Thread: Quagmire....

These right-wing military types don't joke around, Butterfly was reported to the FBI for a comment elsewhere.

He's still laughing all the way to Cascade...

no FBI, HomeLand Security, Master Stroll.

They are probably too busy chasing their own tail

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Lovely humor this morning from the people who have spent their lives in the peanut gallery.

Yes you're right stoller ... I wasn't joking around. I'd volunteer to be the one who shot Milkman ... without remorse.

Ay, Ay! Cap'n!

I've come to believe over the last several years that the threat to America comes primarily from the isolationist types. People who want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend the problems will go away by themselves.

How does this translate to the Nuri Al-Maliki and Sayyid Muqtada Al-Sadr government in Iraq?

Most of the posters who repond to me in this thread aren't part of any solutions ... they're part of all the problems. I can't respect you at all ... you do nothing but whine and bitch ... and then get drunk every night. You're pitiful.

OK, Mr. Holier-than-thou.

Who does this?

I always LMAO at the people who one day post that America isn't doind enough and then the next day he post that the USA shouldn't be sticking their nose in everybody's business.

Who says this?

Love it when people quote ole Ike ... a 30 + year retired man who spent most of his adult life in the military. You don't suppose he was one shrewd poltician as well now do you ?

A brilliant man. You should look into him more. He warned the U.S. of the coming Military-Industrial complex + Congressional Allocation + Defense Contractors.

None of you know anything more than I do about what's really going on in Iraq.

Arrogant?

Anybody can watch CNN and know that Iran and Syria are arming, training and funding the extremists. Sorry if that offends you but ... you don't.

CNN? You actually watch that. That's propaganda.

Yes, I view Milkman as a traitor and think he should be willing to go public with his statement that wants the USA to lose this war.

I'm not a public servant, sir. All I have is an internet forum and chatter among mates. Darn! I'm just a regular, normal guy.

I know he doesn't have the balls to even sit in the front yard of his parents with a sign that simply said, "I want America to be defeated in Iraq" ...

I've already been telling them that for 3.5 years. Why would they care?

under their logic people shouldn't be allowed to emmigrate to the US ...

that's Immigrate "to" sir.

Yes, we need immigrants. But there needs to be a cap on the numbers as the U.S. is overpopulated.

praying for the deaths of their fellow citizens or wishing that their country would lose the war.

I am not praying for the death of anyone, sir. I've made that clear.

(I don't pray, by the way.)

Also, my support is political and corporate. You are still confusing this conflict (which is very complicated) with the military. It's beyond military and is political and sectarian, now.

My country has done alot for me and I will be eternally grateful. The USA truly is the land of opportunity. It is the greatest show on earth no matter how you slice it.

I too, am grateful.

What does supporting the Nuri Al-Maliki and Sayyid Muqtada Al-Sadr government in Iraq with being grateful? What does the welfare program called the U.S. military have to do with being grateful?

Milkman ain't stupid ... he knows damn well he'd risk getting his ass thrashed even in his left wing hometown community if he talked that smack.

People in my hometown are not really left. There are bumper stickers all over town that say "Freedom isn't free."

I tell people my opinions when they ask about Iraq. No different than sports, food, restaurants, moviest, etc.


I think you are probably joking. Taking the p*ss.

Have a good day, bud.

I suppose you Euro geeks are totally fooled by people like Milkman and Surasak ... they are isolationist ...

You do not know the meaning of "isolationist", and you fail to comprehend Surasak's and milkman's comments.
- different posters with different opinions.

Too complicated for you?

Originally Posted by stroller

I suppose you Euro geeks are totally fooled by people like Milkman and Surasak ... they are isolationist ...

You do not know the meaning of "isolationist", and you fail to comprehend Surasak's and milkman's comments.
- different posters with different opinions.

Too complicated for you?

I don't recall ever saying I was an "isolationist."

What I do not believe in, is using the U.S. military to enforce American economic interests.

U.S. isolationism hasn't had much consideration after WWI.

Here are excerpts from a letter form the Advocacy Group called the NPAC. It was written to Trent Lott (Then Senate Majority Leader) and Newt Gringrich (Speaker of the House) in 1998.

Dear Mr. Speaker and Senator Lott:

On January 26, we sent a letter to President Clinton expressing our concern that the U.S. policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein was failing. The result, we argued, would be that the vital interests of the United States and its allies in the Middle East would soon be facing a threat as severe as any we had known since the end of the Cold War. We recommended a substantial change in the direction of U.S. policy: Instead of further, futile efforts to "contain" Saddam, we argued that the only way to protect the United States and its allies from the threat of weapons of mass destruction was to put in place policies that would lead to the removal of Saddam and his regime from power....

The American people need to be made aware of the consequences of this capitulation to Saddam:

-- We will have suffered an incalculable blow to American leadership and credibility; -- We will have sustained a significant defeat in our worldwide efforts to limit the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Other nations seeking to arm themselves with such weapons will have learned that the U.S. lacks the resolve to resist their efforts;

-- The administration will have unnecessarily put at risk U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf, who will be vulnerable to attack by biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons under Saddam Hussein's control; -- Our friends and allies in the Middle East and Europe will soon be subject to forms of intimidation by an Iraqi government bent on dominating the Middle East and its oil reserves; and

-- As a consequence of the administration's failure, those nations living under the threat of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction can be expected to adopt policies of accommodation toward Saddam. This could well make Saddam the driving force of Middle East politics, including on such important matters as the Middle East peace process.

SK, please comment on this letter.

It is one of many.

Entire & Link: Letter to Gingrich and Lott on Iraq

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Uh huh, Ike was brilliant ... stroke of genius picking Nixon to be his VP and setting him for the Presidency. Stop reading book critiques and actually read some books.

You say you don't care about Iraq so why do you care who takes over the government? I don't worry too much about whether they're Shia, Sunni, Shite ... I just hope they don't violate human rights to too much of an extreme like under Saddam.

Buy or borrow someone's dictionary so you know what emigrate means. Would think a teacher of English would recognize related words.

If you want to refer to the US military as a welfare program don't think that I'm going to take that personal. I can only humored with the opinion of the uniformed and never uniformed. Like I said, I'm grateful and thankful I was born in America and able to spend nearly three decades in the military.

You didn't answer the question....because you cannot.

Originally Posted by Milkman

What I do not believe in, is using the U.S. military to enforce American economic interests.

I don't think you know what you believe in.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

fooled by people like Milkman and Surasak ... they are isolationist ...

GW Bush was elected on an "isolationist" agenda. If I remember correctly, he wanted to be anything but Clinton, and that included Clinton passion for foreigner policies.

GW Bush during the 2000 Presidential Campaign was rooting for NASCAR dads, promising focus on America and an end to silly mingling into others politics like Clinton did.

Damn, did he succeed in that respect

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Uh huh, Ike was brilliant ... stroke of genius picking Nixon to be his VP and setting him for the Presidency. Stop reading book critiques and actually read some books.

You say you don't care about Iraq so why do you care who takes over the government? I don't worry too much about whether they're Shia, Sunni, Shite ... I just hope they don't violate human rights to too much of an extreme like under Saddam.

Buy or borrow someone's dictionary so you know what emigrate means. Would think a teacher of English would recognize related words.

If you want to refer to the US military as a welfare program don't think that I'm going to take that personal. I can only humored with the opinion of the uniformed and never uniformed. Like I said, I'm grateful and thankful I was born in America and able to spend nearly three decades in the military.

You didn't answer the question....because you cannot.

He has just finished his book on Eisenhower, so unless your questions are directly related to Ike, you are unlikely to get a reply.....

SK,

What we should do is try to get back to the issues.

You and I both have gone off-topic. When discussing politics it's best to keep emotion out of the discussion (if emotion, is indeed, present).

If you support the Nuri Al-Maliki and Sayyid ("Sayyid" means he is a descendent of the Prophet Mohammed) Muqtada Al-Sadr, this is your opinion.

And I respect your opinion.

I just happen to disagree with it.

Let's cut to the number, figures, strategy and facts.

More battalions are needed in Baghdad.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

GW Bush was elected on an "isolationist" agenda.

That's a great example of being well read.

Originally Posted by Milkman

And I respect your opinion.

Thanks for patronizing me.

Originally Posted by Milkman

I would not label GW Bush as running on an "isolationist" agenda, but he was defiantely not interested in "nation building" and specifically stated in one of the debates that the U.S. is not and has not been good at it. Foreign policy was not Bush's game.

If you really consider yourself as having primarily economic interests then you should recognize that in this day and age isolationist primarily refers to free trade. If not then feel free to correct me. In regards to immigration ... the more the merrier. There is still plenty of room for expansion and growth all over the CONUS.

You can't say GWB wasn't interested in nation buidling just because he realized it hasn't worked much in the past. Why should he have wasted his time talking to carrots like Arafat ? Seems to me you're making your judgement without all the facts and based purely on relations with the likes of France, Venezuela, Iraq and Iran. I think GWB does well to focus on our real allies like Japan, England, Australia and others. I'm sure you'll disagree but IMHo GWB was savvy enoough about foreign policy to stay away from the Kyoto Treaty.

^ You have hit on many points. Too many to comment on once.

I don't consider myself to have primarily economic interests. ( ?? )

The Kyoto Treaty involved Bush saying in public he'd cap emmission at a different level than the Kyoto agreements. But he then re-negged on it.

It goes back his puppet masters.

Isolationism is related to Free Trade, IMO and also the use of military, political, and economic interests differently than a pro-active "NPAC-Like Approach" to International affairs.

Sorry but I've gone off-topic from the topic of Iraq.

My question have not been answered.

"Isolationist" is a ridiculous word anyhow, impossible to achieve in our global economy. It's the equivalent of "racial segregation dreams" for the KKK, it's not going to happen again.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

"Isolationist" is a ridiculous word anyhow, impossible to achieve in our global economy. It's the equivalent of "racial segregation dreams" for the KKK, it's not going to happen again.

Try explaining that to the freak show Muslim extremists in the ME.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Try explaining that to the freak show Muslim extremists in the ME.

The Islamists share the same Isolationist vision as that famous American philisopher Strauss, which is the father of the NeoCons movement. But to achieve this, they first have to terrorize the world so they can be left alone in their little society project.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

The Islamists share the same Isolationist vision as that famous American philisopher Strauss, which is the father of the NeoCons movement. But to achieve this, they first have to terrorize the world so they can be left alone in their little society project.

We'll find out soon how much of a threat the NEOCONS are if the Republicans lose the House and/or the Senate. If that happens it will be because of NEOCON discontent with GWB and his Adminstration than anything to do with the Defeatocratic Party.

Originally Posted by surasak

Another oxymoron: is it possible to support your troops in a war that is unpopular? How do you support them without supporting the cause?

Unrestrained patriotism is as dangerous as fanatical fundamentalism.

A person could be against the war and still do simple things like send supplies of items the troops need to make it easier for them Also don't belittle or denigrate them while they are trying to stay alive doing a job they were ordered to do. Don't call the troops fools or cowards. Don't destroy their morale. They trust their leadership to tell them when it's time to go home until then they do their job. I don't see any reason to fcuk with them.

Originally Posted by attaboy

They trust their leadership to tell them when it's time to go home until then they do their job. I don't see any reason to fcuk with them.

IMHO it's more than that. Personally, I find it hard to trust anybody. But these guys and gals who VOLUNTEERED do seem to know what things like honor, courage and commitment are all about. They do seem to believe they are doing the right thing for the Iraqi people. They do seem to believe that possibly sacrificing their life might give some Iraqi people the chance to have the same freedoms they have enjoyed and other people gave up their lives to give them the same chance years ago. The vast majority of these people who sign contracts to serve in the military seem to understand that it's the right thing to do to honor those contracts. After 3 + years of the media and the left wing loonies telling them they are there for nothing but oil and Halliburton profits they seem to think otherwise. They are enlisting and reenlisting over and over ... so it sure as hell can't be about the money. There is no way the left wing loonies or people like Milkdud or sadsack could give them the benefit of the doubt ... it's easier to just say they're stupid, ignorant, and low class. And for some special cases it makes them feel good to denigrate their efforts and hope they lose and cheer on the insurgents to kill more and more of them.