not to mention that America is no longer self-sufficient, if we ever were.  1780 is NOT 2020.

Although I served in Vietnam, I did not think it was a war we should be fighting.  But I swore an oath to the Constitution.  More importantly my service provided support to the US soldiers who were also serving there.

As for the Gulf War, that was a "good" war.  Iraq invaded Kuwait and was on verge or invading Saudi Arabia.  If not stopped, would the other Gulf nations be next?  Would war with Iran and Iraq start again?  Would Israel sit idly by and let Saddam conquer other countries?

Iraq and Afghanistan are different and I am dubious of the necessity of them.   Primarily because I do not believe we will ever have lasting change there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ElCid said:

I read the article twice and still find the reason for your posting it confusing.  It appears to me that it says US should have stayed out of WW II except to provide food to starving people and to be a negotiator between the waring parties.  Japan attacked the US and Germany declared war on the US.  Practically every nation in the world participated in the war on one side or the other.

Is the intent of the article that the US should stay our of all wars and also "alliances" with foreign countries?

As for the Founding Fathers, it was a far, far, far different world then than in the 20th and 21st centuries.  Americans tend to forget that without an alliance with France and their money, troops and navy America would have lost the war.  Then there is the whole issue of Manifest Destiny which required wars on Spain, Mexico, Native Americans and Britain again.

Not to mention that America is no longer self-sufficient, if we ever were.  1780 is NOT 2020.

Although I served in Vietnam, I did not think it was a war we should be fighting.  But I swore an oath to the Constitution.  More importantly my service provided support to the US soldiers who were also serving there.

As for the Gulf War, that was a "good" war.  Iraq invaded Kuwait and was on verge or invading Saudi Arabia.  If not stopped, would the other Gulf nations be next?  Would war with Iran and Iraq start again?  Would Israel sit idly by and let Saddam conquer other countries?

Iraq and Afghanistan are different and I am dubious of the necessity of them.   Primarily because I do not believe we will ever have lasting change there.

It was the HOPE in 1939 we could stay out of the European conflict, Roosevelt even promised such. The attack on Pearl Harbor changed that because it in itself was a declaration of war on the US.

We should go to war if attacked, the same went with Afghanistan.  The problem  Bin Laden is dead and al-Qaeda is no longer centralized.  Our job is not to provide everlasting security for Afghanistan, we been there for 19 years and time to get out.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, hamradio said:

It was the HOPE in 1939 we could stay out of the European conflict, Roosevelt even promised such. The attack on Pearl Harbor changed that because it in itself was a declaration of war on the US.

We should go to war if attacked, the same went with Afghanistan.  The problem  Bin Laden is dead and al-Qaeda is no longer centralized.  Our job is not to provide everlasting security for Afghanistan, we been there for 19 years and time to get out.  

 

Roosevelt had been planning/expecting for a US entry in the war for years.  As had Congress.  That is why they enacted a draft and greatly expanded the Army and Navy.  His Lend-Lease program with European countries was also a "partial entry" into the war in that he supported one side over the other by creating the Arsenal of Democracy.

The real problem is that al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, et. al. will resurface once US forces leave.  The Iraqi and Afghan forces will likely crumble.  It is the Vietnam syndrome all over again.  We can stay and keep the enemy at bay and keep the government shored up OR we can admit there is no victory coming ever and bring the troops home.  If US forces leave Syria, the Russians and/or Turks will move in.  God help the Kurds.

The difficult decisions for presidents, Congress and DOD is whether or not there is something US can do to prevent our having to go to war.  Then add in the philosophy that as leader of the free world and richest nation on earth, do we have an obligation to try and prevent events in foreign countries that cause massive suffering and starvation by using our military

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...