Travis Dickerson Recording Studio Forum

Political and Social Discussions => Political and Social Discussions => Topic started by: gkg on November 15, 2005, 09:09:56 pm

Title: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: gkg on November 15, 2005, 09:09:56 pm
Please read all the way to the bottom...

Democrats:
* Richard Gephardt: Air  National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force  1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al  Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an  army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt.  j.g. Navy 1966-69; Meda l of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army  1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver  Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff  Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army  1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam. Paraplegic from war  injuries. Served in Congress.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
*  Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed:  Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz  Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven  campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs,  Bronze Stars, and Soldier\'s Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force  Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star  and Legion of Merit.
* Mike  Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride:  Candidate fo r Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam;  Bronze Star with Combat  V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete  Stark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell  Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during  WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments.  Entered draft  but received #311.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the  Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and  Korea; six DFCs and AirMedal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by  Raoul Wallenberg.

======================================================================

Republicans:
*  Dick Cheney: did not serve.  Several deferments, the last  by marriage.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom  Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill  Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick  Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John  Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb  Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby  Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." This is the man who attacked Max Cleland\'s patriotism.
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did  not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith:  did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard  Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon! Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim  Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
*  Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57)  as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year  National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.
* B-1 Bob Dornan:  Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil  Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Vietnam POW, Silver Star, Bronze  Star, Legion of  Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying  Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh:  did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not  serve. "Knee problem, " although he continued in NFL for 8 years as  quarterback.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National  Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did  not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler:  did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
*  Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.

Pundits  & Preachers
* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush  Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a \'pilonidal cyst.\')
* Bill O\'Reilly:  did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will:  did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot:  did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan:  did not serve.
* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol:  did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin  Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
* Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
* Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only  shoots at things that don\'t shoot back.)
Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: phartacus on December 03, 2005, 12:20:09 am
please tell me how this is relevant to ANYTHING?
Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: dirtface on December 03, 2005, 04:26:05 am
Hello phartacus,

I will gladly field this one. Does the name John Locke ring any bells for you?

Cheers.
Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: phartacus on December 03, 2005, 02:38:42 pm
so you dont see its relevance either?
Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: dirtface on December 03, 2005, 04:02:14 pm
Quoteso you dont see its relevance either?

Hello phartucus,

Well, seeing as you were unable to make the connection might I suggest you visit your local public (government funded) library.

Cheers.

p.s.
What do you suppose is the basis of rational decision?

Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: phartacus on December 03, 2005, 04:33:14 pm
Quote

Hello phartucus,

Well, seeing as you were unable to make the connection might I suggest you visit your local public (government funded) library.

Cheers.

the internet has rendered the library useless

its too bad you cant answer the question without going through some little dance about a philosophical ideal.

i am well aware of the intentions behind the original posters reason for posting it.
p.s.
What do you suppose is the basis of rational decision?

Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: phartacus on December 03, 2005, 04:38:00 pm
hmmn my last post got sandwiched between the main body and the post script and since im not a registered user i cannot use the edit feature so here it is in its sterile form....




the internet has rendered the library useless
 
its too bad you cant answer the question without going through some little dance about a philosophical ideal.
 
i am well aware of the intentions behind the original posters reason for posting it.
Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: D.O.D on December 03, 2005, 06:06:58 pm
  I think that GKG \'s scorecard ....  \' who served etc.  has some relevency to it. Anyone  who has never had  their hair parted with machine gun bullets or  never experienced  an artillery  shell screaming in and exploding, nearly jerking their hearts out, should give painstaking  thought  to sending young men into battle. Historically,  our leaders, faced with hard choices in a political, worldly crisis, quickly skipped over  negotiations, deliberation, and bargaining, and chose war as the only solution . The only flaw in GKG \'s  list is that even those who served lacked  the political courage to go against  war.  
Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: phartacus on December 03, 2005, 06:50:38 pm
Quote I think that GKG \'s scorecard ....  \' who served etc.  has some relevency to it. Anyone  who has never had  their hair parted with machine gun bullets or  never experienced  an artillery  shell screaming in and exploding, nearly jerking their hearts out, should give painstaking  thought  to sending young men into battle. Historically,  our leaders, faced with hard choices in a political, worldly crisis, quickly skipped over  negotiations, deliberation, and bargaining, and chose war as the only solution . The only flaw in GKG \'s  list is that even those who served lacked  the political courage to go against  war.  

    Ok sure it MIGHT be relevant if it were an accurate portrayal of who (congress) has sent our young men and women into battle. But if you really look at the the list with an open mind you will notice that the only republican who served that is listed is John McCain while the democrat side is chocked full of those that served their country. Now to the casual observer it would seem like in the history of the grand old party one republican has served. Which brings me to another point... the list is flawed cause it has names of politicians who are no longer in congress and in some cases are deceased.
    Here is how the the 108th congress military service tallies up, the same body that gave the president the authority to remove Saddam with force
  
Senate 18 repubs and 16 dems http://veterans.house.gov/vetlink/seanatestats.htm

House  71 repubs and 49 dems
http://veterans.house.gov/vetlink/memberstats.htm

    Make no mistake the original poster has nothing but disdain for the military.  

            
Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: dirtface on December 04, 2005, 12:56:47 am
Quote
the internet has rendered the library useless.

Nah. Not even close.

Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: dirtface on December 04, 2005, 01:11:48 am
Quoteits too bad you cant answer the question without going through some little dance about a philosophical ideal.

What I was pointing to was not "some little dance about a philosophical ideal". My point was very simple and I guess I am suprised you couldn\'t pick it out without help.

Knowledge comes from experience. Decisions are based on knowledge. Depth of knowledge leads to well informed decisions. Many of the Republicans that GKG points out are key decision makers in the current administration. Their input was pivotal in the drive up to the current war. Their lack of depth of understanding of where they were actually going has lead us up to where we are now.

I suspect you are looking for a fight. If this is the case I am sorry to disappoint you. GKG\'s point is relevant regardless if you hear it or not. There is nothing to argue about.
Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: dirtface on December 04, 2005, 01:20:13 am
Quote Ok sure it MIGHT be relevant if it were an accurate portrayal of who (congress) has sent our young men and women into battle.

First I would like to thank you for the links. One small question or call it a caveat if you are willing to accept it.
Are we currently \'At War\' or are we only in combat?

Article 1, Sec. 8(11) US Constitution
Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: gkg on December 05, 2005, 04:43:38 pm
D.O.D -  
QuoteThe only flaw in GKG \'s  list is that even those who served lacked the political courage to go against  war.

that\'s true, and i do wonder why that is... my suspicion is that it was easier to get swept up in the "moment" when that decision was being made than to stand up and go against the flow.  that bothers me a great deal.
phartacus -  
Quote
Make no mistake the original poster has nothing but disdain for the military.
you know nothing about me or my feelings about the military.  as it happens, oh presumptuous one, i was born into the Army and have a great respect for the people who serve.  i do not have a great respect for people who know nothing of the realities of war sending people out into battle based on half-truths and lies.

what, in your view, makes the list irrelevant?  these people all took part in the national debate and decision making process to send our young men and women into harm\'s way.  how is that no relevant?

in posting the list as i did i was simply to make people aware of the relevant experience of the people who are most insistant on this war and to hear what people might think about it - it took more than 2 weeks to garner a remark at all, and then it appears that all you have done, phartacus, is render a judgement against me as the poster, rather than have anything to share about the information itself.  i deliberately didn\'t comment upon it myself, wanting not to muddy the water with my own opinion in the thread.

dirtface - thank you for your thought provoking question... i know the question wasn\'t directed at me, but i do believe we are at war.
Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: dirtface on December 05, 2005, 07:25:47 pm
dirtface - thank you for your thought provoking question... i know the question wasn\'t directed at me, but i do believe we are at war.[/quote]

Interesting. I am thinking that technically we are not at war. This may be considered splitting hairs but I think it is pertinent as I feel those who make important decisions bear the responsibility of the consequences.

The way I see it is that upon request Congress voted to give the President the latitude to use proper judgment re the potential issues he was espousing at the time. He did not merely fail to do this but had no intention whatsoever having decided well before hand.

I appreciate your post and I apologize if I am overrunning your thread.
Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: Aquabot on December 05, 2005, 07:47:55 pm
Quotethose who make important decisions bear the responsibility of the consequences.  
but are never judged.
Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: gkg on December 05, 2005, 07:59:30 pm
hey, i don\'t have a sense of "ownership" on this thing - it\'s a thread meant to provoke thought and discussion...

i am afraid that while i can appreciate your splitting of that hair, i don\'t really agree with your resulting conclusion.  in my view, regardless of whether or not the man and his administration followed protocol or acted in good faith, we are at war.  the fact is, we have attacked and continue to attack; we have provoked armed resistance; we are killing by the droves and being killed.  i feel the same way about Viet Nam - you can call it a police action, but we took on an armed offensive against another people, and that is an act of war.

his declaration of war based knowingly on false information is treasonous in my view, and qualifies him for immediate removal and impeachment.  yes, i do believe that he knew he was lying at the time; i think it is just barely possible that he\'s repeated the lie so often that he now thinks he thought it was true... but even that would be a stretch.
Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: dirtface on December 06, 2005, 05:19:00 am
Quotein my view, regardless of whether or not the man and his administration followed protocol or acted in good faith, we are at war.

First off I would like to say that I really doubt that it means squat to a grape what the legal status behind the bullet is when its popped, so don\'t think that I was in any way attempting to minimize the extent of what we have done and continue to do. I do not. Armed combat is armed combat regardless what suit it wears.

Now from the point of view of who is responsible for decisions and actions don\'t you think it is very important that the distinction be made?
 
Quote
the fact is, we have attacked and continue to attack; we have provoked armed resistance; we are killing by the droves and being killed.  i feel the same way about Viet Nam - you can call it a police action, but we took on an armed offensive against another people, and that is an act of war.

I agree completely with this. It is an act of war. I still believe the rules regarding this are clear and correct and IMPORTANT.

Quotehis declaration of war based knowingly on false information is treasonous in my view, and qualifies him for immediate removal and impeachment.  yes, i do believe that he knew he was lying at the time; i think it is just barely possible that he\'s repeated the lie so often that he now thinks he thought it was true... but even that would be a stretch.

And there you have it all summed up for me. The president cannot declare war for the Nation. It is not in his power. Congress did not declare therefore the President owns this action and rightly so as he personally drove so hard to get there. This does not in anyway change the fact that violence is happening. And as I mentioned before, if youo want the ownership you have to take all the responsibility that goes with it. This is just one more place the current administration has failed us. From this administration how many times have you heard items like 'History will determine how right I was'? Ok? Now how many times have you heard things like 'your right, that was a mistake and we will work to do better'? Ok? Do you understand where I am going with his? They own it but have completely failed to own up to it. "treasonous" behavior is a very good choice of words.

How is this one for the books; "the domino effect" was correct but is actually based on the following items

Stagnant Economy
Flight of Real Wage Jobs
Collapsing Businesses
Rampant Corporate Corruption
Huge Tax Cuts
Spiraling Expenditures
Ballooning Debt

So what is toppling? Heed Greenspans latest warnings? Nah, replace him with yet one more Crony, but that is a topic for another thread.
Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: gkg on December 06, 2005, 09:58:17 am
i agree with your perception of the illegality of the matter, and it is indeed something that i wish more people DID take seriously - unfortunately Bush\'s carrying us into war, while illegal, doesn\'t change the fact that we are at war.  i have a t-shirt that says it all:

[glb]IMPEACH
REMOVE
JAIL[/glb]

Perceval is selling nearly all their merchanise at a discount for the holidays - we\'ve bought several of these t-shirts to give this year.

here\'s a good quote that sums up my thoughts on how we got where we are today...

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people\'s minds."  Samuel Adams
Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: MoonMaster on December 09, 2005, 03:37:30 am
Its not about disdain for the military.  Its about accountability.  I would have a lot more respect for the Bush administration if they would admit they were wrong, and make a serious effort to fix their mistakes.  This will never happen though because they have selfish motives that go beyond what\'s right and wrong for all the people, American or Iraqi.  

In response to Bush\'s dwindling popularity republicans are looking to Democrats and saying, "Ok, well what do you suggest?"  Someone in the party really needs to step up with a firm answer to that or we\'ll have another John Kerry on our hands in \'08.  
Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: gkg on December 09, 2005, 06:50:26 pm
nearly a year ago i told my son i thought the GOP would consider putting Condi Rice up in 2008 - lo and behold, NewsMax.com - a right wing hawk "news agency cum polling group" - is floating that very idea right now and reporting their findings to any TV/Radio station that will accept their statistics.  i checked into that poll.  in order to respond you are required to give them your email info etc., and oh boy, you get a discount for a GOP shill\'s book.  naturally, the questions are geared toward a positive GOP image, and most people are disinclined to be  put on a GOP e-mailing list just to respond in a poll.

i agree, we need a really strong candidate, and much as i would prefer there to be a broader field of candidates and parties, now is not the time - that cost us a lot in the last two elections and unfortunately until we break the GOP strangle hold on the House & Senate, we\'re not going to get ANYTHING accomplished to stop the corporatization of America, and certainly nothing to get us out of the WAR business.
Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: dirtface on December 10, 2005, 04:32:04 pm
Quote Someone in the party really needs to step up with a firm answer to that or we\'ll have another John Kerry on our hands in \'08.  

So what do you think? Lieberman? ::)
Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: MoonMaster on December 11, 2005, 10:41:41 am
Lieberman has good ideas and stronger convictions than Kerry.  I can\'t think of any "perfect" candidates though.  I\'m really expecting the democrats to go with Hillary in \'08.
Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: dirtface on December 11, 2005, 01:55:25 pm
QuoteLieberman has good ideas and stronger convictions than Kerry.

O
M
G
N
o

Think Feingold and we may be talking about something of interest.  
Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: gkg on December 12, 2005, 05:34:41 pm
some are saying Barack Obama, and i think Pelosi has some thoughts in that direction.
Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: D.O.D on December 29, 2005, 08:26:02 pm
  GKG ,S thread on "served  triggered many new thoughts  and here she succeeded admirably in her purpose.  The confusion about are we at war or are\'nt we ? is small wonder. The last official  \'declaration of war " was World War 2. Roosevelt asked Congress  for the declaration  and got it unanimously. The entire population was brought into the conflict... total mobilization !... draft, rationing, etc. With it came powerful central authority and partial, but very serious surrender of our bill of rights. Men and women went into service and swore allegiance to " The articles of War ". Since that time our political leaders have avoided  a declaration of war but not war itself. They deviously committed this country  to war and bloodshed while stating that we are not at war- Korea, Veitnam. Iraq, and on and on ! Thousands died without unanimous consent. World War 2 took away some of our freedom that we may never regain.
Title: Re: who served / who didn\'t
Post by: gkg on December 29, 2005, 10:08:58 pm
thank you, D.O.D - for bringing the purpose back to focus.

i am seen by some as alarmist, and yet i go on.  why?  i follow the simple premise in life = if not me, who?  if not now, when?  if not here, where?

it\'s not about my life - that\'s half spent and i\'ve loved well and hard, but i have sons i fear would have their lives cut far too short if the draft comes back, i have a grandson i fear may grow up to see the world spiraling out of control.

i broke bread as a child with people how had been tortured and yet went about quietly struggling for their freedom.  i admired my parents for being examples of the American ideal, and loved my country even before i knew what it was to live on her soil.  i still love my country, as one loves a mother who has fallen on hard times drawn by the sway of an abusive powerdrunk lout.  i see her need to be made safe from the madman and cleansed of the horrible paranoia and fearful hate that grips her every move.