in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| ABC News | New Tone: Obama Camp Says Clyburn’s ‘Raping’ Comment Is Inappropriate |
0 |
| Biz Insider | Intriguing: EXCLUSIVE: Here’s The Inside Story Of What Happened On The FB IPO |
0 |
| Lee Stranahan | This: Friday, May 25th Is “Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day” |
0 |
| Gallup | 0 | |
| The Hill | Whoa: 4 in 10 Democrats desert Obama in Arkansas, Kentucky primaries |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
Are you happy now, Democrats? (RELATED: HOUSE FAILS TO OVERRIDE VETO)
(5/3 Update: Dems back off the timeline ‘requirement.’ )
——
The Democrats political games with the war supplemental are already starting to affect the military:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The standoff between President Bush and congressional Democrats over a war funding bill already is delaying some military training and orders for spare parts, Pentagon officials said.
Bush on Tuesday vetoed legislation passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress that would continue to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but set a timeline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.
The bill would have required U.S. combat troops to begin to withdraw on October 1, with a goal of a complete pullout within six months.
“This is a prescription for chaos and confusion,” Bush said, explaining his veto of the legislation. “It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing.”
The president and congressional leaders have agreed to meet to discuss a compromise. (Full story)
In the meantime, military officials said some effects are already or will soon be felt.
According to the Pentagon, the Army two weeks ago told commanders to purchase fewer parts, delay repairs on training equipment and postpone nonessential travel.
This month, the Army also will freeze hiring for civilian jobs, release temporary workers and sign no new contracts.
An Army official said these disruptions will hurt military readiness.
[...]
Without new funds, orders for what the Army considers the No. 1 lifesaver against roadside bombs, MRAPs — Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected vehicles — will be canceled. About $3 billion for the vehicles is tied up by the stalled legislation.
“We can build what we can get the funds to build. It’s strictly an issue of money,” outgoing Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker told a Senate panel in March.
The vehicles provide four to five times the protection of an armored Humvee. They have V-shaped hulls that deflect blasts from improvised explosive devices — IEDs — outward and away from passengers.
This is obscene.
So much for their BS about “supporting the troops”! Not that most of us ever believed it anyway.
The President is set to meet with House and Senate ‘leaders’ today to discuss a ‘compromise.’ Don’t back down, Mr. President.
BTW, here’s the transcript of the President’s presser last night explaining his veto.
Update: The House, by a vote of 222 to 203, failed to override the President’s veto of the war supp.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
I not only quetsion Democrats’ loyalty to the US, but outright say they are enemies fo the US.
There is no attachment to the funding that can standalone, yet the Democraps tried to sneak it past the President anyway.
Pelosi and Reid ought to be sent one way to Iran or Syria without their citizenship, office, and no protection. We’ll see how long they last before Sharia catches up to them.
Apparently the Army has a long memory about how certain people treat them.
Joan Baez banned from playing at Walter Reed
My favorite part was this:
So in other words Joan, you did it to help yourself feel better about your guilt for treating soldiers like crap during Vietnam?
Wow, you’re quite the humanitarian.
This is truly a sad bunch of individuals. This Dems need to spend sometime embedded in with the troops, just to see the havoc their stupidity causes. – Lorica
The Congress passed the funding bill. The President vetoed a bill to fund the troops in the field. He seems to be the one playing the games with American lives on a foreign battlefield.
Gee Doc, I guess that if I serve you a bowl of soup, and take a crap in it first, and you refuse to eat it, you must not be very hungry…
Doc Democrat is one of the first disciples of Goebbels to try to spin that it is the President’s fault the troops are abandoned by the US. It is just like Vietnam when the Congress bailed.
The Congress knew the bill would be vetoed, Doc. The only reason they did it was to play to the extreme left, which is now running the democratic party.
It’s so sad that you can’t see it.
I don’t who’s running the Democratic party but all polls clearly show that most Americans are for exiting Iraq. The Democrats don’t believe they can actually force the president to end the Iraq war. However, they believe that they have an obligation to their constitents to try. It is politically safer for the Dems to sit back and watch this disaster from distance.
Severian:
This would be more like coughing over the bowl as I’m handing it to you. The deadlines were nonbinding and could have been negotiated later, or even done away with. Yeah: if he really was hungry, Bush would have taken the soup.
NC Cop:
It’s not Congress’s job to pass bills that they know the President will like. It’s Congress’s job to pass the bills that it feels are necessary.
Also: PCD gets the No-Prize for ringing in the first Nazi reference. Congratulations! The conversation now officially has nowhere to go but up!
This is part of the dem’s slow bleed strategy, by doing nothing they can force the president to bring the troops home. They know the troops are running low on supplies and money and by doing this they think they can straddle the fence and clean up in ’08.
We’ll be cleaning up alright just like we did in September of 2001.
Mr Closets states:
I don’t who’s running the Democratic party but all polls clearly show that most Americans are for exiting Iraq.
Please show me the data on this, and where you came to this conclusion.
Most Americans while displeased wit hthe war do NOT want to retreat or loss the war. They want a change in strategy, and even some think we should be increasing troops and doing more, that is where alot of dis-satisifaction with the war comes from.
That and te media full blitz on everything bad that happens in Iraq – missing acts of heroism by both Irawi and American soldiers fighting side by side. Missing all the good that is going on also in Iraq.
When you are fed nothing but the negative, and noone of the good happening, what do you think will influence the masses?
The Democrats don’t believe they can actually force the president to end the Iraq war.
Yes, they do believe that. “We are going to shove this down his throat” strategy, ect.
The can force the war to end by doing what is within their Constitution powers and using the purse strings and saying we are done funding this.
Instead in the first time in history the a Congressional power is trying to direct the actions of the war by inserting itself and telling the president and the troops how, when and where they need to do things which is beyond the scope of their power.
However, they believe that they have an obligation to their constitents to try. It is politically safer for the Dems to sit back and watch this disaster from distance.
Actually, your wrong again. The extreme left is directing the way the Democrats proceed – their constituents are the nutroots, the extreme left base that helped get them there, including Moveon.org – who has said THEY own the Democrat Party. So it is not safer for them to sit back, because even the feeble attempts they are doing is not enough to appease the extreme left.
Americans against the Iraq war? I can’t imagine why!!
Since you’re so into polls Mr. closets, which seems to be the only thing that the dems can crow about, how about this one:
Poll shows most Americans believe media reporting inaccurate
So, most Americans realize they are getting inaccurate reporting from Iraq. Unfortunately, most aren’t trying to get educated about what’s going on over there, kinda like you.
Neither Pelosi nor Reid seem aware, let alone to care, that time and again they mischaracterize the President’s request, which is to give a new strategy, led by a new General the Senate approved 81-0, a chance to work. How many times is Senator Reid going to whine on and on about “changing direction?” He was blunt enough to put his foot in his mouth before, saying the “war is lost,” why doesn’t he just come out and say what he and Pelosi are really thinking: when they say the President won’t change direction they really mean the President won’t accept the Democrats call for surrender?
However, I certainly wouldn’t say the Democrats are the “enemies of the U.S.” – theirs is just a very tragic worldview that appeases aggression, everywhere from Middle Eastern dictators to the likes of MoveOn.org…
Vega$ Art Guy is correct. What we’re witnesssing is the same “slow bleed” tactic employed by the Dem congress in the later years of the Vietnam war. Let me state plainly that, as a “beneficiary” of that stupidty, it was no fun. And I doubt our people serving in Iraq/Afghanistan today will enjoy it much either.
Considering that what happened in Vietnam after we completely cut off all support for the S.Vietnamese, namely 3-4 million dead in SE Asia due to communist dictators run amok, and the fact that Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East, would degenerate into another Killing Field, it’s obvious that the Democrats are the party of genocide. They claim to “care” so much about the poor and downtrodden, but only if they can use it as a springboard to power. Their actions, and the results as noted above, say more about their true motives than their words ever will. They care little about anything other than partisan power, and they care nothing about who or how many will die as a result.
Just don’t question their patriotism though!
This is a losing strategy for the Dems. When our troops come on victorious, what are the Dems going to do?? This is going to lead them to a desolation worse that Jimmy brought to them. – Lorica
Lorica:
Based on what experience are you predicting that the troops are going to “come on victorious?” There has not been much of a hint over the past four-plus years that anything like that is about to happen. Administration officials have been saying since before the war began that victory was just around the corner, and it hasn’t been. Why should now be any different?
That’s not what I said, champ. Let me re-post what I said.
I said nothing about the President liking it. They KNEW he would veto it, and they wasted all this time on trying to pass it anyway, all so they could appease the extremists on the left.
I don’t remember anyone saying victory is right around the corner. I do remember President Bush saying that this was going to be a long, hard fought war and unlike anything we have ever fought. What we are saying is that retreating or “re-deploying” as some of the dems call it, is not going to achieve victory, it will only guarantee defeat.
Let me ask you this. Do you want America to win in Iraq?
NC Cop:
First: the fact remains that Congress passed a spending bill, and Bush refused to sign it. The Right can’t sneer at the deadlines as being meaningless political grandstanding because they’re nonbinding, while at the same time claim that they’re so damaging to the bill that it had to be vetoed. If the problem here is the fact that the military needs the money, then the President is the obstacle.
Second: saying that we would be “greeted as liberators” and that the insurgency “is in its last throes” and, most directly, “Mission Accomplished” all take it as a given that victory is just around the corner–or even that victory has already been achieved, as in the last example.
Finally: many people whose posts I’ve read on the Internet see only two options in Iraq: win or lose. Many on the Left see a third: walk away. I personally didn’t want us to be there in the first place, so my manhood isn’t damaged by the prospect of ending the deaths of American soldiers over there. In much the same way, if someone wants to fight me for the last piece of German chocolate cake and I let them have it because I hate German chocolate cake, then I haven’t lost the Global War on German Chocolate Cake; I’m just cutting my losses moving on to something else.
Unfortunately we are in the middle of WWWIII; only this time rather than fighting countries we are fighting an ideology. The Dem’s don’t seem to understand this and think that the reason the Islaamists hate us is because of something that we (the U.S. did). Vietnam was a defining moment for the anti-war left in this country. It was one of their greatest victories. Unfortunately when we cut and ran from Vietnam, millions were slaughtered. The consequences of us cutting and running from Iraq, and subsequently the War on Terror, will make what happened in Vietnam look like a picnic. The Lefties that read and comment on this sight will say that I am spreading fear, but the fact is that in reality, if we lose this war the consequences will be dire at best, and a fight for civilization as we know it .
Doc, why are you bugging us here on this site.
Go on over to daily kos or move on where your kind of crap logic is appreciated. The problem with people like you is you don’t want VICTORY, you want defeat cuz of your hatred for our President and that is very sad indeed.
And Doc plays the “it’s haaaard, it’s taking tooo lonnng” card, like a petulant 5 year old on a road trip. Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Unfortunately, the option they offer, turning the car around and going home, will lead to unmitigated disaster and the death of millions, as it did in Vietnam, only this time the terrorists will follow us back home.
Defeatist, and completely ignorant of history. It’s hard, the MSM isn’t showing any progress (well, there’s a source of your problem right there Doc, you listen to the MSM and defeatocrat Dems), so let’s cut and run. Ignore the historical ramifications of such an action, ignore what the enemy themselves say, all because of Bush hatred.
We need that dictator…
Found this on HotAir:
It’s always amusing to see the left misquote and misapply Orwell’s wisdom.
To paraphrase the last part of Orwell’s quote:
The idea that you can somehow remain aloof and shriek “No Blood for Oil!” while living on food produced with oil fueled machinery, while driving cars that run on oil, while enjoying the benefits of a robust world economy that runs on oil, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security.”
Severian:
The logic of “we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” simply does not hold up.
First, it assumes that there is a set number of anti-American Islamists in the world, and that they’re all fighting in Iraq. There’s no reason to assume that such is the case. Cast your mind back to the London and Madrid terror attacks. The war was going full blast then, and somebody, somehow, was able to break away from the melee and carry off those bombings. Remember that September 11 only involved about 20 guys. I’m guessing that al Queda has 20 guys sitting around somewhere–not even in sniffing distance of Iraq–who are ready to go at a moment’s notice.
The key is protecting the homeland. When we’re “fighting them over there,” we’re leaving the back door open for potential terrorist attacks right here. The fact that container ships come through our harbors all the time–unsearched–has been all over the news. Why isn’t something being done about that? Because the people who would do the protection are all busy “fighting them over there.”
Doc Washboard comments:
—–
The key is protecting the homeland. When we’re “fighting them over there” we’re leaving the back door open for potential terrorist attacks right here. The fact that container ships come through our harbors all the time–unsearched–has been all over the news. Why isn’t something being done about that? Because the people who would do the protection are all busy “fighting them over there.”
——
My reaction: There’s no doubt in my mind that people who say “we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” are vastly oversimplifying a global problem and turn it into a cliche. Unfortunately, in your desire to tweak such people, you not only give us the old “ports” cliche, but you also imagine that the military would be the ones who would search the container ships. They wouldn’t. That’s a job for the police. May I politely suggest that you could make a better argument by pointing out that terrorism is perhaps fought better when thought of as a police action rather than a war. You might want to consider that the “war on drugs” (already hopelessly lost) isn’t a war at all, either, and use analogies like that.
Or not.
Doc:
I have read accounts from Marines in Anbar that it has become much more peaceful, even the NY Times, the paper of Liberal record, has had a story about how much better Anbar is. There have been many reports that things are better in Baghdad. Now it is not my fault that for all your intellect you are to blind to read these stories.
Our Allies have captured or killed hundreds of terrorists, we kill or capture different terrorists leaders in both Iraq and Afghanistan, yet you want to blah blah blah about how we are not winning?? Please open your eyes. The American people called for some account and for a change in strategy in the November elections, and they are getting exactly what they called for, and it is working.
Here is the problem as far as I see it. Between Gates and Petraeus we have in place a winning strategy, and the pooor whittle Dem leadership don’t want that to happen. You see, Your present Dem leaders figure they will only do well in the elections if the American people lose this war. Well, I know the American Soldier fairly well, and They ain’t gonna lose this war, they just don’t have the stomach to take the years of abuse their Fathers and Grandfathers took about Vietnam. They are the smartest, best equiped, best educated, and more ingenious soldier in the world. They have a mission, and they want to complete it, and then come home victorious.
Sorry Doc, but you lose. This war is very winnable, if only your side could see that. – Lorica
Doc misses the point:
It doesn’t assume that at all. What it does point out is that since AQ considers Iraq a central front in this battle, they will pour resources into it. If we grant them their wish and withdraw, those resources can be reallocated elsewhere. That logic is irrefutable.
Nowhere does it assume that 100% of AQ is in Iraq, nor does it assume we should not be fighting the WOT here as well as there. But if you think that Abu Ayyub al-Masri will simply retire once the last Marine leaves Iraq, you’re dangerously mistaken.
During the 1990′s, our responses to terror threats were sporadic and half-hearted. In fact, they match up well with what you’re advocating now. And that led to 9/11, as we all know. Please tell us why history would not repeat itself should we go passive again.
More from Doc:
Point well taken. I agree. But your solution, it would appear, is to go entirely on defense – withdraw into Fortress America and do nothing until the islamofascists are in our front yard. Or, in other words, allow them to resupply and restrategize unimpeded. That’s completely unworkable, for obvious reasons. You’ve highlighted a flaw in the defensive plan, which should be fixed. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be on offense as well.
Well Doc, your inane views, totally ungrounded in reality (try, just try, to look at the sweep of world history and read up on some military strategy, like Mao’s work on guerrilla warfare for example) have already been adequately fisked by others.
If we cut and run from Iraq, our enemies will take this as a sign of weakness (as well they should) and turn that into both a massive recruiting effort and greatly enhanced and expanded actions against the US, both at home and abroad. The US ran from Somalia, ran after the Cole bombing, and we got 9/11. Listen to what Osama himself says about this, he specifically points out that the lack of response led them to know that we were weak, and influenced their plans to attack us on the homeland.
You claim to want to protect the “homeland” but act in a way that’s guaranteed to produce another, more spectacular attack, all for partisan reasons. Why is it that liberals and people like yourself are so completely ignorant of world history? It has to go beyond government schools, this looks like a willful ignorance because you don’t like the way the world really is. Ignoring it will not make it go away.
Read this Doc. When even CNN realizes the problem withdrawal would cause, you have to realize that you’re really on the loony end of the left side of the spectrum.
WOW!!! More Iraq good news you won’t see in the Lame Stream Media!!
LINK
And the Money Quote is:
“We are all with you against the terrorists” Ahmed said.
Who is Ahmend: Sheik Ahmad Abdullah Hassooni, Shimouri paramount sheik. Seems to me this is becoming more winnable by the day. – Lorica
Hence Doc’s and the Dem’s problem Lorica. Winning will make Bush look good! That’s to be avoided at all costs, even the lives of the troops and US citizens and the good of the country. They so despise Bush that they have totally lost any rationality and sense, and are willing to sacrifice anything rather than admit he did something right or let him succeed. They’re incapable of separating the good of the country from what’s good for Bush.
Hmmm…
If the U.S. had followed the “wise” policies of Bill Clinton after the first WTC bombing (you know the drill…run polls to tell him what to do, view terrorism as a “legal” matter and not a national security matter as Hillary told him to do, get in front of a camera to state that he “feels the victims pain”) we should have had at least 3 major terrorist attacks against Americans and/or American installations in the last six years.
But we haven’t had one major attack against Americans and/or American installations outside of the theatres of war. Now how can that be when the oh-so-much-more-intelligent-the-the-rest-of-us Doc Washboard states
So, Doc, got an explanation for why your statement doesn’t exactly fit with the facts? You better go find some more square pegs of moonbattery to try to cram into the round holes of logic to try to answer that one.
Severian-1
Doc Washboard-0
I’ll answer your question with one of my own. If terrorists were so busy in Iraq and Afghanistan that they couldn’t launch attacks elsewhere, how does one explain the attacks in Madrid and London?
I’m guessing that there haven’t been more attacks here because the terrorists haven’t chosen to launch more attacks here.
Wrong again, Doc. The dems were willing to send funds to the troops, but only if we guaranteed defeat in the future. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. You are really going to tell me that the democratic party, which has treated the military with disdain and contempt for the last thirty years or so, are suddenly concerned about their well being? Perhaps in your world.
I seem to recall that there were thousands of Iraqis in the streets cheering our troops and waving to them. Certainly seems like a greeting to me. Just because an insurgency grew and Al Qaeda is there stirring up trouble certainly doesn’t mean that they don’t appreciate what we have given them. As far as the “in its last throes” comments, that certainly was a mistake and not a very smart thing to say, no argument there. The “Mission Accomplished” statement has been so beaten to death by the Bush haters, it’s pathetic. Bush was declaring an end to the operation of removing Saddam Hussein and his henchmen, and it was accomplished.
Well if you think those of us on this site are supporting the war because of our manhood, you’re not as smart as you think you are, that’s for sure.
Interesting. You liken one of the most important fights of our time to a piece of Chocolate cake. And you say we are the irrational ones????
I see Muslim extremists as something very different. I see a group that will be handed a huge victory tactically, strategically, morally, and financially if they win in Iraq. Sources they will put to good use to extend the fight to us. If you can’t see that, then you haven’t been paying attention. But hey, you did liken our fight in Iraq to a piece of chocolate cake so why am I not surprised.
Doc shows why he bottomed out on the reading comprehension part of the SATs:
Go back and read my last response. No one said they couldn’t launch attacks elsewhere. What AQ has said is that they consider Iraq a critical front in the WOT. Bin Laden himself has stated that (in between doing his biennial October vote-democrat videos). What we have said is that AQ is therefore committing valuable resources to Iraq – resources they would otherwise employ on further attacks in the non-Muslim world, including here. That’s just common sense.
To put it in terms even you might understand, if you want to burn your neighbor’s house down, but must spend your time and money running the garbage disposal because someone keeps delivering German chocolate cake to your door, you don’t have as much time to buy the matches or gasoline and commit the arson. (to everyone else here, I apologize for the bizarre analogy, but considering Doc’s chocolate cake fixation, this might be the only way he’ll understand it).
I’ve already invited you to explain why you think a passive approach will make AQ any less of a threat, and you chose to hide in the tall grass. We’re still waiting for that answer.
To beat the analogy into the ground: while I’m busy shoving cake down the garbage disposal, I’ll send my wife over to the neighbor’s house. While he’s standing on my doorstep with another pesky cake in hand, she’ll waltz in, douse the place with gasoline, and set it ablaze.
There’s passive and then there’s passive. Does this need the involvement of the full military, occupying to countries and pissing off the locals, thereby making new insurgents at the same time we’re killing them? Or can it be done with smaller, more surgical strikes against the leaders? Apparently bin Laden has 20,000 seconds-in-command. Let’s get them. Let’s get bin Laden himself–chop the head off the snake.
Maybe it could be done smaller and smarter, still leaving resources to protect the homeland.
Interesting, Doc is so concerned that the locals are “pissed off” but doesn’t seem to care if they are slaughtered en mass if we precipitously leave. Very telling statement.
“There’s a very good comment in the doctrine that says that every citizen is a potential insurgent.”
–Col. Manuel Diemer, Counterinsurgency (COIN) academy commandant in Baghdad.
It doesn’t get much more straightforward than that. Diemer goes on to say, “If you treat every citizen as though he were an insurgent, then you will wind up with a huge problem on your hands.”
It seems to me that the more killing you do in someone’s country, the bigger the problem will be.
I hope you’re not suggesting that there are no innocent civilians being killed.
I’m assuming you meant to say “two countries” which would indicate that you don’t agree with the invasion of Afghanistan either, is that correct?
Well, NC Cop, you’ll notice that part of my thesis is that all of our military might is being used elsewhere when we still need protection here.
Bearing that in mind, Afghanistan is at least a righteous bust–it actually was involved in the September 11 attacks. That makes more sense to me than Iraq. Given a choice, I’d choose to pursue Afghanistan, rather than Afghanistan and Iraq together. We have an actual beef with Afghanistan, and one country of potential insurgents seems like it would be easier to control than two countries of them.
Just what might we need thousands of ground troops in the U.S. for? A ground invasion from Canada? An airborne assault from Cuba’s paratrooper brigade? We certainly can’t use them to combat terrorism in our country, as that would surely rise the cries of “Posse comitatus!” from people like yourself, I would imagine.
So I ask again, what might we need thousands of ground troops for in the U.S.?
Does the term “righteous bust” mean that you think we are losing in Afghanistan?
I believe that Iraq is just as righteous as Afghanistan. The main difference is in Afghanistan we waited until 3,000 people were slaughtered before acknowledging it was a threat, regardless of all the intelligence and warnings we had. In Iraq, we removed a dangerous and violent leader who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, used chemical weapons, attacked 4 separate sovereign nations, plotted to kill a former U.S. president, and sponsored terrorism. But I guess that sort of resume doesn’t justify being a “threat” to you.
Well Doc logistically speaking it would be extremely hard to provide for an army as large as what we have in Iraq in Afghanistan. We could do it for a short period of time, but eventually it would be an exteme strain on the poor men who fly in the goods that keep and army on it’s feet. Also the Taliban continue to lose ground even amonst the locals. Plus you forget that Afghanistan is presently being mostly helped by the UN these days.
Doc your comments on Iraq shows that you really have no clue as to what was going on in Iraq prior to our invasion. The constant attacks against our military by Saddamn. The bribery, plotting against his neighbors, the illegal weapons, the illegal technologies, He was constantly breaking the surrender agreement, throwing out the UN inspectors, the persecution of his people. How many dead, 500,000?? How many bribes??? Personally I think we should have taken everyone listed in the oil for bribes scandal, and throw them in prison and toss the key. Sadamn surrended and the UN allowed him to get away with every scheme and swindle that he could. If it was time to re-assert ourselves into Iraq under Clinton, which he had authority to do, then it was definately time 3 years later.
As far as our national security, it is times like these we have what is called the national guard. Since Posse’ Accumatadis(sp?) act specifically says that unless there is an invasion of this country, the military cannot be used as a police force, your argument is moot at best. – Lorica
I hope you’re not suggesting that there are no innocent civilians being killed.
Ah, here it is yet again! The faux concern over “civilian” casualties, from someone who wants to abandon Iraq to the tender mercies of AQ and Iran. The simple fact that this will result in massive civilian casualties is unimportant, which tells you everything you need to know about Doc’s true level of concern for the poor “civilians” in Iraq. An exact copy of the liberal/Democrat level of concern for the people of SE Asia after Vietnam.
Hey Doc, it’s not as though they matter other than as a tool in your partisan political arguments right? They’re just (slopes, zipperheads, ragheads, whatever) right? Part and parcel of the “soft” racism of the liberal mind.
NC Cop:
By “righteous bust,” I mean that they were busted and that it was the right thing to do.
Obviously, if I’m saying that we need to boost airport security and inspections of ships, planes and so on, I’m not going to complain if troops are used in that capacity; I’m suggesting it, after all. Caution and oversight would be the key.
Lorica:
Remember that the National Guard is being deployed overseas. This is what I’m talking about.
Severian:
You’re purely hateful and not worth the effort of fisking.
You mean something like this, Sev?
I guess Doc wasn’t interested in 500,000 dead children as a result of sanctions, but then again, people like him think sanctions are “humane”.
On the other hand, you’re saying, if we just flat-out kill them ourselves in the course of military operations, it’s okay.
Right on the money NC. But what do you know? It’s not like you’ve actually been there or anything…
Don’t even pretend that you care one whit for the Iraqi’s Doc. I’m the hateful one, what you mean is I’ve penetrated to the core of your real nature and you can’t handle it or refute it, so you do the typical liberal action when confronted with the truth, label the person pointing your feet of clay out “hateful.”
You are exactly like every other liberal fool who’s come around here trying to “enlighten” us poor ol’dumb conservatives.
You’re a hypocrite, and care nothing about the people you want to abandon.