Giuliani Unaware That America Gradually Withdrew From Vietnam
Giuliani Unaware That America Gradually Withdrew From Vietnam
Today, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani delivered a speech to the Jewish Community Relations Council in New York:
[I]f we flee Iraq, if we do what the Democrats want us to do — which is to not only flee Iraq, not only retreat in Iraq, but give them a timetable of our retreat.
Have you ever heard of that in a history of war? Have you ever heard of an army being required to give a printed schedule of its release to the enemy? It makes no sense, does it? Whether you’re for the war or against it, you would never have an army retreat on a six- month, one-year, 18-month schedule explaining, We’ll reduce the forces by 20,000, then by 30,000, then by 50,000. Gee, you can then figure out when the forces are depleted enough so you can really do damage to them.
Giuliani needs to brush up on his history. A publicly-announced gradual reduction of forces is exactly what the United States did in the Vietnam War. On May 14, 1969, President Richard Nixon laid out an “eight-point peace plan” calling for the gradual withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam:
Over a period of 12 months, by agreed-upon stages, the major positions of all U.S., allied, and other non-South Vietnamese forces would be withdrawn. At the end of this 12-month period, the remaining U.S., allied, and other non-South Vietnamese forces would move into designated base areas and would not engage in combat operations.
Some highlights of Nixon giving the enemy a “timetable of our retreat”:
June 8, 1969: Nixon announces the redeployment of 25,000 troops, which would begin in the “next 30 days” and be completed by the end of August.
Sept. 16, 1969: Nixon announces a new “troop ceiling,” meaning that a minimum of 60,000 troops would be withdrawn by December.
Dec. 15, 1969: Nixon calls for a “reduction in our troop ceiling of 50,000 more U.S. troops by April 15 next year.”
April 20, 1970: Nixon calls for the withdrawal of 150,000 troops “to be completed during the spring of next year.”
Oct. 12, 1970: Nixon announces the reduction of the troop ceiling by another 40,000 troops between “now and Christmas.”
Nov. 12, 1971: Nixon announced to the nation, “Over the next 2 months we will withdraw 45,000 Americans.”
Jan. 13, 1972: Nixon stated, “I am announcing today the withdrawal of an additional 70,000 [troops] from Vietnam over the next 3 months.”
Apr. 26, 1972: Nixon announces that “over the next 2 months 20,000 more Americans will be brought home from Vietnam.”
Whether it’s blowing off Iraq Study Group meetings, showing ignorance about the root causes of 9/11, attacking Clinton for 9/11, or fear-mongering about sensible redeployment from Iraq, Giuliani talks big and thinks small.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
329 Responses to “Giuliani Unaware That America Gradually Withdrew From Vietnam”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Giuliani is a crook, and a complete IDIOT.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:14 pmHow did this guy ever convict ANY organized crime figures?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:15 pmThe Iranian-Clinton smear is at work.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:15 pmThink Progress is doing the bidding of it's Clinton's masters.
To real Leftists here wake up!
This is a Clinton smearsite!
Caption Contest:
"Sh*t another migraine, damn Viagra!"
July 6th, 2007 at 3:15 pm"So what we decided to do was we'd lay out the 12 things we thought were the most important, and then we would spend the summer discussing it in more detail. They're all single sentences, easy to read. You look at it, you can decide whether you agree with us on most things or not. If you agree with us on everything, I'd be really surprised, because I don't agree with us on everything. I agree with us on most things. But if you agree with us on most things, then you can get an idea of whether you want me to be president. . . . ."
- Rudy Guliani, on his own campaign platform
July 6th, 2007 at 3:16 pmOk, so we DID it before...but that doesn't mean we should do it AGAIN.
It's called learning from our mistakes.
When we left vietnam, there was a vacuum that the VietCong was only too willing to step in and fill.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:16 pmAnd yes, Giuliani is a dingbat for not knowing that
July 6th, 2007 at 3:17 pmHillary is a crook and a complete IDIOT.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:18 pmWhen we left vietnam, there was a vacuum that the VietCong was only too willing to step in and fill.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
What makes you think this won't happen whenever we leave? It certainly doesn't appear that things are getting better in Iraq.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:19 pmWell, Republicans just invent things out of thin air, so why not?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:19 pm#3 Umm, okay then, Valiant Venus, whatever you say.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:20 pmGod Help Us All if this Criminal and Pathological Liar is at the helm of this country.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:20 pmOur withdrawl from Vietnam proves Rudy's point perfectly.
We handed our friends over to the enemy and they were slaughtered in the millions or placed in Marxist "re-education" camps.
I suppose that's what you want us to do in Iraq as well.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:20 pmGiuliani - buy a clue!
Dar
DemocracyInteractive.com
July 6th, 2007 at 3:21 pmWhen we left vietnam, there was a vacuum that the VietCong was only too willing to step in and fill.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Umm yah so what... we stopped dying in that stupid conflict, just as we should stop dying in this one.
Don't ya see SGT, there is no "winning".. America has already lost 3000 or so, so do we now lose 30,000, or 3,000,000? How many lives are worth this bogus war so that Exxon, BP can rape the Iraqi people of their natural resources?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:21 pmThe Republican Presidential candidates don't have a half a brain among the entire lot of them...
No wonder they fear the educated...
Republican's motto "Why think when you can make sh!t up?"
July 6th, 2007 at 3:22 pmWell, Dubya didn't know the difference between Slovenia and Slovakia, and nobody seemed to care --- I imagine that Rudy will get away with this one, too.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:22 pmWe handed our friends over to the enemy and they were slaughtered in the millions or placed in Marxist “re-education†camps. - - My, my, aren't we subject to hyperbole. Vietnam is now at peace with us and is a favorite economic trading partner with the US economy. How'd that "Domino Theory" of Communism workout anyway?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:24 pmWho the hell goes to war against their friends Ringo?
We never should have gotten involved in Vietnam, as we never should have started Iraq. Bad investments lead to bad losses. You just have decide when to get out of the market and accept that you won't tolerate further declines... That's what we should have learned from Vietnam - stay out of similar situations. Yet we didn't. Probably because Chimp was too busy hiding in Alabama, and Dick-tator was hiding in his dorm room...
July 6th, 2007 at 3:26 pmGiuliani Unaware That America Gradually Withdrew From Vietnam?
Stupid is what stupid does.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:26 pmRUDY, YOU DUMB SHIT, THOSE WHO DONT KNOW THEIR HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT YOU DUMB SHIT!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:27 pmSTFU -
July 6th, 2007 at 3:27 pmUmm yah so what… we stopped dying in that stupid conflict, just as we should stop dying in this one ----- All conflicts could be labeled 'stupid', but that you think there's nothing worth fighting for is not surprising.
We handed our friends over to the enemy and they were slaughtered in the millions or placed in Marxist “re-education†camps.
I suppose that’s what you want us to do in Iraq as well.
Comment by Ringo — July 6, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Well we have been slaughtering the Iraqi people by the thousands, how come you show no sympathy for those people who's lives we've wrecked, who's lives have became worse since we invaded. Where's the sympathy for the 2+ million displaced Iraqi's?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:27 pmSTFU -
July 6th, 2007 at 3:28 pmAmerica has already lost 3000 or so, so do we now lose 30,000, or 3,000,000? How many lives are worth this bogus war --- See, there's the diference of opinion. You're of the camp that thinks even ONE is too many, I'm of the camp that believes no price is too great.
Gawd I hope the Republics run him as their candidate. He will be so easy to beat.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:29 pmbut that you think there’s nothing worth fighting for is not surprising.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
He didn't say that. Stop with the strawmen...
Most of the Progressives here have served in the military. Few of the trolls have. Very few.
Very few here will tell you that WWII wasn't worth fighting for. It's the pre-emptive kinds of empire building occupations that we don't buy into.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:29 pmThe stupidity of GOP candidates is mind-numbing.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:29 pmRudy's simply pandering to a potential base. He'll probably flip flop on this one especially after this fall.
He better brush up on US history!!!! Or maybe not. His arrogance will keep him going one way or another.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:29 pmI’m of the camp that believes no price is too great.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
Except that you have no right to sacrifice my life, or anyone else's to your cause - and that is where we will fight you on this matter.
You want to fight - go for it. But don't force your violent war-mongering in the name of false causes on the rest of us. Clear?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:31 pmunbelievable -
It’s the pre-emptive kinds of empire building occupations that we don’t buy into. --- Who's empire was being built in VN..or Korea?
And btw, I didn't intend to ut words in your mouth, STFU.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:32 pmunbelievable ,
July 6th, 2007 at 3:32 pmYes only Progressive serve in the Military.
No others of differnt ideologies do right?
SGT
Did I say I don't think there's nothing worth fighting for? So don't even try to put words in my mouth.
But stealing someone else's oil is not moral. Didn't your parents teach you morals?
What exactly do you think we're fighting? Terrorists? HAHA don't be stupid, if America was serious about terrorists we wouldn't have wide open borders allowing millions of Illegals in.
If this was anything more than Oil Stealing, and a true FIGHT we would have a draft. But there's no enemy. There are a few radicals over there, but they don't scare me. Do they scare you? Most people the world over just want to live in peace, work, have a family, you know the things worth fighting for.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:34 pmWho’s empire was being built in VN..or Korea?
Initially, the French... Ultimately, ours.
And btw, I didn’t intend to ut words in your mouth, STFU.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
Then why do you keep doing it?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:34 pmHow’d that “Domino Theory†of Communism workout anyway?
Comment by Badmoodman
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Let's see:
Cambodia fell. Loas fell. Upwards of three million killed with more than a million and a half executed in Cambodia alone. Thousands of refugees fleeing on leaking, unsafe boats...
And Vietnam and Laos are still Communist and unfree.
But I guess most American hippies are doing fine.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:35 pmunbelievable -
Except that you have no right to sacrifice my life, or anyone else’s to your cause -- No one's 'threatening' to sacrifice your life.
You want to fight - go for it. -- Ok, thanks!
But don’t force your violent war-mongering in the name of false causes on the rest of us. --- No one is. No one who is in Iraq didn't VOLUNTEER, no one forced them, and no one's forcing you either.
Clear? --- I hope so.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:35 pmYes only Progressive serve in the Military.
No others of differnt ideologies do right?
Comment by The Joker — July 6, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
Go re-read what I said, idiot. Your strawman isn't it.
We were talking in context to TP.
Sheesh...
July 6th, 2007 at 3:36 pmYou can count on conservatives for a good laugh.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:38 pmGiuliani is ridiculous.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:38 pmF.Thompson is an unethical insider, former lobbyist and mole for the Nixon White House.
Romney is a flip-flopper on issues to the nth degree, who would also have Gitmo expanded.
McCain is dead in the water.
Hunter, Tancredo, Gilmore and T.Thompson are jokes.
The only one left is Ron Paul - and while some of his ideas are worthy, he is so libertarian that he is extreme.
The choices for president put forth by the repugs are pathetic.
Is Giuliani Smarter Than A 5th Grader?
So what we have here is:
July 6th, 2007 at 3:39 pma former mayor
with zero foreign policy experience
and an undistinguished record
except for cavorting with crime figures
and multiple wives
Should we be surprised that he doesn't have even a grade school grasp of modern history?
Remember when Vietnam fell and we had to fight all those communists over here? Nothing but constant fighting in the streets. The bloodshed was horrendous. Why oh why didn't we continue to fight them over there?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:40 pmNo one’s ‘threatening’ to sacrifice your life.
You said: "You’re of the camp that thinks even ONE is too many, I’m of the camp that believes no price is too great.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:28 pm"
I disagreed, because the price that's too great is ALWAYS innocent lives.
No one is. No one who is in Iraq didn’t VOLUNTEER, no one forced them, and no one’s forcing you either.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
No one is forcing them? I call BS. There are many who want out and cannot get out. That's force.
Yes, the signed up to defend our country, but that's NOT what's happened or happeningin Iraq, and they are not allowed to say "Look, this is what I signed up for and leave, even when they have fulfilled their contracts." That's not voluntary... Even bad marriages allow for divorce...
July 6th, 2007 at 3:41 pmComment by STFU
What exactly do you think we’re fighting? Terrorists? ----- Well, we're not shooting at oil derricks.
if America was serious about terrorists we wouldn’t have wide open borders allowing millions of Illegals in. ------ But haven't you heard? This country was founded on illegal immigration. How dare we shut our borders to those that wanna get a piece of the pie just like our ancestors did?
But there’s no enemy. ----- Nope! Nothin' but sand & camels.
There are a few radicals over there, but they don’t scare me. Do they scare you? ---- scare? Nope. But they make me nervous enough to wanna keep a close eye on 'em.....and that's easier to do over there.
Most people the world over just want to live in peace, work, have a family, you know the things worth fighting for. ---- You know, the kinds of things those 'radicals' want to destroy.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:41 pmRemember when Vietnam fell and we had to fight all those communists over here?
Comment by erock — July 6, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Touche!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:43 pmLet's not knock JulieAnnie for not knowing his history. He hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination, let alone the, dare I say it, the Presidency!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:43 pmSomebody go back and get a shitload of history books!
Rudy's not really very bright, is he?
I guess that's why the trolls support him. What am I saying? They're paid to support him.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:43 pmThere are many who want out and cannot get out. That’s force.
---- That's not force, that's a contract!
Other than the relatively FEW who are stop-lossed.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:43 pmUpwards of three million killed with more than a million and a half executed in Cambodia alone.
And who invaded cambodia and put an end to the slaughter??? The VIETNAMESE ARMY!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:43 pmWow....
Karl Rove was strongly backing Fred Thompson for President because Fred has the IQ of a banana. But now, Rudy is clearly in the lead for getting Karl's support.
We have a new Contender!!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:45 pmGiuliani needs to brush up on his history. A publicly-announced gradual reduction of forces is exactly what the United States did in the Vietnam War. On May 14, 1969, President Richard Nixon laid out an “eight-point peace plan†calling for the gradual withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam[...]
Nice try TP...but, Nixon was doing this sh!t to save his a$$. He was up for reelection in 72 and was watching war protesters marching in the streets...Nixon kept making these hollow promises to be reelected and not because he wanted to retreat...
After the election the American people turned on Nixon, in bit part, because he misled them going into the election; Watergate was the toss in crime. It took threatening his impeachment to cause Nixon to finally begin the withdrawal of troops that ended in 1975!!!
Put up the entire time-line and in context TP!!!
Nixon did nothing right back then!!!!! Nothing!!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:45 pmYou know, the kinds of things those ‘radicals’ want to destroy.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
In 2001 there were 124 terrorist attacks worldwide.
In 2003, it was up to 204.
In 2005, it jumped to over 11,000.
Last year - it was close to 14,000.
Tell me again how occupying and destroying Iraq is making us safer...
July 6th, 2007 at 3:45 pmYes only Progressive serve in the Military.
No others of differnt ideologies do right?
Comment by The Joker
An interesting statement. I really do wonder how many "non-Progressives" HAVE servfed in the military. (And being AWOL from a NG unit during Vietnam, doesn't count. OK, Dubya?).
I ask this question quite often and NEVER get an answer back.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:45 pmFact is - we are not going to pull out of Iraq for a long time. We are trapped there, and Trudy knows it.
Repukes know that they can just make sh!t up, and no one (in their audiance) will call them on it because it is exactly what they want to hear. Why do you think so many idiots think that Sadam had anything to do with 911.
The Repukian followers are....well...not the sharpest tools in the shed.
CT_V1 you are gonna post something stupid on this thread...have at it, let's see some of that awesome brain power.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:46 pmAnd who invaded cambodia and put an end to the slaughter??? The VIETNAMESE ARMY!
Comment by Badger
Good Point! If we hadn't abandoned VietNam (and just in the nick of time) to communism, Pol Pot's regime would have gone on unchecked.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:47 pmThat’s not force, that’s a contract!
And when their contracts have expired? It's force...
Other than the relatively FEW who are stop-lossed.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
A few? Are you serious? Why do you think soldiers were banned from myspace and youtube?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:47 pmTell me again how occupying and destroying Iraq is making us safer…
'Cause it just is, you communis- er, ... I mean "terrorist enabler."
See how easy that is? Hijacking democracies to perform imperial bungles is surprisingly easy.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:50 pm.
Why do you think soldiers were banned from myspace and youtube?
Comment by unbelievable
It had to do with tying up bandwidth on the servers. Real work was being slowed down considerably due to all the 'surfers'. they weren't 'banned', they're just not allowed to use it on a DOD server.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:50 pmWhy would we want to retreat anyway?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:51 pmGiulianni was Ignorant for not knowing the History of the Viet Nam Era, but he was STUPID to think that his false statements wouldn't be discovered, and that Independent Voters wouldn't care if he was wrong or not.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:51 pm#29
"But don’t force your violent war-mongering in the name of false causes on the rest of us."
Don't worry "the rest of us" isn't fighting this war anyway.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:51 pmGood Point! If we hadn’t abandoned VietNam (and just in the nick of time) to communism, Pol Pot’s regime would have gone on unchecked.
Then again, if we hadn't bombed Cambodia, there'd have been no Pol Pot regime.
Another half-assed imperial adventure waged by amateurs and frauds, another series of unintended consequences that the adults will have to clean up for them.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:51 pm.
The "annointed one" by the PNAC is "ignorant about the root causes of 911"....hello? anyone with a brain left in NYC?? Of course, Giuliani was "set up" to be the next in line....of course, he was "set up" to run and pick up where Bush left off? Of course, that's why his city was selected in the first place....now can we please get on with what we do about this poor, broken old bald man who is wasting his money running for President?? He's rather pathetic now, isn't he? As a father, he's shirked his responsibility for his children who will not even speak with him, was a womanizer and an adulterer, was also in bed with Bernie Kerik and his cadre of thugs, helped to illegally prepare Bernie's homeland security application before it was found out, and finally sits on the board of directors of the makers of Oxycontin who have just been charged with lying about the addictive quality of their drug....of course, Rudy knew it all the time - of course, he did or he shouldn't be sitting on the board of directors!!
This guy has an addled brain as well and the fact that he can't recollect the Vietnam days is evidence of this problem. In fact, befuddled Rudy probably can't remember what he had for breakfast today, if the truth be known.
Sorry, Rudy....although you were clearly the "annointed one", you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting elected.
The people have your number and you aren't going anywhere any time soon....just look at your own polls, Rudy. The people whom you served during your self-professed "heroic days" of 911 where you lied to them about the air quality and they're now all dying won't even have you. They've overwhelmingly selected Michael Bloomberg over you any day of the week!
Go away, Rudy. You're beginning to resemble that persistant gnat on everyone's shoulder who gets shooed away but keeps coming back for more of the same medicine!
Take a couple of your infamous Oxy's and chill out!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:52 pmHe was up for reelection in 72 and was watching war protesters marching in the streets
Comment by dixie blood — July 6, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
Protesting works... In SiCKO, and American living in Paris said that the French government fears the people because they protest important issues.
Protesting has gotten them National Health Care, 5 weeks minimum paid vacation, free college education, nanny service, a year of paid maternity leave, etc.
We just want to stop a freaking occupation. Why aren't we?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:52 pmHow can you hide an army withdrawl news from the Iraqis?...How stupid this Giuliani is..!!!
A huge army,with another huge civilian contractiors'army cannot run and leave the country(Iraq)..un noticed.
Can he tell us how Giuliani will do it?..How Giuliani will withdraw this huge army with all its logistical problems and airlifting without giving the Iraqis a withdrawal schedule?
Of course Giuilani can criticise all day because he never had to serve in the military..
He knows nothing about military,and his foreign policy experience is limited to consulting with his Israeli buddies.
In one of the Republicans debates,he was arguing with Candidate Ron Paul that he never heard that, our support to Israel and our biased foreign policy had anything to do with 9/11.....
He claimed he never heard of such thing...
And here he claims he never heard that an army can schedule a witdrawal from a war after almost 55 months .
July 6th, 2007 at 3:53 pmKarl Rove was strongly backing Fred Thompson for President because Fred has the IQ of a banana.
Well, that and Karl reeeaaalllyyy wants to see a stripper-pole installed in the West Wing.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:53 pm.
Tell me again how occupying and destroying Iraq is making us safer…
Comment by unbelievable
Because we WILL fight Muslim extremists, and I would prefer to do it there.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:54 pmComment by Grand Moff Texan — July 6, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
LOL - yeah, "'Cause I said so!" is common.
Lazy Repukes... Can't even form a coherent argument.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:54 pmCaption Contest:
Man, it's awfully bright out here! Where'd my ass go?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:54 pmUnbelievable: I believe it's called The Patriot Act.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:54 pmKarl Rove was strongly backing Fred Thompson for President because Fred has the IQ of a banana.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:54 pmYou university educated, smug progressives would like to believe that intelligence is what makes a president, but it ain't so. The president is the commander-in-chief and a figurehead for the nation. He must be convincing, reassuring and tough. He will have a lot of smart people helping him to formulate policies but being smart is not a requirement.
#64 Well, that and Karl reeeaaalllyyy wants to see a stripper-pole installed in the West Wing..
Comment by Grand Moff Texan
I think maybe ol' Rover would rather have that stripper pole installed up his ARSE!!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:55 pmAnd what a nifty piece of scheming right-revoling work that document is! How any congressman voted to pass it in the first place is beyond me; how they renewed it when it was clearly being rammed in before the start of the new congress is tantamount to criminality.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:55 pmBecause we WILL fight Muslim extremists, and I would prefer to do it there.
Right. We went into Iraq because of all the Muslim extremists who were there.
Would you like to buy some beach-front property in Oklahoma?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:55 pm.
Because we WILL fight Muslim extremists, and I would prefer to do it there.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
And, by doing it there, you can assure us that you can eradicate it? You can assure us we're not make MORE terrorists? Overall, our "fight them over there" strategery has resulted in a net INCREASE in terrorists and terrorism. Nice strategery. Nice.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:56 pmI think maybe ol’ Rover would rather have that stripper pole installed up his ARSE!!
No, I think you're thinking of Michael Savage.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:56 pm.
It had to do with tying up bandwidth on the servers. Real work was being slowed down considerably due to all the ’surfers’. they weren’t ‘banned’, they’re just not allowed to use it on a DOD server.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
Oh bullsh!t... That's the excuse they gave...
The reality is that they were speaking out against service.
I see you skipped my question about how Iraq is making us safer when there wer nearly 14,000 terrorist attacks vs. only 124 in 2001.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:56 pm#69 Fred Thompson's hopes are dashed since the news that he tried to circumvent and obstruct justice by going behind the backs of his fellow congressmen when they were about to nail Nixon. Can you believe that they have record of his call to Nixon?? They do.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:56 pmRight. We went into Iraq because of all the Muslim extremists who were there.
Damn straight. They also happen to sit on a lot of oil. That's another reason we went there. Can't you liberals handle multiple reasons for doing something?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:57 pmA few? Are you serious? Why do you think soldiers were banned from myspace and youtube?
Comment by unbelievable — July 6, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
And they were not banned from facebook.com!!!
Why???
Officers in the mil. are most likely to be members of facebook.com and not myspace.
The enlisted, where the real truth is spoken, are mostly members of myspace.com...
July 6th, 2007 at 3:57 pm#65 Poor silly SGT Denial. All aiports go through Bahgdad? You are not so simple minded that occupying Iraq prevents them from coming here are you? PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!
You have a problem with your own math. With creating 6 new jihadists for everyone we kill tell us again how your occupation is a miltary solution. Fight in perpuity on 12 BILLION a month of borrowed money?
How did your gene pool survive this long?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:57 pmComment by Frank M — July 6, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Yeah, 'cause that's been working just GREAT for the last six years.
Right?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:58 pm.
Where's the thread about Palfrey today? Just wondering.....
And while we're at it, when is Jeffie Gannon/Guckert (the white house playtoy) going to air his sleaze??
July 6th, 2007 at 3:58 pmThe president is the commander-in-chief and a figurehead for the nation. He must be convincing, reassuring and tough. He will have a lot of smart people helping him to formulate policies but being smart is not a requirement.
Comment by Frank M — July 6, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
In other words, he can be a complete phucking phony and he'll have plenty of people to fix his phuk-ups. Very reassuring.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:58 pmDon’t worry “the rest of us†isn’t fighting this war anyway.
Comment by Tracy — July 6, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
We know you won't go... LOL
Thanks for reminding us that you refuse to fight for an occupation you believe in, and we don't...
July 6th, 2007 at 3:58 pmI see you skipped my question about how Iraq is making us safer when there wer nearly 14,000 terrorist attacks vs. only 124 in 2001.
Comment by unbelievable
How many of those 14000 were here?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:58 pmFred Thompson’s hopes are dashed since the news that he tried to circumvent and obstruct justice by going behind the backs of his fellow congressmen
I don't care about Fred. I would never vote for the guy because of his abortion policies. I'm just saying that you over rate intelligence.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:59 pm#73 Overall, our “fight them over there†strategery has resulted in a net INCREASE in terrorists and terrorism. Nice strategery. Nice.
Comment by Lupeyg2
As you can see from Frank's post #69 about the pres not needing to be intelligent, the current president has caused your comment to be true.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:00 pmGiuliani has marbles for brains; besides, we're sick of one smirking, stuttering fool as our CIC; I don't think we could tolerate 4 years of lisping now.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:00 pmCan’t you liberals handle multiple reasons for doing something?
What, you mean like the extremists who weren't there plus the oil that wasn't supposed to be the point adding up to a case for war so we can forget the phony WMD propaganda?
Uh, no. We're not that stupid.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:01 pm.
Bush & Criminals invaded iraq to (1) get revenge, (2) get oil, (3) establish a permanent US base on top of the oil, and (4) to make all their cronies rich. It's all blatant ego and greed.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:01 pm#69 -The president is the commander-in-chief and a figurehead for the nation. He must be convincing, reassuring and tough. He will have a lot of smart people helping him to formulate policies but being smart is not a requirement.
Comment by Frank M
ALL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. YOU FOOLS LEARN NOTHING FROM EVEN RECENT HISTORY.
How does your colon look today?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:01 pmI think Rudy needs some speech and diction classes soon.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:01 pmAnd, by doing it there, you can assure us that you can eradicate it? ----- Man, that would be great! Eradicate, doubt it....keep it over 'there'? Hope so.
You can assure us we’re not make MORE terrorists? --- I didn't say that.
Overall, our “fight them over there†strategery has resulted in a net INCREASE in terrorists and terrorism. Nice strategery. Nice. --- More terrorists? and they aren't here? What's your beef again?
Comment by Lupeyg2
July 6th, 2007 at 4:02 pmWhat, you mean like the extremists who weren’t there
Uh. You mean like the extremists that are blowing up our troops with IEDs every day?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:02 pm#88 That was primo! We've been multitasking ten lies per day - on any given day - and every day of the week.
Their "scandals du jour" provide ongoing entertainment.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:02 pmBecause we WILL fight Muslim extremists, and I would prefer to do it there.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Osama and Saddam HATED one another. Osama was a religious zealot, while Saddam was a secular leader. No great Satan was going to bring the two of them together...
Therefore, destroying and occupying Iraq to fight Al Qaeda is dishonest and delusional.
And you failed to acknowledge the increase of world wide terrorist attacks due to our occupation of Iraq.
Making us safer would mean LESS attacks not 13,000 more every year!
July 6th, 2007 at 4:02 pmOfficers in the mil. are most likely to be members of facebook.com and not myspace.
The enlisted, where the real truth is spoken, are mostly members of myspace.com…
Comment by dixie blood
that's just the craziest sh*t I've heard in a really long time. Where do you get YOUR facts from?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:03 pmHow many of those 14000 were here?
None. Bush is exporting Americans to the Persian Gulf for Osama's greater convenience. This way, they can hurt families all over America and never have to get a passport. Neat, huh?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:03 pm.
He will have a lot of smart people helping him to formulate policies but being smart is not a requirement.
Comment by Frank M — July 6, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Boy!!...did Bush ever Blow that Myth out of the water!
July 6th, 2007 at 4:03 pmHow does your colon look today?
Look? I apply some colon to smell nice after every time I shave. What's your point?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:04 pmUh. You mean like the extremists that are blowing up our troops with IEDs every day?
Please name the extremist organizations that were hosted by Saddam's regime as of March 2003.
That, since you missed it, was the point. Time only flows backwards when conservatives get desperate.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:05 pm.
Please name the extremist organizations that were hosted by Saddam’s regime as of March 2003.
What am I? CIA?
First of all, how come our troops are facing all these insurgent attacks today if Saddam didn't set up a network of terror to support such operations? The network is there and Iran is feeding it with bullets and bombs now.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:06 pmOsama and Saddam HATED one another. Osama was a religious zealot, while Saddam was a secular leader. No great Satan was going to bring the two of them together…
Unbelievable ---- Ever heard "The enemy of my enemy is my ally" ?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:07 pmHe will have a lot of smart people helping him to formulate policies but being smart is not a requirement.
Comment by Frank M — July 6, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
I think Thomas Jefferson, George Washington et al are spinning in their graves right now...
A president MUST be intelligent. Your Bush experiement on electing a stupid one didn't work very well, because he feels intimidated by all the smart people around him,so he goes and does something tyannical to prove his competence, but only ends up provinghis incompetence and making a huge flipping mess..
No. No more dummies in the Whit House. I'd favor an IQ amendment to the Constitution of at least 120.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:07 pmSGT Billy Rae: have you gone to Iraq? If so, what did the Iraqi citizens tell you about what they think of what the US is doing to their country?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:08 pm#99: Uh, right. I am amazed at your ability to type.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:09 pmhttp://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3910b26e685a.htm
In case you're doubting the veracity of my previous post, the url is provided for your reading pleasure.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:09 pmhow come our troops are facing all these insurgent attacks today if Saddam didn’t set up a network of terror to support such operations?
Comment by Frank M
C'mon Frank, work with me here. an 'insurgency' means in laymen's terms....that the attackers 'surge in'....as in from outside to inside. Sadam needn't have ever lifted a finger for it to happen.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:09 pm#62
Comment by unbelievable — July 6, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
"Protesting has gotten them National Health Care, 5 weeks minimum paid vacation, free college education, nanny service, a year of paid maternity leave, etc."
And a bunch of people who think that the government owes them a living.
http://web.france.com/economy
"In fact, France has one of the lowest percentages of its population aged 15-64 years at work among the OECD countries. In 2004, 68.8% of the French population aged 15-64 years was in employment, compared to 80.0% in Japan, 78.9% in the UK, 77.2% in the US, and 71.0% in Germany.[25] This phenomenon is the result of almost thirty years of massive unemployment in France, which has led to three consequences reducing the size of the working population: about 9% of the active population is without a job; students delay as long as possible their entry into labour market; and finally, the French government gives various incentives to workers to retire in their early 50s, though these are now receding."
July 6th, 2007 at 4:09 pmAnd they were not banned from facebook.com!!!
Comment by dixie blood — July 6, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
Exactly! Thanks for the info... You're a veritable encyclopedia :D
July 6th, 2007 at 4:10 pmI posted a question in #51 for Joker, Michael, Sgt Higgie and Frank over 25 minutes ago and as usual, have had no response.
I asked them to explain their military service records, since they seem to have all the experience and wisdom about serving.
This has been asked of many of these, plus CT6 and a few others, and they can't provide any information. Guess their silence IS the answer.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:10 pmMore terrorists? and they aren’t here? What’s your beef again?
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
So, you don't see a problem with MORE terrorists being created by U.S. war policy? Wow. You fail to see the circular reason for keeping troops in Iraq? More terruhist fighting by our current policy = more terruhists = need for more terruhist fight. Durp.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:10 pmMichael Douglas's corvair smashed by Laura in 1963 and one dead boyfriend. Funny but the article says "she still is unable to speak about it to this day".... taken one of two ways it means that she's had a "gag order" put on her regarding that tragic day...
July 6th, 2007 at 4:11 pmSo according to the bright bulbs here, the solution in Vietnam would be to still be there today. And anyone who uses the word "enemy" in reference to Iraq is dumb. Iraqis are blowing up U.S. troops. There will always be Iraqis in Iraq. They want the U.S. to leave. And they will keep blowing up U.S. troops until the U.S. troops leave.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:11 pm#83
Hey just don't speak for people you have no connection to.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:11 pmUpside00 - Yep, all the draft dodgers and faux patriots vanished when you called their bluff, didn't they?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:12 pmhave you gone to Iraq? ----- yes
If so, what did the Iraqi citizens tell you about what they think of what the US is doing to their country? ---- From those I talked with.....honestly, it was about 50/50. Depended on how things were going AT THE TIME. Thhings were going well, they were supportive, as soon as things took a turn for the worse, so did their opinions. Iraqi's are fickle lke that.
Comment by toxiced
July 6th, 2007 at 4:12 pmFirst of all, how come our troops are facing all these insurgent attacks today if Saddam didn’t set up a network of terror to support such operations? The network is there and Iran is feeding it with bullets and bombs now.
Comment by Frank M — July 6, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
That's the dumbest ph*cking thing I've heard in 6 years You beat GW Botch for stupidity!!!
Frank you are a complete moron!!! Do you feel cold you pissed soaked troll? I though so!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 4:12 pmWhat am I? CIA?
Obviously not.
First of all, how come our troops are facing all these insurgent attacks today if Saddam didn’t set up a network of terror to support such operations?
A "network of terror"? I see. So, the Finnish military is a terrorist organization, too? Their entire national defense strategy is based around making their tiny nation too expensive to hold (and it worked, too).
Yes, the only way we could fight a bunch of guys who, in 2003, were just waiting to blow up our troops with IEDs was to send in our troops, so they could get blown up with IEDs. By calling all armed groups "terrorists," the propaganda about Saddam's terror connections can be made into a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is pretty convincing so long as you're dumb enough to be a conservative.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:12 pm.
upside: What? I have no military experience. Do you have any law enforcement experience? If not, does that stop you from talking crap about your local cops?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:12 pmthe upside is, if he wins the primaries, the picture of trump and a cross dressing Giuliani will seem oh so funny... day in and day out.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:14 pmRe progressives serving in the military --
Turns out only a few of the candidates running for prez in 08 have military experience. Here's a breakdown helpfully provided by a Reuters article dated June 25:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee and Democrat Barack Obama had not yet turned 18 by the time the draft was discontinued in 1973.
Democrat John Edwards, who became eligible in the waning years of the war, drew a high lottery number that was not called when the lottery determined who would be inducted into military service.
College and missionary service kept Mitt Romney out of the draft until 1970, when he drew a high lottery number.
Rudy Giuliani also drew a high lottery number in 1970 after receiving deferments as a student and law clerk.
Democrats Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich failed their physical examinations, as did Republican Tom Tancredo.
Republican Fred Thompson, who is expected to formally enter the race soon, received a deferment because he had children.
As a woman, Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton was not subject to the draft.
McCain's biography as a Navy airman who endured years of torture in a Hanoi prison is a central part of his appeal. Hunter, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, has made military issues central to his career in Congress.
Republican Jim Gilmore served in the Army in West Germany, while Ron Paul served as an Air Force surgeon. Democrat Mike Gravel served in the Army in the 1950s.
Democrat Chris Dodd joined the Army Reserve when he left the Peace Corps in 1968. Republican Tommy Thompson joined after law school in 1966.
-------------------------------------------------
The article also mentions that military experience doesn't matter to the American public as much as it once did. The only top-tier candidate with a military resume is McCain, and it probably won't be the biggest factor in his popularity.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:14 pmSo, you don’t see a problem with MORE terrorists being created by U.S. war policy?
Actually, I have a bigger problem with pissing away the lives of soldiers in a strategy that not only isn't working, but was never designed to work, only being to provide cover in American domestic politics. Bleeding our military while building al Qaeda is an act of treason by the C-i-C.
Then again, our soldiers' lives don't mean a damned thing to a conservative.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:15 pm.
How many of those 14000 were here?
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
I see - it's only about America for you. So, then you don't care about the 4,000 Americans killed in Iraq? You just wanna exploit semantics? Okay, fine - then think about this, Einstein - how much will the number expand until there are so many here that you wish it were 2001 and you could have come up with an actual plan against the real terrorists rather than ruining Iraq, and our military - as well as creating a terrorism epidemic? 15,000? 20,000? 50,000?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:15 pmI asked them to explain their military service records, since they seem to have all the experience and wisdom about serving. --------- I don't figure I owe you a copy of my service record.
This has been asked of many of these, plus CT6 and a few others, and they can’t provide any information. ----Sorry, the need to know just isn't there.
Guess their silence IS the answer. --- Yeah, it says "Bite me"
Comment by upside00
July 6th, 2007 at 4:15 pmIraqi’s are fickle lke that.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Yeah, I mean what a bunch of cry babies. Whaaaa! my leg got blown off. Whaaa! my sons were killed today. Whaaaa! I haven't had electricity for 3 years. Somebody call the Whaaaaambulance. Oh wait - it was just blown up. Those fickle Iraqis.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:15 pmSaddam .... set up a network of terror to support such operations? The network is there and Iran is feeding it with bullets and bombs now.
Comment by Frank M — July 6, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
Excuse me, but Didn't Saddam attack Iran, and fight a bitter 8 year war using poison gas for the first time since World War I??
July 6th, 2007 at 4:18 pmAren't the Al Qaeda sunnis blowing up innocent Shiites in their Markets and Mosques.The Sunnis and Shiites might both hate America's occupation of their country, but they are not feeding each other anything but Grief and Mayhem.
Sorry, the need to know just isn’t there.
That's what the garrett troopers always say. Either that or it's confidential information locked away in a safe somewhere.....
July 6th, 2007 at 4:19 pmUnbelievable —- Ever heard “The enemy of my enemy is my ally†?
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Only in American history books.
Prove they were in cahoots. Oh, that's right, you can't, because even the Bush Regime has admitted that there was no connection. I'm sure Georgie got a serious spanking for letting that one slip out!
July 6th, 2007 at 4:19 pmUnbelievable —- Ever heard “The enemy of my enemy is my ally†?
Yes, but obviously Bush hadn't. It's been really astounding watching the right, which is supposed to be serious and knowledgeable about national security, lump together secular and fundamentalist, Shi'ite and Sunni, Arab and Persian states as if they're all one.
A smart strategy would involve dividing different groups but, for the sake of playing politics here at home, the right not only lumps them all together but builds them up as an existential threat. Sometimes they sound like they're recruiting agents of al Qaeda.
Meanwhile, Osama is not only at peace, Bush gave up looking for him.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:20 pm.
how much will the number expand until there are so many here that you wish it were 2001 and you could have come up with an actual plan against the real terrorists rather than ruining Iraq, and our military - as well as creating a terrorism epidemic? 15,000? 20,000? 50,000?
Comment by unbelievable
Look, i never claimed that it couldn't have been better thought out, better executed. Are you saying, "Bring the troops home now, so that we can devise a better strategy, then we can go back in and do it right the second time around"? Or are you suggesting, "F*ck, we blew it! Let's get out of here before someone sees us. "
July 6th, 2007 at 4:21 pmFrank,
I have said NOTHING about my local cops. Actually they are pretty good.
I just find it interesting how many here seem to be so cavalier about how we should use our military and what would make them successful being in the middle of a civil war.
The paranoia I see now is just like the fear I heard in Vietnam: "Fight the commies there or they will be over her on the shores of California".
As soon as you get over there, you see, that they never wanted to come to the US, they just wanted their country back!
It is the same in Iraq; they just want their freakin' country back.
But maybe we will have to do to Iraq as we did in Vietnam: "We will have to destroy it to save it"
And you are the ONLY one to even respond to my questions, and I thank you for that.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:21 pmY'all,
Is Frank (b)M a new troll?? Seems dumb enough to be one to me!!
July 6th, 2007 at 4:21 pmSomebody call the Whaaaaambulance. Oh wait - it was just blown up. Those fickle Iraqis.
Yes. The Iraqis should be grateful that Saddam's "rape rooms" are open under new management.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:22 pm.
about 9% of the active population is without a job
Comment by Tracy — July 6, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Hey, their employment rate is a whole point higher than our real one - and theyhave all those cool benefits!
You know Tracy, you can pretend that it's all about money - but the wealthiest Industrialized nation on Earth is also the sickest. I'd gladly give up rich to be happy. Apparently, so have the French and it is working very well for them. Is it perfect? No. But do the imprfections define the system? Nope. Yet another strawman. Thanks for playing...
July 6th, 2007 at 4:24 pmOsama and Saddam HATED one another. Osama was a religious zealot, while Saddam was a secular leader. No great Satan was going to bring the two of them together…
Therefore, destroying and occupying Iraq to fight Al Qaeda is dishonest and delusional.
Comment by unbelievable — July 6, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
I know there is really no need to respond to any of your comments.
But I thought that this one was hilarious, and your ignorance... OF EVERYTHING can clearly be seen.
I will keep praying for you students, you fukcing moron. †
July 6th, 2007 at 4:24 pmSgt. Higgins, Iraq is not Vietnam.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:24 pmBecause Iraq is one of the most dishonorable days in the life of America.
Worse than vietnam.
Worse than our occupation of the Phillippines.
Ranking with the Sand Creek Massacre.
America invaded a country who had not attacked us, was never a threat to us, had made no military actions against is or our allies--and we invaded the country and occupied it.
This was not a defensive war. This was not a reactive war. This was an aggressive war of choice.
It's as deeply dishonorable an act as has ever been done.
This was not the act of the world's champion of democracy--it was the kind of act that Imperial Britain perormed, that Imperial China did, that Imperial Germany did, that the Imperial Soviet Union did.
The Right has said that we can't afford honor any more, that we have to torture and spy without warrants, that we can't afford habeaas corpus or the Geneva Conventions be cause thhere are people who don't like us. They've said thatt civil liberties don't matter if you're dead, and that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, which spits on the grave of everybody who DID die for liberty and the Constitution--as anyone who has no idea what honor is would say.
Only in American history books. --- Really? I always thought that was a Sun Tzu art of war thing.
Prove they were in cahoots. Oh, that’s right, you can’t---- And they may well not have been. But they would both have incentive (the downfall of the West) to work together, or at least be supportive of each other.
Comment by unbelievable — July 6, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 4:25 pm#118: When you're nation is attacked you should defend it of course. It's the honorable thing to do. We do not attack nations without a cause, though. So the people fighting us in Iraq aren't fighting for their nation. They are fighting for the criminals that started the war. They are trying to keep back the freedoms. These people should be made to see that fighting against us is futile and is harming their own citizens.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:26 pmWhat are you suggesting SGT. Higgins? Don't question? just do and let others think for you? We shouldn't concern ourselves with faulty intelligence or the strong arm tactics to push an agenda. Just do.
I'll question authority.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:27 pmWe properly ridicule Republicans for the chorus "But Clinton did it too!" My concern is this article sounds like "But Nixon did it too!" And that is certainly not a standard we want to live up (down?) to!
July 6th, 2007 at 4:27 pmPBG
July 6th, 2007 at 4:28 pmDamned great post. Kudos. Thanks.
Fight the commies there or they will be over her on the shores of California -------- Whoops, that one didn't work out so well after all.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:28 pmLook, i never claimed that it couldn’t have been better thought out, better executed. Are you saying, “Bring the troops home now, so that we can devise a better strategy, then we can go back in and do it right the second time around� Or are you suggesting, “F*ck, we blew it! Let’s get out of here before someone sees us. “
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
Or maybe it's somthing in between your polarizing suggestions that your little, teeny, tiny brain can't grasp despite 2 years of posts here at this blog. Something...like...I don't know...like...an...intelligent...uh...approach to...uh..terrorism!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 4:28 pmAre you saying, “Bring the troops home now, so that we can devise a better strategy, then we can go back in and do it right the second time around� Or are you suggesting, “F*ck, we blew it! Let’s get out of here before someone sees us. “
I'll answer that: what's happening in Iraq is part of al Qaeda's stated strategy. I knew that back at the tail end of 2001. They hope to repeat their victories against the USSR in Afghanistan. The enemy is only there because we are, and we are only there (as the PNAC plan said) to break the back of OPEC.
When Gen. Petraeus says that not only is there no military solution to the problem there, but that the occupation is so small it violates his own counterinsurgency doctrine, I can't believe that anyone, let alone anyone with military experience, can truly think that the problem is making the occupation work.
It isn't and, without a shitload more troops, it won't. Just read Petraeus' book.
Our allies in the war on terror have been fighting (and winning) the war against their own domestic terrorists for decades. That's decades of fighting experience that Bush and Co. turn their noses up to when they say that those tactics aren't the way.
Iraq is al Qaeda's trap and Bush won't leave because of his ego. Any solution begins when we STOP PLAYING INTO THE ENEMY'S PLAN. If keeping America safe is the objective we have to force the Iraqis to seek their own political solution. Continuing to seek political solutions via military means is repeating the mistakes of Vietnam.
As one old veteran said at the beginning of the invasion of Iraq: "the blood, sweat, and tears of the professional fighting man is going to have to bail out the incompetence of civilian amateurs." Well, this civilian thinks its time to stop working against our own interests.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:29 pm.
Guess their silence IS the answer. — Yeah, it says “Bite meâ€
Comment by upside00
Comment by SGT Higgins
WOW!! That is a very intelligent response. Did your mom teach you that one?
And quit using the "Sgt" name unless you actually are a retired sergeant, it gives the military a bad name to have someone pretending to be something they are not. Unless you are Fred Thompson or ronnie reagan, (bad) tv actors, then you can pretend all you want..
July 6th, 2007 at 4:29 pmHey just don’t speak for people you have no connection to.
Comment by Tracy — July 6, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
Don't worry - I'm not you.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:29 pmWe do not attack nations without a cause, though. So the people fighting us in Iraq aren’t fighting for their nation. They are fighting for the criminals that started the war.
Comment by Frank M — July 6, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
Anybody else care to beat there head against this wall?
Nobody...OK.
What again was the cause of attacking Iraq?
What criminals started this war - and where were they from?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:29 pmOFF TOPIC. Damn it. I'm watching Twin Peaks - Fire Walk with Me and I've just fallen in love with Sheryl Lee and Molly Kelly.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:30 pmAnd they may well not have been. But they would both have incentive (the downfall of the West) to work together, or at least be supportive of each other.
Why would secular Arab states want to bring down the west? That would be an economic disaster for them! This is ridiculous.
The Islamist types who dream of a caliphate can envision life on the back of a camel, but not regimes like Iraq, Syria, Egypt, etc. Does Turkey want to bring down the west?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:31 pm.
#123
Comment by unbelievable — July 6, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
I thought it was a civil war, i.e. Iraqis killing Iraqis, in Iraq, not terroism.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:32 pmOk. We attacked Afghanistan because they attacked us on 9/11. Saddam supported them and that's why we went after him and finally, thank God, got the bastard.
Now it is starting to look like that Iran is involved, too. They are supplying the insurgents in Iraq and that must stop.
The criminals that started this war are all over the middle east and they have all sworn allegiance to islamofascism. That's how you recognize the ciriminals.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:34 pmLook, i never claimed that it couldn’t have been better thought out, better executed.
Good, cause that would lower you to the status of infants like Mr. President who don't have two brain cells to rub together...
Are you saying, “Bring the troops home now, so that we can devise a better strategy, then we can go back in and do it right the second time around�
No.
Or are you suggesting, “F*ck, we blew it! Let’s get out of here before someone sees us. “
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
Again no.
We need to leave because there is NO moral reason for us to still be there. Saddam is dead. There were no WMDs. Iraq was unrelated to 9/11. What's left besides oil and an excuse for you cowards to claim safety?
We're just creating more and more terrorists by staying. Leaving will atleast stop that escalation that is sure to haunt us now for generations... Thanks.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:34 pmRanking with the Sand Creek Massacre. --- Ifthat's the one I'm thinking of, you'll have to explain how Iraq is worse.
was never a threat to us, --- untrue, we were a stone' throw away in Afghanistan.
had made no military actions against is or our allies----except all those violations of No-fly zones and firing on our planes and our allies.
This was not a defensive war. This was not a reactive war. This was an aggressive war of choice. ---- You prefer the defensive kind of wars, do ya?
that we can’t afford habeaas corpus ------ he's not the only President ot suspend habeas Corps in a time of war. Lincoln did it too, for the good of the Union. Seemed to work out in the end.
They’ve said thatt civil liberties don’t matter if you’re dead, ---- Ican't argue with that.
Comment by pbg
July 6th, 2007 at 4:35 pm"Saddam supported them and that’s why we went after him and finally, thank God, got the bastard."
Where's your evidence?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:35 pmThere are many who want out and cannot get out. That’s force.
—- That’s not force, that’s a contract!
Other than the relatively FEW who are stop-lossed.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
Bald. Faced. Lie. Sir Higgins.
Indirect contradiction to your lie of 'FEW', almost everyone over there has had their contract BROKEN BY THE CRIMINALS IN POWER, by way of
--STOPLOSS
--EXTENDED TOURS OF 15 MONTHS INSTEAD OF 12
--FIGHTING ON THE FRONT LINES FOR OVER A YEAR (WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE NOT EVEN IN WWII)
--SHORTENED LEAVES GIVING THEM NO TIME TO RECOVER FROM PTSD BEFORE GOING BACK TO MAKE IT WORSE (HAVE YOU SEEN THE SUICIDE RATE OF VETERANS?)
--CALLING INJURED, TRAUMATIZED AND SERIOUSLY INJURED TROOPS BACK TO ACTIVE DUTY.
--WALTER REED OUTPATIENT 'CARE'
You blame the troops for wanting to break their 'contract' that the government has already pissed all over and lit on fire. Why, how can you defend the indefensible at the expense of the grunt?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:36 pmdespite 2 years of posts here at this blog.
Comment by dixie blood —
you're like 6 diferent kinds of crazy, ain't ya?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:37 pmSaddam was tried, sentenced and hanged by his peers. At least he got a fair trial unlike some of his victims. There's your evidence.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:37 pmOk. We attacked Afghanistan because they attacked us on 9/11. Saddam supported them and that’s why we went after him and finally, thank God, got the bastard.
Now it is starting to look like that Iran is involved, too. They are supplying the insurgents in Iraq and that must stop.
The criminals that started this war are all over the middle east and they have all sworn allegiance to islamofascism. That’s how you recognize the ciriminals.
Comment by Frank M — July 6, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
Holy shite! Where to begin. Start by reading something - ANYTHING - about the background of the hijackers, OBL, and their nationality. Then, think about how an all out assault on a country could actually be detrimental to our mission of eradicating terrorists. Finally, if your not convinced that you've been misled by Bush et al, list and "fight them over there".
July 6th, 2007 at 4:37 pm"There’s your evidence."
Comment by Frank M
In a kangaroo court? Hardly. Where's your evidence?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:38 pm#151 Saddam supported them and that’s why we went after him and finally, thank God, got the bastard.
DO you REALLY believe that?????? If so, then you better go after Saudi Arabia too, most of the 9/11 hijackers and most of their funding came from there.
The criminals that started this war are all over the middle east and they have all sworn allegiance to islamofascism. That’s how you recognize the ciriminals.
So, if someone looks like a muslim, they are terrorists? I am finding the paranoia among the trolls today to be even above their normal paranoiac level.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:39 pmSaddam was tried, sentenced and hanged by his peers. At least he got a fair trial unlike some of his victims. There’s your evidence.
Comment by Frank M — July 6, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
The world is flat. Evidence? The sky is blue. Ta-da!
July 6th, 2007 at 4:39 pmuntrue, we were a stone’ throw away in Afghanistan.
Colin Powell pointed out that Saddam's army was too depleted to threaten its neighbors, even by conventional means. So: no. Iraq was not a threat. But Bush's hand-picked biographer tells us that W. was talking about invading Iraq wayyyyyy back in 1999.
The case for war was a joke. A sick joke. There's no sense in trying to rewrite history.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:39 pm.
Frank M is clearly retarded, or caught in a time warp in 2003.
Tracy, please go talk to someone else until you actually have something to say to me besides "I know you are but what am I?"
July 6th, 2007 at 4:40 pmKangaroo court? I haven't seen anyone objecting to that court. Not even the French said anything about it.
Do you have a problem with the court because they actually found the bastard guilty of crimes against humanity? Ever heard of the gassing of the kurds? That POS gassed kids, for chrissake.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:41 pm"I am finding the paranoia among the trolls today to be even above their normal paranoiac level."
Comment by upside00
It's the afternoon heat. It reminds them that they aren't in Iraq, and are cowards for not enlisting in a war they support so much.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:41 pmI thought it was a civil war, i.e. Iraqis killing Iraqis, in Iraq, not terroism.
Everything that goes BOOM in Iraq now is called "terrorism." It's just propaganda.
You can't think up solutions if you can't think for yourself.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:41 pm.
Republicans like their presidents to be dumb and easily led.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:42 pm#134
Comment by unbelievable — July 6, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
"Hey, their employment rate is a whole point higher than our real one - and theyhave all those cool benefits!"
Cite your source about this "real" unemployment rate? If our "real" unemployment rate is at 9% then France's "real" unemployment is at 13.5%.
"Apparently, so have the French and it is working very well for them."
"I’d gladly give up rich to be happy."
The French are happy? Are you kidding? What exactly were all those riots about not too long ago? France, aside from Spain, is the most racist country in Europe.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:42 pmIt isn’t and, without a shitload more troops, it won’t
Comment by Grand Moff Texan — July 6, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
I agree, The Powell Doctrine would have worked a hell of a lot better than the Rumsfeld Doctrine. That decision's above my pay-grade. I didn't get a say in the matter.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:42 pm"Ever heard of the gassing of the kurds? That POS gassed kids, for chrissake."
Comment by Frank M —
And who sold him the weapons? You can't sell him weapons and then cry about what he does with them. Get real.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:43 pm#165 It reminds them that they aren’t in Iraq, and are cowards for not enlisting in a war they support so much.
Comment by barfly
Well, what else would we expect from sheeple that worship 5 deferment cheney or AWOL NG Dubya? Heat or no heat.
And they still drink the Kool-aid about Saddam being part of 9/11.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:44 pmThe world is flat. Evidence? The sky is blue. Ta-da!
Comment by Lupeyg2 — July 6, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
Exactly! LOL
By the way trolls, how's Cheney's declaration that he's not a part of the Executive Branch working out for him?
The rest of the Democrats aught to take notice at how easy it was to stand up to the bully and get him to drop his bogus claims...
July 6th, 2007 at 4:44 pmEver heard of the gassing of the kurds? That POS gassed kids, for chrissake.
And then George H. W. Bush send Donald Rumsfeld to assure him we weren't going to abandon him. Saddam was a tyrant, right? What? Just like Islam Karimov? That kind of tyrant, otherwise known as an "asset."
I'm not a Soviet. I can't believe one thing and then believe something else the next day, just because I'm supposed to. But that's exactly what people do when they use Saddam as an excuse for the US to invade. They're pretending that they don't know what they do know, that thousands of Americans have died in a dispute with a malfunctioning Bush family puppet.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:45 pm.
"I agree, The Powell Doctrine would have worked a hell of a lot better than the Rumsfeld Doctrine."
Comment by SGT Higgins
The Powell Doctrine is what got us into this current mess - or have you forgotten?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:45 pm"And who sold him the weapons?"
And there you go. Typical liberal. Blaming 9/11 on us.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:46 pmat least be supportive of each other.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
What part of 'they hated one another' do you not comprehend?
You gonna go be friend Ahmadinejad if he suddenly claims to hate Castro? Of course not... Don't be so ridiculous.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:47 pm#146
Comment by unbelievable — July 6, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
You already attempted to speak for the troops...so don't.
"You want to fight - go for it. But don’t force your violent war-mongering in the name of false causes on the rest of us. Clear?"
July 6th, 2007 at 4:47 pmBlaming 9/11 on us.
Comment by Frank M
Typical neocon: still thinks there's a link between Saddam and 9/11.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:48 pmWe need to leave because there is NO moral reason for us to still be there. --- Which implies that you believe there was a 'moral' reason for us to have been there in the first place.
Saddam is dead. There were no WMDs. --- no argument on either point here. (We did find some small quantities of nerve and mustard gas, though)
Iraq was unrelated to 9/11. What’s left besides oil and an excuse for you cowards to claim safety? --- What else do we need? We're fascists, remember? No wait, that's your side...aw hell, I can't keep it straight anymore. Tell me again, which of us is the fascist?
We’re just creating more and more terrorists by staying. Leaving will atleast stop that escalation that is sure to haunt us now for generations… Thanks. ---- OK, so we stop the escalation.....and do what with the terrorists we 'made'?
Comment by unbelievable
July 6th, 2007 at 4:48 pmBlaming 9/11 on us.
Comment by Frank M
If by "us" you mean conservatives, yes.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:49 pmAnd who sold him the weapons?â€
And there you go. Typical liberal. Blaming 9/11 on us.
Comment by Frank M
WTF is THAT comment about? No one said anything about blaming us for 9/11! It was about US selling him the weapons he used against the Kurds.
Please make sure you remember this time......SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!!!! The entire world knows that, now you do too!
July 6th, 2007 at 4:49 pmThat decision’s above my pay-grade. I didn’t get a say in the matter.
Sergeant, you're a citizen soldier, or at least you were (assuming you're retired). You have a say in it. Just because America goes to war doesn't mean we become something less than America.
Going in with less than we needed, just because the administration was more interested in rewriting Iraq's intellectual property laws than securing high explosives at al Qa Qa, is a dereliction of duty at the highest levels. I'm not spitting in the wind when I say that the C-i-C is a traitor. Bush's neurotic adherence to a failed plan that only helps the enemy (according to all our intelligence) is a manifest act of treason.
You know better than I do what you've sacrificed, but I can't abide anyone who would waste it.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:51 pm.
The Powell Doctrine is what got us into this current mess - or have you forgotten?
Comment by barfly
Brush up:
Powell Doctrine = Massive amounts of troops, overwhelming force. Ex. Gulf War
Rumsfeld Doctrine = Fewer troops, lighter, faster. Ex. Iraqi Freedom
July 6th, 2007 at 4:52 pm(We did find some small quantities of nerve and mustard gas, though)
Expired, from stores we already knew he had.
The sarin was so degraded that it, fortunately, couldn't kill two soldiers at point blank range. I'm sure they're very happy about that, but it doesn't exactly count as a WMD.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:53 pm.
Cite your source about this “real†unemployment rate?
Okay, I'll go look it up...
If our “real†unemployment rate is at 9% then France’s “real†unemployment is at 13.5%.
Nonsense. France doesn't use our methods... Sheesh.
The French are happy? Are you kidding? What exactly were all those riots about not too long ago? France, aside from Spain, is the most racist country in Europe.
Comment by Tracy — July 6, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
You don't get to determine that - they do.
They protest to keep the government afraid of the people so that they, and not corporations will determine public policy like a true Democracy. I wrote about it above... Scroll back.
You already attempted to speak for the troops…so don’t.
Comment by Tracy — July 6, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
No I didn't. But screw you - I'll say whatever I like and you can just not read my posts.
Stop telling me what to do Tracy. Go boss your wife around - she agreed to put up with your bully attitude, I did not.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:55 pm#152
Comment by unbelievable — July 6, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
"We need to leave because there is NO moral reason for us to still be there."
Either the the Iraqi people are worth it according to you or apparently you are under the dilusion that every thing will be "OK" if we were to pull out now. What exactly happened when we pulled out of Vietnam? How many innocent people were slaughtered by the NVA and the Khmer Rouge?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:55 pmCaption Contest:
"Where's my hair?"
July 6th, 2007 at 4:56 pmyou’re like 6 diferent kinds of crazy, ain’t ya?
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Comment by Grand Moff Texan — July 6, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
I'm not retired. I may be a citizen, but not a civilian. I'm AD (no wait, ADHD...I was close!)
July 6th, 2007 at 4:56 pmOK, so we stop the escalation…..and do what with the terrorists we ‘made’?
Kill them the old fashioned way. We used to know how to do that. Remember the Cold War? Black on black all over the damned place. Kill them in the night. Kill them the Mossad way. Kill them while smiling and pretending to be anything we need to pretend to be to kill more of them.
But blasting countries at random, that never had anything to do with fighting terror.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:57 pm.
This is all going to change soon, as more and more Repugs up for re-election are bailing on Dubya's little war. The funding will end in September, so we will have to figure out what to spend that $12Billion/week on. Maybe getting the WH fumigated and repainted?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:57 pmCaption Contest:
“Where’s my hair?â€
Comment by BARTLEBEE — July 6, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Nice, but, I suggest..."Where's my brain?"
July 6th, 2007 at 4:58 pmIf our “real†unemployment rate is at 9% then France’s “real†unemployment is at 13.5%.
It doesn't work that way. European countries measure labor participation when they calculate unemployment. The US does not. That's why pointing out European unemployment as a reason why things are worse there is for morons who can't do math.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:58 pm.
#163
Comment by unbelievable — July 6, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
"Tracy, please go talk to someone else until you actually have something to say to me besides “I know you are but what am I?â€"
What are you talking about?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:58 pm#190 - Kill them the old fashioned way.
Comment by Grand Moff Texan
Ok, I'm in! I like GMT's idea.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:59 pmCaption Contest:
"But I don't feel any holes"
July 6th, 2007 at 5:00 pmSaddam was tried, sentenced and hanged by his peers. At least he got a fair trial unlike some of his victims. There’s your evidence.
Comment by Frank M — July 6, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
Evidence??? Saddam was hung, and he certainly deserved it. That certainly shut him up before EVIDENCE of America's Involvement in his crimes could be released.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:00 pm#166
Comment by Grand Moff Texan — July 6, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
"Everything that goes BOOM in Iraq now is called “terrorism.†It’s just propaganda."
Walking or driving a bomb into a crowed market or moques isn't terrorism?
July 6th, 2007 at 5:00 pmCaption Contest:
"oh you meant put the command center somewhere OTHER than the Trade Center"
July 6th, 2007 at 5:01 pmWhich implies that you believe there was a ‘moral’ reason for us to have been there in the first place.
No it does not. It implies that I believe that there should have been moral reasons in the first place, which there were not - but that I accept that many Americans were lied into believing there were, so they supported the occupation.
no argument on either point here. (We did find some small quantities of nerve and mustard gas, though)
It was so ancient it was inert.
What else do we need? We’re fascists, remember? No wait, that’s your side…aw hell, I can’t keep it straight anymore. Tell me again, which of us is the fascist?
You.
so we stop the escalation…..and do what with the terrorists we ‘made’?
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
Yay! You arrived at the same place we were at in March 2003, when we had thought it through and saw what attacking Iraq would mean...
What now? First we stop making more. Then, we prepare a defense. We're going to have to secure our borders. And you should include some smart military advisers on the defensive plan this time...
July 6th, 2007 at 5:01 pmComment by SGT Higgins
The Powell Doctrine as practiced by Bush. Bush went in with overwhelming force - and then stopped short of Baghdad, leaving Saddam still in power. This set the stage for everything that followed in Iraq. Powell could have resigned if he really believed in the truth of his "doctrine" - but what did he do?
You know the rest of the story.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:02 pmWalking or driving a bomb into a crowed [sic] market or moques [sic] isn’t terrorism?
Is that the only kind of violence going on in Iraq?
July 6th, 2007 at 5:03 pm.
despite 2 years of posts here at this blog.
Comment by dixie blood —
you’re like 6 diferent kinds of crazy, ain’t ya?
Comment by SGT Higgins
Comment by dixie blood — July 6, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Dixie,
July 6th, 2007 at 5:04 pmNeed a little context do ya?
Powell could have resigned if he really believed in the truth of his “doctrine†- but what did he do?
His doctrine had nothing to do with regime change. I mean, I know that generals have also had to be ambassadors, but that doesn't mean they set policy.
Unless they're Douglas MacArthur, in which case they're batshit crazy and want to irradiate the entire Korean peninsula ...
July 6th, 2007 at 5:05 pm.
you’re like 6 diferent kinds of crazy, ain’t ya?
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
Yes, but, I still more well informed, caring, intelligent and loving than you will ever be...I'd rather be crazy than laying in a ditch screaming "GOP, BUSH, GOP, BUSH!!!"
The issue is not "crazy" but, stupid...uh...like...uh...you...know...uh...you!!
July 6th, 2007 at 5:05 pmhttp://www.answers.com/topic/unemployment?cat=biz-fin
By the standards of other countries, American unemployment insurance has covered a smaller portion of the work force and has provided benefits that are lower in comparison to average wages.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:06 pmDo you have a problem with the court because they actually found the bastard guilty of crimes against humanity? Ever heard of the gassing of the kurds? That POS gassed kids, for chrissake.
Comment by Frank M — July 6, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Really? He was never tried for that. He was executed before that trial could begin. So really he's innocent of that crime, since he was never proven guilty.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:06 pmI'm glad the sergeant likes my idea, but I'm only a civilian historian, so what the hell do I know?
OK, I'm outta here. You kids play nice.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:07 pm.
Comment by unbelievable — July 6, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
#200 -- Excellent points, all of them. I'm down with that plan. Now you just gotta get it sold onthe 'Hill'.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:08 pm"His doctrine had nothing to do with regime change. I mean, I know that generals have also had to be ambassadors, but that doesn’t mean they set policy."
His doctrine always was pie in the sky, because it ignored political considerations - just like in Iraq. It might be fine in a gameStratego, but in the real world, not very effective, for just that reason.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:09 pmComment by dixie blood — July 6, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
The issue is not “crazy†but, stupid
No sweetheart, your issue is definitely crazy.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:09 pmEither the the Iraqi people are worth it according to you or apparently you are under the dilusion that every thing will be “OK†if we were to pull out now.
The most annoying thing about your conservatives is that you thin everything is either white or black. You fail to see the many shades of reality grey...
The Iraqi people are worth us destroying their country? That makes zero sense.
Read what I said to Higgins about the ramifications of the mess your side has made in Iraq... I mentioned the word Generations... For a reason.
What exactly happened when we pulled out of Vietnam? How many innocent people were slaughtered by the NVA and the Khmer Rouge?
Comment by Tracy — July 6, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
The Communists followed us home?
Those people were killed because of us going there in the first place, not because we left.
Get a clue already....
July 6th, 2007 at 5:11 pm#185
Nonsense. France doesn’t use our methods… Sheesh.
"Stop telling me what to do Tracy. Go boss your wife around - she agreed to put up with your bully attitude, I did not."
I will tell you whatever I want especially when it comes to a pacifist like yourself trying to speak for the troops. I actually have friends and family serving...you don't. I speak to them on a regular basis about some of the things you say and they don't appreciate it....in the least.
"Go boss your wife around - she agreed to put up with your bully attitude, I did not."
How do you falsely assume I boss my wife around?
July 6th, 2007 at 5:14 pmunbelievable,
July 6th, 2007 at 5:14 pmI gotta admit, you're idea of bringin' 'em home and securing the border along with GMT's idea of going after the remaining terrorists the 'old-fashioned' way appeals to my 'traditional' side.
No sweetheart, your issue is definitely crazy.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
Thats correct. Our "issue" is definately crazy.
Our issue is you.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:15 pmGonna run for now.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:16 pmYour timing sucks BART
July 6th, 2007 at 5:17 pmImagine that.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:17 pm#185
Comment by unbelievable — July 6, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
“Stop telling me what to do Tracy. Go boss your wife around - she agreed to put up with your bully attitude, I did not.â€
I will tell you whatever I want especially when it comes to a pacifist like yourself trying to speak for MY troops...they are NOT yours. I actually have friends and family serving…you don’t. I speak to them on a regular basis about some of the things you say and they don’t appreciate it….in the least.
“Go boss your wife around - she agreed to put up with your bully attitude, I did not.â€
How do you falsely assume I boss my wife around?
July 6th, 2007 at 5:23 pmhttp://www.unesco.org/most/p86unm1.doc
How does it happen, then, that the latest U.S. rates are so low in relation to the French, German, and British rates and how, for that matter, do we explain the absence of those inflationary pressures that economists unanimously predicted if unemployment in the U.S. should ever drop below 5 percent?
To resolve these mysteries we need to look more attentively at the U.S. un-employment rate, understand how it is calculated, and see why it cannot be safely compared with the rates of other countries unless a number of contextual factors are taken into account.
A national system of unemployment compensa-tion was not introduced in the United States until 1935, much later than in the three nations we are using for comparison. It was launched, not as a federal pro-gramme, but as a state programme mandated by the federal government.
A state may withdraw money from its account only to pay unemployment benefits. Each state has independent re-sponsibility for the content and development of its unemployment insurance scheme.
In order to be counted as unemployed, workers must be ready, able, and willing to work, must be registered as job-seekers with one of the employment commissions, and must accept suitable work if offered.
Elaborate rules govern the definition of suitable work and de-fine eligibility. In the state of Virginia, for example, the applicant for unem-ployment benefits must have earned at least $2,850 over two quarters out of the first four of the last five completed quarters. The maximum benefit payable is $228 per week, a figure which if annualised would put most recipients below the poverty line but, in fact, very few beneficiaries receive the maximum payment and none for an entire year.
A good deal of paperwork must accompany the application. The recipient must submit to the employment commission during every week in which he or she receives benefits a certified record of having applied for work. The minimum is two serious contacts a week, and these records are frequently checked.
The count of unemployed is not restricted to the people who manage to collect benefits under these rather stringent conditions, but it is limited to those who are registered with the employment commissions as actively looking for work and can demonstrate to the satisfaction of officials that they have been do-ing so in good faith.
People who cease to search for jobs are no longer counted as unemployed. Thus, in the U.S. statistics, long-term unemployment is not captured at all. It does not exist.
Discouraged workers or those for whom there is no plausible reemployment opportunity are likewise excluded from the count.
Consequently, it may be fairly said that the U.S. rate understates unemployment in comparison with the rates of most other countries, but that assertion remains es-sentially empty unless the particular rules of calculation that are used in a given other country are taken into account.
While most European countries are less re-strictive than the U.S. in counting the unemployed, their calculation rules are far from uniform among themselves.
Another factor affecting the comparability of the American rate with those of other countries is the relatively large size of two groups who are not counted in the labour force at all and thus necessarily excluded from any count of the un-employed.
Somewhat more than two million men and women, mostly men, cur-rently serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. Nearly two million men and women, mostly men, are currently confined in U.S. prisons and jails. Both of these popu-lations are much larger proportionately than the equivalent populations in other advanced industrial nations.
Such considerations do not deprive Figure 2 of in-formative value because the downward distortion to which the U.S. rate is sub-ject has been in place for more than sixty years, and the changing relationship of the U.S. trend to those of other countries is not much affected by the realisation that comparison in absolute terms is difficult.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:23 pmGonna run for now.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Run..Run...Here comes the truth!!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 5:25 pmSgt.--
Damn Straight, I like defensive wars. I like not attacking people until they attack us.
What a sap, you say.
No, that's HONOR.
With the invasion of Iraq, we've said one of two things:
1) Any country can invade any other country if that first country (or the leader off that first country) has determined that they don't approve of the other country's government.
If that's the Iraq Principle, then China is allowed to invade Myanmar, because the generals are evil. Would Russia be allowed to invade Iran, then? Or one of them invading Venezuela to get rid of that awful Chavez?
Of course that's aburd.
Then what we're saying is thatt we're superior to every other country on earth, and what is wrong for them is right for us.
Sgt., an honorable person does not say 'I can act worse than others, because I'm better than they are."
And two things--'ranks with' does not mean 'is worse than.'
And if you believe that civil libertyies don't matter if you're dead, does that mean you'd surrender rather than be killed for supporting them?
If so, If you believe that, then you're a coward, and have no business lecturing others.
I hope, therefore, that that's not the case.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:26 pmExcellent points, all of them. I’m down with that plan.
Good... Now act like it :D
Now you just gotta get it sold onthe ‘Hill’.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Like that will happen... They seem to like bickering over what the little people want. Like we are amusing little children....
July 6th, 2007 at 5:26 pmAll you need to know about Rudolph Guiliani is this:
Bernard Kerik
July 6th, 2007 at 5:28 pmIf so, If you believe that, then you’re a coward, and have no business lecturing others.
I hope, therefore, that that’s not the case.
Comment by pbg — July 6, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
I'm pretty positive S(uck) G(OP) T(eenagers) Higgins is NOT and has NEVER BEEN a member of the military of this government!!
He might be a trained member of a militia somewhere...
July 6th, 2007 at 5:30 pmI will tell you whatever I want especially when it comes to a pacifist like yourself trying to speak for the troops.
Your strawman has already been debunked. Get over it.
I actually have friends and family serving…you don’t.
Time for a new crystal ball Miss Cleo... That one is broken. I have former students over there. Makes me sick.
I speak to them on a regular basis about some of the things you say and they don’t appreciate it….in the least.
You're crazy. You misinterpret everything we say. And you're just upsetting them? That's very noble of yo. Suit up and join them already... Knowing them doesn't make you one of them.
I don't ever speak about you outside of this blog, much less think of you. Get some friends and a life already...
How do you falsely assume I boss my wife around?
Comment by Tracy — July 6, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
I didn't... Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it?
Anyway, I posted two links on the fact that 1) American unemployment only counts those who are on unemployment insurance, and 2) that lowers the number of our unemployment rate in comparision with other countries, such as France and Germany.
You've been debunked yet again. Not even challenging really...
July 6th, 2007 at 5:32 pm#193
Comment by Grand Moff Texan — July 6, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
"European countries measure labor participation when they calculate unemployment."
I know that. Go read my quote in post #. It says:
"...about 9% of the active population is without a job;"
What does active mean to you?
July 6th, 2007 at 5:33 pm#202
Comment by Grand Moff Texan — July 6, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
No, now answer my question.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:35 pmWhat does active mean to you?
Comment by Tracy — July 6, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
Doesn't matter.
What matters is how the US defines it. And I've posted how they do that to only include a percent of those actually unemployed. I even bolded it for you...
July 6th, 2007 at 5:40 pmTime to go...
Enjoy your evening everyone!
July 6th, 2007 at 5:42 pm#212
"The Iraqi people are worth us destroying their country? That makes zero sense."
We aren't destroying their county...the fact that they can't or won't solve their internal problems is the reason the violence is continuing. Lebanon is a perfect example of disfunctional country being played by a host country and the particular country is the same one causing the problems in Iraq.
"Those people were killed because of us going there in the first place, not because we left."
Oh, you are on crack! You are actually going to sit there and blame the U.S. for being in Vietnam and those who supported the U.S. as the reason for the innocent Vietnamese and Cambodians being slaughtered by the NVA and the Khmer Rouge?!!! BTW all of those people slaughter in Cambodia and Vietnam happened AFTER we left. I will give you ONE chance to clarify your statement to correct me if I am reading into your statement incorrectly. Please tell me I am reading it wrong.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:47 pmTracy, elementary logic.
The logical opposite of 'every swan is white' is 'there are swans that are not white.'
It is not 'no swans are white'.
¬((∀x) px) = (∃x)¬px.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:51 pm#220
Comment by unbelievable — July 6, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
My link specifically calls out 9% unemployment in France as a measue of the active population
July 6th, 2007 at 5:51 pmpbg: you think your mathematics has anything to do with reality?
July 6th, 2007 at 6:01 pmReally? I always thought that was a Sun Tzu art of war thing.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
It's Star Trek.
July 6th, 2007 at 6:09 pm#226
"Time for a new crystal ball Miss Cleo… That one is broken. I have former students over there. Makes me sick."
Oh it make you sick that they are over there. When did they sign up?
"You’re crazy. You misinterpret everything we say. And you’re just upsetting them?"
I e-mail them the links to the threads!! They don't like you.
"I didn’t… Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit is it?"
Unbelievable:
“Go boss your wife around - she agreed to put up with your bully attitude, I did not.â€
What did you mean by that statement?
July 6th, 2007 at 6:11 pmComment by Tracy — July 6, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
Did you ever explain why you aren't in the service?
July 6th, 2007 at 6:19 pmI will tell you whatever I want especially when it comes to a pacifist like yourself trying to speak for MY troops…they are NOT yours. I actually have friends and family serving…
Comment by Tracy — July 6, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
So do we all jack ass.
We just don't blather about it like you.
July 6th, 2007 at 6:28 pmI’m pretty positive S(uck) G(OP) T(eenagers) Higgins is NOT and has NEVER BEEN a member of the military of this government!!
He might be a trained member of a militia somewhere…
Comment by dixie blood — July 6, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
I thought so at first too dixie, but his handle links to a website about his son who has a disease, and the email address is a .mil address.
Of course I have no way of confirming that his webpage or anything but it looked legit.
Scary huh?
July 6th, 2007 at 6:32 pmHow do you falsely assume I boss my wife around?
Comment by TrailerPark Tracy — July 6, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
I doubt it was an assumption.
More like deductive reasoning.
July 6th, 2007 at 6:34 pm#238
Comment by BARTLEBEE — July 6, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
Still no trip planned?
July 6th, 2007 at 6:56 pm#237
I didn't want to be gone from my wife and kids for extended period of time.
July 6th, 2007 at 6:58 pm#238
Comment by BARTLEBEE — July 6, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
Oh, you guys just say that.
July 6th, 2007 at 6:59 pmFrank--you think that was mathematics?
You really are ignorant.
July 6th, 2007 at 7:00 pmNo, Frank, that's not enough.
You come here telling people how wrong they are and how stupid the liberals are, when you're an ill-educated, uninformed, incurious MORON who feels he doesn't need to open a book or research something he doesn't know anything about, because Rush tells him everything he needs to know.
Have you ever studied rhetoric or logic? Can you tell synecdoche from metonymy? Can you even tell me the difference between a clause and a phrase?
You're full of yourself--like all boors. And you see something you don't recognize, and automatically you sneer at it.
Come back when you finish high school, or get your GED.
July 6th, 2007 at 7:25 pmAnd if you believe that civil libertyies don’t matter if you’re dead, does that mean you’d surrender rather than be killed for supporting them?
Comment by pbg
No it doesn't mean that at all. I'd rather die supporting YOUR civil liberties than surrender any day.
July 6th, 2007 at 9:34 pmI’m pretty positive S(uck) G(OP) T(eenagers) Higgins is NOT and has NEVER BEEN a member of the military of this government!!
He might be a trained member of a militia somewhere…
Comment by dixie blood
I was wrong about you dixie...you're closer to 10 kinds of crazy.
July 6th, 2007 at 9:35 pmThe logical opposite of ‘every swan is white’ is ‘there are swans that are not white.’
It is not ‘no swans are white’.
Comment by pbg
Actually, the opposit of 'every swan is white' IS 'no swans are white'.
July 6th, 2007 at 9:38 pm'there are swans that are not white' would be the logical opposite of 'not all swans are white'.
Really? I always thought that was a Sun Tzu art of war thing.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
It’s Star Trek.
Comment by pussy
See? I was close.
July 6th, 2007 at 9:39 pmFor a guy who never served in Vietnam, he seems to have a lot of false bravado in him. Asking our troops to continue to serve in Iraq is not supporting them. If he supported the troops he would want to bring them home from a war we have lost. We have lost it because sheer incompetence and lack of planning from this president. I for one am tired of seeing our kids become regular cannon fodder while Maliki sits on his hands. I would ask Guiliani to go to the Vietnam War Memorial and look at the names of the young Americans there. Those names will tell him that our kids must come home now from Iraq. We can only expect this from a guy who never served and has no foreign policy experience. When he had a chance to gain that experience he ducked.
July 6th, 2007 at 10:50 pmSee? I was close.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
You're a fool, probably not a sargeant.
July 6th, 2007 at 11:52 pmComment by Tracy — July 6, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
Sacrifice is for other people, is that it?
July 6th, 2007 at 11:54 pmYou’re a fool, probably not a sargeant.
Comment by pussy
You're wrong about me, but about yourself? Dead on!
July 7th, 2007 at 12:20 amThis guy needs to take a logic class. What he says is blatant nonsense.
July 7th, 2007 at 1:41 amHave you ever heard of another Mayor needing to have a judge order him not to bring his whore home to his wife and child anymore?
July 7th, 2007 at 2:43 amAsking our troops to continue to serve in Iraq is not supporting them. If he supported the troops he would want to bring them home from a war we have lost. We must set a date to bring all combat forces home from Iraq. Why should our troops fight a war that the Iraqis must fight? We can only expect this from a guy who never served and has no foreign policy experience. When he had a chance to gain that experience he ducked.
July 7th, 2007 at 2:50 amYes Vietnam - that other great Repubican defeat.
July 7th, 2007 at 2:57 amGiuliani is really a one-issue candidate. That issue is 9/11. But what did he do on that day that showed leadership? He was walking around when Bush was nowhere to be seen. And why was Giuliani walking around in the midst of the chaos? Because he put his command control center in the WTC against advice (known terrorist target). If he had followed advice and put his communications center in a sensible place, I assure you he wouldn't have been walking around!
His ill-advised answer here is exactly what I'd expect. Check out http://www.hesnoaltarboy.com for other articles on Rudy Giuliani and his abyssmal political track record.
July 7th, 2007 at 5:00 am#252
Comment by pussy — July 6, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
Yes and not you or anyone in this blog or approx. 99% of the entire American population. If someone is serving in the military right now lets hear from you.
July 7th, 2007 at 9:22 am#257
That was a war run by the Dems., but America lost
July 7th, 2007 at 9:24 amLook? I apply some colon to smell nice after every time I shave. What’s your point?
Comment by Frank M —
Are you really that stupid, Frank M? "Colon" is a body part around the anus; "cologne" is similar to perfume. Or maybe you really think applying "colon" will make you smell nice?
July 7th, 2007 at 9:50 am#257
That was a war run by the Dems., but America lost
Comment by Tracy
The US first started deploying troops to Indochina in 1954, under Eisenhower (R); it pulled out completely in 1975 under Ford (R.). Yes, the Democrats had some responsibility for the Vietnam War; but after January 1969, when Richard Nixon (R) took office, it was in the hands of the Republicans. Sorry, boy, but your the "Dems lost it" line holds very little water.
July 7th, 2007 at 10:02 amI didn’t want to be gone from my wife and kids for extended period of time.
Comment by Tracy — July 6, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
I'm sure a lot of troops who have been redeployed two or three times never expected to be gone from their spouse and kids for an extended period of time, either. Lame excuse, chickenhawk.
July 7th, 2007 at 10:05 amHave you ever heard of another Mayor needing to have a judge order him not to bring his whore home to his wife and child anymore?
Comment by Quizmos
Prior to 9/11, Guiliani had become a big joke in NYC, with a judge ordering him out of Gracie Mansion (the official mayoral residence) in favor of his legal (second) wife and his having to take up temporary residence with a gay couple. His supposedly heroic actions on 9/11 saved his image, but even that is controversial among firefighters and others in NYC in the know.
July 7th, 2007 at 10:11 amHey just don’t speak for people you have no connection to.
Comment by Tracy — July 6, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
Funny words coming from a Troll who has told some of us that "We don' t want Iraq to become a democracy" or has referred to our non-existent "al Qaeda friends," etc. Practice what you preach, Troll-boy.
July 7th, 2007 at 10:25 amCaption Contest:
“Sh*t another migraine, damn Viagra!â€
Comment by TerrytheTurtle
That's a good caption. But do you know that Viagra also sometimes causes blindness?
July 7th, 2007 at 10:30 am#262
The majority of the ESCALATION, and battles took place between 1961 and 1970 when either Kennedy or Johnson was in office. Nixon came in to clean up the mess and get the troops out. The majority of the troops were out in by 1973.
"Sorry, boy, but your the “Dems lost it†line holds very little water."
It hold thousands of gallons.
July 7th, 2007 at 10:36 am#263
What's your excuse? Being against war or this war in particular is no excuse for you have not served.
July 7th, 2007 at 10:38 amIt hold thousands of gallons.
Comment by Tracy — July 7, 2007 @ 10:36 am
Only in your mind.
July 7th, 2007 at 10:42 amBTW, Nixon became president in January 1969, so the some of the ESCALATION and battles you speak of occurred under him.
Also, it was Ike (with Nixon as VP) who got the US involved in the first place. Your putting the blame for eveything on the Democrats may pass muster at redwing sites but not here, kiddo. Sorry about that. Anyway, I'm out of here for a while. I'll leave you to talk to others and changing number that may include yourself again.
#265
Being a troll yourself, your comment has zero relation to my comment about people like unbelievable or yourself trying to speak for our troops considering neither of you have friends or familys currently serving in the U.S. military. I am only relaying what my friends and family are saying.
July 7th, 2007 at 10:44 am#263
What’s your excuse? Being against war or this war in particular is no excuse for you have not served.
Comment by Tracy
It is a perfect excuse. Why should I volunteer to serve in a war I don't believe in, especially when not one member of the Bush or Cheney families, including neices and nephews are fighting for this "noble cause"? Moreover, I am older than you and retain injuries from a taxi accident I was in some years ago.
July 7th, 2007 at 10:48 am#268
Comment by Lora — July 7, 2007 @ 10:42 am
"BTW, Nixon became president in January 1969, so the some of the ESCALATION and battles you speak of occurred under him."
There were no additional troops sent to Vietnam under the Nixon administration. American involvement in the war steadily declined when Nixon became president in 1969 (my mistake).
"Your putting the blame for eveything on the Democrats may pass muster at redwing sites but not here, kiddo."
I am and have not place all blame on the Democrats....just for escalating the conflict with sending thousands of U.S. troops and not allowing the military commanders to fight to win.
July 7th, 2007 at 10:52 amBeing a troll yourself, your comment has zero relation to my comment about people like unbelievable or yourself trying to speak for our troops considering neither of you have friends or familys(sic) currently serving in the U.S. military. I am only relaying what my friends and family are saying.
Comment by Tracy —
Look up the definition of "troll," boy. You are one here; I am not nor does any regular poster here aside from you consider me one. I would be a troll if I tried to post on redstate, but I don't.
July 7th, 2007 at 10:55 amI can't speak for unbelievable. But on what basis can you make the unfounded statement that I have no friends or family currently serving in the US military?
Finally, the US under FDR and Harry Truman managed to get in and win its part of WWII in less than four years (Dec. 1941 to Aug 1945). Even if your assertion about Nixon coming in power in 1969, to clean up the mess supposedly created by Dems in Vietnam were true, he and Ford had nearly six years in charge of it. Oh, yeah, all the Democrats' fault--just in your pipe dreams, troll-boy.
#270
Comment by Lora — July 7, 2007 @ 10:48 am
"Why should I volunteer to serve in a war I don’t believe in,"
You could have served when you were just out of highschool or in your twentys. Why didn't you? Sound like to me that either Carter or Reagan was in office when you were of age to join the military.
July 7th, 2007 at 10:55 amAs I said, I have to leave for a while. But, Tracy, you are really a piece of work. You have already been told a few times that the numbers change and that you would be best off posting the name or comment of the person you're trying to answer. You might have noticed this yourself in all the time you have been posting here. However, in what is currently "272 (Comment by Tracy — July 7, 2007 @ 10:52 am), you are replying to #268, which by this point, is a comment from Tracy. You really are a slow learner, aren't you?
July 7th, 2007 at 11:01 amBye-bye for now.
You could have served when you were just out of highschool or in your twentys (SIC). Why didn’t you? Sound like to me that either Carter or Reagan was in office when you were of age to join the military.
Comment by Tracy —
Maybe I had other priorities like Dick Cheney or you, hypocrite.
July 7th, 2007 at 11:02 amPs. Tracy-troll,
July 7th, 2007 at 11:06 amThe US government gave me scholarships to study Asian languages. In other words, the government under a Republican president felt the best way for me to serve the country was to become a language specialist.
Ps. Tracy-troll
July 7th, 2007 at 11:10 amThe US government under a Republican president gave me scholarships to study Asian languages. In other words, the Us government thought I could best serve the country by becoming a language expert--a job still sorely underrated by the George Jr. administration.
#272
Comment by Lora — July 7, 2007 @ 10:55 am
"I would be a troll if I tried to post on redstate, but I don’t."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
"In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding."
When you respond to the troll you yourself become a troll. You and 75% of the posters here are hypocrites when you call us trolls. I don't deny it but for you to is ridiculous. Is this forum not a place to debate issues...or is it nothing but a big circle jerk? Your assertion that you are not a troll would make sense if TP would not allow those with opposing viewpoints to post here.
"Finally, the US under FDR and Harry Truman managed to get in and win its part of WWII in less than four years (Dec. 1941 to Aug 1945)."
So you are actually comparing the insurgents in Vietnam and those in Iraq to the German and Japanese armies that actually surrendered under direction of their commanders? Go back to school lady.
July 7th, 2007 at 11:11 am#274
"As I said, I have to leave for a while."
Once again your word isn't worth anything! LOL!
Are you actually have a problem following along here? You are funny.
"You really are a slow learner, aren’t you?"
No you are just that dumb.
Comment by Lora — July 7, 2007 @ 11:01 am
Is that better litte girl?
July 7th, 2007 at 11:19 am#276
Comment by Lora — July 7, 2007 @ 11:10 am
"In other words, the Us government thought I could best serve the country by becoming a language expert"
Oh you are such a warrior! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The U.S. government gave me my money to get my masters degree in architecture but I surely would try and compare what I do for a living, which is far more useful to society than what you do, to those serving military.
July 7th, 2007 at 11:26 am#275
Your "priorities" trumped your decision not to join the military? You excuse not to join because you don't believe in the 2003 Iraq war is not applicable to your situation and age. BTW what were your priorities? Hey, I am not defending my decision not to serve, and NEVER have, but for you to attempt to do the same when you said, "Why should I volunteer to serve in a war I don’t believe in" is an asinine statement, because it's obvious you are too old to serve now and your obvious physical limitations.
July 7th, 2007 at 11:36 am#275
Sorry about that! Don't want get an ear full!
Comment by Lora — July 7, 2007 @ 11:02 am
Your “priorities†trumped your decision not to join the military? You excuse not to join because you don’t believe in the 2003 Iraq war is not applicable to your situation and age. BTW what were your priorities? Hey, I am not defending my decision not to serve, and NEVER have, but for you to attempt to do the same when you said, “Why should I volunteer to serve in a war I don’t believe in†is an asinine statement, because it’s obvious you are too old to serve now and your obvious physical limitations.
July 7th, 2007 at 11:37 amTracy whines, whines, whines "Wahhh! Not my fault. And I am better than you because I say so!"
You're a grade A scum bag, with no facts in your favor, so you just try to out shout everyone else.
You're selfish and arrogant, which is simply a way to cover up the fact that you're not that bright. The government didn't give you a scholarship for you to purposefully become an architect. What a raging liar!
You are the consummate conservative. Selfish, angry and a loser. unbelievable and Lora owned you! Can't even beat the girls (not that I could either), but we know how much it upsets you misogynistic pigs. Piss off. No one here likes you. You cheat.
July 7th, 2007 at 11:53 amSo Rudy Giuliani does not wish to leave Iraq, it is clear. Then he uses all the explanations possible. Just learn from him to make rhetoric / PR moves.
July 7th, 2007 at 12:31 pmIs that better litte girl?
Comment by Tracy — July 7, 2007 @ 11:19 am
Why should I volunteer to serve in a war I don’t believe in†is an asinine statement, because it’s obvious you are too old to serve now and your obvious physical limitations.
Comment by Tracy — July 7, 2007 @ 11:36 am
The U.S. government gave me my money to get my masters degree in architecture but I surely would try and compare what I do for a living, which is far more useful to society than what you do, to those serving military.
Comment by Tracy — July 7, 2007 @ 11:26 am
Not anywhere near as assinine as your excuse that you don't want to be away from your wife and kids for an extended period of time. We all have families, little hypocrite boy. BTW, you can't even make up your mind whether I'm too old to serve or a little girl, yet you call others here "dumb," eh? You're the troll here using derogatory language, kiddo.
July 7th, 2007 at 5:08 pmWell, aren't you conceited and self-important? For the record, I didn't compare my work to the military. I told you that is where the US government under a Republican president felt my skills were best used. Sorry your reading comprehension is up to understanding the difference. And so you don't think skills in a language few Americans are fluent in are important, eh? How do you think military codes of the enemy get cracked and trade issues get resolved? Now, I will act like what you call a troll and tell you that you are a pathetic, chickenhawk idiot.
Ps. I let out the "not" in the sentence in #286 (Comment by Lora — July 7, 2007 @ 5:08 pm): "Sorry your reading comprehension is NOT up to understanding..." But I suppose many of you could figure that out.
July 7th, 2007 at 5:23 pm"Well, Republicans just invent things out of thin air, so why not?
Comment by VerbalKint — July 6, 2007 @ 3:19 pm"
You're right. I read all about this on the internet that Al Gore invented.
July 7th, 2007 at 8:44 pmYou’re right. I read all about this on the internet that Al Gore invented.
Comment by scooter — July 7, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
You have just repeated one of the favotie rightwing misquotes. Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet; he did take some (deserved) credit for helping to spreading and popularizing it.
From wikipedia:
"Al Gore was involved in the development and mainstreaming of the Internet as both Senator and Vice-President. Campbell-Kelly and Aspray note in Chapter 12 of their 1996 text, Computer: A History of the Information Machine, that up until the early 1990s, public usage of the Internet was limited. They continue to state that the "problem of giving ordinary Americans network access had exercised Senator Al Gore since the late 1970s" leading him to develop legislation which would alleviate this problem. [76] Gore thus began to craft the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 (commonly referred to as "The Gore Bill" [77]) after hearing the 1988 report Toward a National Research Network[78] submitted to Congress by a group chaired by UCLA professor of computer science, Leonard Kleinrock, one of the central creators of the ARPANET (the ARPANET, first deployed by Kleinrock and others in 1969, is the predecessor of the Internet).[79]"
Yes, I know facts seldom stand in the way of rightwing spin. But your blather holds no water here.
July 7th, 2007 at 8:58 pmHey Lora... Spin it any way you want, but please read the actual Gore quote (see below) instead of quoting Wikipedia (which is always accurate... Right?).
"Well, I will be offering -- I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.
But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."
Source: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/
Given the quotes from the Wikipedia article alongside the quote from Blitzer's CNN interview, I could use the logic that since I once wrote a program to store recipes, thus allowing people to more easily access cooking resources, I created food.
I'm a freakin' genius... But then, so is Al.
July 7th, 2007 at 9:31 pmComment by scooter — July 7, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
Sorry that subleties of the English language are apparently over your head. You even produce the Al Gore quote,
July 7th, 2007 at 9:37 pm"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.†However, you don't see the difference in the meaning of "taking the initiative" and "inventing."
BTW, I believe food existed before you created a program to store recipes, though I wouldn't doubt that the people who used your program and the recipes are nevertheless grateful to you, Mr. Self-Proclaimed Genius.
You can't imagine how much I appreciate your post, Lora. Your argument and your re-quoting of the key phrase "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" only serves to drive home my point.
Conservatives everywhere thank you.
P.S. Sure food existed before I created it -- just like the Internet existed before Al created it.
July 7th, 2007 at 9:43 pmP.S. Sure food existed before I created it — just like the Internet existed before Al created it.
Comment by scooter
Yes, they both existed, but hardly on the same level. I think everyone, except the starving in certain poverty-stricken countries, were using/eating food. You can't quite say that the majority of people or even Americans had Internet access before Al Gore took certain initiatives, which--let me say again--do not mean "created."
July 7th, 2007 at 9:52 pmYour point is driven home only to you and your ilk who like to make fun of Al Gore. If that's what makes you happy, please go ahead, however don't fancy that you are convincing anyone here but your fellow trolls of anything.
Anyway, I've had enough of this topic, which isn't even the subject of the thread.
Thanks again, Lora. You've provided some good conversation.
By the way, I took the initiative in writing this post. Don't worry, though, that doesn't mean that I wrote this post.
Oh wait, yes, it does.
July 7th, 2007 at 10:00 pmBy the way, I took the initiative in writing this post. Don’t worry, though, that doesn’t mean that I wrote this post.
Oh wait, yes, it does.
Comment by scooter — July 7, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
Oh, poor scooter. I guess you didn't do so well in English classes, because it is quite apparent that you can't grasp differences in nuance and subleties.
July 7th, 2007 at 10:05 pmGlad you enjoyed the dialogue, anyway. Now goodbye. This has gone way off topic, which is Guiliani's (lack of) knowledge about the Vietnam War. If you have anything to add to that subject, maybe I will address you again. ã•ã‚ˆã†ãªã‚‰, adios, adieu, etc.
Lora,
I wish all my debates with Liberals went as swimmingly as this one has. You've been great all the way from arguing against my point by reinforcing it, to insulting my grasp of the English language in a post riddled with spelling mistakes.
You're pretty cool, Lora. Let's do this again sometime!
July 7th, 2007 at 10:22 pminsulting my grasp of the English language in a post riddled with spelling mistakes.
You’re pretty cool, Lora. Let’s do this again sometime!
Comment by scooter — July 7, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
"Riddled with spelling mistakes," eh? Yes, I see that I didn't press the "t" key hard enough when writing "subtleties," but what other spelling errors are there to make the post "riddled" with them?
July 7th, 2007 at 10:43 pmPs. scooter,
July 7th, 2007 at 10:47 pmI realize I also made a typo with Giuliani's name, but two errors that could be attributed to typos/stuck keys hardly make a post "riddled with spelling mistakes."
We lost that war didn't we. Maybe it was the gradual withdrawl?
politicalrogue.com
July 7th, 2007 at 11:26 pmHow do u get that he does not know what happened in Vietnam from that...his point was that letting damned terrorists know when we're weak is not the brightest idea...oh, and the thing he said about "have you...history of war"..i'm pretty sure by that he meant have you ever heard of someone winning using that method...but, w/e.Democrats will destroy this country.
July 8th, 2007 at 3:21 am#284
"Not anywhere near as assinine as your excuse that you don’t want to be away from your wife and kids for an extended period of time."
Did your "taxi" accident happen before or after you turned 18? If not, you "priorties" that trumped your decision not to serve in the miltary is no more or less as lame as mine.
"BTW, you can’t even make up your mind whether I’m too old to serve or a little girl, yet you call others here “dumb,†eh?
"I told you that is where the US government under a Republican president felt my skills were best used. "
Did the government approach you about getting that scholarship to learn foreign languages? Did they offer you a job working for the government? If not, for you to say that just because the government provided the loan for your schooling, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that BTW, that make you some kind of government asset is ridiculous. Also I have designed and over seen construction of several AAFES BXs on military bases in North Carolina, Florida, and Texas. So does that make my work more or less valuable than yours as far as the government is concerned? Well we still need to figure out what exactly you do that helps the government fight the "enemy".
"And so you don’t think skills in a language few Americans are fluent in are important, eh?"
"How do you think military codes of the enemy get cracked and trade issues get resolved?"
Absolutely, however you will have to prove that you work for the government in some kind of counter terrorism capacity. What exactly do you do? If you are just teaching Asian languages at some university as prof. that doesn't cut it.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:46 am#284
Comment by Lora — July 7, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
“Not anywhere near as assinine as your excuse that you don’t want to be away from your wife and kids for an extended period of time.â€
Did your “taxi†accident happen before or after you turned 18? If not, you “priorties†that trumped your decision not to serve in the miltary is no more or less as lame as mine.
“BTW, you can’t even make up your mind whether I’m too old to serve or a little girl, yet you call others here “dumb,†eh?
“I told you that is where the US government under a Republican president felt my skills were best used. â€
Did the government approach you about getting that scholarship to learn foreign languages? Did they offer you a job working for the government? If not, for you to say that just because the government provided the loan for your schooling, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that BTW, that make you some kind of government asset is ridiculous. Also I have designed and over seen construction of several AAFES BXs on military bases in North Carolina, Florida, and Texas. So does that make my work more or less valuable than yours as far as the government is concerned? Well we still need to figure out what exactly you do that helps the government fight the “enemyâ€.
“And so you don’t think skills in a language few Americans are fluent in are important, eh?â€
“How do you think military codes of the enemy get cracked and trade issues get resolved?â€
Absolutely, however you will have to prove that you work for the government in some kind of counter terrorism capacity. What exactly do you do? If you are just teaching Asian languages at some university as prof. that doesn’t cut it.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:47 am#282
Comment by Tracy is a Big Fat Chickenhawk — July 7, 2007 @ 11:53 am
You aren't worth my time.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:52 am#294
Comment by scooter — July 7, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
Dude she will try and nail you for every spelling mistake. A typo is no excuse here.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:59 amComment by Tracy — July 8, 2007 @ 10:47 am
Look, Mr. Self-important,
July 8th, 2007 at 5:28 pmYou presumably weren't married with kids when you turned 18, were you? But you didn't join the military, either., did you? So just STFU--a term I am now using for the first time ever! And, BTW, my mother didn't attend my high school graduation ceremony because she had been operated on for cancer a few days earlier. She is still alive, but we didn't know she would survive at that time.
I was granted some consecutive years a National Defense Foreign Language Fellowship--a program to keep a steady supply of US citizens fluent in languages few other Americans speak, and, which, along with the Fulbirght Fellowship (which I also received later), grew out of the US' realization from its experience in WWII in needing to itrain people fto be competent in Japanese intensively in the emergency that followed Pearl Harbor and which went on for decades after the WWII (After all. there were the Korean and Vietnam Wars--not to mention the Cold War. ). I have done both government and private sector work.
The rest of my experience is none of your freaking business. You have already proven yourself to be the ultimate hypocrite, by berating me for not joining the military when you have not done so yourself., while supporting this war You are one big hypocritical chickenhawk, Mr. Self-Important. We all have families we don't want to be separated from, Mr. Self-important Chickenhawk.
FDR's sons and LBJ's two sons-in-law respectively served during WWII and the Vietnam War. No one prominent in the Bush administration has family in Iraq or Afghanistan. Of the current GOP candidates for president, only John McCain and Duncan Hunter do. And it's probably no coincidence
that the only member of Congress who has lost a family member (a nephew) in this war so far is a Democrat, Max Baucus of Montana.
Finally, you must be even stupider than I imagined if you think I must prove here that I'm working for the government on military codes or whatever. Get a brain and a life, Mr. Self-Important, Hypocritical! Chickenhawk! As you wrote in response to (Comment by Tracy is a Big Fat Chickenhawk — July 7, 2007 @ 11:53 am)
"You aren’t worth my time" In other words, don't bother me any more, Mr. Self-Important Hypocritical Chickenhawk.
PS. Tracy-chickenhawk,
July 8th, 2007 at 5:50 pmOne other little point that seems to be beyond your petty imagination: I was first enrolled in college when I was 16--not 18.
If you are just teaching Asian languages at some university as prof. that doesn’t cut it.
Comment by Tracy — July 8, 2007 @ 10:47
Two final things, Tracy-Chickenhawk,
July 8th, 2007 at 9:37 pmMy grants for language study were exactly that--not loans. In other words, the government paid for my tuition and also gave me a small stipend to live on. Nevertheless, I have not called myself a "government asset" (your term) nor had the gall like you to say that "my work is more important."
Finally, I am not teaching right now, but I have a friend teaching Asian languages at a college near a military base, and at least half of her students come from there. You are apparently too stupid to appreciate the fact that even she has been contributing in some small--and perhaps indirect--way to the US security, Mr. Chickenhawk Hypocrite.
#304
Comment by Lora — July 8, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
I sure hope you aren't trying to pass that off as an excuse for not joining the military. BTW I am not the one who keeps bringing up and gloating about their education or awards ect...and futhermore who cares?
July 8th, 2007 at 11:25 pm#305
Comment by Lora — July 8, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
"Nevertheless, I have not called myself a “government asset†(your term) nor had the gall like you to say that “my work is more important.â€"
Then stop gloating about your education and experiences.
"You are apparently too stupid to appreciate the fact that even she has been contributing in some small–and perhaps indirect–way to the US security"
And you are apparently to stupid to be teaching right now.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:31 pmAnd you are apparently to stupid to be teaching right now.
Comment by Tracy — July 8, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
Funny words coming from a guy who constantly puts down academics No, idiot chickenhawk, I was offered better pay in another position.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:44 pmFinally, I can't believe you still have the gall to keep on harping about military experience, Chickenhawk Hypocrite. You have no good explanation for why you didn't join after high school or before getting wed. So why don't you just STFU and buzz off? You're not even useful to your own cause.
BTW, your demand that I prove that I've done government work here is not only unbelievably assinine, it may also border on treason. Please just go Cheney off, Mr. Chicenhawk Supreme.
Comment by Lora — July 8, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
"You have no good explanation for why you didn’t join after high school or before getting wed."
And you haven't given one either.
"Finally, I can’t believe you still have the gall to keep on harping about military experience, Chickenhawk Hypocrite."
Where have I "harped" about military experience?
July 9th, 2007 at 12:10 amYou have no good explanation for why you didn’t join after high school or before getting wed.â€
And you haven’t given one either.
“Finally, I can’t believe you still have the gall to keep on harping about military experience, Chickenhawk Hypocrite.â€
Where have I “harped†about military experience?
Comment by Tracy — July 9, 2007 @ 12:10 am
My mother's bout with cancer isn't enough for you, eh? Besides, I don't have to because you're the one who brought up the issue first and who also supports this war but won't join the military.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:29 amHow many times have you asked me why I didn't join the military? That's "harping" in my book. Why don't you ask yourself and the Bush and Cheney families first, Mr. Hypocritical Chickenhawk? You chickenhawks are really the ones who should be proving how "noble" the cause is by fighting it.
The withdrawl from Viet Nam was part of a negociated settlement with the enemy. We have not reached any agreement with Al Qaeda and never will, so your premise is wrong. Giuliani is no genius, but in this area, he could definitely teach you something.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:31 am#310
Comment by Lora — July 9, 2007 @ 12:29 am
"My mother’s bout with cancer isn’t enough for you, eh?"
It's no better than mine. I am sure there are many troops that have a similar situations to yours and mine, i.e. one who has kids and doesn't want to be seperated from them and others who's parents are sick, but that didn't stop them from joining.
Why did you say that my excuse was lame by responding to a post that wasn't even directed to you? Here.....
"I’m sure a lot of troops who have been redeployed two or three times never expected to be gone from their spouse and kids for an extended period of time, either. Lame excuse, chickenhawk."
Comment by Lora — July 7, 2007 @ 10:05 am
"Besides, I don’t have to because you’re the one who brought up the issue first and who also supports this war but won’t join the military."
But you are also the one who hasn't given a good excuse for not joining either.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:41 pmComment by Tracy — July 9, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
You really have no shame, do you, Mr. Chickenhawk? You have been outed by your own self as a hypocritical chickenhawk, but you're still trying to press a very small woman on why she didn't go into the military! You're the one supporting this war, Chickenhawk, but are too much of a big baby to go into it. SHAME ON YOU!
July 9th, 2007 at 5:28 pmPS. Chickenhawk-Tracy,
July 9th, 2007 at 5:33 pmYou keep on obfuscating, but you weren't married with kids when you turned 18. You have presented no excuse for not joining the military then (after high school)--not even a sick mother. You are a shameless chickenhawk, who thinks you can get away with bullying a woman like me who is normally one of the more polite posters. Well, buddy, I've seen through you. You are a SHAMELESS CHICKENHAWK and HYPOCRITE, and worth no more of my time.
Cheney-off, boy, because that's probably the only thing you know how to do.
#315
Comment by Lora — July 9, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
No it's just that you are under you own self rightous umbrella by continuing to say that your excuse for not joining is justified when it isn't. I asked why you didn't join WELL before, in fact almost two decades before the 2003 invasion of Iraq and you offered up a sick mother excuse called it a legitimate and prior to that you told me that my excuse was lame.
"You’re the one supporting this war, Chickenhawk, but are too much of a big baby to go into it. SHAME ON YOU!"
And you were too much of big baby to join when you had the chance. Again, your sick mother wasn't anymore of a legitimate excuse than mine. If you still think it was then you so full of yourself it's pathetic.
#316
Comment by Lora — July 9, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
"You keep on obfuscating, but you weren’t married with kids when you turned 18."
That is irrelevant because being married with kids at 18 yrs. old would STILL wouldn't be a good reason for not joining that military. I am not hte one defending my excuse for not joining...YOU are, very poorly BTW.
"You are a shameless chickenhawk, who thinks you can get away with bullying a woman like me who is normally one of the more polite posters."
Well if you wouldn't have called my excuse lame and then tried to defend your excuse, then you wouldn't keep getting pounded on.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:16 pmI am not hte one defending my excuse for not joining…
Well if you wouldn’t have called my excuse lame and then tried to defend your excuse, then you wouldn’t keep getting pounded on.
Comment by Tracy — July 9, 2007 @ 11:16 pm
Yes, you are by indirectly asking me repeatedly why I didn't do something you yourself wouldn't do
July 10th, 2007 at 12:40 amYour excuse wasindeed very lame, CHICKENHAWK. You support the war, CHICKENHAWK, but apparently believe other people should fight it. My first response to your question was "Why would I volunteer to fight in a war that I don't believe in?" Put bluntly, lilttle chickenhawk boy, since you don't seem to understand: I would not fight in Bush's war even if I were between ages 18-38 and had never been in a car (taxi) accident--particularly when people like you and the Bush/Cheney families are not there. Your excuse is lame, lame and lame. Moreover, you have never explained why you didn't join after high school, because you have no good reason; and I bet your wife didn't join after high school, either. You think you are pounding on me, but all you have done is prove what a shameless hypocritical chickenhawk you are.
BTW, don't think I haven't noticed that while you have the gall to demand I prove what kind of work I do, you haven't offered any proof of your claims about being an architect and having done jobs on military bases. You make demands on people that you yourself don't live up to, hypocrite.
Poster "Tracy is a Big Fat Chickenhawk" was right about you: you think you win an argument by outshouting or else exhausting others by posting the same BS over and over. The only areas in which "Tracy is a Big Fat Chickenhawk" was wrong is that I recall you once posting that you are something like 6'1" as well as your weight and body fat percentage (nice size for a soldier, I might add), so you are probably not fat. Therefore, perhaps it would have been better for him to post as "Tracy is a Big
Fat(uous) Chickenhawk." The other point is that I don't particularly care to "own" you, so I will disown you here and now. Go Cheney-off, boy, before you make yourself look any more ridiculous.
#319
"My first response to your question was “Why would I volunteer to fight in a war that I don’t believe in?†Put bluntly, lilttle chickenhawk boy, since you don’t seem to understand: I would not fight in Bush’s war even if I were between ages 18-38"
That's obvious, since you are not able to even join to "fight Bush's war". I asked why you didn't join when you were able...a couple of decades ago. Your excuse you gave was not legitimate nor was it noble.
"Moreover, you have never explained why you didn’t join after high school, because you have no good reason;"
I didn't join because I decided I wanted to be an architect which required me to go to college and I knew the joining the military instead would require me being away from my family. I have never said is was a good excuse. You on the otherhand tried to pass off yours as legitimate.
"BTW, don’t think I haven’t noticed that while you have the gall to demand I prove what kind of work I do, you haven’t offered any proof of your claims about being an architect and having done jobs on military bases."
What proof would you like? I worked for three years at Halff Accociates in Dallas.
http://www.fedspending.org/fpds/fpds.php?reptype=r&detail=-1&sortby=f&vendor_cd=TX12&datype=T&reptype=r&database=fpds&database=fpds&parent_id=123786&fiscal_year=2004&record_num=f500
http://www.same-fortworth.org/pdf/May%20Newsletter.pdf
"The other point is that I don’t particularly care to “own†you, so I will disown you here and now."
Don't worry you can't even "own" yourself.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:53 amYeah, Tracy-Chickenhawk, you can post some websites, but I can't see how it proves that you've worked there. I recall your posting on some thread about a year or so ago the claim that you attended "ExxonMobile(SIC)" board or stockholder meetings. You rather gave yourself away with your misspelling of "Mobil."
July 10th, 2007 at 3:13 amYou wouldn't know if I own myself or not, fatuous CHICKENHAWK-HYPOCRITE. Please just go on making an ass of yourself. I probably won't even bother to turn to your silly, hypocritical screeds.
Ps. Tracy-Chickenhawk,
July 10th, 2007 at 3:21 amIf you really recognize your decision to go to college and not join the military was not particularly noble, you wouldn't keep on pressing me on why I didn't join. You're in absolutely NO POSITION to do so. There are a lot of reasons why joining the military might not be so attractive to a woman, such as rape--an issue well-documented. Besides, even the US government felt I could better serve with my brain--and not the brawn that I don't have--a fact that seems to elude you time and time again. So just Cheney-off, Super Hypocrite.
#320
Comment by Lora — July 10, 2007 @ 3:13 am
Call Everett D. Spaeth at Halff Associates @ (214) 346-6200 and ask him.
July 10th, 2007 at 11:43 am#321
Comment by Lora — July 10, 2007 @ 3:21 am
"You’re in absolutely NO POSITION to do so."
I will continue to do so untill you fess up and admit that your reason not to join isn't any more or less legitimate than mine. You keep trying to justify your reasons and again your decision not to join back when you were able, well BEFORE the 2003 Iraq invasion, was not backed up by a legitimate excuse.
"Besides, even the US government felt I could better serve with my brain..."
The government, in what capacity, used your skills? Explain how the U.S. government approached you to help them out. I have already done so with the AAFES approaching me to design BXs.
July 10th, 2007 at 12:03 pm#321
Comment by Lora — July 10, 2007 @ 3:21 am
BTW you don't need brawn to serve in the military. With your language skill the military could have used your skills in obvious ways.
July 10th, 2007 at 12:16 pmStill trying to spin this one, Tracy-Chickenhawk? Does it matter where I served, as long as I served in some way? You're really funny still harping on my lack of military service when you have none yourself. The point is you're too chicken to fight the war you support, just like the Bushes and the Cheneys. There is no way around that, kiddo. So you're just wasting your time and mine by continuing with all these excuses and lame attacks on me.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:02 pm#325
Why didn't you join when you were able? You have offered up so many excuses it's getting hard to count them all.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:36 pm"The point is you’re too chicken to fight the war you support..."
And you were too chicken to serve when there was NO war effort to support.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:38 pmI will continue to do so untill you fess up and admit that your reason not to join isn’t any more or less legitimate than mine
And you were too chicken to serve when there was NO war effort to support.
Comments by Tracy
Your second comment is really funny--"chicken about not serving when there was no war effort, eh?" If there was no war effort, military personnel weren't as needed as they are now for the war you support, kiddo.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:53 pmYou can continue posting here until you are blue in the face. I have nothing to fess up to, and you can't bully me into it, Chickenhawk. (unbelievable is probably right about your bullying your wife. I don't see you spending endless time responding to male posters, but you probably think you can bully women.) Besides, I probably won't even look at this thread any more. I've already wasted too much time on your pathetic Chickenhawk BS, hypocrite-supreme.
#328
"If there was no war effort, military personnel weren’t as needed as they are now for the war you support, kiddo."
Oh, so now the truth comes out. It wouldn't matter to you what OR with who the U.S. was at war with you wouldn't join anyway to fight. Why didn't you just say that you are a pacifist like unbelievable and admit this telling fact a long time ago? If this is true, you have ZERO room to be telling others that their reason(s) no to join are lame. BTW if you aren't a pacifist, the fact that you still chose not to join during PEACE time makes your excuses for not serving even more illegitimate. Being a pacifist is just an excuse like any other.
"I have nothing to fess up to..."
The only thing you need to fess up is that you wouldn't join the military under any circumstances. Is this true?
"I don’t see you spending endless time responding to male posters, but you probably think you can bully women..."
That's because I have yet to see someone so conceited as yourself post here. Also why do you keep calling me a hypocrite for not joining the military? I have already given my excuse and have admitted that it's not a good one. A hypocrite BTW a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue. I never said that there was anything virtuous about my motives or reasons for not joining the military...but you on the other hand keep offering up every excuse and trying to pass them off as legitimate and noble. You are the hypocrite. Here's one for you: Are you trying to say that if you support a war effort, but don't join the military to fight it, that you are a hypocrite? Give me a break! Millions of people have supported war effort like WW2 for example and didn't serve in the military. Were they all hypocrites?
July 11th, 2007 at 11:39 am