Post has been Discarded
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
13 Comments
Farhad2000How about not going to war in the first place.
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)
Oh man, that is a VERY effective commercial. It would be interesting to hear his response on that.
K0MMIEby voting against this video, farhad2000 has gone to war with this video... so much for that peaceful resolve you have on life sir. Next thing you know you'll be going to war with me.
swampgirlAre you kidding me?!? Whether you're for or against the war over there, why the hell would you not want your boys to be protected. This is messed up.
Farhad2000Wow, I can't believe you guys. Do you really need the Daily Show to mock this clip for you to see the flipside of this? The advertisement is clearly aimed to get a gut reaction in the viewer, so you are convinced immediately. Such cheap political tactics are just subversive. And I wouldn't support a candidate who does that.
This administration is filled with pork barell politics, how can you explain this system http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=10117&where=index being refused because Raytheon already had a goverment contract to develop a similar system several years down the line, but there is a system there now! There entire system needs to change. Armed forces should be able to independtly purchase their equipment.
Further more this addressing this issue is like dousing the fire of a skyscraper in flames. There is a big problem with the conflict America is in, there aren't enough forces, the forces that are there are spread thin doing police duty, the situation is chaotic. The conflict, the people who took you there are the problem.
This is a band aid fix for a gunshot wound, you cannot fight a war when you cut taxes but increase spending, promise to deliver results of military truimph while having less forces, that's just ridiculous. Such cheap political ads, got us into this siutation of living in a world full of he said she said gossip and bs while the real issues get lost in the noise. How else can you explain an administration winning on morality grounds concerned about homosexuality while it's involved in a war and economic spiralling.
swampgirlStripping away all political trickery in campain advertising...like you said Farhad, there are other examples of US government sending troops somewhere unprotected.
What about Somalia? Weren't they driving glorified humvees through a gauntlet of bullets?
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)
Well put Farhad. We need comment voting.
conansays...i agree to farhad
gaffaAnd to think I wasn't going to post this because I thought it wasn't going to get any votes..
Farhad2000Swampgirl Somalia is just another example where the political process drove what mostly should have been a military operation, the politicians promised to resolve a conflict, again using less then needed forces and armament. There were larger forces avliable to put forward, but there wasn't the initiative.
The american's were overconfident coming off the Gulf War conflict, they saw a nation that has been battling a civil war with small arms and thought it was going to be easy. Somalia has been in a civil conflict for decades by then, the militias that sound simple on paper were veteran fighters that were used to war, while the american forces was green (except the delta force detachment that was with them). Lack of local knowledge, lack of actual commitment to a conflict, lack of intelligence are problems that still plague the armed forces.
Somalia was the saddest case, because it ultimately killed America's intiative to try enforce peace elsewhere via the UN. Because of commiting less then need forces, the operations failed, US troops were dragged on the street and the public never wanted american troops to go anywhere. This is most probably why the genocide in Rwanda was so sidelined by the international community, no first world nations put forward forces. Canada sent one general, Belgium a small detachment that got pulled out as the conflict began, France came and evacuated it's citizens and left as well... only by the time it was over, world guilt got to some powers and they sent forces after the fact (Canada).
wildmanBill*dead
siftbotThe link to this video has been flagged as dead. Fix it within 7 days or it will be discarded (dead called by gold star member wildmanBill)
siftbotDiscarding this video. It was flagged as dead but not flagged undead within 7 days.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.