For GOP only

[Texsox]

This should be sent around every single year....

 

Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."

- Thomas Jefferson

 

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

 

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

 

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

 

7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.

 

8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.

 

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

 

10. The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights reserved.

 

11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

 

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the

others.

 

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

 

14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.

 

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

 

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

 

17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

 

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

 

19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.

 

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

 

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

 

22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

 

23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.

 

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

 

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

 

26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."

 

IF YOU AGREE: PLEASE PASS THIS 'REFRESHER' ON TO 10 FREE

CITIZENS_________________________________________________________________

[Texsox]

In both cases, its someone changing their views to get elected.

I was about to write, I agree, changing to get elected is wrong. But I'm wondering, If they stay consistent with that new view, is it wrong? If they say, as President I will do this, even if it is opposite what they did as a Governor, Senator, etc. is that so bad? You are getting what you voted for and isn't that what we should expect?

 

Now if they change back after the election, I'd be at the front of the impeachment line.

 

But if they tell be they are Pro-X, even after voting Anti-X, and stay Pro-X as promised, I'm not certain I'm that upset.

 

This also goes to an old debate of how a Senator should vote. If 55% or 90% whatever of his constitutes would vote Yes, does he have the moral obligation as a "representative of those people" to vote Yes? Or should he follow his own conscious (providing he has one and still got elected).

[Balta1701]

I was about to write, I agree, changing to get elected is wrong. But I'm wondering, If they stay consistent with that new view, is it wrong? If they say, as President I will do this, even if it is opposite what they did as a Governor, Senator, etc. is that so bad? You are getting what you voted for and isn't that what we should expect?

 

Now if they change back after the election, I'd be at the front of the impeachment line.

 

But if they tell be they are Pro-X, even after voting Anti-X, and stay Pro-X as promised, I'm not certain I'm that upset.

So, if for example, a governor from some random large southern state were to declare during the Presidential campaign that he was in favor of regulating CO2 emissions from power plants, quite directly and specifically, even going so far as to put out specific proposals for the policy and having his underlings refer to it, despite having taken no steps at all to regulate virtually anything while he was governor, and then 2 months after taking office flip-flops and declares that he is not in favor of regulating CO2 emissions from power plants, wouldn't that satisfy your criteria exactly?

 

(Yeah i know I belongs on the other side. I just couldn't resist on this one.)

Edited February 13, 2007 by Balta1701

[Texsox]

So, if for example, a governor from some random large southern state were to declare during the Presidential campaign that he was in favor of regulating CO2 emissions from power plants, quite directly and specifically, even going so far as to put out specific proposals for the policy and having his underlings refer to it, despite having taken no steps at all to regulate virtually anything while he was governor, and then 2 months after taking office flip-flops and declares that he is not in favor of regulating CO2 emissions from power plants, wouldn't that satisfy your criteria exactly?

 

(Yeah i know I belongs on the other side. I just couldn't resist on this one.)

 

No, but if he actually did what he said he would do, it would. So if we rewrote that to read

 

So, if for example, a governor from some random large southern state were to declare during the Presidential campaign that he was in favor of regulating CO2 emissions from power plants, quite directly and specifically, even going so far as to put out specific proposals for the policy and having his underlings refer to it, despite having taken no steps at all to regulate virtually anything while he was governor, and then 2 months after taking office pushes for regulating CO2 emissions from power plants, wouldn't that satisfy your criteria exactly?

 

Yes it would. And it speaks to character and believability.

[southsider2k5]

So, if for example, a governor from some random large southern state were to declare during the Presidential campaign that he was in favor of regulating CO2 emissions from power plants, quite directly and specifically, even going so far as to put out specific proposals for the policy and having his underlings refer to it, despite having taken no steps at all to regulate virtually anything while he was governor, and then 2 months after taking office flip-flops and declares that he is not in favor of regulating CO2 emissions from power plants, wouldn't that satisfy your criteria exactly?

 

(Yeah i know I belongs on the other side. I just couldn't resist on this one.)

 

He must have been for it, before he was against it.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm

 

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY'S PRESIDENTIAL ANNOUNCEMENT

EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY

Tue Feb 13 2007 08:31:33 ET

 

 

"I am happy to be in Michigan this morning. I'm happy to have my brother Scott and Sister Lynn here. And I'm proud to have all my children and grandchildren here too.

 

"Michigan is where Ann and I were born. It is where we met and fell in love. I still love Ann. And I still love Michigan!

 

"During my parents' campaigns, I visited all 83 Michigan counties, doing my best to convince Michiganders that Romneys and Republicans could lead the state back to prosperity.

 

"You know my father as a business leader, a governor, and as an advocate of volunteerism. But he came from humble roots. He labored with lath and plaster. He never graduated from college. But like many other Americans, he made his dreams come true.

 

"And he made a difference. My father worked here to improve Detroit Schools. He worked to write a new state constitution. And he worked as your governor for six years to get Michigan on the move. His character and integrity left an impression that has lasted through the decades.

 

"It was Mom who did the lion's share of raising Lynn, Jane, Scott and me. Dad said, that as a successful Mom, she had accomplished more than he. Later she worked in charities, in foster care, in music and the arts, and in volunteerism. She even ran for U.S. Senate.

 

"I always imagined that I would come back to Michigan someday. That's why I took the bar exam here. I hadn't imagined it would happen this way, but I sure have come back to Michigan today.

 

"I chose this site for a number of reasons. It's filled with cars and memories. Dad and I loved cars. Most kids read the sports box scores. Dad and I read Automotive News. We came here together, him teaching me about cars that were built before my time.

 

"The Rambler automobile he championed was the first American car designed and marketed for economy and mileage. He dubbed it a compact car, a car that would slay the gas-guzzling dinosaurs. It transformed the industry.

 

"This place is not just about automobiles; it is about innovation, innovation that transformed an industry, and in doing so, gave Americans a way of life our grandparents could never have imagined.

 

"The DC 3 above us was the first true commercial airliner. It transformed aviation from a luxury to a standard mode of transportation.

 

"Next to us is a Ford hybrid. It is the first giant step away from our reliance on the gasoline engine. It is already changing the world of transportation.

 

"Just outside is Thomas Edison's laboratory. There, electricity that Benjamin Franklin discovered was transformed from a novelty into a necessity.

 

"Innovation and transformation have been at the heart of America's success. If there ever was a time when innovation and transformation were needed in government, it is now.

 

"We have lost faith in government, not in just one party, not in just one house, but in government.

 

"We are weary of the bickering and bombast, fatigued by the posturing and self-promotion. For even as America faces a new generation of challenges, the halls of government are clogged with petty politics and stuffed with peddlers of influence.

 

"It is time for innovation and transformation in Washington. It is what our country needs. It is what our people deserve.

 

"I do not believe Washington can be transformed from within by a lifelong politician. There have been too many deals, too many favors, too many entanglements…and too little real world experience managing, guiding, leading.

 

"I do not believe Washington can be transformed by someone who has never tried doing such a thing before, in any setting, by someone who has never even managed a corner store, let alone the largest enterprise in the world.

 

"Throughout my life, I have pursued innovation and transformation. It has taught me the vital lessons that come only from experience, from failures and successes, from the private, public and voluntary sectors, from small and large enterprise, from leading a state, from being in the arena, not just talking about it. Talk is easy, talk is cheap. It is doing that is hard. And it is only in doing that hope and dreams come to life.

 

"This Christmas, Ann and I gathered my five sons and five daughters-in-law to ask them whether I should run for President.

 

"We talked about the special time this is in the history of America – the challenges and the opportunities. We talked about the qualities that are needed in our leaders. They were unanimous. They know our hearts. They know our values. They know my experience innovating and transforming, in business, in the Olympics, and in Massachusetts. And they know we love this country.

 

"And so, with them behind us, with the fine people of Michigan before us, and with my sweetheart beside me, I declare my intention to run for President of the United States.

 

"It has been said that a person is defined by what he loves and by what he believes and by what he dreams.

 

"I love America and I believe in the people of America.

 

"I believe in God and I believe that every person in this great country, and every person on this grand planet, is a child of God. We are all sisters and brothers.

 

"I believe the family is the foundation of America – and that we must fight to protect and strengthen it.

 

"I believe in the sanctity of human life.

 

"I believe that people and their elected representatives should make our laws, not unelected judges.

 

"I believe we are overtaxed and government is overfed. Washington is spending too much money.

 

"I believe that homeland security begins with securing our borders.

 

"I believe the best days of this country are ahead of us, because…

 

"I believe in America!

 

"At this critical time, we must 1) transform our role in the world, 2) strengthen our nation, and 3) build a brighter future for the American family.

 

"Today, as we stare at the face of radical violent Jihad and at the prospect of nuclear epidemic, our military might should not be subject to the whims of ever-changing political agendas. The best ally of peace is a strong America!

 

"Our role in the world must be defined not only in terms of our might, but also by our willingness to lead, to serve, and to share. We must campaign for freedom and democracy in our own hemisphere, now threatened by a second aspiring strongman. We must extend our hand to Africa's poor and diseased and brutalized. We must lead the world's civilized nations in a partnership that will support moderate Muslim nations and peoples, to help them embrace principles of modernity and defeat violent Jihad. We must link arms with all responsible nations to block Iran from realizing its nuclear ambition. America must never engage and negotiate with Jihadists who want to destroy us, destroy our friends, and destroy our way of life!

 

"Across the nation, there is debate about our future course in Iraq. Our desire to bring our troops home, safely and soon, is met with our recognition that if Iraq descends into all-out civil war, millions could die; that Iraq's Sunni region could become a base for Al Qaeda; that its Shia region could be seized by Iran; that Kurd tension could destabilize Turkey; and even that the broader Middle East could be drawn into conflict. The possible implications for America and for American interests from such developments could be devastating. It could mean a future with far more military involvement and far more loss of American life. For these reasons, I believe that so long as there is a reasonable prospect of success, our wisest course is to seek stability in Iraq, with additional troops endeavoring to secure the civilian population.

 

"And no matter how Iraq is resolved, we must honor and care for the veterans who risked their lives, and for the families whose loved ones made the ultimate sacrifice. Our nation has a sacred pact with those who defend freedom. It is a pact we must never break!

 

"America must regain our standing in the world. Our influence must once again match our generosity. Over the entire 20th century, no nation gave more, shed more precious lives, and took less for itself than America. Our sacrifice for freedom and for human dignity continues unabated. But this is not the way it is seen by others. America's goodness and leadership in the world, must be as bright and bold as our military might!

 

"America can also overcome our challenges and seize our abundant opportunities here at home, but only if we follow the right course.

 

"There are some who believe that America's strength comes from government – that challenges call for bigger government, for more regulation of our lives and livelihood, and for more protection and isolation from competition that comes from open markets.

 

"That is the path that has been taken by much of Europe. It is called the welfare state. It has led to high unemployment and anemic job growth. It is not the path to prosperity and leadership.

 

"I believe the American people are the source of our strength. They always have been. They always will be. The American people: hard working, educated, innovative, ready to sacrifice for family and country, patriotic, seeking opportunity above dependence, God-fearing, free American people. When we need to call on the strength of America, we should strengthen the American people, not the American government!

 

"We strengthen the American people by giving them more freedom, by letting them keep more of what they earn, by making sure our schools are providing the skills our children will need for tomorrow, and by keeping America at the leading edge of innovation and technology.

 

"Our government has become a weight on the American people, sapping their strength and slowing their climb. We must transform our government – to become a government that is smaller and less bureaucratic, one with fewer regulations and more freedom for our people. The innovation we need today is to make government more responsive to the needs of everyday American citizens. It's time to put government in its place, and to put the American people first!

 

"At America's core are millions of individual families: families of children and parents, aunts and uncles and cousins, grandparents, foster parents. There is no work more important for our nation's future than the work done in the home.

 

"But the work done in the home isn't getting easier. Values and morals that have long shaped the development of our children are under constant attack. In too many cases, schools are failing. For some, healthcare is inadequate. Family expenses and government taxes take a larger and larger bite. America cannot continue to lead the family of nations if we fail the families at home.

 

"How is the American family made stronger? With marriage before children. With a mother and a father in the life of every child. With healthcare that is affordable and portable. With schools that succeed. With taxes that are lower. And with leaders who strive to demonstrate enduring values and morality.

 

"This was the agenda I pursued as Governor of Massachusetts. This is the agenda I will pursue if elected President.

 

"When I was a boy, the American dream meant a house in the suburbs. The American dream today must mean more than a house. The new American dream should include a strong family, enduring values, excellence in education, dependable and affordable healthcare, secure employment and secure retirement, and a safe and prosperous homeland. It's time to build a new American dream for all of America's families.

 

"How will this new American dream be built? Our hopes and dreams will inspire us, for we are an optimistic people. But hope alone is just crossing fingers, when what we need is industrious hands. It is time for hope and action. It is time to do, as well as to dream!

 

"As we look around us in this museum, we see the evidence of American innovation – airplanes, automobiles, appliances. But these are not America's greatest innovation. America's greatest innovation is freedom. Without freedom, we have nothing. With freedom, nothing can hold us back.

 

"Freedom has made the American dream possible. Freedom will make the new American dream possible. And with the work, sacrifice, and greatness of spirit of the American people, freedom has made America – and will keep America – the greatest nation on earth. God bless America."

 

 

END

[Texsox]

He must have been for it, before he was against it.

 

Are we talking in broad terms, or a specific situation? If we are talking in broad terms, then against then for would be valid, as would a consensus opinion based on inaction, background, etc.

[southsider2k5]

Why would you post that crap here? There would be a fit if I posted something like that from Rush Limbaugh, or the like, in the Dems thread.

[Balta1701]

Why would you post that crap here? There would be a fit if I posted something like that from Rush Limbaugh, or the like, in the Dems thread.

That one sure confused me too. Would have expected it to be posted in the Dems thread also. So I think there's bipartisan agreement about that post.

[Texsox]

Why would you post that crap here? There would be a fit if I posted something like that from Rush Limbaugh, or the like, in the Dems thread.

 

Oops sorry. Wrong forum.

 

Die f***ing Iraq bastards!!*

 

*trying to fit in before leaving.

[mr_genius]

Oops sorry. Wrong forum.

 

Die f***ing Iraq bastards!!*

 

Die!!! arrrr!!!

 

George Bush Smash!!!

 

i was going to leave off the green, but i thought Balta might read it and think i was serious

Edited February 13, 2007 by mr_genius

[southsider2k5]

Oops sorry. Wrong forum.

 

Die f***ing Iraq bastards!!*

 

*trying to fit in before leaving.

 

OK, that makes a little more sense. I was trying to figure out how a Howard Dean spam with links to the Dems site belonged in here...

[Cknolls]

What a pathetic fool.

 

 

 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JeffEma..._trump_politics

[southsider2k5]

What a pathetic fool.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JeffEma..._trump_politics

 

Wow, now contrast that with what was being said after Johnson from South Dakota, and that saids it all. What happened to common decency? The guy is dying, why piss on him now?

[Texsox]

I hope the party down there removes this person quickly. I know the comments are not in context, but I can't imagine any context that would make it correct. This guy is an embarrasment to the American political process.

[Controlled Chaos]

comments from another site I found interesting

 

I got an email today with an article by Raymond S. Kraft in it. The article a historical perspective making a kind of comparison of WW2 and now, in how we handle war, the threats and some historical perspective. It’s very long and I do not have the resources to totally validate the facts or the timeline. I am certain it is mostly accurate, but I make no prepresentatoins beyond that.

 

I have to also note some comments here and there pointing out accuracy problems, but at the same time, some of those commentors were complaining that the Evil Bankers orchestrated Pearl Harbor, so if I fail to take some of them seriously, you know why.

 

In reading it, it occurs to me that we love to make comparisons. The left compares Iraq to Vietnam, whereas some on the right compare it to WW2.

 

Both are right and wrong in some cases, it mostly depends on what they are trying to prove with their comparison.

 

For example, the left points out the Vietnam comparison to prove we have a hopeless war we cannot win, and the public no longer supports it. The resonating lingering bitterness of a generation of hippies and war protesters has a new campaign and it clearly shows.

 

They are right, it is like Vietnam, but not how they think. It is like it because we do not enable our troops to win, politicians demogogue the issue beyond the realities, and the public has taken a beating of negative reporting, resulting in a feeling of distaste, which is not surprising.

 

It is not like Vietnam in that we are not aligned with one side of an internal power struggle. We invaded and displaced the government. This is not the commies moving in, and us trying to push them out.

 

But, it is like Vietnam because the left wants us to lose, and are working hard to make us quit, just like Vietnam,

 

My honest question lately has been "do you want us to win?" and few have taken the challenge on it from the left.

 

I won’t post the whole thing, as found on Right Truth, but here are a few excerpts. Read the rest for yourself. Make your own conclusions. My thoughts are not going to please everyone and are my own opinions. Take em for what that’s worth.

 

The US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans and Congress wanted nothing to do with the European war or the Asian war.

 

Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.

 

This is not too far off of how we were in pre 911 days, in some ways. Terrosim was something most people hadn’t heard of, and it was something "over there". Clinton dealt with it like a police matter, there was no sense of war, even though we had suffered many attacks. We didn’t really understand the enemy or the depth of the threat.

 

After 911 we did.

 

America was not prepared for war. America had stood down most of its military after WWI and throughout the depression, at the outbreak of WWII there were army units training with broomsticks over their shoulders because they didn’t have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn’t have tanks. And a big chunk of our navy had just been sunk and damaged at Pearl Harbor.

 

Again, in a sense he is right, though not how he presents it. We were unprepared. The Desert Storm build up that we had in 1989 was gone, and the military troops strengths and weapons programs had been cut by the Clinton Administration. Even worse, the Intelligence branches were crippled by feel good regulations that prevented them from deal with clear threats, thanks to Jamie Gorelick, she of the 911 commission, who did not have the guts to admit her own contributions to the failures.

 

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so.

 

France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan. These weapons were paid for with billions of dollars that Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the impotent UN with the complicity of Koki Annan and his son.

 

It is worse then that, since Russia is presently still selling to Iran.

 

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs. They believe that Islam, a radically conservative (definitely not liberal!) form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world; that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

 

True.

 

You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want jobs? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

 

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

 

This isn’t an idea discussed much but it has some merit. The real war is with the fanatics against the moderates, but the moderates really are not fighting yet. If we were smart we would work on that.

 

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is or was a terrorist, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

True.

 

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad guys there. The ones we kill there we won’t have to kill here, or somewhere else. We have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

 

I will say I am not a big fan of the idea "fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here". We fight there because that is where they are.

 

The Europeans could have done this, but they didn’t, and they won’t. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihadist, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam have a million tons of weapons?

 

And Iraq was paying for much of these French, German, and Russian arms with money skimmed from the UN Oil For Food Program that was supposed to pay for food, medicine, and education for Iraqi children.

 

True. The UN has still not answered all the questions about that. The very countries who obstructed so many UN resolution had their hands deep in his aresenal. The Axis of Weasels.

 

Americans have a short attention span, conditioned I suppose by 60 minute TV shows and 2-hour movies in which everything comes out okay. The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.

 

True.

 

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it (or are defeated by it), whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. It WILL NOT go away if we ignore it.

 

True

 

We can be defeatist peace-activists as anti-war types seem to be, and concede, surrender, to Jihad, or we can do whatever it takes to win this war against it.

 

The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes - cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas. Ideas about what society and civilization should be like. The most determined always win.

 

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

 

True.

 

In the 20th century, it was Western democracy vs. communism, and before that Western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy vs. German Imperialism. Western democracy won, three times, but it wasn’t cheap, fun, nice, easy, or quick. Indeed, the wars against German imperialism (WWI), Nazi imperialism (WWII), and communist imperialism (the 40-year Cold War that included the Vietnam War, itself a major battle in a larger war) covered almost the entire century.

 

True.

 

Senator John Kerry, almost daily, makes three scary claims:

 

(1) We went to Iraq without enough troops. Actually, we went with the troops the US military wanted. We went with the troop levels General Tommy Franks asked for. We deposed Saddam in 30 days with light casualties, much lighter than we expected.

 

Kerry, however, is right. We did go short handed in some respects. But the next paragraph shows why this was so critical.

 

The real problem in Iraq is that we are trying to be nice - we are trying to fight a minority of the population that is Jihadi, and trying to avoid killing the large majority that is not. We could flatten Fallujah in minutes with a flight of B52s, or seconds with one nuclear cruise missile - but we don’t. We’re trying to do brain surgery, not amputate the patient’s head. The Jihadis amputate heads.

 

That’s why more might have been better. We went in short and hampered by too many constraints.

 

(2) We went to Iraq with too little planning. This is a specious argument. It supposes that if we had just had the right plan the war would have been easy, cheap, quick and clean.

That is not an option. It is a guerrilla war against a determined enemy and no such war ever has been or ever will be easy, cheap, quick, and clean. This is not TV.

 

Perhpas the speed of Desert Storm and the speed at knocking out Saddam’s government in the early stages of Iraqi Freedom contributed to that.

 

(3) We proved ourselves incapable of governing and providing security. This too is a specious argument. It was never our intention to govern and provide security. It was our intention from the beginning to do just enough to enable the Iraqis to develop a representative government and their own military and police forces to provide their own security, and that is happening.

 

Well true, but the Iraqis are not stepping up as we expected.

 

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on whose estimates you accept.

 

The US has lost about 2,100 KIA in Iraq. The US took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In WWII the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

 

See this is why comparisons are dangerous. His numbers are likely accurate aside from being out of date. But the reality is that WW2 was a completely different war. I am not sure that using such comparisons to make us see the number of dead in Iraq as not that bad, even if accurate, is how I want to address the picture.

 

Yes, in terms of a war of this magnitude our rates of casualties are low, and their’s much higher, but they are still not insignificant, though I don’t think he means it in that sense.

 

Today, in Iraq, the stakes are at least as high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . . or a world dominated by the radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihadist under the Mullahs and the Sharia.

 

Frankly while that sounds like a Clancy or Orwell plot, I think there is some real truth in there.

 

I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this. Don’t they know that the Sharia considers women as property, that the whim of the Mullah is the law, that there is absolutely NO freedom of choice? The American left seems to favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. In America, absolutely, but nowhere else.

 

The 300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq are not our problem. The US population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let’s multiply 300,000 by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you hope for another country to help liberate America?

 

"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate where it’s safe - in America. For this privilege, they should thank US veterans. Why don’t we see peace activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most? Why? Just look at what happened to the four peace activists from the Christian Peace Maker Teams recently taken captive by the Muslim "insurgents" near Baghdad.

 

The Liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. But if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.

 

If the Jihad wins, it will be the death of Liberalism.

 

Sadly, American Liberals just don’t get it.

 

An interesting piece. His conclusion has some merit. It is often lately that we are seeing the Liberals shoot their liberal values in the foot in the name of liberalism.

 

My bottom line is I think we need less senationalism and politicing and more focus on clear objectives and goals.

 

Less use of cliches and more plain talk.

 

And we really need unity behind the boots on the ground.

[NorthSideSox72]

My bottom line is I think we need less senationalism and politicing and more focus on clear objectives and goals.

 

Less use of cliches and more plain talk.

 

And we really need unity behind the boots on the ground.

I agree with your first two sentences here. And the article does attempt that, to an extent, before eventually devolving into bashing of the liberals.

 

But your last line is the same old trap that BushCo has been using to polarize the scene and neutralize any sort of discussion of the issue. It says "you are with us or against us", and further, says that if you don't support the war, you don't support our troops. That is political B.S., and playing chicken with American lives.

 

This is why I am tired of seeing the Democrats in Congress pass these silly resolutions, and now this re-casting of the war authorization bill to exempt civil war interdiction (a bill many of those same Dems passed in its original form), just as much as I'm tired of hearing the GOP as noted above and their politically convenient argument. The best thing I've seen so far to address this mess of a war was Murtha's suggestion that a bill be passed, stating that no troops can go to war without being properly and fully equiped. This would force all new deployments to actually have the right gear, as well as force Congress to see the REAL costs of the way, as they sky-rocket to meet that requirement.

 

Sunlight is a great disinfectant.

[Controlled Chaos]

I agree with your first two sentences here. And the article does attempt that, to an extent, before eventually devolving into bashing of the liberals.

 

But your last line is the same old trap that BushCo has been using to polarize the scene and neutralize any sort of discussion of the issue. It says "you are with us or against us", and further, says that if you don't support the war, you don't support our troops. That is political B.S., and playing chicken with American lives.

 

This is why I am tired of seeing the Democrats in Congress pass these silly resolutions, and now this re-casting of the war authorization bill to exempt civil war interdiction (a bill many of those same Dems passed in its original form), just as much as I'm tired of hearing the GOP as noted above and their politically convenient argument. The best thing I've seen so far to address this mess of a war was Murtha's suggestion that a bill be passed, stating that no troops can go to war without being properly and fully equiped. This would force all new deployments to actually have the right gear, as well as force Congress to see the REAL costs of the way, as they sky-rocket to meet that requirement.

 

Sunlight is a great disinfectant.

Those last comments are not mine. They are the authors.

[NorthSideSox72]

Those last comments are not mine. They are the authors.

ooooooooohhhhhhhh. So "and we really need unity behind the boots on the ground" was part of the article? If so, then my comments are for the author and not you.

[Cknolls]

"It's not preppies, 'cause I'm a preppie myself. I just don't like homosexuals. If you ask me, they're all homosexuals in the Pudding. Hey, I was glad when that Pudding homosexual got killed in Philadelphia

 

 

Who said it? Hint: He is running for office in 2008. And I'm sure he'll get the same scrutiny that Macacca Allen received from the MSM.

[NorthSideSox72]

"It's not preppies, 'cause I'm a preppie myself. I just don't like homosexuals. If you ask me, they're all homosexuals in the Pudding. Hey, I was glad when that Pudding homosexual got killed in Philadelphia

Who said it? Hint: He is running for office in 2008. And I'm sure he'll get the same scrutiny that Macacca Allen received from the MSM.

I'll be curious.

 

Does anyone get the Pudding reference? Maybe I'm just naive on the subject, but I don't get it.

[Cknolls]

Harvard's Hasty Pudding Theatrical Club.

[NorthSideSox72]

Harvard's Hasty Pudding Theatrical Club.

Thanks.

[mr_genius]

Rudy Giuliani is getting the nomination.

 

atleast i hope so.

 

i also think he'll easily beat H.Clinton

[southsider2k5]

http://hillaryspot.nationalreview.com/post...TBhOWFmMzQ4Yzk=

 

Edwards: "Perhaps the Greatest Short-Term Threat to World Peace Is the Possibility That Israel Would Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities"

 

Hillary Spot reader Michael points out this little gem in Peter Bart's column on John Edwards' comments in Hollywood:

 

There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word — Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.

 

Really? Israel is the biggest threat? Not Ahmedinijad? Not al-Qaeda? Not a coup attempt in Pakistan? Not a complete breakdown in Iraq drawing in the Saudis, Turks, and Iranians?

 

Or, you know, perhaps not.