[GCFL-discuss] Siarlys

[gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net]

         As if I havn't stood up to him  before ?LOL. Although I  never
went overboard because even though it is through an e-mail regardless
there is another  person that is writing ( even though its easy to forget
when you are online) & I do not try to offend anyone. I speak my mind &
unless it is against my religion usually let it at that. OF COURSE YOU
ALL KNOW THAT BY NOW .....
 Jeff

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 17:09:35 GMT gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net writes:
> 
> Praise God! Finally someone able to finally stand up to Siarlys! 
> We've soooo been in need of someone.
> 
> Ben
> 
> -- gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net wrote:
> > 
> > I suppose we are all jerks now and then, but politicians are all 
> jerks
> > now and then in public. I don't think jerk sums up John Kerry's 
> strengths
> > and weaknesses very well. I do think we would be better off with 
> a
> > commander in chief who has been in combat, who knows what troops 
> face in
> > combat, whose leadership under fire was respected by those who 
> served
> > under him, and who had the courage to come home, after serving 
> honorably
> > in the military, to join other veterans in saying, this war did 
> not merit
> > the sacrifices our fallen comrades were called upon to make. That 
> would
> > make me feel a lot safer.
> > 
> > Siarlys
> 
> So I suppose serving only 4 months out of a normal 12 month period 
> in
> vietnam is better than nothing.  I guess it wouldn't matter that it
> was only 4 months because of some wound so minor that Kerry had to
> appeal to even get the purple heart, when so many would simply put 
> a
> band-aid on a wound that small and call it a good day and get on 
> with
> things.
> 
> Bush is certainly not ignorant to the needs of the military. 
> Throughout, there have been clearly defined objectives and fairly
> minimal rules of engagement.    It seems to me that if there had 
> not
> been a well defined plan throughout, the casualty count might have
> actually been considerably worse than that predicted by all the
> liberal media and naysayers, rather than *considerably* lower
> (somewhere right around 1000 since we have been over there rather 
> than
> the liberal media's claims that there would be over 5000 dead
> coalition forces within 24 hours of entering).  It seems to me that
> there are an aweful lot of people choosing to look at two wars 
> started
> and handled well by Bush and completely ignoring the 40+ times the
> military was employed by Clinton, including some of the worst run
> operations ever - Somalia, Mogadishu, and numerous others.
> 
> The reality, however, is that a military record is only a minor 
> piece
> of the list of things to consider.  A much larger issue is stance 
> on
> the issues - something which Kerry seems to be rather inconsistant 
> on.
>  After all, Kerry voted *for* the war in Iraq.  But then, shortly 
> into
> the war, switches sides with a bunch of his liberal friends and 
> claims
> he never supported such a horrible thing.  Kerry tries to be all
> things to everybody and, IMHO, that kind of person cannot be 
> trusted
> with anything.
> 
> Anyway, enough politics for me for tonight.
> Matthew
> _______________________________________________
> GCFL-discuss mailing list
> GCFL-discuss at gcfl.net
> http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://gcfl.net/pipermail/gcfl-discuss/attachments/20040803/aa609df5/attachment.htm