No, I won't say that, because one day it just might become legal to do so and you would have made me promise my right away.
Now, doggone it, that was funny.
I don't care what you say.
Here. Chew on this for a while:
Posted on 10/19/2007 10:08:06 AM PDT by george76
This past week convinced me that the left, especially the Democratic Congress, does not appreciate the fact that we are at war. When one is in a war, one attempts to amass as many allies as possible...
The adage, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" holds true.
During World War I, the Ottoman Empire, Turkey, killed over a million Armenians. Today, we call that genocide. Our Congress led by the Democrats picked this particular time to announce to the world how wrong that was and passed a resolution in a committee. Now the speaker, Ms. Pelosi, is trying to have the entire House pass this resolution. As a result, Turkey has recalled its ambassador, and is massing troops on the Iraqi border to deal with Kurdish rebels who conduct raids across the border into Turkey. Much of our supplies to support our troops in the war in Iraq pass through or over Turkey.
Why would our Democratic-led Congress pick this particular time to bring up this issue? There is only one reason -- to make it more difficult for the U.S. to win this war in Iraq.
Sen. Harry Reid has declared that the war is lost.
Rep. John Murtha has accused Marines of murder before any investigation, and investigations have proved that he was wrong.
The current resolution is merely another ploy to make it more difficult to win this war, especially since the surge is doing so well.
Since the left has done so much to make it more difficult to win this war, then they will be unable to revel in any type of victory.
Therefore, they must do whatever is necessary to ensure that victory does not occur.
(Excerpt) Read more at hernandotoday.com ...
“What about the comic strip? It is humor. “
The comic strip is funny.
Especially when we lost 290,000 in four years of WWII and we won that war. Compare that to the 3,500 lost in four years of Iraq.
There are good people in Iraq who we are trying to get to work with us, but they have terrorist standing behind them who say that they will kill them if they do. The terrorist tell the people that the Americans will leave, but they will be there. Who and what gives a terrorist hope that we will leave? Americans who lose their resolve and go around crying we lost the war, thats who. People who make Turkey so mad that our allies wishes to throw our Troops out and right in the middle of a war. You don't get it do you. You are standing here arguing with me when I made a statement that had a splash of humor to it, that was stated along with a cartoon that also had a splash of humor to it, and when you look at it you will see that it would take a hunting license to actually perform the act; which should show you that you are dealing with a person who lives under the law respectably. You are also on me and my right to call out a traitor. My actions are not hurting my Troops and/or helping our enemy. You need to focus your energy on something other then me.
Don't ask me another question, until you answer this:
Why don't you get on the traitors back and off of my back?
“The Constitution was written centuries ago, probably before the phrase “conflict of interest” entered the lexicon. Nonetheless, I doubt they would approve of Senators who have a strong vested interest in this country’s losing a war.”
The founding fathers had a complete understanding of the concept “conflict of interest”, hence the direct limitations on government articulated in the constitution, and the 10th Amendment.
Absolutely, it is inappropriate for anyone in government to comment negatively on our troops in the field.
I do not believe this action in Iraq rises to the level of “war”, but that doesn’t change a thing in this regard and is a totally different discussion.
I don’t think it’s treason though. It should be dealt with through the political process, and hopefuly will be.
Apparently, nobody has the right to stand up and call the traitors out on this. Apparently, they have the right to act the way they do, but nobody has the right to say anything about it.
“Why don’t you get on the traitors back and off of my back?”
Because opposition to Iraq is not treason. Something as offensive as denigrating our troops in the field is not even treason.
You presume that only those that are opposed to our activities in Iraq are doing so for political purposes, when those who are perpetuating this charade of a war in Iraq are also doing so for political purposes, thereby threatening the prosecution of the broader war on terror that MUST extend beyond Iraq’s borders.
People like you throwing a word like “traitor” around inappropriately are doing as much damage to the actual war on terror that needs to be fought as the Murtha’s and Pelosi’s of the world.
“they have the right to act the way they do, but nobody has the right to say anything about it.”
You have the right to say anything you want, you do NOT have the right to say political opposition ought to be hunted like animals and shot. That’s just idiotic!
Opposition? There is a difference between opposition such as John MCCain's, and the opposition tactics used by Peloser, Reid and others who oppose the war.
So, a person can aid and comfort the enemy, but nobody has the right to say anything about it?
Is that what you are saying?
I love your sense of humor.
“So, a person can aid and comfort the enemy, but nobody has the right to say anything about it?
Is that what you are saying?”
No, that is not what I’m saying. Just don’t say you’re going to shoot them. It’s really not that complicated.
Can we move on yet?
This is what we have in Maryland. The Gov. has called for a special session so that he can raise taxes in time to collect an extra six months worth....of course mainly on "the rich." The Dems have complete power and hold decision-making meetings with no Republicans present.
No, I won't say that, because one day it just might become legal to do so and you would have made me promise my right away.
Now, doggone it, that was funny.
I don't care what you say.
Here. Chew on this for a while:
.
I have 2,100,000
2,100,000 what?
I won’t venture a guess here
Thank you G8 Diplomat!
Ethnic cleansing in San Francisco
by Don Santina
Wednesday, 10 October 2007
San Francisco is pushing out the poor to give the rich their million-dollar views.
Not so long ago, San Francisco was home to about 100,000 Blacks, and the Fillmore district was a thriving Mecca of African American life. Today, Fillmore is gone, wiped out by "Negro Removal" in the guise of "redevelopment," and the city's Black population has shrunk to 40,000 - less than half the Black population of Augusta, Georgia. The last bastion of concentrated Black life, Hunters Point, is slated for ethnic cleansing designed to rob African Americans of not only a spectacular view of the Bay, but of any hope of remaining in the city.
The "patron saint" of this racist juggernaut is none other than Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.....
We should take this as an opportunity to help the Kurds establish autonomy & nationhood in the region.
Here’s my usual post regarding this area.
Maybe my tagline will come true.
We should withdraw from Iraq — through Tehran. Here’s how I think we should “pull out of Iraq.” Add one more front to the scenario below, which would be a classic amphibious beach landing from the south in Iran, and it becomes a “strategic withdrawal” from Iraq. And I think the guy who would pull it off is Duncan Hunter.
How to Stand Up to Iran
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1808220/posts?page=36#36
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT · 36 of 36
Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.
15 rules for understanding the Middle East
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774248/posts
Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas — like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. It’s the South vs. the South.
Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we don’t want to play that role, Iraq’s civil war will end with A or B.
Let’s say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a “withdrawal” from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when we’re all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldn’t really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.
.
.
I have posted in the past that I think the key to the strategy in the middle east is to start with an independent Kurdistan. If we engaged Iran in such a manner we might earn back the support of these windvane politicians and wussie voters who don’t mind seeing a quick & victorious fight but hate seeing endless police action battles that don’t secure a country.
I thought it would be cool for us to set up security for the Kurds on their southern border with Iraq, rewarding them for their bravery in defying Saddam Hussein. We put in some military bases there for, say, 20 years as part of the occupation of Iraq in their transition to democracy. We guarantee the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan as long as they don’t engage with Turkey. But that doesn’t say anything about engaging with Iranian Kurdistan. Within those 20 years the Kurds could have a secure and independent nation with expanding borders into Iran. After we close down the US bases, Kurdistan is on her own. But at least Kurdistan would be an independent nation with about half its territory carved out of Persia. If Turkey doesn’t relinquish her claim on Turkish Kurdistan after that, it isn’t our problem, it’s 2 of our allies fighting each other, one for independence and the other for regional primacy. I support democratic independence over a bullying arrogant minority.
The kurds are the closest thing we have to friends in that area. They fought against Saddam (got nerve-gassed), they’re fighting against Iran, they squabble with our so-called ally Turkey (who didn’t allow Americans to operate in the north of Iraq this time around).
It’s time for them to have their own country. They deserve it. They carve Kurdistan out of northern Iraq, northern Iran, and try to achieve some kind of autonomy in eastern Turkey. If Turkey gets angry, we let them know that there are consequences to turning your back on your “friend” when they need you. If the Turks want trouble, they can invade the Iraqi or Persian state of Kurdistan and kill americans to make their point. It wouldn’t be a wise move for them, they’d get their backsides handed to them and have eastern Turkey carved out of their country as a result.
If such an act of betrayal to an ally means they get a thorn in their side, I would be happy with it. It’s time for people who call themselves our allies to put up or shut up. The Kurds have been putting up and deserve to be rewarded with an autonomous and sovereign Kurdistan, borne out of the blood of their own patriots.
Should Turkey decide to make trouble with their Kurdish population, we would stay out of it, other than to guarantee sovereignty in the formerly Iranian and Iraqi portions of Kurdistan. When one of our allies wants to fight another of our allies, it’s a messy situation. If Turkey goes “into the war on Iran’s side” then they ain’t really our allies and that’s the end of that.
I agree that it’s hard on troops and their families. We won the war 4 years ago. This aftermath is the nation builders and peacekeeper weenies realizing that they need to understand things like the “15 rules for understanding the Middle East”
This was the strategic error that GWB committed. It was another brilliant military campaign but the followup should have been 4X as big. All those countries that don’t agree with sending troups to fight a war should have been willing to send in policemen and nurses to set up infrastructure and repair the country.
What do you think we should do with Iraq?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1752311/posts
Posted by Kevmo to Blue Scourge
On News/Activism 12/12/2006 9:17:33 AM PST · 23 of 105
My original contention was that we should have approached the reluctant “allies” like the French to send in Police forces for the occupation after battle, since they were so unwilling to engage in the fighting. It was easy to see that we’d need as many folks in police and nurse’s uniforms as we would in US Army unitorms in order to establish a democracy in the middle east. But, since we didn’t follow that line of approach, we now have a civil war on our hands. If we were to set our sights again on the police/nurse approach, we might still be able to pull this one off. I think we won the war in Iraq; we just haven’t won the peace.
I also think we should simply divide the country. The Kurds deserve their own country, they’ve proven to be good allies. We could work with them to carve out a section of Iraq, set their sights on carving some territory out of Iran, and then when they’re done with that, we can help “negotiate” with our other “allies”, the Turks, to secure Kurdish autonomy in what presently eastern Turkey.
That leaves the Sunnis and Shiites to divide up what’s left. We would occupy the areas between the two warring factions. Also, the UN/US should occupy the oil-producing regions and parcel out the revenue according to whatever plan they come up with. That gives all the sides something to argue about rather than shooting at us.
That leaves Damascus for round II. The whole deal could be circumvented by Syria if they simply allow real inspections of the WOMD sites. And when I say “real”, I mean real — the inspectors would have a small armor division that they could call on whenever they get held up by some local yocal who didn’t get this month’s bribe. Hussein was an idiot to dismantle all of his WOMDs and then not let the inspectors in. If he had done so, he’d still be in power, pulling Bush’s chain.
I don’t think it needs to be quite this complicated, though I’ll concede that it probably depends on which Dems we’re talking about. I think the rank-and-file hard lefties simply want the money out of the war. They’re demanding national healthcare, heck, they’ve been demanding it for fifteen years now. The war is driving them crazy because of the money it consumes. The longer it goes on, the longer they have to live without their government freebies (especially since replenishing the armed forces after the war will also consume funds).
That must have been some putty knife.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.