I'm sorry.

[Strike For The South]

I always like it when one of these blogs come out put forth these "Retired marine genral with 3423 purple hearts says F**K the Arabs" I mean I seriously thought these guys could come up with something better. Iraq has brought nothing but death and haterd to America and that wont change not when we leave and after 2 months the goverment falls and Iraq is thrown into anarchy creating a bigger mess. We need to cut and run. Or be faced with more death for something that will eventually become an even bigger shit storm

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

SFTS:
are you getting it on with some MoveOn chick or something?

[Strike For The South]

SFTS:
are you getting it on with some MoveOn chick or something?

Ill move on you

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

I'm sorry but I'm not that way inclined.

[Tribesman]

So now we can add a marine general to the airforce general ,the marine colonel , the army major , the special forces senior NCO , the Captain with the Airbourne.
I wonder who will be attributed to the next right wing blogsphere masterpiece , a navy Admiral perhaps , retired of course .

[Spetulhu]

So now we can add a marine general to the airforce general ,the marine colonel , the army major , the special forces senior NCO , the Captain with the Airbourne.
I wonder who will be attributed to the next right wing blogsphere masterpiece , a navy Admiral perhaps , retired of course .

The Admiral might be able to read maps. That way he can at least say he's sorry for invading the wrong country. The 1109 hijackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia, the big country south of Iraq.

[Byzantine Prince]

I too am sorry, chuck, I'm sorry for your simplicity, hypocricy, and rip0ff tendencies.

[Ice]

We need to cut and run. Or be faced with more death for something that will eventually become an even bigger shit storm

Cut and run? Brilliant idea, so all the money we spent and lives that were given can go down the shithole? I think not. I'm not saying we should have gone, but have committed, so we should stay.

Edit: Also, if we cut and run, three new countries will declare independence. One of these will be Kurdistan. Now Kurdistan will want to Annex part of Turkey, which said that will never happen. Turkey along with a Shittee/Sunni State coalition with invade and take over Kurdistan. They will then proceed to war with each other. It will be a God damn mess. So no to leaving.

[Reverend Joe]

Cut and run? Brilliant idea, so all the money we spent and lives that were given can go down the shithole?

It will still go down the ****ter if we stay. I mean, do you really expect the ARVNs- sorry, the Iraqi security forces - to keep stability for more than a year, at the most?

[Strike For The South]

It will still go down the ****ter if we stay. I mean, do you really expect the ARVNs- sorry, the Iraqi security forces - to keep stability for more than a year, at the most?

YUP. The goverment is going to fail so I choose the option where not as many americans die for a country which will just break up anyway

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

I love my crystal ball too.


Edit: *scrying away*, woooooooooooo

[Strike For The South]

I love my crystal ball too.

Dont you...I love my pride as well

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

All you need is pride and clairvoyance.

[Xiahou]

YUP. The goverment is going to fail so I choose the option where not as many americans die for a country which will just break up anyway

That's nonsense. A breakup and civil war are not forgone conclusions. Most Iraqis want democracy to succeed and this current round of elections promises to have an unprecedented turn out. Our forces need to remain to provide stability until democratic institutions take hold. We also need to continue clearing insurgent strongholds and garrisoning them with Iraqi forces.

[Strike For The South]

That's nonsense. A breakup and civil war are not forgone conclusions. Most Iraqis want democracy to succeed and this current round of elections promises to have an unprecedented turn out. Our forces need to remain to provide stability until democratic institutions take hold. We also need to continue clearing insurgent strongholds and garrisoning them with Iraqi forces.

I havent seen any democracy loving Iraqis. Everyday its "Suicide bombing, ambush, beheading." Sure there are probably some but its not enough. We are just breeding more hate from the Iraqis towards us towards the ethnic groups in the reigon. Hell these guys are fighting eachother now with us there. Sure we can kill insurgents but we will never get all of them. I say leave and let them sort it out its not if but when and I perfer we leave now

[Xiahou]

I havent seen any democracy loving Iraqis. Everyday its "Suicide bombing, ambush, beheading."

Blame the media for that- not the Iraqis. What about the millions that risked their lives by coming out to vote in the last 2 elections or the millions more that will be coming out this week to elect their first democratic government in decades. Why are they risking murder and death to vote?

[Ice]

It will still go down the ****ter if we stay. I mean, do you really expect the ARVNs- sorry, the Iraqi security forces - to keep stability for more than a year, at the most?

We aren't going to leave anytime soon. I predict we will have bases and mass troop numbers for 50+ years. If we leave, shit will break lose.



STFS SAID

I havent seen any democracy loving Iraqis. Everyday its "Suicide bombing, ambush, beheading." Sure there are probably some but its not enough. We are just breeding more hate from the Iraqis towards us towards the ethnic groups in the reigon. Hell these guys are fighting eachother now with us there. Sure we can kill insurgents but we will never get all of them. I say leave and let them sort it out its not if but when and I perfer we leave now

The insurgents and bombers dont speak for all Iraqi people, just like Islamic terrorists dont speak for all of Islam. You actually haven't see any democracy loving Iraqis? I'm pretty sure that day they tore the statue of Saddam down, there were some people cheering there. They sure as hell weren't dictator loving people. They want to go to school, run businesses, and live without fear just like the rest of the world.

[Strike For The South]

The insurgents and bombers dont speak for all Iraqi people, just like Islamic terrorists dont speak for all of Islam. You actually haven't see any democracy loving Iraqis? I'm pretty sure that day they tore the statue of Saddam down, there were some people cheering there. They sure as hell weren't dictator loving people. They want to go to school, run businesses, and live without fear just like the rest of the world.

Yes they hated Saddam and they hate us to. They may want to do all that Ghost but provided a couple things

1.No Americans
2.Domianice over the other ethnic group

They majority dont wont democracy they want power. I refuse to sit here and allow America get in the crossfire of a barbic civil war

[Soulforged]

I don't know what's really the purpose behind this apology, but it's the most futile, trivial and inhumane piece of crap that I had read in many time. I don't know how this can be called an apology when the same writer makes the same mistakes that were criticized over the administration over and over.

I'm sorry that apologies don't change the real world.

[Proletariat]

SFTS, what you're saying seems tantamount to saying that all black guys steal TVs because that's what gets the coverage on the 11 o'clock news each night.

Do you think Iraqis are incapable of democracy? Have you seen the latest polling out of Iraq?

http://bareknucklepolitics.com/?p=466

[Ice]

Yes they hated Saddam and they hate us to. They may want to do all that Ghost but provided a couple things

1.No Americans
2.Domianice over the other ethnic group

They majority dont wont democracy they want power. I refuse to sit here and allow America get in the crossfire of a barbic civil war

Its understandable they don't want us, but this to work we have to be there for a while. They only hate us because of what is going on. We are getting the brunt of shit when a carbomb goes of or some runs a jeep filled with explosives into a full cafe. Like I said before though, we got ourselves into it, we need to get ourselves out. Leaving won't do shit besides make everything else work. Dominace? The Shiitte should have dominace, they have the majority of people. That is what democracy is all about, it's the will of the people. I hate to say it, but the Kurds and Sunnis are going to have to except this under the new system. Yes people want democracy, yes people want power. You will always have ur power whores in every country.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Yes they hated Saddam and they hate us to. They may want to do all that Ghost but provided a couple things

1.No Americans
2.Domianice over the other ethnic group

They majority dont wont democracy they want power. I refuse to sit here and allow America get in the crossfire of a barbic civil war

Just so you know, most of the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq are imports from Syria.

[Hurin_Rules]

Just so you know, most of the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq are imports from Syria.

And you can prove this contentious allegation how?

[Divinus Arma]

I always like it when one of these blogs come out put forth these "Retired marine genral with 3423 purple hearts says F**K the Arabs" I mean I seriously thought these guys could come up with something better. Iraq has brought nothing but death and haterd to America and that wont change not when we leave and after 2 months the goverment falls and Iraq is thrown into anarchy creating a bigger mess. We need to cut and run. Or be faced with more death for something that will eventually become an even bigger shit storm

This was worth coming out of hibernation for.

SFTS, a few months ago you quoted me in your sig. Can't remember what it was, but it was pro-war. You have taken a turn down a sad sad road my friend.


You see, the liberals and Democrats would have all of us believe that this war is unwinnable. They tell the Amercian public, "We cannot win, we must surrender." Withdrawl now IS surrender, because the infant Iraqi government is incapable of defending itself.

The liberals see America as the world's greatest problem. The liberals want us to believe that we will fail and that we must give in to the terrorists of Iraq. The liberals say this because it will help them politically. Because this is all they have left. They have no platform. They have no argument. All they have to offer is American defeat. The Democratic Party, this once great party of Truman, JFK, and Roosevelt, has become irrelevant and stands against America.

Because what is bad for America... Is good for the Democrats.


I am deeply saddened to see you take this road SFTS. But you are a Texan. And an American. And I also know that you are still formulating your view of how our country should be led.


There is NO wrong in questioning our leadership. There is NO wrong in voicing your beliefs. There is NO wrong in making your points heard.

But we must never, ever, ever play to the enemy in order to make gains politically. We must NEVER pursue American failure to promote a political ideology.

And make no mistake: The Liberals want America to fail. If America fails, then the Republican party fails. And if the Republican party fails, then the Democrats will increase their power.

The failure of America is Democratic Party policy when conservatives lead the nation.

[Lemur]

Really, is there anything wrong in the world that we can't blame The Liberals for? I think not.

So DA, what percentage of Americans do you believe are rooting for America's failure? Just curious. I'd love to hear a number, and not just about The Liberals, whom you seem to have an intimate understanding of.

[Xiahou]

You see, the liberals and Democrats would have all of us believe that this war is unwinnable. They tell the Amercian public, "We cannot win, we must surrender." Withdrawl now IS surrender, because the infant Iraqi government is incapable of defending itself.

Well that much is accurate- at least when it comes to the Democratic leadership and the "liberals" on this board.

Because what is bad for America... Is good for the Democrats.

This is also true. Failure in Iraq? - good for their party. Recession? -good for Democrats. I'll leave it up to the reader to do the math themselves on Iraq, but no doubt, economically Democrats have been striving to paint a negative picture despite strong growth in almost every statistic and low unemployment.

Clearly, any opposition party benefits when things go bad for the majority party. The question is, are they rooting for failure? Personally, I think Democrats would be doing much better if they were making real suggestions or constructive criticism rather than just being negative.

[AntiochusIII]

Well that much is accurate- at least when it comes to the Democratic leadership and the "liberals" on this board.

Perhaps, just perhaps, it's because, the war is unwinnable?

Just playing with you.

[Addressed to others] But I'll have to get back to my gay porn now, and to finish the Communist Manifesto. In fact, I might need to print out another dozen of the Che posters with my welfare money.

Liberals, sir, can be blame for anything. For we are the progressive ones. We change, and for that, we are hated.

Now, that sounds cool.

This is also true. Failure in Iraq? - good for their party. Recession? -good for Democrats. I'll leave it up to the reader to do the math themselves on Iraq, but no doubt, economically Democrats have been striving to paint a negative picture despite strong growth in almost every statistic and low unemployment.

Clearly, any opposition party benefits when things go bad for the majority party. The question is, are they rooting for failure? Personally, I think Democrats would be doing much better if they were making real suggestions or constructive criticism rather than just being negative.

Some of what you said is certainly true, but others are not necessarily so. If Iraq fails, and the Dems win the election for president (which, if Iraq fails, is likely, unless they face a magical Republican spin -- ha! A realistic possibility considering America's majority idiotic voting blog who seems more concerned with women and their wombs and how God should be prayed (or not) than economic and political issues in an increasingly hostile world), they will inherit the problem at its worst. The economy is a natural tactic.

The Dems would not be realistically doing much better by giving constructive criticism if only because the dominating Republicans will not hear them in the first place. Remember: the Republicans control the government; the Supreme Court, the House, and the Presidency. And they won't like to show themselves as weak to (some of) their voters who "hate the traitorous Left."

[Divinus Arma]

Remember: the Republicans control the government; the Supreme Court, the House, and the Presidency. And they won't like to show themselves as weak to (some of) their voters who "hate the traitorous Left."

Uhm. No. The Democrats control the Supreme Court. Observe:

Conservatives:
Thomas
Scalia
Roberts
O'Conner, soon to be Alito

Liberals:
Ginsberg
Souter
Kennedy
Stephens
Breyer


And you will notice that it is along these party lines that the wrecthed liberals have managed to pass this heinous treacherous horrific ruling.
Washigton Post Article
Kelo v. City of New London , No. 04-108.
Off topic, but you would imagine that "evil" big business and therefore, republican support, would be dominant here, right? Wrong. Proof of the liberal elite. They say that government knows what is best, not free individuals. Taking homes away from the poor just to give the land to the rich. Truly hypocritical and a national disgrace. This ruling represents the elimination of private property rights in the U.S. because any company can take land away from the working class simply because it will increase the tax base and stimulate the economy. Blight is one thing. This is something far more dangerous to freedom and wholly socialist. It means that no one has property rights. Period. The government may take your property and give it another private individual if he can make more money from the land!

This is why I hate the libs. And BTW, I don't give a crap about abortion, and neither do alot of conservatives. I care about the misinterpretation of the constitution to serve a political agenda. The liberals, or "progressives" as the term they like to now hide behind, want to interpret the constituion to serve the prevailing mood of the era. The miracle of the constituion is its ability to govern despite temporary social trends. It is the rock of the nation, an anchor of our society. We should not be so quick to bend it excessively because of "modern" concepts. The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew how it has been raped. And remember, I WAS a Democrat! I WAS a working class stiff who favored broader government authority! And I am NOT a religious zealot. My interest is in civil liberties and limited government. I am not wholly pleased with many Republican policy issues, but work within the party to promote the most conservative of agendas. Sodomy laws, homosexual laws, and abortion laws all represent a gross intrusion into freedom. Conservatives should be politically conservative, NOT socially conservative.

Oh and on topic: SFTS: We STILL have troops in Germany and Japan. Ten years is nothing. Us spoiled Americans live in a consumer oriented, throw-away, instant gratification society. The modern generation is used to getting its way and getting it NOW. Any military effort of worth in recent decades has required a sustained commitment to victory: WWI, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, the Muslim nation mini-wars of Bosnia, Kosovo and etc. The GWOT is no different.


Okay. That is the end of my rant.
I will go back to lurking again.

[AntiochusIII]

And you will notice that it is along these party lines that the wrecthed liberals have managed to pass this heinous treacherous horrific ruling.
Washigton Post Article
Kelo v. City of New London , No. 04-108.

Perhaps you forget that the outrage against that ruling wasn't along party lines at all. Traitorous liberals... This decision clearly supports the business, no? Remember: if the decision to evoke the power of eminent domain better benefits the public, i.e. taxes...

Guess what makes more taxes? Offices and shops, or people's homes?

Off topic, but you would imagine that "evil" big business and therefore, republican support, would be dominant here, right? Wrong. Proof of the liberal elite. They say that government knows what is best, not free individuals. Taking homes away from the poor just to give the land to the rich. Truly hypocritical and a national disgrace. This ruling represents the elimination of private property rights in the U.S. because any company can take land away from the working class simply because it will increase the tax base and stimulate the economy. Blight is one thing. This is something far more dangerous to freedom and wholly socialist. It means that no one has property rights. Period. The government may take your property and give it another private individual if he can make more money from the land!

The liberal elite? If there is one I'd like to see; and please, real liberal elites, not political elites who like to ride behind the people's voice just to gain votes.

Sorry, but this is NOT a liberal decision at all, not by any non-deragatory definitions; the ones not used by Pat Robertson, you know.

Also, it is my understanding (that could be very, very wrong -- correct me if I am) that the power of eminent domain has an ancient root and that similar powers could be found in British common laws; I also believe (might be wrong, badly) that the power has long been established for centuries until recently (in legal terms) removed and then reinstated in Kelo vs City of New London.

This is why I hate the libs.

Hatred...

No doubt you'll make a good patriot...like the ones in the Revolutionary War, you know...

Hate thy neighbors, or oppress them, if they are too friendly with the Redcoats. Or the libs, in modern times.

And BTW, I don't give a crap about abortion, and neither do alot of conservatives. I care about the misinterpretation of the constitution to serve a political agenda. The liberals, or "progressives" as the term they like to now hide behind, want to interpret the constituion to serve the prevailing mood of the era. The miracle of the constituion is its ability to govern despite temporary social trends. It is the rock of the nation, an anchor of our society. We should not be so quick to bend it excessively because of "modern" concepts. The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew how it has been raped.

We might as well reinstitute slavery if you take that mindset, mind you. And why should we not listen to what the people has to say?

And remember, I WAS a Democrat! I WAS a working class stiff who favored broader government authority! And I am NOT a religious zealot. My interest is in civil liberties and limited government. I am not wholly pleased with many Republican policy issues, but work within the party to promote the most conservative of agendas. Sodomy laws, homosexual laws, and abortion laws all represent a gross intrusion into freedom. Conservatives should be politically conservative, NOT socially conservative.

And you support the Republican party, which lately has been a voice for the "Morality Right" or whatever they called themselves (Christian Right?). I can't blame you that much, though. The opposition party doesn't have a clear opposing standpoint. They just can't take the liberal position if only because the magical spin caused "liberals" to be a bad word nowadays, as your words gladly show.

Oh and on topic: SFTS: We STILL have troops in Germany and Japan. Ten years is nothing. Us spoiled Americans live in a consumer oriented, throw-away, instant gratification society. The modern generation is used to getting its way and getting it NOW. Any military effort of worth in recent decades has required a sustained commitment to victory: WWI, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, the Muslim nation mini-wars of Bosnia, Kosovo and etc. The GWOT is no different.

Let's see...

The bases in Germany seems to be used as springboards for Middle Eastern/Balkans operations; the strategic value of the garrison themselves is limited to that. The Germans aren't going to start a new war very soon, with or without the US garrison.

The forces in Japan are stationed there not to keep Japan in check. If yes, why would the US pressure Japan to build a military once again, with Japanese resistance, nonetheless? They stayed there to keep an eye on China, I suppose.

So I guess you could say they have value...but I don't either countries fought back against the American occupiers so ferociously like Iraq, no?

WWI: you can't possibly compare this to Iraq. It was a major--the largest war yet--in Europe. America, in fact, held back (even though leaned towards the allies) for years until the public mood turned to conflict. America, in fact, entered the war against an exhausted Central Powers. It had much to gain from victory, and it did.

WWII: Hitler's blitzkrieg on Europe no doubt left America uneasy; what else, it's Pearl Harbor, an open effort by a country to attack America, that put the nation into war. Don't compare that to 9/11, where it is a terrorist network's effort. And don't give me crap about Saddam's ties to bin Laden.

Korea: An international effort spearheaded by the US against a direct, open, dangerous invasion of Korea by the Chinese forces following Truman's anti-Communist rhetoric and the "Red Threat" still hot and young. How is that similar to Iraq, considering a clear objective in Korea from the start?

Vietnam: was a failure. And please, don't blame the activists. Cowards do that. Even then, America's efforts aren't pre-emptive. They entered to keep South Vietnam alive from Communist North Vietnam's invasions; apart from all the "conspiracy" involved. That was the goal.

The Balkans: there was a huge civil war, a mess, in the Balkans. Again, the effort was NATO's. Don't tell me it was a perfect job, either. Nonetheless, there was a clear goal: to bring order to a completely messed-up area near the homes of many NATO leaders.

Iraq, on the other hand, was a pre-emptive invasion based on inconclusive evidence and screwed-up reasons against a sitting duck that allowed extremists in the Arab world a golden opportunity to enter that nation and make a mess out of it and the world. What is the goal there? "Democracy," "Liberty," "Iraqi Freedom..." HA! With all the torture, assassinations, the new Sharia Constitution, the split, and all those troubles, I don't see our Western ideals embraced at all.

And I opposed the war from the start...while I was still not in America, and my opinion concides with many. The world knew this war is bull from the start. Now you can find reasons to attack by unpatriotic-ness because I am not one of the citizens of this country now, if you wish.

[Goofball]

Uhm. No. The Democrats control the Supreme Court. Observe:

Conservatives:
Thomas
Scalia
Roberts
O'Conner, soon to be Alito

Liberals:
Ginsberg
Souter
Kennedy
Stephens
Breyer

Uhm. No. Observe:

Thomas: Appointed by a Republican (Bush Sr.)
Scalia: Appointed by a Republican (Reagan)
Roberts: Appointed by a Republican (Bush Jr.)
O'Connor: Appointed by a Republican (Reagan)
Ginsberg: Appointed by a Democrat (Clinton)
Souter: Appointed by a Republican (Bush Sr.)
Kennedy: Appointed by a Republican (Reagan)
Stephens: Appointed by a Republican (Ford)
Breyer: Appointed by a Democrat (Clinton)

It's interesting that you claim the Democrats "control" SCOTUS there are only two Democrat nominees out of a total of nine currently sitting on the Court.



What is happening on the Supreme Court is what is supposed to happen: the Justices are rendering their decisions based on whether or not they believe the decisions are in keeping with the Constitution, regardless of who gave them the job. The SC is not supposed to vote along party lines.

Unfortunately, Republicans can't seem to get this through their heads.