WHO WOULD YOU BET YOUR LIFE ON IF YOU HAD TO GO INTO BATTLE?
 

Americans are being given a choice between a photo-op stay-at-home jet
jockey or a bona fide Vietnam combat hero (Silver Star, Bronze Star, 3
Purple Hearts) to be commander-in-chief of our armed forces and to
protect our nation from terrorism...
If you had to go into battle in earnest yourself, which of the two
would you bet your life on?

KERRY: BUSH SHORTCHANGES TROOPS ON GEAR

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

WASHINGTON - John Kerry, the Democratic presidential
nominee-in-waiting, challenged the Bush administration Saturday to
reimburse the families of U.S. troops "who had to buy the body armor"
needed for protection in Iraq.

"If I am president, I will be prepared to use military force to
protect our security, our people and our vital interests," the
Massachusetts senator said in the Democrats' weekly radio address.

"But I will never send our troops into harm's way without enough
firepower and support."

The five-minute speech gave Kerry an opportunity to speak to a
nationwide audience five days after wrapping up his party's nomination
with a string of primary and caucus victories.

The choice of topics underscored his intention to challenge President
Bush's conduct of the war on terror, and he accused the president of
shortchanging the troops on items needed for their own protection.

Kerry said tens of thousands of troops arrived in Iraq "to find that —
with danger around every corner — there wasn't enough body armor to
protect them." Many families purchased the equipment and had it sent
overseas, he added.

"Families should be sending pictures and care packages to Iraq — and
the Department of Defense (news - web sites) should be sending the
body armor," Kerry said.

He called on the president to support a bill he has introduced in the
Senate to reimburse families for their purchase of body armor. Similar
legislation is pending in the House.

Kerry said acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee had testified before
Congress that U.S. forces were "not prepared" for the present conflict
in Iraq and they didn't have the preparation and hardware they needed
to fight as effectively as they could.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday,
Brownlee was asked why the Army took so long to produce adequate
numbers of upgraded body armor and Humvees with extra armor plating.

"I also regret that we were not more farsighted here. We simply were
not prepared for that kind of a counterinsurgency that attacked our
convoys and our soldiers in the rear, as it has proven to be," he
said.

In addition, Kerry said, "We hear reports that — in dangerous parts of
Iraq — our helicopters are flying missions without the best available
anti-missile system."

"At the same time, unarmored Humvees are falling victim to roadside
bombs and small-arms fire. The Bush administration waited through
month after month of ambushes and only acted to start manufacturing
armored kits three months ago," he added.

Scott Stanzel, press secretary for the Bush-Cheney re-election
campaign, responded Saturday, "If John Kerry's policies had been
adopted, our troops would not have the support and protection they
need to win the war on terror."

Re: WHO WOULD YOU BET YOUR LIFE ON IF YOU HAD TO GO INTO BATTLE?
 

I would never vote for a Jane Fonda or an any other anti-war protester.


73
--
Lifetime member MOPH http://www.purpleheart.org/
Remove the "A" to reply.

Re: WHO WOULD YOU BET YOUR LIFE ON IF YOU HAD TO GO INTO BATTLE?
 

RocketMan wrote:

> Would you rather have Kerry or Bush covering your ass?


I wouldn't trust Kerry to cover your ass, let alone mone.

73,
--
Lifetime member MOPH http://www.purpleheart.org/
Remove the "A" to reply.

Re: WHO WOULD YOU BET YOUR LIFE ON IF YOU HAD TO GO INTO BATTLE?
 

A17744 <A17744@velocall.com> wrote in news:a929037adc829691c5f48ad3a26ef732
@news.teranews.com:

> I would never vote for a Jane Fonda or an any other anti-war protester.
>
>
> 73

Vietnam was not an honorable war for this country. Those who protested
against it were exercising their constitutional right to do so. You didnt
answer the question. Would you rather have Kerry or Bush covering your ass?

Re: WHO WOULD YOU BET YOUR LIFE ON IF YOU HAD TO GO INTO BATTLE?
 

>Subject: WHO WOULD YOU BET YOUR LIFE ON IF YOU HAD TO GO INTO BATTLE?
>From: FIREBASE@PARAMETER.C0N

>stay-at-home jet
>jockey or a bona fide Vietnam combat hero (Silver Star, Bronze Star, 3
>Purple Hearts) to be

Lets go with full disclosure here Firebase.
Are we talking "Elmo Star"?

If Mr. Firebase had followed John Kerry's military philosophy for more than the
last 2 months, he wouldn't ask this ridiculous question.
Mr. Firebase was probably just making a joke here but since some folks
aren't familiar with Firebase's humor let me explain.

John Kerry gave an interview ( and I'll paraphrase) All American military
actions held overseas would be delegated to the United Nations.. Yes The UN,
not the Pentagon would be in charge of our soldiers over seas. Our military
men and women could wait while daily UN debates and re-votes played out before
they would be allowed to protect themselves.
As a prime example of how successful this type of operation functions has
been demonstrated may I suggest researching Somalia aka Mogadishu aka
Black hawk Down.

Simply put: Follow John Kerry into battle? Hell NO unless we're talking
Capture the Flag . Now that I think of it.... not even with paint balls.

Re: WHO WOULD YOU BET YOUR LIFE ON IF YOU HAD TO GO INTO BATTLE?
 

Freedom Warrior, let's see:

1. JFK only stayed in Vietnam less than 4 months.
2. JFK got out of the military early.

Didn't stay the course, did he.

If JFK was not going to stay the course, when it counted
in Vietnam.

Why should I believe that JFK would stay the course of
anything? (I think he will ask the UN do this, UN do that,
but who is the backbone of the UN? The United States is.)

Charles Penley


"Freedom Warrior " <FIREBASE@PARAMETER.C0N> wrote in message news:404a0a37.24545352@news.cox-internet.com...
> Americans are being given a choice between a photo-op stay-at-home jet
> jockey or a bona fide Vietnam combat hero (Silver Star, Bronze Star, 3
> Purple Hearts) to be commander-in-chief of our armed forces and to
> protect our nation from terrorism...
> If you had to go into battle in earnest yourself, which of the two
> would you bet your life on?
>
> KERRY: BUSH SHORTCHANGES TROOPS ON GEAR
>
> By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
>
> WASHINGTON - John Kerry, the Democratic presidential
> nominee-in-waiting, challenged the Bush administration Saturday to
> reimburse the families of U.S. troops "who had to buy the body armor"
> needed for protection in Iraq.
>
> "If I am president, I will be prepared to use military force to
> protect our security, our people and our vital interests," the
> Massachusetts senator said in the Democrats' weekly radio address.
>
> "But I will never send our troops into harm's way without enough
> firepower and support."
>
> The five-minute speech gave Kerry an opportunity to speak to a
> nationwide audience five days after wrapping up his party's nomination
> with a string of primary and caucus victories.
>
> The choice of topics underscored his intention to challenge President
> Bush's conduct of the war on terror, and he accused the president of
> shortchanging the troops on items needed for their own protection.
>
> Kerry said tens of thousands of troops arrived in Iraq "to find that -
> with danger around every corner - there wasn't enough body armor to
> protect them." Many families purchased the equipment and had it sent
> overseas, he added.
>
> "Families should be sending pictures and care packages to Iraq - and
> the Department of Defense (news - web sites) should be sending the
> body armor," Kerry said.
>
> He called on the president to support a bill he has introduced in the
> Senate to reimburse families for their purchase of body armor. Similar
> legislation is pending in the House.
>
> Kerry said acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee had testified before
> Congress that U.S. forces were "not prepared" for the present conflict
> in Iraq and they didn't have the preparation and hardware they needed
> to fight as effectively as they could.
>
> In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday,
> Brownlee was asked why the Army took so long to produce adequate
> numbers of upgraded body armor and Humvees with extra armor plating.
>
> "I also regret that we were not more farsighted here. We simply were
> not prepared for that kind of a counterinsurgency that attacked our
> convoys and our soldiers in the rear, as it has proven to be," he
> said.
>
> In addition, Kerry said, "We hear reports that - in dangerous parts of
> Iraq - our helicopters are flying missions without the best available
> anti-missile system."
>
> "At the same time, unarmored Humvees are falling victim to roadside
> bombs and small-arms fire. The Bush administration waited through
> month after month of ambushes and only acted to start manufacturing
> armored kits three months ago," he added.
>
> Scott Stanzel, press secretary for the Bush-Cheney re-election
> campaign, responded Saturday, "If John Kerry's policies had been
> adopted, our troops would not have the support and protection they
> need to win the war on terror."
>

Re: WHO WOULD YOU BET YOUR LIFE ON IF YOU HAD TO GO INTO BATTLE?
 

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 21:14:36 GMT, RocketMan <Rocketman@hotmail.com>
wrote this crap:

>A17744 <A17744@velocall.com> wrote in news:a929037adc829691c5f48ad3a26ef732
>@news.teranews.com:
>
>> I would never vote for a Jane Fonda or an any other anti-war protester.
>>
>Vietnam was not an honorable war for this country.

Which one was?

>Those who protested
>against it were exercising their constitutional right to do so.

So were those who burn flags.

>You didnt
>answer the question. Would you rather have Kerry or Bush covering your ass?

President George W. Bush, of course. He is the Commander-in-Chief.



Horvath@Horvath.net

This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

Re: WHO WOULD YOU BET YOUR LIFE ON IF YOU HAD TO GO INTO BATTLE?
 

"Charles Penley" <cepenley@chartertn.net> wrote in message
news:104kjadklgvn117@corp.supernews.com...
> Freedom Warrior, let's see:
>
> 1. JFK only stayed in Vietnam less than 4 months.
> 2. JFK got out of the military early.
>
> Didn't stay the course, did he.
>
> If JFK was not going to stay the course, when it counted
> in Vietnam.
>
> Why should I believe that JFK would stay the course of
> anything? (I think he will ask the UN do this, UN do that,
> but who is the backbone of the UN? The United States is.)
>
> Charles Penley

As flawed as it is, the UN is better than international anarchy. Before it
existed, the only order in international relations consisted of alliances
and treaties between temporary allies. One of the reasons the UN was
created was to remedy the failure of its predecessor, the League of Nations.
Very many people thought that if the League had functioned properly, and if
it had been given some teeth to work its will, we might have avoided WWII.

ted
who hates two things: A: Racial discrimination, and B: The French.


>
>
> "Freedom Warrior " <FIREBASE@PARAMETER.C0N> wrote in message
news:404a0a37.24545352@news.cox-internet.com...
> > Americans are being given a choice between a photo-op stay-at-home jet
> > jockey or a bona fide Vietnam combat hero (Silver Star, Bronze Star, 3
> > Purple Hearts) to be commander-in-chief of our armed forces and to
> > protect our nation from terrorism...
> > If you had to go into battle in earnest yourself, which of the two
> > would you bet your life on?
> >
> > KERRY: BUSH SHORTCHANGES TROOPS ON GEAR
> >
> > By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
> >
> > WASHINGTON - John Kerry, the Democratic presidential
> > nominee-in-waiting, challenged the Bush administration Saturday to
> > reimburse the families of U.S. troops "who had to buy the body armor"
> > needed for protection in Iraq.
> >
> > "If I am president, I will be prepared to use military force to
> > protect our security, our people and our vital interests," the
> > Massachusetts senator said in the Democrats' weekly radio address.
> >
> > "But I will never send our troops into harm's way without enough
> > firepower and support."
> >
> > The five-minute speech gave Kerry an opportunity to speak to a
> > nationwide audience five days after wrapping up his party's nomination
> > with a string of primary and caucus victories.
> >
> > The choice of topics underscored his intention to challenge President
> > Bush's conduct of the war on terror, and he accused the president of
> > shortchanging the troops on items needed for their own protection.
> >
> > Kerry said tens of thousands of troops arrived in Iraq "to find that -
> > with danger around every corner - there wasn't enough body armor to
> > protect them." Many families purchased the equipment and had it sent
> > overseas, he added.
> >
> > "Families should be sending pictures and care packages to Iraq - and
> > the Department of Defense (news - web sites) should be sending the
> > body armor," Kerry said.
> >
> > He called on the president to support a bill he has introduced in the
> > Senate to reimburse families for their purchase of body armor. Similar
> > legislation is pending in the House.
> >
> > Kerry said acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee had testified before
> > Congress that U.S. forces were "not prepared" for the present conflict
> > in Iraq and they didn't have the preparation and hardware they needed
> > to fight as effectively as they could.
> >
> > In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday,
> > Brownlee was asked why the Army took so long to produce adequate
> > numbers of upgraded body armor and Humvees with extra armor plating.
> >
> > "I also regret that we were not more farsighted here. We simply were
> > not prepared for that kind of a counterinsurgency that attacked our
> > convoys and our soldiers in the rear, as it has proven to be," he
> > said.
> >
> > In addition, Kerry said, "We hear reports that - in dangerous parts of
> > Iraq - our helicopters are flying missions without the best available
> > anti-missile system."
> >
> > "At the same time, unarmored Humvees are falling victim to roadside
> > bombs and small-arms fire. The Bush administration waited through
> > month after month of ambushes and only acted to start manufacturing
> > armored kits three months ago," he added.
> >
> > Scott Stanzel, press secretary for the Bush-Cheney re-election
> > campaign, responded Saturday, "If John Kerry's policies had been
> > adopted, our troops would not have the support and protection they
> > need to win the war on terror."
> >
>
>

Re: WHO WOULD YOU BET YOUR LIFE ON IF YOU HAD TO GO INTO BATTLE?
 

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 21:14:36 GMT, RocketMan <Rocketman@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>A17744 <A17744@velocall.com> wrote in news:a929037adc829691c5f48ad3a26ef732
>@news.teranews.com:
>
>> I would never vote for a Jane Fonda or an any other anti-war protester.
>>
>>
>> 73
>
>Vietnam was not an honorable war for this country. Those who protested
>against it were exercising their constitutional right to do so. You didnt
>answer the question. Would you rather have Kerry or Bush covering your ass?

Who the hell are you to decide what is honorable? Did you serve in
Viet Nam?

Re: WHO WOULD YOU BET YOUR LIFE ON IF YOU HAD TO GO INTO BATTLE?
 

Ted Gittinger wrote:
>
> "Charles Penley" <cepenley@chartertn.net> wrote in message
> news:104kjadklgvn117@corp.supernews.com...
> > Freedom Warrior, let's see:
> >
> > 1. JFK only stayed in Vietnam less than 4 months.
> > 2. JFK got out of the military early.
> >
> > Didn't stay the course, did he.
> >
> > If JFK was not going to stay the course, when it counted
> > in Vietnam.
> >
> > Why should I believe that JFK would stay the course of
> > anything? (I think he will ask the UN do this, UN do that,
> > but who is the backbone of the UN? The United States is.)
> >
> > Charles Penley
>
> As flawed as it is, the UN is better than international anarchy.

As flawed as it is, the UN is international anarchy with an
international headquarters, in New York City. The UN is
managed anarchy, which I concede is an improvement.

> Before it
> existed, the only order in international relations consisted of alliances
> and treaties between temporary allies. One of the reasons the UN was
> created was to remedy the failure of its predecessor, the League of Nations.
> Very many people thought that if the League had functioned properly, and if
> it had been given some teeth to work its will, we might have avoided WWII.
>
> ted
> who hates two things: A: Racial discrimination, and B: The French.

Rongstad
who hates some things: A: Speed bumps, and B: Uhh, cain't remember.