Replies

You think the WOT terror is:

... a war to make the world safe for globalism.

Tommyrot.

That the world is made safer and because terrorism is being halted does not justify your comment.

I've just finished reading the remainder of your post: You are without a doubt clueless about macroeconomics, the economics of your own country's wellbeing, and lastly, you are of an isolationist ideology.

You and I might both agree that the illegal immigrancy NEEDS MAJOR REFORM: But I believe our grounds for discourse go no further, in this matter. Going step by step through your post would require that I provide you with an education.

But perhaps you do indeed have a higher education; it's just your ideology which is so narrow. Your lens.

I know Michael Savage. :) Like him, too.

However, you and others might need reminding that sitting aloft and afar calling the shots is far different from actually standing in the position in charge of calling those shots.

When Judge Phaelzer rescinded the will of the people in re Prop 187 (repealing benefits to illegals), the hue and cry from people was angry. The loudest cries came from those who beat the drums for an insurrection -- "Take out the Dems: Somebody arrest them!" The answer was: And who might you think has the power to actually do this thing?

Next what was heard was: "Those Chicken*()& Republicans should charge in there and kick the Dem Butts!"

Here's where the rub is: We pay those elected to office to represent us. Some voters mistakenly believe it means that those elected become our proxy acting on orders at all times. Getting elected to office requires no small skill. Had, say, Republicans done what angry voters said to do? Those Republicans would have been arrested, and nothing would have been changed about the specific matter of 187.

Sitting in an armchair deciding what would be "personally most gratifying" does require much skill at all. It requires a will; but not necessarily skill or knowledge. And "saying" what you would do or would not do, is.. cheap. It requires no proof as to your assertion or intent to carry anything out.

And if you really think our military and our military leaders are playing "patsy" with the enemy over in Iraq and Afghanistan, I've got some black bands I wear on my wrists that would shame you to your core.

There's a reason we are winning the war. And because "hothead" and cheap-shot generals or CIC aren't running it. We've got the best running this War and Our Country.

Yes, we do need to deal with the issue of Illegal Immigration. Far past time. But your blathering on equating our military with fighting a false "war" damns you.

Why don't you just come-on our and say what I perceive you are saying: "Pull our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and place them on the border." And because your entire, well written, opinions surround that very thought. Comes through loud and clear.

Yes, we do need to deal with the issue of Illegal Immigration. Far past time.

No kidding. So stop wasting time and energy, handwaving and misleading on the issue.

I also note you fail to 'tommyrot' your way out of the globalistic nightmare that is being 'bipartisanly' advocated...from silence on China's Axis-of-Evil sponsoring, proliferating and protecting at the UN, all the way to the President suddenly supporting resurrection of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Complete indifference to the trade deficit. And why don't you learn what Isolationism really meant, while you're at it.

But your blathering on equating our military with fighting a false "war" damns you.

"False"? Really. You are fraudulently misrepresenting what I said. Recall, I fully supported invading Iraq, before, during, and after. Saddam was behind a good portion of all the Mideast terrorism. And 9/11. His regime needed to take a dirt nap.

And we needed pacification post-Saddam too. Democratization was the preferred...but not only way...to reach that objective. But the objective, not the democratization, was the essential . Can't have the same folks...or worse... just step into his shoes. And the nature of that pacification is where I am having questions about the game plan. Not our troops integrity, skill, valor or execution. And hence, your perversion and misrepresentations only damns you. As an intellectually dishonest debater. You haven't come to grips with any of my points.

Then you come out with this cavil and aspersion:

You are tone deaf. Because that is not at all what I believe. I believe we need to return terror for terror.

And it is not a simple 'gratifying' gesture of simple retribution that I am calling for. [Although the incident of today's crashed Apache crew violation makes it tempting]. But I am thinking more of a calculated campaign to erase the base of Baathist-Sunni support. The terror regime that they still have in place in their bastions. They have to know they were defeated. They don't accept that currently. They still think they should rule. They need to internalize that they were defeated...and get some gratitude at not being squashed like their neighbors down the street.

And Iran is also in the mix. It is constantly preaching throughout the Middle East 'the last helicopter' thesis, which means they think they can just 'outwait us'...and the WOT was just an aberration. We need to increase their pain level to where they finally scream "uncle" in every quarter of the Sunni Triangle.

There are a number of military commanders who wanted to do just that...but that Foggy Bottom has been allowed to block them from going forward. Paul Bremer, much as I personally like him, has apparently a lot to answer for in that regard. This was mentioned just two weeks ago on Hugh Hewitt interviewing one of our intel people.

I will never countenance seeing our soldiers sacrifice made of no account. I don't approve of George Will's 'loss of will' or William F. Buckley's 'buckling' or Francis Fukuyama's flip-flops. If I can help it, I intend to make sure that this thing is won and stays won. But squeamishness won't git r' done.

The reason you misidentify where I am coming from is because you fail to see the bigger picture...or to take me at my word. You limit yourself to just one person, letting that guy define you and your beliefs, when a truly conservative philosophy is not so dependent or limited.

As for my surmise that the WOT has devolved into simply making the world safe for globalism, take everything we have seen and heard with this Administration's religious fervor for globalism and free trade... Exhibit "A" being the UAE ports debacle....and what does it really translate into when you see not just the actions taken...but the grotesque inaction? Incompetence? No, I hardly think so.

But it is a huge policy disconnect that needs to be explained. And the best explanation is that the administration doesn't mean the same things we mean when the talk turns to saving civilization...and doesn't want the exact same ends. Two ships passing in the night.