PDA

View Full Version : Combat Veterans with PTSD Support Romney....



Libhater
10-30-2012, 09:19 PM
I'm just speaking for myself here with the majority of our servicemen both active and retired being Conservatives, that they would undoubtedly support Romney. I remember back in the early 90s a bunch of us PTSD combat veterans on a trip to Washington, D.C. were listening to algore give a speech down at the Vietnam Veterans WALL and almost all of us turned their backs to him, and pulled their pants down to moon him. :grin:

Carygrant
10-31-2012, 02:57 AM
Seems to tell us all we need to know about those Veteran Vietnam losers .
They must have scared the enemy rigid .
" Bunch of fat arses " is too predictable , but probably true .

oceanloverOH
10-31-2012, 05:46 AM
Seems to tell us all we need to know about those Veteran Vietnam losers .
They must have scared the enemy rigid .
" Bunch of fat arses " is too predictable , but probably true .

Gee, welcome back, Cary. We really missed you.

Carygrant
10-31-2012, 08:11 AM
The only good I can find for you during my trip to Ukraine to cover the national elections is that they made America look reasonable in comparison .

Libhater
10-31-2012, 08:50 AM
Seems to tell us all we need to know about those Veteran Vietnam losers .
They must have scared the enemy rigid .
" Bunch of fat arses " is too predictable , but probably true .

Vietnam Veteran losers? No, the only true losers would be algore, his ilk, and of course a foreigner loser like yourself.

truthmatters
10-31-2012, 08:53 AM
why dont you understand that its dems who fight for vets and not republicans

oceanloverOH
10-31-2012, 09:28 AM
why dont you understand that its dems who fight for vets and not republicans

HUH???? A couple of years ago, who was it that came up with the idiotic plan that veterans should pay for their own medical care, including care for injuries received in the line of duty???? Hmmmmm? Who was that? Could have been....OBAMA??? Thankfully, veteran's groups raised enough hell that this one was killed. But DEMS fighting for vets???? Wake up.

Libhater
10-31-2012, 11:37 AM
why dont you understand that its dems who fight for vets and not republicans

Those dems and liberals didn't do much fighting for veterans and current military back during the Vietnam War. In fact, it was the protesting dovish liberals in the streets of America combined with the Democratically controlled congress that lost the war for America. Don't believe me....try reading "The Vietnam War for Dummies" to get confirmation on that.

roadmaster
10-31-2012, 11:42 AM
why dont you understand that its dems who fight for vets and not republicans

I didn't see libs supporting vets on TV. I witnessed people spitting at our young men and calling them baby killers. Was hoping a few of those cowards would get jumped.

Carygrant
10-31-2012, 04:51 PM
Those dems and liberals didn't do much fighting for veterans and current military back during the Vietnam War. In fact, it was the protesting dovish liberals in the streets of America combined with the Democratically controlled congress that lost the war for America. Don't believe me....try reading "The Vietnam War for Dummies" to get confirmation on that.

Nothing to do with the American GIs being inferior , high on drugs and not trying to kill the baddies?

Libhater
10-31-2012, 05:15 PM
Nothing to do with the American GIs being inferior , high on drugs and not trying to kill the baddies?

Nope, not at all. Our democratic congress decided not to give Nixon the go-ahead to bomb the shiite out of the Ho Chi Minh Trail where the Viet Cong were transporting all of their arms and foot soldiers into the South where we all know that with that and other dem policies backed up by the wussie long haired libs back home--that because of having our hands tied we simply surrended. You wouldn't know of how the dems prevented America from winning that war, and perhaps you'll never know unless you read the book that had you in mind when they titled it...."The Vietnam War for Dummies"

Carygrant
10-31-2012, 06:59 PM
There was an enormous drug culture and research among 30000 veterans shows that up to 75% of US combatants deliberately fired to avoid killing the enemy .
If that was the case , any other factors are irrelevant
It may seem nasty but the truth about wars always is .
And with around 90% of returning veterans suffering huge post war traumas , the war's true cost was and is unacceptable and anyone trying to stop it was not necessarily unpatriotic . Quite the opposite possibly .

Libhater
10-31-2012, 09:37 PM
There was an enormous drug culture and research among 30000 veterans shows that up to 75% of US combatants deliberately fired to avoid killing the enemy .
If that was the case , any other factors are irrelevant
It may seem nasty but the truth about wars always is .
And with around 90% of returning veterans suffering huge post war traumas , the war's true cost was and is unacceptable and anyone trying to stop it was not necessarily unpatriotic . Quite the opposite possibly .

Veterans returning from any and all of our wars suffered traumas. Do you think that WWII and the Civil War where we lost over 400,000 and 600,000 men respectively were unacceptable wars and that anyone sitting on their e-z lounger at the time shouting 'stop that war' was what you would call a patriotic American?

Carygrant
11-01-2012, 03:21 AM
I think the discussion should therefore move on to the real costs of all wars because your position suggests that most are worthless in terms of overall achievement .
Which is the underlying point of my comments .
The idea that Pacifism is logically incompatible with Loyalty and Patriotism is outdated and plain wrong .
It is made to look otherwise when a nation blindly moves into War mode -- for whatever reasons .In defining an end problem result BEFORE realistically assessing action and expenditure effects itself gives a negative definition to non assenters -- crudely defined as pacifists .
However ,I will be the first to agree that certain types of hostilities have been necessary for Defence considerations --- presumably WW2 is the obvious example .
However , essentially US initiated hostilities in south Asia proved a complete waste of time ----- Vietnam and Cambodia are suggested as examples where the crackpot Domino theory of Communist Expansion effectively became US Geopolitical Strategy .And certainly with hindsight that cost America many thousands of lives for no clear advantages .
It is not a great step to then suggest that the American approach has not changed one jot , except the bogey men are now Muslims . The experience of Iraq , Afghanistan , Egypt , Libya and inevitably Syria talk to my position . Failures in about any measure you care to offer .

Libhater
11-01-2012, 06:44 AM
I think the discussion should therefore move on to the real costs of all wars because your position suggests that most are worthless in terms of overall achievement .

The overall achievement of my plan or of the military is to stop the bad guys from spreading their destructive totalitarian ideologies. Certainly was the impetus behind stopping Hitler from spreading his Nazism for world dominance, and behind stopping Communism from toppling other susceptible nations over in Asia and Eastern Europe. So rather than to take the stand of the pacifists and or the liberals in whining about the cost of wars both fiscally and in terms of death, I prefer to side with history and with the good guys, i.e. 'AMERICANS' to secure world peace through the strength of having the most powerful military in the world. Mind you, there has never been a nation on earth who has done more good for and spent more $$ on the welfare of foreign nations than has the good ole U.S. of A. You being a limey should also be grateful for having Churchill ask for America's help in stopping Hitler's aggressive attacks on London, and in return his talking FDR into sending troops (my father being one) over to England to plan and execute the D-Day mission. Show me where there were any pacifists, i.e. 'traitors' during that time in history.

Carygrant
11-01-2012, 07:21 AM
. Show me where there were any pacifists, i.e. 'traitors' during that time in history.


They shot them on a daily basis for failure in combat or going AWOL .. Many were drafted into non combat positions . Some sat in gaols for various misdemeanours .
The least America could do in WW2 was help us clear up the mess . After all , it was America who re-armed Germany , contravening the Versailles Agreement and then later had big industrialists continue supplying Germany after FDR agreed to lend a hand .
We had already won when we wrecked the Luftwaffe . It then was just a matter of time after that and Stalingrad . The Germans admitted that themselves from '43 and started to set up their escape plans which America happily helped in return for other favours .
Your Dad would have no clue about any of that .

Libhater
11-01-2012, 11:41 AM
They shot them on a daily basis for failure in combat or going AWOL ..

Who shot soldiers for going AWOL or for failure in combat? Old wives tales for sure.




Many were drafted into non combat positions . Some sat in gaols for various misdemeanours .
The least America could do in WW2 was help us clear up the mess . After all , it was America who re-armed Germany , contravening the Versailles Agreement and then later had big industrialists continue supplying Germany after FDR agreed to lend a hand .

America didn't re-arm Germany. Where did you get that nonsense? What big industrialists supplied Germany?



We had already won when we wrecked the Luftwaffe . It then was just a matter of time after that and Stalingrad . The Germans admitted that themselves from '43 and started to set up their escape plans which America happily helped in return for other favours .

Wow, I'm having a hard time globbing on to your version of revisionist history.



Your Dad would have no clue about any of that .

Then that would make both you and my dad clueless if my dad were to believe any of your tall tales.