<p>Uhhhh, Sheepdog, those are not even remotely liberal values. Those are values you attribute to liberals. Look up straw man arguments before you proceed.</p>
<p>And your post begs the question; are the opposite of those values conservative values?</p>
<p>so when it all comes down to political parties and the military (keeping in mind this a thread coinciding with a military school) its pretty much like this...</p>
<p>Democrats... Take money away from the military.
Republicans... Give money to the military.</p>
<p>Who would you prefer if you were in the military?</p>
<p>"Democrats... Take money away from the military.
Republicans... Give money to the military.</p>
<p>Who would you prefer if you were in the military?"</p>
<p>That is also factually incorrect. Are you guys falling asleep to Rush again?</p>
<p>The fact is, with regard to the Congress, more Democrats have served than Republicans, and both parties give and take away in about equal measure.</p>
<p>But then your post begs another question (lots of questions being begged here today). Would the perfect political party be the one that give all of the nations wealth to the military? If not, just what balance would you suggest? If you were to suggest a balance, would that make you a Democrat if someone else suggested a greater slice of the pie for the military? If you were to avoid becoming a Democrat by then advocating more military spending, would you not become a true Republican until the entire nations wealth were spent on the military?</p>
<p>First, let me preface the following list by saying it's not mine and I forgot who posted it. But it's very enlightening and I thank whomever it was who found it and made it available on this webboard. It is also somewhat dated and many on the list are no longer serving in politics, following the recent elections, but it remains very interesting if for no other reason that it demonstrates the background and in some cases the characters of those on the list, and more importantly, that it defies the common wisdom that Democrats are not advocates for the military. Not only are they advocates, but they have proved it where it counts.</p>
<p>Who Performed Military Service </p>
<p>Democrats </p>
<p>David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72
Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, etc
Jimmy Carter: Lt. Commander in the Navy 1946-53
Wesley Clark: Army 1966-2000, Vietnam, Silver star, purple heart
Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver/Bronze stars, Vietnam
Bill Clinton: Did not serve
Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72
Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze star
Michael Dukakis: Army 1955-57
John Edwards: Did not serve
Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71
John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs; Air Medal w/18 Clusters
Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam as journalist
Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74
Howell Heflin: Silver star
Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze star
Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII
Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53
Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam
John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver/Bronze stars, purple hearts
Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII
Jim McDermott: Navy 1968-70
George McGovern: Silver star & DFC during WWII
Zell Miller: Marine Corps, 1953-56
Walter Mondale: Army 1951-53
Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver star, etc
Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze star, Korea
Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-79; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91
Chuck Robb: U.S. Marine Corps, 1961-70, Vietnam
Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart</p>
<p>Republicans </p>
<p>Spencer Abraham: Did not serve
Eliot Abrams: Did not serve
Richard Armitage: Navy, three tours in Vietnam
John Ashcroft: Did not serve
Roy Blunt: Did not serve
Michael Bloomberg: Did not serve
George H.W. Bush: Youngest Navy pilot in WW II; awarded DFC
George W. Bush: Texas Air Nat. Guard; didn't take physical; suspended from flying
Jeb Bush: Did not serve
Saxby Chambliss: Did not serve. Attacked Cleland's patriotism
Dick Cheney: Did not serve
Christopher Cox: Did not serve
Tom DeLay: Did not serve
Bob Dole: Army in WWII, Bronze star, two purple hearts
Bob Dornan: Enlisted after fighting was over in Korea
John Engler: Did not serve
Douglas Feith: Did not serve
Gerald Ford: Lt. Commander, Navy in WWII
Bill Frist: Did not serve
Newt Gingrich: Did not serve
Rudy Giuliani: Did not serve
Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer
Phil Gramm: Did not serve
Chuck Hagel: Served in Vietnam, two Bronze stars and purple heart
Dennis Hastert: Did not serve
Tim Hutchison: Did not serve
Jack Kemp: Did not serve. "Knee problem," continued in NFL for 8 years
Jon Kyl: Did not serve
Trent Lott: Did not serve
Richard Lugar: Intelligence officer in Navy 1957-60
John McCain: POW in Vietnam, Legion of Merit, Silver Star, DFC, many more
Mitch McConnell: Did not serve
John McHugh: Did not serve
George Pataki: Did not serve
Richard Perle: Did not serve
Colin Powell: 35 years in Army, 4-star general
Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard
Ronald Reagan: Served in WWII making movies
Tom Ridge: Army in Vietnam, Bronze star
Dana Rohrabacher: Did not serve
Karl Rove: Did not serve
Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor
Rick Santorum: Did not serve
Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base
Richard Shelby: Did not serve
JC Watts: Did not serve
Vin Weber: Did not serve
Paul Wolfowitz: Did not serve </p>
<p>Pundits, Preachers, and Judges </p>
<p>Bill Bennett: Did not serve
Wolf Blitzer: Did not serve
Pat Buchanan: Did not serve</p>
<p>So who would you prefer to serve under? Those who have served and been in your place when it was their time to do so, or those who are rooting for you from the safety of their porches?</p>
<p>But doesn't all of this come down to putting people in neat little boxes? Socialist, fascist, liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican. Then we can support, oppose, admire, and revile without troubling ourselves to think. </p>
<p>My experience is that just about everyone with any brains is far too complicated and nuanced to fit into a single classification, or even into a range of them. Some of my self proclaimed conservative friends have some shockingly liberal values, and vise versa. When someone labels someone else in a derisive manner the very first thing crosses my mine is that they are fishing for like minded individuals who also dislike the effort of thought. It's a terrible waste of a brain. But if you chose not to think, at least do your homework.</p>
<p>Oh, I don't know Zap, perhaps we should crown George King. He served also.</p>
<p>And Zap, wasn't Carter a Naval Academy graduate???</p>
<p>But really Zap, we're old friends here and could doubtless go on for hours, but why don't we let the new members respond while you and I pop a cold one?</p>
<p>
[quote]
And Zap, wasn't Carter a Naval Academy graduate???
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please don't remind me. :mad:</p>
<p>He is proof positive that a turd can get through any number of filters provided you give the system enough opportunities. In 162 years of service, I suppose having only one limp-wristed moonbat communist scumbag traitor graduate from our beloved Academy can be seen as a pretty decent track record. It's just a crying shame he rose to become President so as to get this whole Middle East mess started by bending over and grabbing the ankles when the Ahyatollah showed up in 1979. </p>
<p>Don't crow too loudly. You clowns produced Wesley Clark. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
But really Zap, we're old friends here and could doubtless go on for hours, but why don't we let the new members respond while you and I pop a cold one?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Suits me. I've already reached my trainwreck-thread threshold for this site this month.</p>
<p>And no, I wouldn't want W to be a King, either. We don't do Kings in this country, thank God.</p>
<p>And Zap, wasn't Carter a Naval Academy graduate???</p>
<p>"Please don't remind me."</p>
<p>Uhhhh, Zap, you were the one who brought him up. Now where's that smiley face when you need one?</p>
<p>Yeah, but I deleted it. You were just too quick on the response. :D</p>
<p>I wasn't about to add more gas to this trainwreck-in-progress. ;)</p>
<p>At the end of the day.............</p>
<p>Liberals FEEL</p>
<p>Conservatives THINK.</p>
<p>February 27, 2007
Democrats Disingenuous in Their Anti-war Rhetoric
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services</p>
<p>Why did a majority of Democratic Senators — such as Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller and Chuck Schumer — vote to authorize a war with Iraq on Oct. 11, 2002? And why is this war now supposedly George Bush's misfortune and not theirs?</p>
<p>The original fear of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, of course, played a role in their votes — but only a role. In the 23 writs that authorized force to remove Saddam, senators at the time also cited Iraq's sanctuary and subsidies for terrorists. Then there were Saddam's attempts to assassinate a former United States president; his repression of, and use of weapons of mass destruction against, his own people; and his serial violations of both United Nations and Gulf War agreements. If paranoia over weapons of mass destruction later proved just that, these other more numerous reasons to remove Saddam remain unassailable.</p>
<p>Nevada's Sen. Reid summed up best the feeling of Democrats that there were plenty of reasons to remove Saddam Hussein in a post-9/11 climate. He reminded his Senate colleagues that Saddam's refusal to honor past agreements "constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."</p>
<p>But it was not just fear of Saddam alone that prompted Democrats to authorize the use of force to remove him. There was the more general, liberal notion of using American arms to stop violent dictators. While the Democratic Party has a strong pacifist wing, its mainstream has always advocated a global promotion of American liberal values — sometimes through the use of preemptory force.</p>
<p>Many Democrats in Congress, for example, had earlier authorized George Bush Sr. to fight the first Gulf War to stop Saddam's mad drive to absorb Kuwait. In 1999, House Democrats sought, but failed, to pass congressional authorization for President Clinton's ongoing air war against Slobodan Milosevic.</p>
<p>Democratic leaders from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama have long lamented that the United States did not preempt in Africa to stop the Rwandan genocide. In contrast, George Bush, not Al Gore, ran for the presidency in 2000 promising to end Clinton's humanitarian interventions, whether in the Balkans, Haiti or Somalia. As then-candidate Bush put it, "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."</p>
<p>Throughout American history, it was usually the Democratic Party that proved the more interventionist. Democratic Presidents — whether Woodrow Wilson in 1917, Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1939-40, Harry Truman in 1950, John Kennedy in 1963 or Bill Clinton in 1999 — long battled Republican isolationists who insisted that it was never in America's interest to fight costly wars abroad unless directly attacked by a foreign nation.</p>
<p>Again, why then did the majority of Democratic Senators vote for the present war in October 2002?</p>
<p>One, they rightly concurred with the president's post-9/11 conversion to the idea that removing a Middle Eastern mass-murdering regime and leaving a consensual government in its place could be a key component in winning the war against Islamic terrorism. And two, their party had always believed that the United States can sometimes make things better abroad by stopping tyrants and dictators.</p>
<p>By the same token, why do many of these same initial supporters of the Iraq war four years later now promise either to withdraw troops or to cut off funds, and so often hedge on or renounce their past records?</p>
<p>Partisan advantage explains much of the present posturing against an opposition president. But mostly, the rising Democratic furor comes as a reflection of public anger at the costs of the war — and the sense that we are not winning.</p>
<p>Unlike the invasion of Panama (1989), the Gulf war (1991), the Balkans war (1999) or even the Afghanistan conflict (2001-2007), Iraq has taken over 3,000 American lives. Had the reconstruction of Iraq gone as relatively smoothly as the three-week removal of Saddam, most Democratic candidates would now be heralding their past muscular support for democratic change in Iraq.</p>
<p>So instead of self-serving attacks on the present administration, Democratic senators and candidates should simply confess that while most of the earlier reasons to remove Saddam remain valid, the largely unforeseen costs of stabilizing Iraq in their view have proved too high, and now outweigh the dangers of leaving.</p>
<p>But they should remember one final consideration. The next time a Democratic administration makes a case for using America's overwhelming military force to preempt a Milosevic or a mass murderer in Darfur — and history suggests that one will — the Democrats' own present disingenuous anti-war rhetoric may come back to haunt them, ensuring that such future humanitarian calls will probably fall on ears as deaf as they are partisan.</p>
<p>?2007 Tribune Media Services</p>
<p>Uhboy........... </p>
<p><--- Goes off to duck and cover. I'm bringing beer (Atkins be damned) if anyone wants to join me.</p>
<p>well said sheep dog, this nation is getting screwed up all these "enlightened people"</p>
<p>Zap, Don't go away! This is the TNTT.</p>
<p>Be brave and I love your input. This is all good.</p>
<p>Zap, beer is good but charrdonay has no carbs :^}. Duck and cover? Where did you attend college?</p>
<p>THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR LIBERAL VS. CONSERVATIVE BATTLES!
If you want to argue the values of each side, use the Cafe.</p>
<p>The military is traditionally slightly more conservative. This stemms from the belief that conservatives usually place more emphasis (and funding) on national defense. </p>
<p>At USAFA, there are a large number of conservatives, MANY moderates, and some hard-core liberals...guess what, there are great and bad cadets in each group! Political stance (in general) does not affect one's service (the exceptions being in the highest levels).</p>
<p>P.S.
Zap is a proud USNA grad, class of '91.</p>
<p>^^^^Well said, Raimus. I think that would be a good move.</p>
<p>THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR LIBERAL VS. CONSERVATIVE BATTLES!
If you want to argue the values of each side, use the Cafe.</p>
<p>Bless you raimus. Abou time someone pointed that out!!</p>