U.S. Senate Fails to Support U.S. Military Personnel

Again, you need to read closer. This was not about supporting the personnel. It is about doing what is necessary to win. It is clear that you want our troops to come home losers. I disagree, and fortunately, others do as well. there are enough of us to stop this madness.

Can you imagine the scorn that would have been heaped on someone like Jack Webb during WWII? That would have been a clear way to lose. If you want this over fast, then send the soldiers there and get the job done. The more time they spend here, the less time they spend there fighting and eradicating terrorists.

You are the one who does not support the troops because you don't think they should be given the opportunity to win.

 

Your thread title is an outright lie.

 

You "commentary" in the form of the thread title is a lie.

 

True.

I have an irrisistable urge to call out liars.

 

Since the author of the op begins with the mindset that we should never be involved in manners of this nature the criticisms appear to be those which are hunted down in order to demonize what he doesn't like. But they are not the reason he doesn't like it. They are an after thought chosen to characterize what he doesn't like in the owrst possible light.

 

Wow. Two completely fabricated tales in one morning. Slow day at work ?

 

The Senate did all they could do given the parameters of the Army and Marines. It is not the Senate's job to run the war or organize the Army with proper equipment and manpower.

The problem is focused on the inept leadership at the White House. Not only do they not know how to execute a war and win, they have no idea how to have proper levels of active duty personnel vs reserve/national guard. Our troops are putting their lives on the line every day, and deserve better than D- leadership on a good day. The Senate had no choice but to keep the rotation the same. It is George W Bush that does not care about the troops, otherwise he would win the war and have enough men to allow shorter and fewer deployments.

Blind alligence to someone who is morally and administratively challenged is not patriotic nor does it help the security interests of the United States.

I fail to understand how anyone can know what it is like or what is best for this nation who has not only never been in combat, but who has never served. For those of you in that catagory, and feel we should go on year after year in this no win no lose state, why dont you fly over there and lead the charge, instead of sitting behind your desk in your air conditioned offices and flapping your jaws.

 

You're welcome. I believe the emotions took over, but that happens to us all.

We have a slot to perform at ours, at six in the evening, and that's after I attend the U.M. Grizzlies football game, so I'll have a very busy day, as well.

 

Maybe you should have used the same grace that you appreciate here in the title of your last two threads.

 

Maybe you should let Ken and Curtis deal with it.

 

I'm sure you support such misrepresentations of these things but this thread is open to everyone.

 

I might have used "fabricated", but I didn't know how to spell it.

 

If you read the posts, I do not support the premise of this thread. Since you claim your vocation is being a pastor, I hope your theological insights are better than insights into what is best for this nation. What did you say your background in this was?