BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:
But would you ever vote for anything else? I mean, you ARE the most partisan person in FYM.
Why would you leave?
Rush Limbaugh Defines A Real Vs A "Phony" Soldier
- Thread starter MrsSpringsteen
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
But would you ever vote for anything else? I mean, you ARE the most partisan person in FYM.
Why would you leave?
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Contrary to what many may think, I do think outside of the box.
dbs
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:
I'm sure that happens. We just never see that side of you in FYM.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
I am and always have been a registered Republican. 
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
deep said:I am and always have been a registered Republican.
Why is that?
deep
Blue Crack Addict
I suppose at first because I was raised in a conservative family and church environment.
And I don't see any advantages changing.
I lived in Orange County, CA. It is overwhelmingly GOP.
All of my political representatives, are GOP. Except U S Senators.
Whoever wins the GOP primary - will win in general election. I have never had a Dem local representative.
CA is a closed primary state.
One can only vote for the party candidate of the party they are registered.
In open seat primaries there are several GOP candidates. Sometimes we can get the social moderate elected.
If I were to register Dem I would be voting in primaries for the sure general election loser.
In general elections I tend to often vote for the Democratic candidate these days. I do not expect to vote for the GOP Pres candidate in Nov 08.
And I don't see any advantages changing.
I lived in Orange County, CA. It is overwhelmingly GOP.
All of my political representatives, are GOP. Except U S Senators.
Whoever wins the GOP primary - will win in general election. I have never had a Dem local representative.
CA is a closed primary state.
One can only vote for the party candidate of the party they are registered.
In open seat primaries there are several GOP candidates. Sometimes we can get the social moderate elected.
If I were to register Dem I would be voting in primaries for the sure general election loser.
In general elections I tend to often vote for the Democratic candidate these days. I do not expect to vote for the GOP Pres candidate in Nov 08.
Last edited:
BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
AEON said:
I left the Democratic party. Assume you will still mostly be voting for Republicans and I'll still mostly be voting for Democrats. I would guess we left our respective parties for similar reasons but vastly different particulars.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
AEON said:
I think you live in a part of CA that most of your elected officials would be Democrats.
Am I correct?
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
BonosSaint said:
I think that is fair to say.
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
deep said:
Yes.
CTU2fan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- May 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,366
AEON said:
AEON I know this has been addressed by others, but I have to ask anyway...do you honestly think that The Left (whoever that is is debatable I suppose - I'm pretty certain there are folks you'd label left that I'd call moderate/centrist, or even conservative) doesn't care about soldiers? That's what the left does, we care about people. That's why we support things like free health care and education etc. We care, and we don't want to see the little guy screwed. So of course we care about soldiers. We DON'T WANT to see you guys killed, especially in a war we think isn't necessary. And we cared about soldiers who got killed in Clinton's various ventures during his time in office (Somalia, Bosnia, etc). Certainly the spin doctors for the Dems wouldn't bring attention to things that went on, just as Bush's minions aren't telling us the whole story now. But they're not the left or right, they're just party PR guys.
But trust me, we care. When you see some bozo with a "Fuck the Troops" sign consider that they're likely just waving it to get attention - and it works. And yes they make the anti-war crowd look dirty, but view them for the fringe nuts that they are. People really can be anti-war without being anti-soldier.
I bought a round for a group of soldiers last night before the game.
I wish I could remember feeling that young again when I put on the uniform. They are such kids, it kills me inside thinking that they could be gone.
They attended a good game for the sox.
I wish I could remember feeling that young again when I put on the uniform. They are such kids, it kills me inside thinking that they could be gone.
They attended a good game for the sox.
jay canseco
War Child
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2004
- Messages
- 810
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Dreadsox said:
It was a good game. Manny is clutch.
I think that's awesome you bought the drinks.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
The fourth estate in action
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1460969.html
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
AEON said:
this is a rarity in and of itself..
dbs
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
LOOK! MORE PHONY SOLDIERS!!!
[q]Marines Press to Remove Their Forces From Iraq
By THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 — The Marine Corps is pressing to remove its forces from Iraq and to send marines instead to Afghanistan, to take over the leading role in combat there, according to senior military and Pentagon officials.
The idea by the Marine Corps commandant would effectively leave the Iraq war in the hands of the Army while giving the Marines a prominent new role in Afghanistan, under overall NATO command.
The suggestion was raised in a session last week convened by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders. While still under review, its supporters, including some in the Army, argue that a realignment could allow the Army and Marines each to operate more efficiently in sustaining troop levels for two wars that have put a strain on their forces.
As described by officials who had been briefed on the closed-door discussion, the idea represents the first tangible new thinking to emerge since the White House last month endorsed a plan to begin gradual troop withdrawals from Iraq, but also signals that American forces likely will be in Iraq for years to come.
At the moment, there are no major Marine units among the 26,000 or so American forces in Afghanistan. In Iraq there are about 25,000 marines among the 160,000 American troops there.
It is not clear exactly how many of the marines in Iraq would be moved over. But the plan would require a major reshuffling, and it would make marines the dominant American force in Afghanistan, in a war that has broader public support than the one in Iraq.
Mr. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have not spoken publicly about the Marine concept, and aides to both officials said no formal proposal had been presented by the Marines. But the idea has been the focus of intense discussions between senior Marine Corps officers and other officials within the Defense Department.
It is not clear whether the Army would support the idea. But some officials sympathetic to the Army said that such a realignment would help ease some pressure on the Army, by allowing it to shift forces from Afghanistan into Iraq, and by simplifying planning for future troop rotations.
The Marine proposal could also face resistance from the Air Force, whose current role in providing combat aircraft for Afghanistan could be squeezed if the overall mission was handed to the Marines. Unlike the Army, the Marines would bring a significant force of combat aircraft to that conflict.
Whether the Marine proposal takes hold, the most delicate counterterrorism missions in Afghanistan, including the hunt for forces of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, would remain the job of a military task force that draws on Army, Navy and Air Force Special Operations units.
Military officials say the Marine proposal is also an early indication of jockeying among the four armed services for a place in combat missions in years to come. “At the end of the day, this could be decided by parochialism, and making sure each service does not lose equity, as much as on how best to manage the risk of force levels for Iraq and Afghanistan,” said one Pentagon planner.
Tensions over how to divide future budgets have begun to resurface across the military because of apprehension that Congressional support for large increases in defense spending seen since the Sept. 11 attacks will diminish, leaving the services to compete for money.
Those traditional turf battles have subsided somewhat given the overwhelming demands of waging two simultaneous wars — and because Pentagon budgets reached new heights.
Last week, the Senate approved a $459 billion Pentagon spending bill, an increase of $43 billion, or more than 10 percent over the last budget. That bill did not include, as part of a separate bill, President Bush’s request for almost $190 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Senior officials briefed on the Marine Corps concept said the new idea went beyond simply drawing clearer lines about who was in charge of providing combat personnel, war-fighting equipment and supplies to the two war zones.
They said it would allow the Marines to carry out the Afghan mission in a way the Army cannot, by deploying as an integrated Marine Corps task force that included combat aircraft as well as infantry and armored vehicles, while the Army must rely on the Air Force.
The Marine Corps concept was raised last week during a Defense Senior Leadership Conference convened by Mr. Gates just hours after Admiral Mullen was sworn in as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
During that session, the idea of assigning the Afghan mission to the Marines was described by Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant. Details of the discussion were provided by military officers and Pentagon civilian officials briefed on the session and who requested anonymity to summarize portions of the private talks.
[/q]
[q]Marines Press to Remove Their Forces From Iraq
By THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 — The Marine Corps is pressing to remove its forces from Iraq and to send marines instead to Afghanistan, to take over the leading role in combat there, according to senior military and Pentagon officials.
The idea by the Marine Corps commandant would effectively leave the Iraq war in the hands of the Army while giving the Marines a prominent new role in Afghanistan, under overall NATO command.
The suggestion was raised in a session last week convened by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders. While still under review, its supporters, including some in the Army, argue that a realignment could allow the Army and Marines each to operate more efficiently in sustaining troop levels for two wars that have put a strain on their forces.
As described by officials who had been briefed on the closed-door discussion, the idea represents the first tangible new thinking to emerge since the White House last month endorsed a plan to begin gradual troop withdrawals from Iraq, but also signals that American forces likely will be in Iraq for years to come.
At the moment, there are no major Marine units among the 26,000 or so American forces in Afghanistan. In Iraq there are about 25,000 marines among the 160,000 American troops there.
It is not clear exactly how many of the marines in Iraq would be moved over. But the plan would require a major reshuffling, and it would make marines the dominant American force in Afghanistan, in a war that has broader public support than the one in Iraq.
Mr. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have not spoken publicly about the Marine concept, and aides to both officials said no formal proposal had been presented by the Marines. But the idea has been the focus of intense discussions between senior Marine Corps officers and other officials within the Defense Department.
It is not clear whether the Army would support the idea. But some officials sympathetic to the Army said that such a realignment would help ease some pressure on the Army, by allowing it to shift forces from Afghanistan into Iraq, and by simplifying planning for future troop rotations.
The Marine proposal could also face resistance from the Air Force, whose current role in providing combat aircraft for Afghanistan could be squeezed if the overall mission was handed to the Marines. Unlike the Army, the Marines would bring a significant force of combat aircraft to that conflict.
Whether the Marine proposal takes hold, the most delicate counterterrorism missions in Afghanistan, including the hunt for forces of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, would remain the job of a military task force that draws on Army, Navy and Air Force Special Operations units.
Military officials say the Marine proposal is also an early indication of jockeying among the four armed services for a place in combat missions in years to come. “At the end of the day, this could be decided by parochialism, and making sure each service does not lose equity, as much as on how best to manage the risk of force levels for Iraq and Afghanistan,” said one Pentagon planner.
Tensions over how to divide future budgets have begun to resurface across the military because of apprehension that Congressional support for large increases in defense spending seen since the Sept. 11 attacks will diminish, leaving the services to compete for money.
Those traditional turf battles have subsided somewhat given the overwhelming demands of waging two simultaneous wars — and because Pentagon budgets reached new heights.
Last week, the Senate approved a $459 billion Pentagon spending bill, an increase of $43 billion, or more than 10 percent over the last budget. That bill did not include, as part of a separate bill, President Bush’s request for almost $190 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Senior officials briefed on the Marine Corps concept said the new idea went beyond simply drawing clearer lines about who was in charge of providing combat personnel, war-fighting equipment and supplies to the two war zones.
They said it would allow the Marines to carry out the Afghan mission in a way the Army cannot, by deploying as an integrated Marine Corps task force that included combat aircraft as well as infantry and armored vehicles, while the Army must rely on the Air Force.
The Marine Corps concept was raised last week during a Defense Senior Leadership Conference convened by Mr. Gates just hours after Admiral Mullen was sworn in as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
During that session, the idea of assigning the Afghan mission to the Marines was described by Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant. Details of the discussion were provided by military officers and Pentagon civilian officials briefed on the session and who requested anonymity to summarize portions of the private talks.
[/q]
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
U2 Live From Sphere - Final Show SiriusXM stream
- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
-
-
