# What a difference 60 years makes



## justanotherparatrooper (Aug 27, 2006)

Someone sent me this...thought I'd share it with my friends
I know everyone has a different opinion on the war and our current 
President. But, this article makes a lot of sense, and I hope you 
will take 2 minutes and read it and give it some thought. I have 
never seen the "situation" expressed any better in words! Recently I 
was talking to a friend about the upcoming election and the 
candidates. As we ended our discussion he said "the only decision you 
have to make is who you want sitting in that seat in the White 
House when - not if - _when_ we get hit again and millions of American 
lives are put at risk!"

This is from : "You ain't gonna like losing." Author unknown.

President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the 
mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq

Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one 
his father fought for in WWII. It is not.

Back then, they had just come out of a vicious depression. The 
country was steeled by the hardship of that depression, but they still 
believed fervently in this country. They knew that the people had 
elected their leaders, so it was the people's duty to back those 
leaders.


Therefore, when the war broke out the people came together, rallied 
behind, and stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them 
or not or whether the war was going badly or not.

And war was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as 
it is today. Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than 
we have had in the entire Iraq war. But that did not matter. The 
people stuck with the President because it was their patriotic duty. 
Americans put aside their differences in WWII and worked together to 
win that war.

Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old pitched in. 
Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal for 
the war effort. Grade school students saved their pennies to buy 
stamps for war bonds to help the effort.

Men who were too old or medically 4F lied about their age or condition 
trying their best to join the military. Women doubled their work to
keep things going at home. Harsh rationing of everything from 
gasoline to soap, to butter was imposed, yet there was very little 
complaining.

You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the 
President. Interestingly enough in those days there were no fat cat 
actors and entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators 
of hostile countries and complain to them about our President. 
Instead, they made upbeat films and entertained our troops to help 
the troops' morale. And a bunch even enlisted.

And imagine this: Teachers in schools actually started the day off 
with a Pledge of Allegiance, and with prayers for our country and our 
troops!

Back then, no newspaper would have dared point out certain weak spots
in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum 
damage. No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were 
 doing to catch spies.

A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had 
complained that German or Japanese soldiers were being 'tortured' by 
being forced to wear women's underwear, or subjected to interrogation
by a woman, or being scared by a dog or did not have air 
conditioning.

There were a lot of things different back then. We were not subjected 
to a constant bombardment of pornography, perversion and promiscuity 
in movies or on radio. We did not have legions of crack heads, dope 
pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets.

No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of 
terrorism. He made the mistake of believing that we still had the 
courage and fortitude of our fathers. He believed that this was still 
the country that our fathers fought so dearly to preserve.

It is not the same country. It is now a cross between Sodom and 
Gomorra and the land of Oz. We did unite for a short while after 
9/11, but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our 
country would require some sacrifices.

We are in great danger. The terrorists are fanatic Muslims. They 
believe that it is okay, even their duty, to kill anyone who will not 
convert to Islam. It has been estimated that about one third or over 
three hundred million Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists 
cause...Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many 
potential recruits. So...We either win it - or lose it - and you 
ain't gonna like losing.

America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the 
mall.


----------



## HousingCop (May 14, 2004)

*Instant gratification isn't fast enough for todays society. When we started this war on terror, Bush explained it wasn't going to be wrapped up nice & neat in one hour like most of the television shows are. He explained how it will take generations to scourge the planet of these nuts. It's going to be a long, bloody and costly battle to win the war over a fanatical ememy who doesn't mind dying for his cause. *

*Hollywood today just sucks out loud. It's funny, how they black-list actors who have a conservatist leaning, yet fawn over actors who bend over backwards for tyrannical dictators. Why doesn't Sean Penn go to Iraq now and volunteer his time? I'll tell you why, cause his head would be displayed on a pike within 20 minutes. Not a bad idea if you ask me. *


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

JAP, I agree with your post, but the conclusion as to: "&#8230;who is sitting in that chair&#8230;" when the next lethal attack comes is pretty much meaningless given our options for the fall. The next attack when it comes, and it will, will come sooner rather than later given the three choices we have. Sure, McCain will try to "soldier-on" in foreign lands (as will, believe it or not, HRC&#8230;regardless of what she says), and The Messiah is and will remain clueless. Further, we will almost surely be dealing with a majority communist (both democrats and republican) congress after the next election: it may fall to conservative republicans and "blue dog" democrats to stave-off the inevitable&#8230;if their numbers are sufficient. In any event, whoever is elected to the executive this fall, the president will be a collectivist/internationalist.

Security begins at home. The problem here, as I spoke about in another thread, is that NONE of the candidates will secure our borders. Period. The "attack" will come from within and will probably involve radioactivity (whether "dirty" or fission bombs). As it stands, the neglect of our borders will result in infiltration by the enemy. It's not just lettuce picking peons coming over the border.

Because of the points made in your post, inre: the nature of Americans, then and now, I expect a radical change in or government and society when the attack occurs: capitulation by the masses, curtailment of "rights" by the government and the beginning of a totalitarian regime. Tyranny, if you will. The experiment will be over. 

Some of you have a difficult choice this fall. Those who vote in Massachusetts, and do not favor communist candidates, have no voice. Your vote for president has no chance of "counting". It is, therefore, easier for us to stand-on-principle and not vote for the "lesser of two evils". Those of you who vote somewhere that candidates of various parties, instead of one party, have a shot at winning will have that difficult choice.

I am done voting for LOTE. It only encourages the republicans to run socialist candidates. They believe we have no other options. We do: refuse to vote for LOTE.

Yes the next decade or so will suck. But it will suck regardless which of the three are elected. Why endorse it with your vote? The only chance we have to save the union is to show the republicans that we will not vote for democrats, especially the ones they choose to run!


----------



## HousingCop (May 14, 2004)

*I have often felt the same way dcs2244. I know my vote won't count since we are a majority DemocRATic state. I have resigned my vote to be a "Protest Vote" to let the sheep on the Hill know that we're a silent minority. Who would have thought we'd miss Mitt so much. Compared to Cadillac, he wasn't so bad after all.*

*The next attack will be from within but I disagree with you on one point. These will be silent Sleeper Cells which we let in 20+ years ago. When the big bang goes off, all their neighbors will be saying how patriotic and great friends they were. We are our own worst enemy. Our liberal "let anybody in who floats over on an inner tube" philosophy will be our downfall. We should have buttoned up after WW2 was over. Don't forget, the American Bundt Party sold out Madison Square Garden before WW2. Couple years later, we were fighting Germany. *


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

Unfortunately HC, you are too right. They probably have been here for a while, though more personnel and material are enroute. They didn't bring their technology with them, but came to "prepare the ground". 

I didn't say I was not going to vote, just that (at this point in time) I was not going to vote for candidate McCain. In your heart-of-hearts, you know that AuH2O is spinning in his grave over the fact that Senator McCain is trying to pass as a conservative. There are alternate candidates&#8230;Pat Paulson comes to mind&#8230;

I speculate that someone (Rush, et al) will start a campaign, nationwide, for a write-in candidate. This would allow the disaffected to register their displeasure with a large percentage of the vote going to "candidate X". Please understand that "candidate X" does NOT have to be a "viable" candidate, just someone we could use to illustrate the depth of disgust with party politics in general and the Republican Party in particular. Heck, it could be "Joe Shit, the ragman" or even Cartman. Personally, I like Shin Chan&#8230;"Shin Chan 2008". It doesn't matter as long as there is a large block, maybe 15 or 20% (just throwing that out there: conservative sites are a hotbed of "I'll write in Fred, Huck, whoever"&#8230;but imagine if everyone wrote in the same person&#8230;scary). It's time to let the Country Club Republicans ™ (Rockefeller Republicans) know that just because Reagan, Buckley and Goldwater are dead, conservatism is not (and it can still win elections).

I know that this is a tough decision, not so much for those of us in Massachusetts, but even still it is counter-intuitive. If Mitt were running, yeah, he's far from perfect but I would suck-it-up and vote for him. As it stands now, however, regardless of which candidate is elected, the economy, national sovereignty and liberty are going to take a beating. It may well be a fatal beating. We need to force the rebuilding of the republican party (nationally&#8230;I labor under no illusions regarding the state party) for 2010, 2012 and beyond&#8230;it's back to the drawing board.


----------



## Cond21 (Jun 4, 2008)

HousingCop said:


> * We are our own worst enemy. Our liberal "let anybody in who floats over on an inner tube" philosophy will be our downfall. *


*nods* Can't believe how lenient we are when it comes to illegal aliens, to think their are literally people jumping the borders daily to goto our school systems. _"In 1982, the court ruled in a Texas case, Plyler Vs. Doe, that all children have a constitutional right to a public education, regardless of their immigration status." _I have no problem with giving education to any tax paying citizen, but if you're not contributing then what gives you the right to take resources away from others.(FYI I'm strictly referring to those mentally/physically able to contribute, mental defectives/physically unable obviously dont apply)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/aliens_5-27.html


----------



## billb (Jul 9, 2007)

> _America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the
> mall._


Amen brother... amen


----------

