We need to come together as a country to defeat a common enemy who does not care if you are a Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative.
We have heard the mindless prattle about the War on Terror by intellectuals such as Michael Moore, John Murtha, and Howard Dean and are aware of their positions. How would we feel if someone invaded us? It looks like we are occupiers trying to force our way of life on them. We should listen to them and they will respond favorably. Islam is a religion of peace and only radicals are out there causing trouble.…
Article comments
26 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
O right. Because the French always surrender. Yes that makes a lot of sense, but then how is it Nap made it half way across Russia in mid winter. That's a near impossible feat even today. And we wonder why we're in a culture war against most of the world.
27 - Big Dog
Oh, I am sorry. I thought we were talking about the French of today and not the dead ones from a long time ago. Silly me.
That is why we are in troube, too many folks live in the past.
28 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
When did the French surrender today? I must have missed the headline. I didnt even know they were at war. Your comment was based on historical information, as was mine. I might add, the U.S. might not exist without the French.
29 - Baronius
Peti, the French surrendered about a year ago when North African Muslims were setting fire to Paris. The government responded with curfews, negotiations, and proposed jobs programs. There were quite a few headlines.
30 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
You seem to forget a lot of those muslims were french citizens. You're confusing religion with citizenship.
31 - JP
I love these ridiculous "it was the divided country" arguments. "It's the appeassers' fault."
So your conclusion? "We need to learn the correct lesson from Vietnam and come together as a country to defeat a common enemy...it is time we put up a united front in order to defeat them. We need to kill every one of them. Their numbers need to be reduced so drastically that they can never, ever, cause trouble in the world again."
So what you're saying here--PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong--is that people who believe that violence is NOT the best strategy to win the battle of ideas should shut the hell up and wave their flags like good little brainwashed Americans, because YOU believe the country's dissent is what lost Vietnam?
Why do righties jump head first into war before realizing that it's not what a clear majority of the country wants? I'll grant you that there's something to be said for steadfast leadership--quite another to be said for stubbornness and refusal to change with conditions. Once proven wrong, policy needs to change.
Of course a leader need not always lead by the polls, but I'll be goddamnned if I'm going to stand up and shout in favor of something I do not believe in. And, frankly, it's UN-AMERICAN for you to suggest others do so. To suggest that is to turn America into that which it claims to never want to become--a fascist state.
32 - Nancy
The so-called 'poor' reputation of French troops dates from several centuries ago. In the last 2 wars, they fought like maniacs & suffered savage losses, but kept on going anyway. They proved to be most valiant. No more about the French inability to fight. They certainly can when they want to or must. The modern-day wussie champs have got to be the Iraqis: 2+ years of US training and they still can't muster troops or police to defend or protect themselves? Where's all the bluster & bravado they show when they're skulking around with kalishnikovs or shooting them off at weddings, I want to know. And before that they put up with how many years of repression by Hussein? Shoot, if any one of them had had half a spine, they'd have risen up - IF they'd wanted to - and gotten rid of him themselves. But they didn't. IMO they aren't worth the bullets to defend them with.
33 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
Nancy, criticizing the bravery of Iraqi soldiers from your computer near DC isn't exactly a qualified opinion. Especially considering you never have fought and never will be required to fight. That being said, what makes for a good soldier? From what I know of military training, the two keys are training and motivation. Motivation is usually nationalism. And in a nation going through civil war, is it at all surprising there isnt exactly a surplus of nationalism? There are so many divisions in Iraq it would be hard for any man to know what he is fighting for and if he wants to fight for it. So you can either claim the Iraqis 1) lack nationalism
2) lack training
1) has an obvious explanation
2) Is either b/c the U.S. training is inadequate, or Iraqis are so stupid they don't undertand it, which is a rascist argument.
Of course when an Iraqi does have a strong sense of nationalism, it seems to more often result in a suicide bombing than joining the army.
34 - SHARK
re: Big Dog's "It would be helpful if you would attack the argument and not the person making it."
Hard to separate the two -- when they both show an enormous amount of simplistic hubris and outright HYPOCRISY.
Dog, I know you think you don't "insult" people and use "name-calling" -- but you do, son. And it's so fucking blatant, the fact that you don't recognize it tells us something about your level of intelligence.
I know you think you're TAKING THE HIGH ROAD and saying something interesting and intelligent...
but...
You ever read the shit you type, Doggie?
================
Here goes:
G.O.Pooch says: "...come together as a country to defeat a common enemy. This enemy does not care if you are a Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative."
Nice Hallmark Card, as someone said earlier.
But methinks it contains a tad bit of digital figurative anthrax meant for some 'liberal/leftist' who hasn't read further:
G.O.Pooch says:
[left] = "mindless prattle"
"...realize that appeasement does not work"
"John Kerry protesting and calling our soldiers criminals"
"it is the left with the defeatist attitudes "
"if I had lost as much as you guys on the left I would be bitter... "
"...I would hope you [democrats, liberals] have the testicular fortitude to stand up to the enemy..."
=====
Lessee, Mr. "Let's Hold Hands" -- aka "A Uniter, Not a Divider" has both implicitly and explicitly called the "leftist/liberals"
mindless
appeasers,
treasonous
defeatist
bitter
cowards
=====
Dog,
you want to be taken seriously around here, try actually saying something of substance.
Try actually MAKING AN ARGUMENT before insisting your readers PARSE your JUNIOR-HIGH JINGOISMS and try to counter them.
Try something other than implicit and explicit NAME-CALLING with meaningless GOP (marketing) CODE WORDS.
There are plenty of others around here who are MUCH better at it than you.
Seriously.
Sit.
35 - MCH
"Nancy, criticizing the bravery of Iraqi soldiers from your computer near DC isn't exactly a qualified opinion. Especially considering you never have fought and never will be required to fight."
- peti
Actually, Nancy did serve her time in the military. And you?
36 - Nancy
PETI, I did indeed take basic training, so I know what's involved in turning someone into a soldier with basic military skills. I also served in active duty. I doubt YOU can say the same. This does indeed give me some basis for comparison of training capability of the Iraqi population - and they SUCK, especially considering most of them have been playing around with guns since childhood. That after 2+ freakin' YEARS - not months, like it takes the average US recruit - Iraq still can't manage a basic decent standing army or police force is a disgrace, and can be attributable only to stupidity, utter lack of discipline, or cowardice. Take your pick.
Now: what are YOUR military credentials, hmmm?
37 - Christopher Rose
MCH & Nancy: It may be that my memory is tricking me, in which case apologies to PETI, but I seem to remember that he is sixteen.
What he really needs to do is separate the words of his nom de keyboard so it fits the little grey box...
38 - Nancy
Well, that certainly explains some of the comments, and he does well for a 16-year-old, 'cause I thought he was an adult. I concede that also excuses him from military service - for the nonce. Hopefully Bush won't get him in the next several years.
39 - MCH
"The thing that you and I realize that these loons don't is that it's going to take a lot of civilian deaths and us doing some unseemly things to protect ourselves and we're ok with that...The moonbats cringe when you mention the use of nuclear weapons and call you crazy. They say we can't kill innocent civilians in the mideast because it's wrong...We are protecting ourselves. If the terrorists would all wear Al queda name tags so we could know who was a civilian we would just fight the bad guys and leave the muslim civilians alone...These moonbats call people liek us bloodthirsty and violent and racist...We don't want to kill anyone. We just see that we may have to in order to protect ourselves."
- ArchieBing
Wow...did you just get through watching another John Wayne movie, Archie?
40 - Clavos
"John Kerry protesting and calling our soldiers criminals"
As one of Kerry's "criminals," I absolutely agree that he was 'treasonous' when he lied, implicitly calling us all criminals; and in a congressional hearing, no less.
He's scum.
41 - Lady Dragonfyre
The Iraqis can't rally together. Policemen share allegiances with different tribal sheikhs and often join with them in fighting tribal enemies. Some are torturing prisoners; some are looting, either for greed, or to feed their families because they're barely getting paid.
Other Iraqi civies and government officials have loose allegiances with political parties, tribes, and other groups, and frequently stab each other in the backs. Nobody agrees on who should hold different state offices, and some resort to violence to further their interests.
The Iraqi government, with our help, is trying to rebuild and provide jobs for their people while Muslim extremists rip down power lines to steal copper wire to sell in Iran and elsewhere, and blow the shit out of schools, restaurants, and other establishments that we build. As an added contribution to the welfare of Iraq, they kidnap, blow up, or otherwise murder civies, government officials, and soldiers alike. To further improve morale, they loot and destroy ancient Sumerian archeological sites.
The moderate Iraqis WANT a stable, peaceful nation, but that won't happen until they put aside all their tribal/political/ideological differences and work toward a common goal.
Right now, they're a bunch of hamsters running in a huge exercise wheel. Most of them are all running in different directions, some of them are just standing there doing nothing, and others are running back and forth among the fray, pooping on everyone else.
Speaking from a purely tactical standpoint, if we WERE to destroy the Islamic world, the combined military efforts of every other nation on earth would leave the United States in ashes.
At the very least, we'd have a coup d'etat here.
In regard to Islamofacism, we're fucked no matter what we do, at least in the foreseeable future. These extremists don't care about politics, nor civilized discourse, nor compromise. Their religion is their "cause." In their myopic little minds, we're fighting a war against Islam.
To quote a soldier buddy of mine back from Iraq, you can't win a war against religion. Further, as demonstrated in various threads here on BC, nobody can win a debate on religion, either.
42 - MCH
"As one of Kerry's "criminals," I absolutely agree that he was 'treasonous' when he lied, implicitly calling us all criminals; and in a congressional hearing, no less.
He's scum."
- Clavos
Yeah, really. He shoulda stayed home and used his daddy's influence to:
1) duck into the guards ahead of a waiting list of 500 guys;
2) skip officer training after boot camp while receiving his lieutenant's rank;
3) intentionally ground himself by missing a mandatory physical, wasting $1 million ob his training;
4) and then go AWOL the last 2 years of his enlistment.
Then all he had to do was lie about it 25 years later, stating, "The reason I wasn't flying at Dannelly is because they didn't have the same kind of planes there."
43 - Big Dog
Shark, or are you the poetry man?
I am not your son, as I imagine you meant that in some sort of demeaning fashion.
I do read what I write, and you are entitled to your opinion of it since I really don't care much about what most people think about it. As to my intelligence, I will not dignify it with a response, especially when the person making the claim has left his own in doubt.
Yep, I can get nasty with others, I prefer not to most times. You can say I am insulting, "son" but I think not.
44 - Big Dog
You know Shark, I just got to read the rest of your comment. I did not say we should all hold hands in every aspect of life. I said to unite against a common enemy and pointed out those, like you perhaps, who are not doing so.
I do not like the people I cited and I think they are treasonous enemies of this country.
Shark, your little poetry man games do not bother me because writing "sit" and "speak when we wave a treat" is easy. Actually accomplishing those things in real life is quite another. So be happy you can imagine it happening.
I have a suggestion. If you don't like what I write troll around somewhere else.
I can see why you call your self shark. It is the largest animal without a backbone. Appropriate, very appropriate.
See I can play this game too, but isn't it a bit childish, "son."
45 - Screen Rant
Big Dog,
Expressing your particular point of view (which I agree with) on this site is about the equivalent of spitting into the wind.
I imagine that if most of the folks who comment here lived somewhere in the U.S. that was hit by an Al-Qaeda sponsored nuclear bomb, their last thought in that micro-second before they were incinerated would be: "We brought this on ourselves."
46 - Clavos
emmy # 42:
Had he done that, he'd be less of a scum than he is now.
47 - Nancy
No, he wouldn't, Clavos. He'd be the same lowlife scum as Georgie Boy is. Kerry is his own kind of scum. They're both scum; two different varieties. Kerry must have been out of his mind or on drugs to call our troops criminals. I've always wondered why he hasn't come out & retracted/ apologized for that statement, because it's one thing to castigate the troops; it's quite another to support the troops & castigate BushCo. And Screen Rant, I can guarantee you as a bona fide lefty, that would not be my last thought. I'd be trying to figure out how to pay them back in spades.
48 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Hmmm...
Big Dog, let me suggest that you are barking up a couple of wrong trees here (sorry, with a moniker like that, the line just comes naturally).
IMHO, your nation lost in Vietnam because it was unwilling to go to the mat, i.e bombing Hanoi to the Stone Age, invading North Vietnam with massive numbers of soldiers and basically making it impossible to even survive if you didn't support the regime in Saigon. What I'm saying is that if you go to war at all, you go to war to win, not spend blood and money. War costs too much blood and money as it is.
In 1967, this nation wnet to war to win and won. It squandered its victory, but it won. In 1973, this nation went to war under Arab attack and damn near disappeared from the map because instead of fighting to win, it worried about what America would say. It chose dishonor over disapproval and got both - after 2,900 casualties, this nation was forced to disgorge its winnings by the United States.
Now your country is involved in fighting in the Middle East. You all can see just how grateful the Arabs are for your presence, but that is not the point. YOUR ENEMY IS IN RIYADH AND YOUR PRESIDENT IS ON THE PAYROLL OF RIYADH. THAT IS WHY YOU ARE LOSING! YOU HAVE A TRAITOR IN THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF'S SPOT! IN THE MOST LITERAL SENSE OF TRHE WORD, YOUR GOVERNMENT IS BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE! George Bush cannot afford to pee on his boss' shoes.
Your enemy is not "Islamo-fascism," it is the Wahhabi branch of Islam and their address is in Riyadh. Saddam Hussein was just a junior consigliere of your country who somehow did the wrong thing in the late 1980's because he was misled by the Bush adminstration into thinking he could invade Quwait - and yes, he did ask permission. He was led to believe it was alright with the Americans - and then Bush applied the double-cross.
Understand, I have no sympathy for the bastard, because that is what he is. But Saddam Hussein was never as big a threat to America as the Saudis are.
One of the reasons the Shia sense that their Mahdi is just around the corner is the weakness of your country. And like sharks, the Iranians smell blood and want to move in for the kill.
So, it is not a matter of "holding hands" and crossing the crosswalk to get to the Tigris or Euphrates. It is a matter of pulling out - or attacking the real enemy - the princes of trhe family of ibn Saud.
49 - Clavos
No, he wouldn't, Clavos. He'd be the same lowlife scum as Georgie Boy is. Kerry is his own kind of scum.
I disagree, Nancy.
I think what Kerry did is WAY worse than GW's failures with the ANG.
50 - Nancy
And that will never happen as long as the Bush/Cheney consortium rule the US, by hook or by crook, because they would rather betray every last American & US soldier than lose a nickel from their masters in Riyadh. We're screwed.
51 - Clavos
IMHO, your nation lost in Vietnam because it was unwilling to go to the mat, i.e bombing Hanoi to the Stone Age, invading North Vietnam with massive numbers of soldiers and basically making it impossible to even survive if you didn't support the regime in Saigon. What I'm saying is that if you go to war at all, you go to war to win, not spend blood and money. War costs too much blood and money as it is.
Quoted for TRUTH © g. marx
52 - JustOneMan
Ruvy...a historical correction
"In 1967, this nation (Israel) wnet to war to win and won."
The US financed, provided weapons,intelligence to the mercenaries (ie Isralies) to protect US interest in the region...so while you think you are barking like a Great Dane you are really miniature poodle...
53 - SHARK
[Cut to Shark chummin' for Straw Men in the water.
Close Up: Shark salivating as ScreenRant puts a scarecrow on a hook.]
ScreenRant: "...if...folks who comment here lived somewhere in the U.S. that was hit by an Al-Qaeda sponsored nuclear bomb, their last thought in that micro-second before they were incinerated would be: "We brought this on ourselves."
Damn those pesky cowardly liberal appeasers! They're America-haters -- even on Death's Door!
~Jeesus, Rant, yer about as nuanced as the jingo pooch. Yall should get together and do a John Wayne double feature.
But jes for the record, in the nano-second before Shark was incinerated, he'd think:
"Shit. I wish we'd have spent $400 billion
securing our nation
instead of invading Viet... um... Iraq."
54 - SHARK
BTW: re. the Historically challenged BLUSTER about the VietNam War
BigDog: "...We won every battle and yet lost the war. It had nothing to do with what was going on there. We as a nation lost our will to fight. If we lose that will now, we will be fighting on our soil."
Actually, the lesson from Vietnam is that once we'd CUT AND RUN, WE WON!
ie. we lost no MORE American lives or dollars, and a few years later, THEY WERE our good 'friends' and TRADING PARTNERS.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
55 - ss
The myth:
Since America is of course, all powerful, and can do anything, as long as it really sets it's mind to it...
The only reason we lost Vietnam is because America was divided.
Walter Cronkite and Ho Chi Minh both admitted it, too.
The truth:
The generational divide in America was huge during Vietnam, but the actual effect this had on electoral politics...
Richard M. Nixon won the Presidency of the United States twice by promising middle-aged Americans the war would not be in vain or bring dishonor. In the '72 election the Democrats tried to run an actual pacifist, and Nixon won almost 60% of the popular vote.
We didn't lose Vietnam because we we're divided here, we lost because of what was happening there.
America is very powerful.
America is not all powerful.
It's an appealling myth, believing that your nation is all powerful. Especially if your nation is a clearly dominant world power. But it got the British into trouble periodically, and it seems to do the same to us.
56 - ss
Incidently, Big Dog, no matter who wins the elections in '06, or '08, or '12, or '16...
We're probably going to have tens of thousands of soldiers in Iraq, sustaining 500 or so casualties a year.
You got your wish, big guy.
Enjoy the consequences.
57 - Vic
"But jes for the record, in the nano-second before Shark was incinerated, he'd think:
"Shit. I wish we'd have spent $400 billion
securing our nation...""
Shark,
I never in my life thought that I would actually agree with you on anything.
See that you athiest punk? Miracles ARE possible. LOL :-)
Vic
58 - MCH
"I think what Kerry did is WAY worse than GW's failures with the ANG."
- Clavos
But when GW then lied about it in 2000, he also "failed" in truthfulness and integrity.
59 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
To JOM @#52;
Stick to what you know.
If you check out the weapons, you'll find that Israel had been supplied with American tanks and French aircraft - but check out the dioplomatic histories and you'll learn that the Americans didn't want Israel to go to war in June 1967, and were so adamant on this point that they transmitted data to the Egyptians from a ship in the Mediterranean that Israel attacked.
You're better with the non-seqitur insults than with the history.
60 - JustOneMan
Ruvy gee who paid for all those weapons...I dont think you guys were growing enough oranges or making enough bagels to afford one tank!
You are better off playing "NostraDUMBASS" and prostelatizing the cult of victimization and arrogance that you belong to....