Why Bush won

[ZaZu]

(CNN) -- President Bush convincingly won the popular vote Tuesday thanks to strong backing from his party's conservative base, as well as increased support from Latino, urban, Jewish, Catholic and female voters, according to exit polls.

The president benefited from geographic shifts of voters that boosted the electoral vote numbers in several states that voted Republican.

Many of Bush's popular vote advances this year were a matter of degree. In several cases, he did not necessarily conclusively win a particular subset of voters, but performed better among that group compared to 2000.

The president, for example, garnered 48 percent of the female vote, up 5 percent from 2000. While Bush lost the Latino vote -- winning 44 percent to Kerry's 53 percent (other candidates split the remainder) -- he gained 9 points from four years ago, which proved significant in states like Florida and New Mexico with large Latino or Hispanic populations.

The president captured 45 percent of the urban vote, up 10 points from 2000. Reports of high turnout in several traditionally Democratic cities may have had less impact on the final result than some pundits anticipated.

The GOP ticket did 5 points better among Catholics, which narrowly sided in 2000 with Gore. In 2004, Bush won this vote over Kerry, himself a Catholic.

The president improved 6 points among Jewish voters, though he still lost this group decisively to the Massachusetts senator 74 percent 25 percent.

Bush did particularly well among regular churchgoers, outpacing Kerry by 22 points among exit poll respondents who attended services at least once a week.

More exit poll respondents -- about 22 percent -- called "moral values" the election's most important issue than cited the economy, terrorism or Iraq. Those expressing this sentiment backed the president overwhelmingly, 80 percent to Kerry's 18 percent. Bush did similarly well among the 19 percent who identified terrorism as their top issue.

Kerry won overwhelmingly among the 20 percent who pointed to the economy and jobs as the most important issue -- taking this group 80 percent to the president's 18 percent. The 15 percent who named the Iraq war as the race's top issue backed the senator by a 3-1 margin.

The president's supporters were overwhelmingly positive about the current situation in the economy and Iraq. Those with more pessimistic views on these topics resoundingly said they voted for Kerry.

A hefty majority, 54 percent to 41 percent, said the president pays more attention to large corporations than to "ordinary Americans." About 56 percent of respondents said Kerry mostly says what "people want to hear," rather than what he believes.

Following his win, Bush faces several obstacles, according to the exit poll data.

While a slim majority, 53 percent, approved the president's job performance, a similar figure -- 49 percent -- said that they were "angry" or "dissatisfied" with the Bush administration.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/prez.key/index.html)

[j2k4]

First lesson:

Majority rules, and anything above 50% constitutes a majority-no fuzzy math allowed.

Second lesson:

Exit polls are uniformly inaccurate, except in the case of the "extremely lucky wild stab" method, which has long been out of favor among the major media, owing to it's occasional accuracy.

Third lesson:

CNN is only two letters removed from being CBS, which, in and of itself, makes CNN a risky proposition.

Watch at your own risk. ;)

[ruthie]

All the major networks are bullshit...they certainly aren't liberal like some people claim.

[j2k4]

All the major networks are bullshit...they certainly aren't liberal like some people claim.

Right about the "bullshit"; wrong about the other.

[spinningfreemanny]

after first forecasting Kerry by 20+ in Pennsylvania; who would refer to exit polls?

and networks are liberal; or at least most people think so. This was discussed in a thread lost in the big deletion. :angry:

[scroff]

Right about the "bullshit"; wrong about the other.
Oh yea, the US media is so liberal they grilled Bush about the WMD prior to the invasion, reported extensively on the Florida 2000 fiasco with intense investigative reporting, have doggedly pursued the Valerie Plame leak, intensified their investigation into the Halliburton scandels, and have been constantly attacking the Bush administration policies concerning the environment...

People who say the US media is liberal are just parroting Rush Limbaugh and his buddies or are so far to the right they wouldn't know left from middle...

[Busyman]

MCVIV

[Rat Faced]

First lesson:

Majority rules, and anything above 50% constitutes a majority-no fuzzy math allowed.


Im sure this isnt what you were saying just a few short month ago
:unsure:

[Storm]

Oh yea, the US media is so liberal they grilled Bush about the WMD prior to the invasion, reported extensively on the Florida 2000 fiasco with intense investigative reporting, have doggedly pursued the Valerie Plame leak, intensified their investigation into the Halliburton scandels, and have been constantly attacking the Bush administration policies concerning the environment...

People who say the US media is liberal are just parroting Rush Limbaugh and his buddies or are so far to the right they wouldn't know left from middle...

what do you expect when the networks has ties with weapon industry? :P

[j2k4]

Im sure this isnt what you were saying just a few short month ago
:unsure:

Really?

I hope such evidence as you might offer to backstop your claim was not lost in the great back-up scandal a while back, Rat.

That would be regrettable.

[Rat Faced]

Really?

I hope such evidence as you might offer to backstop your claim was not lost in the great back-up scandal a while back, Rat.

That would be regrettable.

Im sure you kept pointing out the popular vote meant nothing...

Now your saying:


First lesson:

Majority rules, and anything above 50% constitutes a majority-no fuzzy math allowed


In that case, by your own words here... Gore should have been President for the last 4 years with this argument.

This is what i meant by "Im sure you werent saying this a few short months ago"...

Im sure you wont deny it, coz i cant be arsed to look up posts... however, even if you did, everyone here knows you said that the Majority doesnt matter, the Electoral College is what matters....

[ruthie]

WE did not.

[Rat Faced]

WE did not.

You did not... your country did however :(

Im sure this is the context that was being used ;)

[j2k4]

Oh yea, the US media is so liberal they grilled Bush about the WMD prior to the invasion,

I attribute their failing in this regard to the fact that, no matter how anti-Bush the media is, they couldn't argue that particular point before the war because their liberal heroes were on the same side as Bush; no doubt they were flummoxed as to how they might keel-haul Bush about WMD while not doing the same to the like of Kerry.

Please try harder, scroff.

reported extensively on the Florida 2000 fiasco with intense investigative reporting, have doggedly pursued the Valerie Plame leak, intensified their investigation into the Halliburton scandels, and have been constantly attacking the Bush administration policies concerning the environment...

These things surely happened; how is it that you have determined they support your point?

People who say the US media is liberal are just parroting Rush Limbaugh and his buddies or are so far to the right they wouldn't know left from middle...

I don't blame you for being ignorant of the fact that it is Mr. Limbaugh who is parroting me, scroff.


I really regret that I'm so strapped for time lately; this is fun. :)

[ruthie]

You did not... your country did however :(

Im sure this is the context that was being used ;)

I know, I know..I just do not want to be associated with the OTHERS :blink:

[Rat Faced]

I know, I know..I just do not want to be associated with the OTHERS :blink:

You voted, that gives you the right to complain.

About 40% of your electorate cant really say they have that right..

If they couldnt be arsed to vote, they cant really complain about the result of that vote ;)

[ruthie]

One man, one vote would mean Gore would have been the president. the electoral college is a bullshit system and should have been gotten rid of eons ago.

[j2k4]

Im sure you kept pointing out the popular vote meant nothing...

Now your saying:



In that case, by your own words here... Gore should have been President for the last 4 years with this argument.

This is what i meant by "Im sure you werent saying this a few short months ago"...

Im sure you wont deny it, coz i cant be arsed to look up posts... however, even if you did, everyone here knows you said that the Majority doesnt matter, the Electoral College is what matters....

Rat, my point in that instance was that the Electoral College carried the day because it is the law of the land, and as I recall, the gist of the thread was that the Electoral College was a passe or flawed process, which it most certainly is not.

I did not address the popular vote per se.

For those who question the Electoral College, I have no answer sufficiently brief to avoid inducing sleep; suffice it to say that the best indicator of it's efficacy would be a lingering look at one of those red/blue maps of the U.S. that are so popular during the election season-that, and a reasonable knowledge of where the population centers lie will render at least a modicum of understanding.

Those who still don't understand the underlying theory would be immune to any presentation of it's merit.

In any case, there is no such argument to be made this time around, is there?

[Rat Faced]

You mean the States around the edges, and hence having more experiance with "Foreigners", are mostly Democrat, whereas the Inner States that dont see many and are only exposed to your own Media, are mostly Republican? :rolleyes:

[j2k4]

You mean the States around the edges, and hence having more experiance with "Foreigners", are mostly Democrat, whereas the Inner States that dont see many and are only exposed to your own Media, are mostly Republican? :rolleyes:

Another sad misperception, Rat.

Atlanta (for example) is awash in it's foreign contingent, and I'm not talking Canadians.

[Cheese]

You mean the States around the edges, and hence having more experiance with "Foreigners", are mostly Democrat, whereas the Inner States that dont see many and are only exposed to your own Media, are mostly Republican? :rolleyes:

The "Thinking States"?

[Rat Faced]

The "Thinking States"?

I think "Cosmopolitian" is the diplomatic language...

[scroff]

I really regret that I'm so strapped for time lately; this is fun. :)This is too easy...

Like I said.... "People who say the US media is liberal are just parroting Rush Limbaugh and his buddies or are so far to the right they wouldn't know left from middle..."

To wit...


no doubt they were flummoxed as to how they might keel-haul Bush about WMD while not doing the same to the like of Kerry.Kerry is a Democrat... don't confuse the two...


These things surely happened; how is it that you have determined they support your point?Um... that was sarcasm... the press has been eerily quiet on these matters except for an occasional "story" here and there.... the US media hasn't been "liberal" for quite some time... maybe since Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein... Journalists may be liberal, but the media certainly isn't.

[scroff]

FFS people, you voted the guy in. You gave him the majority in The House of Representatives and in The Senate.

It's called democracy

Live with it.
The beauty of America is that just because some neckless swamp dweller gets voted into the White House doesn't mean we have to either support him or agree with him or "live with it". As an American I reserve the right to point out every little mistake he makes and criticize every move he makes, with impunity. I reserve the right to try to get him out of office any legal way I can.

[scroff]

Another sad misperception, Rat.

Atlanta (for example) is awash in it's foreign contingent, and I'm not talking Canadians.
I guess the fact that Atlanta voted for Bush, despite it's "foreign contingent" might be balanced by the fact that it decided that "Creationism" is a valid science and should be taught in schools. :whistling

[bujub22]

(CNN) -- President Bush convincingly won the popular vote Tuesday thanks to strong backing from his party's conservative base, as well as increased support from Latino, urban, Jewish, Catholic and female voters, according to exit polls.



all lies :angry:

[Busyman]

MCVIV

[spinningfreemanny]

B,
Are you saying that such a grand scheme developed to add 1/5 of a million votes while inconspicously keeping voter turnout from being unbelievable?


EDIT: BTW, totally of topic but not deserving of its own thread: is it my imagination or was the GOP states usually blue in the past and are now red?

[Busyman]

B,
Are you saying that such a grand scheme developed to add 1/5 of a million votes while inconspicously keeping voter turnout from being unbelievable?


EDIT: BTW, totally of topic but not deserving of its own thread: is it my imagination or was the GOP states usually blue in the past and are now red?
I asked this before because I'm of it but what oversight do we have for e-voting..besides the networking guys making sure the machines don't crash.

[spinningfreemanny]

If I read correctly in a past article; the votes are stored on various media; not paper, but other forms as well as a gaggle of federal inspectors (I think they're called 'marshalls')who specificly investigate this sort of thing.

[spinningfreemanny]

JP, if your referring to the CNN article; it specifically stated "popular" vote.

[j2k4]

This is too easy...

Like I said.... "People who say the US media is liberal are just parroting Rush Limbaugh and his buddies or are so far to the right they wouldn't know left from middle..."

To wit...

Kerry is a Democrat... don't confuse the two...

You're right, this is too easy.

Kerry had the incredibly bad taste to have been on the same side of the WMD question as Bush (with plenty of audio/video evidence) before Howard Dean began spanking him with it in the primary, which led to a seminal flip-flop, scroff.

I will admit to having one thing only in common with Bill O'Reilly: If you try to spin my posts, I'll spin 'em right back.

Try something else-surprise me, if you think you can.

Um... that was sarcasm... the press has been eerily quiet on these matters except for an occasional "story" here and there.... the US media hasn't been "liberal" for quite some time... maybe since Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein... Journalists may be liberal, but the media certainly isn't.

Did you think at all before you typed this?

That last....whew! :lol:



You're a gas, man. :)

[100%]

Bush won
four years to fix problems and make himself believable
if not
more terrorist playground
more decision from youth of america
maybe after 4 yrs the people of usa will really now what they want
and make a choice
even the next candidates


for now i give up caring

[vidcc]

JP, if your referring to the CNN article; it specifically stated "popular" vote.
and that's why i think the electoral collage system is out of usefullness...it was designed for older times without todays communications.
Last time bush won he didn't have the popular vote...this time he did...this time he won.

One person one vote all tallied same rules for each state. that's how it should be done.

[scroff]

You're a gas, man. :)
Sorry, J2, I didn't think it would be that far over your head.

[spinningfreemanny]

FYI, it is now 52% to 47 %, Bush

EDIT: and check this county map...wow


http://www.hannity.com/img/usa_election_map.jpg

[100%]

I knew i could trust the surfers

[spinningfreemanny]

Not many waves on the southeast coast I guess... :unsure:

[scroff]

FYI, it is now 52% to 47 %, Bush

EDIT: and check this county map...wow


http://www.hannity.com/img/usa_election_map.jpgAmazing how, in all that red, there were only 59,000,000 or so votes for Bush, whereas in the little blue spaces there were 55,000,000 votes for Kerry... I guess alot of those counties don't have many people in them... empty counties. People matter, not red on a map.

[100%]

That map of your looks like a virus spreading
Red in western context has always ment blood death menstruation
Blue for me means chill
Mcarthy commi? would cnn/fox/bbc use the Red color back in the nixon period
no way.
Beige is alot nicer
anyway congrates on your victory
and if bored please read this text which was written before the elections
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showpost.php?p=904361&postcount=56

[spinningfreemanny]

That map of your looks like a virus spreading

True; but the blue areas are quarentined, and soon it will be disposed of in Canada. :)

[spinningfreemanny]

Amazing how, in all that red, there were only 59,000,000 or so votes for Bush, whereas in the little blue spaces there were 55,000,000 votes for Kerry... I guess alot of those counties don't have many people in them... empty counties. People matter, not red on a map.

or maybe that liberals congregate in blue safe spots and vote liberal 10 to 1, well most of the country is well balanced.

EDIT: Counties are supposed to be balanced be population as equal as possible within states...your empty spot theory doesn't hold.

[scroff]

True; but the blue areas are quarentined, and soon it will be disposed of in Canada. :)
ROFL!!!!!!!! Funny you should say that!

http://www.anywhichway.net/images1/jl.jpg (http://www.ericblumrich.com/index.html)

[spinningfreemanny]

ROFL!!!!!!!! Funny you should say that!

http://www.anywhichway.net/images1/jl.jpg (http://www.ericblumrich.com/index.html)

lol...

jesusland....has a ring to it :D

I smell a christophobe...

[100%]

well you got four years to make em pure red

but please remember one thing -they where never 100%

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v47/zedaxax/EL.jpg

Looks like there still alot of convincing to do

[spinningfreemanny]

No, in all due respect; I really would never want a pure Republican country; only one party in power is dangerous, and the total collapse of the democratic party that once had firm ideals and innovative ideas makes me a little nervous...but not too much so...

[scroff]

or maybe that liberals congregate in blue safe spots and vote liberal 10 to 1, well most of the country is well balanced.
Liberals vote liberal 10 to 1??


EDIT: Counties are supposed to be balanced be population as equal as possible within states...your empty spot theory doesn't hold.Are you out of your mind? The population of New York city alone is over 8,000,000 in 320 square miles....

The population of Arizona is a little over 5,000,000 in about 2000 square miles.

People can live in whatever county they want, there's no "balancing"... you're confused with districts.

BTW, when you signing up? http://www.anywhichway.net/images/smiles/chickensean.jpg

[100%]

No, in all due respect; I really would never want a pure Republican country; only one party in power is dangerous, and the total collapse of the democratic party that once had firm ideals and innovative ideas makes me a little nervous...but not too much so...


Respect - thank you i thought you where...

you may now continue without any agression on my behalf

have a nice day ;)

[scroff]

No, in all due respect; I really would never want a pure Republican country; only one party in power is dangerous, and the total collapse of the democratic party that once had firm ideals and innovative ideas makes me a little nervous...but not too much so...
You have a republican administration that's hardly republican, they spend like drunken sailors and have increased the size of the federal governmant by over 40%, they've involved themselves in nation building and are trying to involve the federal government in your daily life... doesn't sound like the republican party I grew up with.

[spinningfreemanny]

Are you out of your mind? The population of New York city alone is over 8,000,000 in 320 square miles....

The population of Arizona is a little over 5,000,000 in about 2000 square miles.

People can live in whatever county they want, there's no "balancing"... you're confused with districts.

BTW, when you signing up? http://www.anywhichway.net/images/smiles/chickensean.jpg


thats why I said within STATES.

though I think you might be right about the mixup between counties and districts....

and BTW: Would you ever sign up? don't bother asking if you can't back up anything.

[scroff]

lol...

jesusland....has a ring to it :D

I smell a christophobe...
When the "followers of christ" are trying to make laws based on their bible, I'm a proud christophobe.

Keep your bible off my laws.

[scroff]

thats why I said within STATES.

though I think you might be right about the mixup between counties and districts....

and BTW: Would you ever sign up? don't bother asking if you can't back up anything.Four years in the US Marine Corps manny... you?

http://www.anywhichway.net/images/smiles/chickensean.jpg

Were I of age, I would join up because I support the troops. I wouldn't sit home all safe and warm.

[Rat Faced]

and BTW: Would you ever sign up? don't bother asking if you can't back up anything.

I believe Scrogg is an ex-Marine....

Next?

[spinningfreemanny]

I believe Scrogg is an ex-Marine....

Next?

Crap :blushing:

Apologies.

I have explained my position to Vid; if he is willing to share what I wrote; your free to ask him, I give him permission.

[scroff]

Crap :blushing:

Apologies.Don't apologize to me, or to Rat... apologize to the guys your age that are in Fallujah today. Apologize to these guys (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/)... I'm sure they'll let you off the hook.


I have explained my position to Vid; if he is willing to share what I wrote; your free to ask him, I give him permission.I believe I saw it, you found it warming that other guys your age were leaving their families and jobs and carreers and educations... I remember, I even replied in a general way...

Did it ever occur to you, to any young man or woman sitting in their living room, not just you manny, that some of those guys might want to get home and have a beer with their friends, or maybe see their children, or maybe just get on with life, like you are? Has it crossed your mind that if all the young chickenhawks were to enlist you might be able to show some appreciation for their sacrifice by taking their place for a time, thereby letting some of them enjoy the fruits of their labors? Or do you just think selfishly about your "occupation" and your family and your "security"? Unless you're physically unable to serve, you belong in the military right now if you are of age and "support the war effort". Otherwise you're a hypocrite and a coward... in other words, a chickenhawk

Hypothetical question, manny... what would you do if they start up the draft... all it would take is an executive order. There's no need for any new bills to pass, the draft was suspended, not ended. So what would you do? Where would you go to protect your "occupation", to improve your situation in life?

http://www.anywhichway.net/pd/images/bushtwin.jpg

[spinningfreemanny]

Don't apologize to me, or to Rat... apologize to the guys your age that are in Fallujah today. Apologize to these guys (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/)... I'm sure they'll let you off the hook.

I believe I saw it, you found it warming that other guys your age were leaving their families and jobs and carreers and educations... I remember, I even replied in a general way...

Did it ever occur to you, to any young man or woman sitting in their living room, not just you manny, that some of those guys might want to get home and have a beer with their friends, or maybe see their children, or maybe just get on with life, like you are? Has it crossed your mind that if all the young chickenhawks were to enlist you might be able to show some appreciation for their sacrifice by taking their place for a time, thereby letting some of them enjoy the fruits of their labors? Or do you just think selfishly about your "occupation" and your family and your "security"? Unless you're physically unable to serve, you belong in the military right now if you are of age and "support the war effort". Otherwise you're a hypocrite and a coward... in other words, a chickenhawk

Hypothetical question, manny... what would you do if they start up the draft... all it would take is an executive order. There's no need for any new bills to pass, the draft was suspended, not ended. So what would you do? Where would you go to protect your "occupation", to improve your situation in life?


You did not read what I wrote, because I wrote it in PM.

I think that you mistake the motives of the majority in the military. Do they "just think selfishly about their "occupation" and their family and their security" by joining the armed forces? Because surely that is exactly their motives for doing such. Their only requirement (and I plagerize this from family members and other servicemen in Iraq) is that if they die they die with the honor and respect of successfully serving their country.

I completely grasp that those willing in Iraq right now take my place and fight for me. A draft will not come; but if such a thing arose you can be sure that I would not hesitate to join.

The proposition offered leaves a thick distaste in my mouth because it is inferred that I do not take the sacrifices of our soldiers lightly. I have had close friends serve, and in fact die in Iraq (a precious few in America have not) and their service does not carry lightly with me in conjunction with my viewpoints. If I did not believe that the sacrifices of our military is the only thing that keeps us from much further bloodshed of not only us, but of others, I would not hold the positions I do now.

[scroff]

You did not read what I wrote, because I wrote it in PM.
Ok, to the point. I am not willing to abandon my responsibilities here to serve in Iraq and I have tremendous respect for those who would; if any. Why do you think people join the military? They do it for themselves and for their family. All they expect is to be able to serve honorably. I cannot leave. That said; Thank God that there are people who can serve and serve voluntarily, I am fully aware that they fight in my an your place, and such a sacrifice for us is warming.Sound familiar? You may have sent a PM, but this is what I'm referring to.


I think that you mistake the motives of the majority in the military. Do they "just think selfishly about their "occupation" and their family and their security" by joining the armed forces? Because surely that is exactly their motives for doing such. Their only requirement (and I plagerize this from family members and other servicemen in Iraq) is that if they die they die with the honor and respect of successfully serving their country.I wasn't referring to the troops. I was referring to young chickenhawks' motives for not having the opportunity to "die with the honor and respect of successfully serving their country", not the troops reasons for joining. I was referring to young chickenhawks cheerleading from the sidelines while young men get dismantled in Iraq, but not being willing to put their own ass on the line.

They wouldn't understand, because they're chickenhawks.



I completely grasp that those willing in Iraq right now take my place and fight for me.I thought you said they join out of selfish reasons, make up your mind... either they're there to improve their quality of life or they're there to fight for you...


A draft will not come; but if such a thing arose you can be sure that I would not hesitate to join.Why wait for a draft? If you would not hesitate to join when you think you'll be forced to, why wait?


The proposition offered leaves a thick distaste in my mouth because it is inferred that I do not take the sacrifices of our soldiers lightly.Actions speak louder, in this case, much louder, than words.


I have had close friends serve, and in fact die in Iraq (a precious few in America have not) and their service does not carry lightly with me in conjunction with my viewpoints.I see. So you'll even sit on your ass while your friends die in Iraq. How big of you. They still have a buddy system don't they?


If I did not believe that the sacrifices of our military is the only thing that keeps us from much further bloodshed of not only us, but of others, I would not hold the positions I do now.What does that have to do with you signing up? You can hold those positions just as firmly in Fallujah, where you'll actually be doing something besides talking. It's so nice that you have that belief, but it doesn't help get a Guardsman home for the holidays.

Young men and women are doing two and three tours in the Middle East and receiving stop-loss orders because young chickenhawks would rather sit home and talk about how much they respect and support the troops than be one.

I know you're just a kid, and I don't want to get into an argument where you become the focus. These are my beliefs... if you're of age and believe this "war" is a just war, if you think we're doing the right thing in Iraq and that it's good that we're there, if you say you "support the troops", then you had better be ready to suit up. You obviously believe it's ok that others fight in your place. I could never live with myself.

[vidcc]

I would like to state here that in my original "debate" with Manny i was trying to make him see something that i had to endure during campaign visits from young republicans spouting the greatness of this particular war and a kind of double standard i raised to them being of age yet being totally unwilling to stand for their beliefs.
HOWEVER I don't want the USA to send one more person to their death..on either side. I am not ignoring the fact that Iraq happened, we made the mess we must clean it up... i am purely stating what i would like...and i would like it to stop.
I would like our government to stop using our children, our brothers and sisters, our mothers and fathers, our families and our friends as weaopns or tools to clean up after they failed to do their job properly in the first place.
I don't actually want Manny to join up and risk being killed, i was making a point...people tend to think harder and more balanced when they have something at stake personaly.
I don't accept this blanket support from the sidelines, but i do also understand why it is this way. I don't blame the "cheerleaders" for being this way, i blame society for raising them thus. But what is the alternative? do we want to end up like Japan used to be? where the men followed the Emporer blindly and it was their duty to die for him. where it was considered shame to be captured and death was the only honourable escape from that shame.
So i say that dispite my "irritation" at these "cheerleaders". i am glad they have the sense to be this way because i dred to think what America would be doing to the world if they weren't this way.

[scroff]

I would like to state here that in my original "debate" with Manny i was trying to make him see something that i had to endure during campaign visits from young republicans spouting the greatness of this particular war and a kind of double standard i raised to them being of age yet being totally unwilling to stand for their beliefs.
HOWEVER I don't want the USA to send one more person to their death..on either side. I am not ignoring the fact that Iraq happened, we made the mess we must clean it up... i am purely stating what i would like...and i would like it to stop.
I would like our government to stop using our children, our brothers and sisters, our mothers and fathers, our families and our friends as weaopns or tools to clean up after they failed to do their job properly in the first place.
I don't actually want Manny to join up and risk being killed, i was making a point...people tend to think harder and more balanced when they have something at stake personaly.
I don't accept this blanket support from the sidelines, but i do also understand why it is this way. I don't blame the "cheerleaders" for being this way, i blame society for raising them thus. But what is the alternative? do we want to end up like Japan used to be? where the men followed the Emporer blindly and it was their duty to die for him. where it was considered shame to be captured and death was the only honourable escape from that shame.
So i say that dispite my "irritation" at these "cheerleaders". i am glad they have the sense to be this way because i dred to think what America would be doing to the world if they weren't this way.
The reality is that there are 138,000 or more young men and women in Iraq today. This isn't about society, or the present government, or right or wrong. It's not about serving the country. It's about the kids that are in Iraq. It's about caring enough about them to be willing to give them a break by joining up. It's about not seeing them as "troops" or "Guardsmen" or "Marines" but as kids who want to come home. This is about someone saying they support the war, but not enough to go fight it, to let someone else do it. It's about being willing to perpetuate the war effort, but not participate. It's about sharing a burden with other young kids. If there are 200,000 young chickenhawks in this country that signed up, that would be that many kids who get to come home to see their babies, their wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, who don't get a second tour, who don't get stop-loss orders, who don't get extended.

I agree with your philosophy. This is reality.

[vidcc]

I agree with your philosophy. This is reality.
that's why i put this
I am not ignoring the fact that Iraq happened, we made the mess we must clean it up... i am purely stating what i would like...and i would like it to stop.

i shouldn't have to repeat all my last posts on "the reality" if i am making a point of what i "would like".

i don't want more volunteers to give the troops a break...i want the troops out of there......philosophy
we can't do that yet....reality

[Biggles]

Although I understand why Ruthie and Scroff are disappointed it is perhaps too easy to be become overly depressed. Looking from the outside, with admittedly the knowledge that the result has an extremely limited impact on this side of the Atlantic, I offer the following observations.

Kerry did not so much lose this election as GW won through convincing people to go out and vote. I am sure that if Kerry had been told he would get 55m votes prior to the election he would have been overjoyed (when was the last time a Democrat got that many votes?) The Democrats read the runes correctly, their vote was solid and growing. It is just that GW mobilised a greater support. The reasons for this can be analysed in slower time. The Democrats should in my opinion not beat themselves up too much. Despite the dire warnings, rumours of war and fears of homeland security, close on 50% of the country remained resolutely Liberal. There is lot to build on. It is also sometimes almost as easy to get the society you want whilst in opposition as it is in power. :)

The next four years should be interesting (albeit perhaps in a Chinese sort of way).

[Rat Faced]

But i dont want, and i dont want my kids, to live in Interesting Times...

I disagree on the impact of Bush's election on this side of the Atlantic.. Everything that happens in Washington and New York, has quite a large effect in Europe.

If it didnt, i really wouldnt give 2 monkeys...

I dont know the names of the Heads of State in most of Europe.. and truthfully, i'd be hard put to name more than 10 MP's (Including the Cabinet) without looking them up..

They dont affect me as much imho...

[scroff]

that's why i put this
i shouldn't have to repeat all my last posts on "the reality" if i am making a point of what i "would like".You don't, vidcc. I got your point. I agreed with your point. I was stressing mine. My apologies if that goes against some kind of board etiquette.

[scroff]

Although I understand why Ruthie and Scroff are disappointed it is perhaps too easy to be become overly depressed. Looking from the outside, with admittedly the knowledge that the result has an extremely limited impact on this side of the Atlantic, I offer the following observations.

Kerry did not so much lose this election as GW won through convincing people to go out and vote. I am sure that if Kerry had been told he would get 55m votes prior to the election he would have been overjoyed (when was the last time a Democrat got that many votes?) The Democrats read the runes correctly, their vote was solid and growing. It is just that GW mobilised a greater support. The reasons for this can be analysed in slower time. The Democrats should in my opinion not beat themselves up too much. Despite the dire warnings, rumours of war and fears of homeland security, close on 50% of the country remained resolutely Liberal. There is lot to build on. It is also sometimes almost as easy to get the society you want whilst in opposition as it is in power. :)

The next four years should be interesting (albeit perhaps in a Chinese sort of way).I agree. 55,000,000 people not only voted for a liberal democrat, but the number one most liberal senator in congress (if you believe the Bush camp). Not only that, but he was a Massachusetts liberal democrat to boot. (next to satan, there's nothing worse)

What will be interesting is to see how far Bush will push his agenda. This decade could make the sixties look like the fifties. :cool:

[vidcc]

You don't, vidcc. I got your point. I agreed with your point. I was stressing mine. My apologies if that goes against some kind of board etiquette.perhaps it's because it is in "type", but it seemed to me because of the "reality" post after quoting me, you think i have no grip on the reality of the situation..... i am VERY aware of it.

no harm done to either side i hope :)

[scroff]

perhaps it's because it is in "type", but it seemed to me because of the "reality" post after quoting me, you think i have no grip on the reality of the situation..... i am VERY aware of it.

no harm done to either side i hope :)
No harm at all. There's not much I feel stronger about than the whole chickenhawk thing, so I did go over the top a bit. It wasn't directed at you. :no:

[hobbes]

It's a simple life

I don't talk politics, but I figured I could ask a couple friends who they voted for.

They said "Bush" emphatically.

Why?

Money, I keep more of the money I earn.

What about Iraq and other issues?

Listen, politicians do 2 things: lie and waste money. I vote for the guy who takes less money from me.

That was it, story end.

That is why Bush won, I think many people think as they do. Bush taxes less, done deal.

A simple life.

[Busyman]

It's a simple life

I don't talk politics, but I figured I could ask a couple friends who they voted for.

They said "Bush" emphatically.

Why?

Money, I keep more of the money I earn.

What about Iraq and other issues?

Listen, politicians do 2 things: lie and waste money. I vote for the guy who takes less money from me.

That was it, story end.

That is why Bush won, I think many people think as they do. Bush taxes less, done deal.

A simple life.
I have heard this as well from a couple of my doctor friends and some that own businesses. Ironically those that voted for him were all white except one and he was Republican anyway. Actually shit, they are all Republican. :blink:

I guess their vote wasn't surprising. Evil votes I tell you...evil. None of them btw used their tax breaks to create more jobs. Even they knew that was bullshit. :lol: :lol:

[spinningfreemanny]

No harm at all. There's not much I feel stronger about than the whole chickenhawk thing, so I did go over the top a bit. It wasn't directed at you. :no:

Sorry for the delay, situations deemed impossible to reply, and I honestly forgot until I noticed scroffs signature...

Aa vid has made clear, the lesson that "rich white boys" do not effecively consider the lives of our military...and that very well be true. Scroff's antagonizing, though, spurrs me to point a few things out.

Since you are vehemently against the U.S. being in Iraq, will you go to ease casualty loss, rebuild Iraqi infactructure, or possibly fight the U.S. forces in Iraq? (I don't think that you have stated such sentiments, but others here had revealed that if they were in Iraq, they would fight the military). The same relinquishments that you ask of me are made to you. If no such actions are taken, I see your objectives not in stemming military casualties, but to politicize them for your agenda's benefit.

You obviously feel strongly about military losses, as do I. But in my viewpoint (just as you see me taking military losses for granted), can you sympathize with over 4000,000 men woman, and children executed and thrown in mass graves? Are their lives not worth something? These people are innocently sloughtered, yet there is no subsequent action from a liberal vantage point. Maybe as you see my carelessness for our Military dead, I see yours of Iraqi civilians dead.

You see explicit American corruption, and are against it; yet, do you seee the distrucive policies of a dictator as I do? as you think I turn a blind eye towards invading Iraq, I see you turning a blind eye toward a regime that otherwise would be entrenched in the middle east for ages as it passed down to his murderous sons.

My thoughts...yelp all you want.

[Biggles]

Yet so many of those killed were not executed during Liberal Governments. The bulk of Saddam's extremes occurred under Reagan, Thatcher and Bush senior - not Clinton, Major and Blair. Little was said by the Reagan administration when Saddam gassed the Kurds.

Saddam's regime was an unpleasant one, but his worst days were well over ten years ago.

With regards the fighting - it is inevitable. No one likes to see foreign troops telling people what to do - even if your own Government are shits. Can you imagine US citizens taking kindly to Arab troops manning road blocks in the US even if they had come to help out topple a dictatorship (Peewee Herman having seized control). Even with the best will, the honeymoon period after liberation wears thin very quickly. In Iraq there was very little good will to start with.

[Rat Faced]

I can appreciate those thoughts...

Until i remember who supported Hussain in the 1st place, and also that the UK/USA have caused more deaths of innocent civilians since the end of Desert Storm, than Saddam did in his whole tenere as Dictator.

It then comes to mind that the only reason Saddam actually invaded Kuwait at that time in the 1st place; was that he had received assurances, from the USA, that the USA didnt care about any "Purely Arabian War", when he consulted them about his plans beforehand...

There were very few casualties on either side during that Invasion... until the unexpected response from the USA and the rest of the world, which sort of set of a chain reaction inside that country.

Kuwait's Human Rights Record prior to the Invasion were no better than Iraq's, with frequent instances of Disappearances, Political Prisoners and foreigners being Jailed in Deportation Centres and Tortured for upto 5 years prior to deportation for the crime of not having the money to pay for their own Deportation...

Strange then, that one was favoured over the other...

[Busyman]

Sorry for the delay, situations deemed impossible to reply, and I honestly forgot until I noticed scroffs signature...

Aa vid has made clear, the lesson that "rich white boys" do not effecively consider the lives of our military...and that very well be true. Scroff's antagonizing, though, spurrs me to point a few things out.

Since you are vehemently against the U.S. being in Iraq, will you go to ease casualty loss, rebuild Iraqi infactructure, or possibly fight the U.S. forces in Iraq? (I don't think that you have stated such sentiments, but others here had revealed that if they were in Iraq, they would fight the military). The same relinquishments that you ask of me are made to you. If no such actions are taken, I see your objectives not in stemming military casualties, but to politicize them for your agenda's benefit.

You obviously feel strongly about military losses, as do I. But in my viewpoint (just as you see me taking military losses for granted), can you sympathize with over 4000,000 men woman, and children executed and thrown in mass graves? Are their lives not worth something? These people are innocently sloughtered, yet there is no subsequent action from a liberal vantage point. Maybe as you see my carelessness for our Military dead, I see yours of Iraqi civilians dead.

You see explicit American corruption, and are against it; yet, do you seee the distrucive policies of a dictator as I do? as you think I turn a blind eye towards invading Iraq, I see you turning a blind eye toward a regime that otherwise would be entrenched in the middle east for ages as it passed down to his murderous sons.

My thoughts...yelp all you want.
Sorry but you just echo company lines.

You claim great rationale for being in Iraq is for the Iraqi people. Were you claiming this many years ago?

If Bush hadn't made a stink about WMD would you still want this ground war in Iraq?

Just the fact that you mentioned mass graves makes me think of the spineless followers of Republican rhetoric. Mass graves have been there like for awhile now. You mention it because your party leadership mentions it right now to save face.

There is a picture in a DC subway car of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam from years ago. Had you been alive then I'm sure this was okay but omg now it's not because we er...HAVE TO FREE THE IRAQI PEOPLE.

:dry: Puh....leeze.

[Busyman]

I can appreciate those thoughts...

Until i remember who supported Hussain in the 1st place, and also that the UK/USA have caused more deaths of innocent civilians since the end of Desert Storm, than Saddam did in his whole tenere as Dictator.

It then comes to mind that the only reason Saddam actually invaded Kuwait at that time in the 1st place; was that he had received assurances, from the USA, that the USA didnt care about any "Purely Arabian War", when he consulted them about his plans beforehand...

There were very few casualties on either side during that Invasion... until the unexpected response from the USA and the rest of the world, which sort of set of a chain reaction inside that country.

Kuwait's Human Rights Record prior to the Invasion were no better than Iraq's, with frequent instances of Disappearances, Political Prisoners and foreigners being Jailed in Deportation Centres and Tortured for upto 5 years prior to deportation for the crime of not having the money to pay for their own Deportation...

Strange then, that one was favoured over the other...
Oh but then you see..we had too...er...FREE THE KUWAITI PEOPLE!!

[vidcc]

Aa vid has made clear, the lesson that "rich white boys" do not effecively consider the lives of our military...and that very well be true. Scroff's antagonizing, though, spurrs me to point a few things out.

.
what did i make clear ????????

As to your arguement that as scoff is anti war he should go fight for the other side.... why?, he is American, he doesn't want to fight against his own countrymen that have been ordered without choice into conflict, the idea is simply beyond contempt.

The only reason i don't want more cheerleeders to volunteer is because this incumbant would take it as a mandate to continue to invade any other country he doesn't like. At least with the sideline supporters not joining up he is limited by manpower.

[Rat Faced]

Oh but then you see..we had too...er...FREE THE KUWAITI PEOPLE!!

Didn't work then, huh?

Still seems to be an Absolute Monarchy with a bad Human Rights Record :rolleyes:

[scroff]

There have been other replies that I agree with in response to yours, and I really don't want to rehash the chickenhawk posts... Thanks to the folks who answered in my absence :cool:


The same relinquishments that you ask of me are made to you. If no such actions are takenI already did, it's your turn.

As far as what do I, or liberals, care about the Iraqis... we, or should I say I, believe there was a peaceful process that could have been carried out to achieve the same results, I would say better results, had not Bush been in such an all fired rush to war.

I am a proud member of Veterans for Peace, a liberal veterans' group. While I will grant you that I have never been to Iraq, VfP has been in Iraq since 1999 working to rebuild water treatment plants (http://www.iraqwaterproject.com/). What has any conservative group done prior to Bush's illegal invasion of a soveriegn nation? (you know, those people who care so much for the Iraqis that they'll kill untold thousands of them)

[Rip The Jacker]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v237/D@D1111/2004election_by_iq.jpg

[Wallace_Askew]

This website says it all for me

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/

[Rip The Jacker]

This website says it all for me

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/
Damn that site has 166 pages of people apologizing because Bush won the election. Thats neat. :lol:

[ZaZu]

I voted against Bush,but I'll be damned if I'll apologise because he won.
We had a election,someone won...period

[Barbarossa]

Oh but then you see..we had too...er...FREE THE KUWAITI PEOPLE!!

Oh dear, we'd better go back then, last I heard was that women were still not allowed to vote, or hold political office...

[spinningfreemanny]

I am a proud member of Veterans for Peace, a liberal veterans' group. While I will grant you that I have never been to Iraq, VfP has been in Iraq since 1999 working to rebuild water treatment plants (http://www.iraqwaterproject.com/). What has any conservative group done prior to Bush's illegal invasion of a soveriegn nation? (you know, those people who care so much for the Iraqis that they'll kill untold thousands of them)

Sorry; but if I become a member of a group that has helped the Iraq economy, would that make my views valid? Hell; I have given over two hundred hours of Community service to the Red Cross, who is active in Iraq...does that count? It's all subsidiary though, because I do not really care what your actions are; I accept your views, even if I disagree with them. (oh, BTW; for being such a tolerant group; why is there such a monopoly on ideas?)

I also don't agree of your poopooing of 400,000 dead... dead innocents by a dictator who would only become stronger, especially when his sadistic sons were to come to power. Again, I don't care if you disagree with my stance; but to call it invalid based on the lack of action is idiotic.

Here's the crux;
Your views of my stance is startlingly similar with my views on yours, Yet; I have not sunk to flinging the same sh*t you throw at me. Not so long ago, there was actually intelligent and insightful discussion around this board...Honestly, I actually looked forward to reading vid's posts because there was a decent chance Ild learn something. I don't know whether it is the lack of presence of j2, clocker, SJ, and others (all who I still would look to for smart posts) or what, but the dialogue on this board has quickly gone into the toilet with a few choice people leading the way. If a change is not to happen soon you will find the current trend of smart people holding insight and minority viewpoints deserting this board come full circle, quickly leaving you to blather uselessly amongst yourselves.

FYI: These sentiments are held by more then me.

[ruthie]

Sorry; but if I become a member of a group that has helped the Iraq economy, would that make my views valid? Hell; I have given over two hundred hours of Community service to the Red Cross, who is active in Iraq...does that count? It's all subsidiary though, because I do not really care what your actions are; I accept your views, even if I disagree with them. (oh, BTW; for being such a tolerant group; why is there such a monopoly on ideas?)

I also don't agree of your poopooing of 400,000 dead... dead innocents by a dictator who would only become stronger, especially when his sadistic sons were to come to power. Again, I don't care if you disagree with my stance; but to call it invalid based on the lack of action is idiotic.

Here's the crux;
Your views of my stance is startlingly similar with my views on yours, Yet; I have not sunk to flinging the same sh*t you throw at me. Not so long ago, there was actually intelligent and insightful discussion around this board...Honestly, I actually looked forward to reading vid's posts because there was a decent chance Ild learn something. I don't know whether it is the lack of presence of j2, clocker, SJ, and others (all who I still would look to for smart posts) or what, but the dialogue on this board has quickly gone into the toilet with a few choice people leading the way. If a change is not to happen soon you will find the current trend of smart people holding insight and minority viewpoints deserting this board come full circle, quickly leaving you to blather uselessly amongst yourselves.

FYI: There are others besides me who hold this similar opinion.

so I guess you don't like some of the responses you recieve.
As to 400,000 dead...we DID NOT go into Iraq because of human rights issues. That fact seems to get lost here. Did Bush make a case for that, or did he throw around talk about mushroom clouds? don't read what isn't there.

I think everyone has something to offer in terms of views and intelligent viewpoints, Manny..even you.( not said sarcastically). There are obviously strong feelings expressed in the world of politics, as was so obviously just witnessed in the campaign season, and the huge rift between right and left. You might not like how opinions are expressed, and I don't find anyone "dolling up" their presentation..and that includes you too, manny. (again...not said sarcastically)

[scroff]

Sorry; but if I become a member of a group that has helped the Iraq economy, would that make my views valid?No more than they already are. I never said my views were more valid than yours because I was a member of VfP. You asked me if I was willing to go "ease casualty loss, rebuild Iraqi infactructure, or possibly fight the U.S. forces in Iraq?" so I told you what I do. No big deal. That remark about fighting the US forces was pretty stupid though, I must say. Just because I don't want them killing Iraqis doesn't mean I want to kill them.


... because I do not really care what your actions are; I accept your views, even if I disagree with them. (oh, BTW; for being such a tolerant group; why is there such a monopoly on ideas?)You asked me what I was willing to do. In fact, you even spoke about "relinquishments", to which I replied that I have already done my time, and stated it was your turn. I notice you ignored that one.

BTW... What ever gave you the idea I was a member of any "tolerant group"?


I also don't agree of your poopooing of 400,000 dead... dead innocents by a dictator who would only become stronger, especially when his sadistic sons were to come to power. Again, I don't care if you disagree with my stance; but to call it invalid based on the lack of action is idiotic.I'm not sure where you got this from. Go back and re-read my reply to you.

If it was wrong for Hussein to kill 400,000 people, what makes it right for us to kill more? I tend to agree that the lack of action on the part of the US, the UK (both of whom were bombing Iraq regularly for the last decade, under the guise of a "humanitarian crises", Hussein actually controlled only the third of Iraq around Baghdad, you know, like Rumsfeld said, north east south and west of Baghdad somewhere) and the UN was atrocious, but I don't agree that we needed to kill more.


Here's the crux;
Your views of my stance is startlingly similar with my views on yours, Yet; I have not sunk to flinging the same sh*t you throw at me.What shit is that? Asking you if you plan to join the service of your country is giving you shit? I'm confused, Manny.


but the dialogue on this board has quickly gone into the toilet with a few choice people leading the way.Well, then, I suggest you report them to a moderator post haste!

[Busyman]

so I guess you don't like some of the responses you recieve.
As to 400,000 dead...we DID NOT go into Iraq because of human rights issues. That fact seems to get lost here. Did Bush make a case for that, or did he throw around talk about mushroom clouds? don't read what isn't there.


I don't think manny gets it.

Manny, when you say things like "we went in to stop the killing of innocents", you sound like a Republican lapdog.

The dialogue hasn't gone down. It's just that the bullshit has gone up especially when looking in hindsight.

Step outside of what they say in your Republican youth groups.

[spinningfreemanny]

Your arguments that that was not the main reason,try as you might, does not invalidate the point.

Hell, even Kerry said knowing what he knows now, he would invade Iraq...

If you much less see another Republican youth, let me know... :unsure:

[scroff]

Your arguments that that was not the main reason,try as you might, does not invalidate the point.

Hell, even Kerry said knowing what he knows now, he would invade Iraq...

If you much less see another Republican youth, let me know... :unsure:
Kerry never said he would invade Iraq knowing what he knows. He said knowing what he knows he would have authorized the use of force, believing that the threat of force was necessary to negotiating with Iraq and that it was the correct authority for a president to have. He did not agree with invading Iraq before the inspectors were allowed to do thier jobs.

"Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has." (CNN's "Inside Politics," 8/9/04)

[Busyman]

Your arguments that that was not the main reason,try as you might, does not invalidate the point.

Uh...yes it does.

"Let's invade ruthless dictator number 15. It has to be done." :dry:

What's funny is that was Bush's only reason. Trust me, he came about with "he's ruthless dictator" after the fact.

It amazes me that certain followers think only one way and that way is as a follower.

The brain that God gave them is wasted when plain-as-day bullshit is dropped right on their face and they don't smell it. :lol: :lol:

I actually have some sort of respect (not much) for those that know it's bullshit and have some sort of agenda behind giving the bullshit a kickstand.

But others are just flat out idiot followers.

[Biggles]

Blather?

I am aghast, I thought I was quite coherent. :huh:


:shifty: Now some of my post apple posts....

[lynx]

Blather?

I am aghast, I thought I was quite coherent. :huh:


:shifty: Now some of my post apple posts....Don't worry about it, Your blather is always quite coherent. ;)

[ilw]

I saw this and thought it might be relevant to your chicken hawk discussion
The guardian did an article today on Siegfried Sassoon (British War poet during WW1), because an early war work of his has recently been discovered:


Because We Are Going


Because we are going from our wonted places

To be task-ridden by one shattering Aim,

And terror hides in all our laughing faces

That had no will to die, no thirst for fame,

Hear our last word. In Hell we seek for Heaven;

The agony of wounds shall make us clean;

And the failures of our sloth shall be forgiven

When Silence holds the songs that might have been,

And what we served remains, superb, unshaken,

England, our June of blossom that shines above

Disastrous War; for whom we have forsaken

Ways that were rich and gleeful and filled with love.

Thus are we heroes; since we might not choose

To live where Honour gave us life to lose.

Siegfried Sassoon (1915)

for sassoon thats a remarkably upbeat assessment, most likely because he hadn't been sent to the front yet. To contrast with his later work:


SUICIDE IN THE TRENCHES

I knew a simple soldier boy
Who grinned at life in empty joy,
Slept soundly through the lonesome dark,
And whistled early with the lark.

In winter trenches, cowed and glum,
With crumps and lice and lack of rum,
He put a bullet through his brain.
No one spoke of him again.

You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.


By: Siegfried Sassoon (1918)


Obviously WW1 for 3 years would be a lot more harrowing than a shortish term in Iraq, but I thought the shift in perception was food for thought.

[Biggles]

Sassoon and Owen make for grim reading - but they have more to say than most and they walked the walk rather than just talked the talk. Owen, as I recall died on the front line.

I think "Dulce est" is one of the most graphic pieces on the inhumanity of life on the front line.

[scroff]

Thank you for those, ilw. I have mixed feelings of anger and sorrow when I read them. I don't know how people will feel about this post, as I continue with the poetry, but this is a poem from a man I met during one of the VfP rallys in New York City... it seems to capture the feeling of being on the "victorious" side of over whelming fire power

Free Fire Zone

Trembling and sobbing
you crawl out of your hole
brown grime encrusted on your face,
brittle white hair touched gently by wind.


And begging you fall down on your knees
and raise your wizened hands in supplication
to what stands mute in us, and cold to all your needs -
which kicks and prods you back upon your feet.

You stumble, dazed, between the holes
into the empty field beyond
and fall, and turn, and fall and cry again at us...
And then as flame comes blazing to engulf you from the sky
I wonder why
you ever bothered
ever being born.

--Serigo
Cpl, rifleman, 2nd (marine) Combined Action Gp 67-68
Two Purple Hearts

[scroff]

Sassoon and Owen make for grim reading - but they have more to say than most and they walked the walk rather than just talked the talk. Owen, as I recall died on the front line.

I think "Dulce est" is one of the most graphic pieces on the inhumanity of life on the front line.
for the curious... Dulce et Decorum est (http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/owen1.html)

thanks for the cue, Biggles