Discussion in 'Politics' started by Pa(b)st Prime, Nov 12, 2006.
Agree on all counts....
LOL, rightwingers like you smeared McCain, Kerry, Cleland, republicans like you did not vote for veterans like Paul Hacket or Tammy Duckworth, a helicopter pilot who lost her legs in Iraq. And then you have the balls to actually pretend to be a pro-American, pro-veteran patriot. What a pathetic piece of garbage you are.
Face it Pabst, you are no patriot, you support him not because he is a vet, you've smeared dozens of vets. You support him because he is a rightwinger like yourself. You are a chickenhawk, you don't give a shit about Iraq, democracy, american troops and american veterans, the only things you care about are your tax cuts and your racist tendencies.
I'm sure you supported GHB and Bob Dole against Kremlin protesting, draft dodging, Monica/cigar smoking while bombing, Bill Clinton.
No, but I am not the one who claims that OldTrader should be granted a special untouchable status because he is a vet, but Hacket, Kerry, McCain or Cindy Sheehan should not.
Who is Pabst? I thought that scumbag does not post anymore after he lost his wager on calling the market top a few months ago
I have 3 daughters in their 30's, all of whom are adults and make their own minds up. None of them have chosen to be in the military. None of my grandchildren are even close to the required age.
And to ease any burden you or anyone else might feel, I don't require any special dispensation because of my Veteran status. But understand that because I have been in a War that was even more unpopular than the current war, I think I have a message to impart.
Here's the message: War is a dirty, nasty vicious, cruel, brutal business. If you are not as dirty, nasty, vicious, brutal and cruel as the enemy, then the chances are high that you will lose. Your enemy doesn't play by the Rules of Hoyle. And if you do, you will lose. The enemy understands that the average American has no stomach for the viciousness of war, and that therefore, it is only a matter of lasting long enough that results in victory.
This country in all likelihood will lose this war, and will leave Iraq in a state that will not only be more unstable than it was, but will be a source of instability to the entire Middle East. It won't be called "cut and run", they'll call it something that sounds more honorable, so that you, and people like you, can all cheer and feel good about yourselves. Your enemy already knows this, and is planning for it.
Given that, would I have encouraged my daughters to volunteer for the military as I did? Nope, not when we all know in advance that in the end America has no taste for war, that folks like you will ultimately prevail. Under those circumstances what sense does sacrifice make?
The liberals are correct that Iraq is looking like Vietnam, but they are wrong about the reason. The reason is just what you stated. Our leaders put our brave, conscientious soldiers into a dangerous situation, then force them to fight with one hand behind their back. Our leaders celebrate an Iraqi "democracy" that is controlled by some of the same people who are killing our soldiers.
They allow the Iraqi "president" to veto checkpoints and roadblocks into Sadr City after our troops were kidnapped. Then they turn around and prosecute soldiers for offenses ranging from the trivial to the unprovable, all to placate a hostile media.
I don't know how the military maintains any morale at all. Like you, I wouldn't want any of my relatives to be in that situation.
While I agree with basically everything you said your post does not demonstrate that the war in Iraq was justified to begin with or that we currently have any clear and achievable objectives worth fighting for that we can call victory. The hearts and minds are long lost and that's irreversible, if we let them establish a "democracy" the next thing you know they elect Muqtada Al Sadr...And there will always be an insurgency as long as there is an occupying army in their country, we need to be realists about this. I am frankly surprised that you of all people need to be reminded about cutting your losses. Too bad we did not let our winners (Afghanistan) run either.
There are no words for the type of disgusting little fuck you truly are.
OldTrader, I have read your posts here lately and I feel like you are someone on the right who I can respect. You don't bullshit, and you seem to be able to distinguish the issues and respond in a fairly non-partisan way.
You probably can't recall my posts specifically, so let me say that although I don't think the American military effort in Iraq has been a strategic success, I am a post 9/11 convert who got shoved hard to the right, politically speaking, after the attacks. I have a huge amount of respect for the military who go in and do the jobs the rest of us would be unwilling or unable to do. I realize that there is a need, now more than ever in modern times, for a strong army ready to fight those who have openly declared themselves to be at war with us.
My question to you is simple. You have probably addressed this in some other post, and a short answer would be fine unless you want to expand on it.
Are you behind the war effort in Iraq because you think it's the best thing the U.S. can be doing now, or are you behind it as a veteran who is saying "I support our troops and the administration"?
I agree with you that the left isn't psychologically prepared for war and what it means. I just feel like the best objections to the war now, today, are based on the ongoing practicalities, and not the PC outcry about American war crimes. Is there an objective for U.S. troops? What would you consider a 'win' in this war - how would that be defined?
For the life of me I can't figure out what the endgame in Iraq qould look like.
I also thought Steyn's characterization of the enemy in Iraq as a 'pipsqueak' was wrong and potentially dangerous if that's what U.S. troops have been told to expect.
In thirty years WayPa(b)stPrime might call Iraq a needless war.
Separate names with a comma.