January 26, 2006
Reactions to Hamas' Win From Middle Eastern Press
While most Middle Eastern news outlets still have stories posted projecting a Fatah victory based on exit polling, a few have reacted to the real story. These two, from opposite sides of the Israeli-Palestinian fence, offer similar Pollyanna takes:
al Jazeera sees a tiny ray of sunshine:
And in a first sign of pragmatism, Mahmoud Zahar, a top Hamas official, said the group would extend its year-old truce if Israel reciprocates. "If not, then I think we will have no option but to protect our people and our land," he said.
The
Jerusalem Post looks on the bright side:
"Now that they are in power, Hamas will have to take responsibility for the future. They will have to become more moderate. Now they are part of the democratic game and they will have to play by the democratic rules," Siniora said.
Siniora, a 69-year-old east Jerusalemite Christian, is publisher of The Jerusalem Times and a co-CEO of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information. An early proponent of negotiations with Israel, he has long been involved in pro-peace activities. He was one of seven candidates contending for one of the two seats reserved for Christians in the Jerusalem district, but is unlikely to win the seat.
Unfortunately, the reality will probably be much grimmer, at least in the short run. For years, it's been obvious that Palestinian society has been undergoing a forced evolution. The smart Palestinians have found ways to escape their role as tools of Pan-Arabism, and gotten out.
What's left are the dregs, mentally damaged barbarians who have bred a sick, twisted culture based on celebrating terrorist acts. What else can you say about a society that deifies degenerates who deliberately seek out children to murder?
Are there enough intelligent, mentally healthy Palestinians left to build a civilized society? I don't think so, but I'd be very glad to be proved wrong.
Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto .
Posted by: Bluto at
12:34 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Now if they can only have a state of their own, we can invade them properly and exterminate them like the vermin they are.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 01:13 PM (0yYS2)
2
Maxie
You are a far too violent and ham-handed in your appoach to such problems! Get creative! Explore some alternative possiblities!
Say, a small size asteroid - a nice secret lil' challenge for NASA - diverted and redirected for a global impact - in the immediate region. Putting those Space and High Tech Defense dollars to work! Keeping our hands clean and options open.
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 01:28 PM (3aakz)
3
Quick! Call Al Gore! Call John Kerry and Jimmy Carter! Call Keith Olberman and Jim Lampley! The exit polls don't match the outcome! The outcome must be fraudulent. The exit polls are never wrong! Quick, somebody file a lawsuit!
Posted by: geobandy at January 26, 2006 01:50 PM (T1l1O)
4
HAMAS WINS: NOTHING WILL REALLY CHANGE
Before the election, Israel had no partner for a negotiated settlement, and it still doesn't have one.
Arafat said he recognized israel and then secretly ran a terror campaign to destroy Israel.
Abbas was either ineffective, or willingly allowed the terrorists REMAIN ARMED and to attack Israel however and whenever they wanted.
Now - through elections - Hamas gets control of the so called "Palestinian's" so called "government" and I predict that - effectively speaking - they will do the same things as Arafat and Abbas: claim they have reformed and claim they are willing to negotiate, but continue to attempt to destroy Israel and to continue to commit genocidal terror against Israelis.
Israel has only one way forward (KADIMA is hebrew for "forward"):
To continue to do what it has been doing for the last few years: to unilaterally disengage according to parameters which are solely in its own interest and to build a wall keeping Palistinians out, and to monitor all transport and communications into and out of Arab Palestine. And to retaliate with extreme force to any attack or any provocation of any attack.
NOTE: Hamas may claim to reform (as Arafat did) - in order to get funding from the USA and the EU and the UN, but their members - and the members of the other jihadoterrorist groups - won't suddenly become believers in (or practioners of) peaceful co-existence. The children these Arabs have raised to proudly become "human-guided/genocidal missiles" will not suddenly become doves or lambs. The war will go on.
FURTHER NOTE: I predict that Israel will IMMEDIATELY, AND WITH ALL DUE HASTE, move toward total and final separation by closing down the less defendable West Bank settlements and finishing and fortifying the "wall of separation." This will be along a line of Israel's choosing and it will include all of Jerusalem.WHY?! So that they will be in the BEST POSSIBLE militarily defensive position to withstand the "firestorm" which will be ignited when they and/or the US demolish Iran's nuke program and destroy Iran's offensive military capability. The pre-emptive attack against Iran will occur as soon as this is completed.
UPDATE: There's an UPSIDE to this election result: after the next jihadoterrorist attack, Hamas biggies will be much easier for the IDF to assassinate - unless they intend to rule from a bunker!
Posted by: reliapundit at January 26, 2006 02:19 PM (+z3qw)
5
Maybe Bush could point his hurricane/tsunami generator at the paleostinians?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 03:09 PM (0yYS2)
6
I guess it's now safe to say that the terrorists are no longer a tiny minority of Palestinians, but the vast majority of Palestinians.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 26, 2006 05:12 PM (rUyw4)
7
Nah! I want a celestial impact - its got a certain quality to it. Of course portions of Israel might be toasted - but its not personal - just good business.
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 06:22 PM (3aakz)
8
I personally don't give a good flying damn about Israel really, and whether it continues to exist is of no concern to me whatsoever one way or another, but the paleostinians, along with all other arabs and muslim scum, need to be exterminated for the good of humanity.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 10:45 PM (0yYS2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Congratulations Hamas
I’ve been reading all morning about the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections. One thought has been with me all morning. While it may seem bad it’s actually a good thing. No longer can the PA hide behind the “It was Hamas” defense after bombings. No longer can Hamas play the relatively easy role of “opposition”. No the buck stops here, congratulations here you go!
(thump!!). That’s the sound of total responsibility landing on your desk. Whatever happens, peace, war or prosperity the time for blaming the Israel or claiming oppression and corruption is over. Now a Hamas sponsored bombing can’t be dismissed as, “not our fault”, it’s an act of war by a state worthy of a real response. Hamas/PA is responsible to the entire Palestinian electorate and subject to all the blame, criticism, and general cynicism they have promoted for so long. Ask us Republicans/Conservatives we’ll tell you, with greater power comes greater responsibility. Watch what you wish for you just might get it.
BBC : The Hamas victory presents both the Palestinian political class and the international community with a huge dilemma. Washington and the EU, which have pressured the Palestinians to hold democratic elections, cannot now object to the outcome of the elections without laying themselves open to charges of hypocrisy. Crucially, the result has landed Hamas itself in a very difficult situation. It cannot be part of the Palestinian Authority and at the same time remain committed to what it calls the armed struggle.
Captain Ed Says :
And if Hamas and the Palestinians still want to wage war after that, then let the IDF roll across the West Bank and Gaza Strip and push the whole lot of them right into the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea. That's what total war means, and as soon as the world stops preventing the Palestinians from the risks of their own choices, the sooner they will conclude that war is the worst possible choice for them.
True the choices now have very real consequences.
Also this Quote Via Seattle Times:
Hamas' role was greatly respected and embraced because it was a resistance movement," Sami Moubayed, a Syrian analyst, told The Associated Press.
"Now, they will naturally be prone to fail like any other movement that entered the political arena, because they will have a very hard time to deliver on their promises," he said.
Dean Esmay also get's his two cents inThe greatest stumbling block to peace in the Middle East is the refusal of Palestinians to accept the existence of the state of Israel. A Hamas lead government might be just the thing to realize that coexistence with Israel isn't so bad after all.
That's my hope anyway. As noted anti-Semite HL Mencken once remarked, "People get the government they deserve - and they deserve to get it good and hard."
The Filthy Report says :
So they say, "Habib, I vote for the guy who teach my kid instead of crook who steal all my money".. The thing is, the teacher is also the terrorist.
Ace Too.
Will it not be sweet to see Hamas have to deal? One thing for sure the plate is full, now dig in Hamas. I hope you are as hungry as you thought you were.
Posted by: Howie at
12:30 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 546 words, total size 4 kb.
1
As they say, be careful what you wish for. Now that the official terrorist organization is the official government, we can effect a regime change.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 01:14 PM (0yYS2)
2
The Hamas win destroys the left wing in Israel. The left has been yammering for years that all the Palestinians want is peace and now their precious Palestinians elected a terrorist group to rule them.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at January 26, 2006 01:16 PM (5ceWd)
3
If they stay true to form, they will turn a good portion of their terror and repression inward.
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 01:30 PM (3aakz)
4
Does this mean that nukes can finally be used to respond to a kassam launching? After all, now that Hamas is the legitimate government, it becomes an act of war.
Posted by: Graeme at January 26, 2006 01:31 PM (esk0L)
5
HAMAS WINS: NOTHING WILL REALLY CHANGE
Before the election, Israel had no partner for a negotiated settlement, and it still doesn't have one.
Arafat said he recognized israel and then secretly ran a terror campaign to destroy Israel.
Abbas was either ineffective, or willingly allowed the terrorists REMAIN ARMED and to attack Israel however and whenever they wanted.
Now - through elections - Hamas gets control of the so called "Palestinian's" so called "government" and I predict that - effectively speaking - they will do the same things as Arafat and Abbas: claim they have reformed and claim they are willing to negotiate, but continue to attempt to destroy Israel and to continue to commit genocidal terror against Israelis.
Israel has only one way forward (KADIMA is hebrew for "forward"):
To continue to do what it has been doing for the last few years: to unilaterally disengage according to parameters which are solely in its own interest and to build a wall keeping Palistinians out, and to monitor all transport and communications into and out of Arab Palestine. And to retaliate with extreme force to any attack or any provocation of any attack.
NOTE: Hamas may claim to reform (as Arafat did) - in order to get funding from the USA and the EU and the UN, but their members - and the members of the other jihadoterrorist groups - won't suddenly become believers in (or practioners of) peaceful co-existence. The children these Arabs have raised to proudly become "human-guided/genocidal missiles" will not suddenly become doves or lambs. The war will go on.
FURTHER NOTE: I predict that Israel will IMMEDIATELY, AND WITH ALL DUE HASTE, move toward total and final separation by closing down the less defendable West Bank settlements and finishing and fortifying the "wall of separation." This will be along a line of Israel's choosing and it will include all of Jerusalem.WHY?! So that they will be in the BEST POSSIBLE militarily defensive position to withstand the "firestorm" which will be ignited when they and/or the US demolish Iran's nuke program and destroy Iran's offensive military capability. The pre-emptive attack against Iran will occur as soon as this is completed.
UPDATE: There's an UPSIDE to this election result: after the next jihadoterrorist attack, Hamas biggies will be much easier for the IDF to assassinate - unless they intend to rule from a bunker!
Posted by: reliapundit at January 26, 2006 02:19 PM (+z3qw)
6
I hope so Graeme, I'd really like to see Israel turn on a good old fashioned month-long artillery bombardment on them.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 03:12 PM (0yYS2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Iraq WMDs Unanswered Questions
I ran into this post at Rightwingnuthouse and I can tell you itÂ’s not nutty at all. Damn good post, damn good questions.
Rightwingnuthouse : For almost three years, the conventional wisdom regarding Iraq WMDÂ’s prior to our invasion was that Saddam never had them, we knew it, Bush lied, and we invaded anyway because we wanted their oil, or to establish military bases, or because George Bush is a meany, or because the Jews told us to, orÂ…just because America is eeeevilÂ… Â…But something always bothered me about this conclusion, a nagging itch at the back of my mind. And that is the overwhelmingly belief by the worldÂ’s best intelligence agencies that Saddam did indeed have stockpiles of WMD in the six months leading up to the war. The French, the British, the Germans, The IsraeliÂ’s, the United Nations (UNSCOM and IAEA), not to mention the CIA, DIA, and most politicians here in this country... Â…ThatÂ’s quite a number of people to be dead wrong about such a huge issue.
more...
Posted by: Howie at
12:08 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Let's also not forget, immediately after Baghdad fell, the Russian "diplomat" envoy that came under fire AFTER they said they had evacuated all their people. What were they still doing there? Helping to get rid of evidence right up to the last second? I think they were shocked to find the military had reached Baghdad so quickly.
What leaves me befuddled is why Saddam had his Russian MiG-25s buried in the sand rather than deploy them in defense. Anyone have an answer for that? If he had the time to bury such large pieces of equipment, he had the time to do a whole lot more.
Posted by: Oyster at January 26, 2006 02:27 PM (osKlJ)
2
Oyster, that's pretty much exactly what they were doing.
Give it up George, they did have them, and now Syria has them.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 03:11 PM (0yYS2)
3
WMD can be as simple as a mustard gas shell. As far as I know we have found one Sarin Shell in an IED. However it was used incorrectly and the chemicals did not mix properly before detonation. So it's quite possible that some chemical shells did exist and if so Sadam would have been anxious to be rid of them. Syria already has Chem weapons. Still it just does not quite all add up. Hiding stuff they were. What they hid and why is still up in the air and may never be solved. It seems reasonable at least some chemical agents may have been involved. The assertion we are absolutly sure they had no chem biological agents is equally unprovable.
See I didn't curse one time and I don't care about left right stuff. In fact I was speaking with a Black man who is a hard woking Democrat today who says he thinks the President should be spying on our enemies warrant or no and thinks he does have the power. Not all lefties are dhimmis.
Posted by: Howie at January 26, 2006 04:05 PM (D3+20)
4
George, why are you so sure? What intelligence do you have that proves WMD's were not sent to Syria? We know that Saddam had chemical weapons, hell, he used them, so what happened to his chemical weapons? He also had an active nuclear program in the 1990's, so what happened to it?
I'm not saying I know, but I doubt whether Saddam gave up his WMD programs. That would be atypical of his previous behavior. I'm just saying that I don't discount questions about Iraq's WMD, and there are some angles that need to be pursued.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 26, 2006 04:11 PM (rUyw4)
5
What sort of WMD are we so sure that Syria now has in its possesion ? WMD are usually divided into 3 groups: chemical,biological and nuclear. Nuclear weapons require a huge infrastructure to produce. Biological are the easiest to produce. We certainly can remembr Dr. Germ and Mrs Anthrax (who appeared as the 5 of hearts on the deck of "most wanted". Both of those women were released last December after 2 years the coalition apparently had no doubts that there were no functioning weapons programs. This was the first story when I googled it. ooops linj woas not accepted due to "questionable content" So you will have to google it yourself. As for chemical weapons Saddam dd use them mostly to breakup the human wave attacks of Iran in 83 and 84. I do not recall there being much of an uproar about this by the white house or by either party in congress at that time.
Posted by: john ryan at January 26, 2006 04:35 PM (TcoRJ)
6
Syria was the USSR's main player during the cold war. I remember many time there were confrontations about Syria's capabilities. It was The USSR's main asset in the region. I believe Syria's Chemical capabilties at that time were even the subject of a 20/20 investigation. Missiles were also an issue as part of the balance of power at the time. Syria was as important a player for the USSR as East Germany, Cuba and other clients and were given similar capabilities under Soviet supervision. The soviet missles are gone but in my opinion it's higly likey that Syria retains at least some basic chemical capability since most of that is WWI WWII type tech. Not saying Syria would ever use it as we would respond in kind but basic checmical capability is not that technical. Oh never mind here.
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Syria/Chemical/3048_3072.html
Posted by: Howie at January 26, 2006 08:42 PM (D3+20)
7
Your google search string is
"Syrian Military capability chemical"
or 545,000 results
Posted by: Howie at January 26, 2006 08:45 PM (D3+20)
8
Uh take yer time with that.
Posted by: Howie at January 26, 2006 08:47 PM (D3+20)
9
George, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and I gave you a break, but you are obviously just another fucking moonbat moron of the kind who sneaks on here every now and then and despite their best efforts, exposes themselves for what they are. If you really believe that Saddam had destroyed all his WMD's then you're as stupid as I originally thought. Grow a brain and grow up you idiot kid.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 10:43 PM (0yYS2)
10
You deserve the same fate as Nick Berg
wow, where's your head at
George Ramos
Posted by: Yer Daddy at January 27, 2006 06:57 AM (TMQIX)
11
No one deserves the same fate as Nick Berg. Now IM always says stuff wild and Rusty warned him and he has been better.
George that's enough of that. Make a point or GTFO.
Posted by: Howie at January 27, 2006 08:06 AM (D3+20)
12
Hehe, I knew I'd bring the little moron out into the light. He pretended as long as he could, but he just couldn't help himself.
Georgie, you've been busted you little leftard. Now go deliver some pizzas so you can pay your mom rent on the basement you've been taking up since you dropped out of high school.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 27, 2006 01:31 PM (0yYS2)
Posted by: Oyster at January 27, 2006 04:40 PM (YudAC)
14
Whoa Whoa!
George & Maxie! Chill out! If you two want to go at it - maybe be we can set up a cage match on PPV - make some money off this - Rusty can set up a live cam-cast or something.
I don't feel at lotta love here! Your both gonna make me cry!
Posted by: hondo at January 27, 2006 04:50 PM (3aakz)
15
Oh no, I'm being threatened by a little punk that doesn't even shave yet! Whatever shall I do? I know, I could hunt him down, gut him like a fish, and violate his corpse, but if I started doing that to every whiney little nerd that threatened me on the internet, I wouldn't have time for anything else.
Chill out kid, you'll live longer. Or maybe you won't. Either way, threatening me won't get you anywhere but on the back of a milk carton, and you'll never get to hear what your voice sounds like when it changes.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 27, 2006 10:54 PM (0yYS2)
16
*
Improbulus Maximus, I'll keep checkin my kids milk cartons and counting the lucky
charms stars..another unique WOT perspective in the house.
Boy with his own room!
/lucky little guppy ;-)
Posted by: Rubin at January 27, 2006 11:57 PM (7oD73)
17
By George. Now see what you have done now your platform that you were exercising your free speech no longer supports you. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
If you hate IM well that just shows you are a sucker. Yes a big old 18 year old sucker. He talks you get all upset. Suckered in I'd say you were.
Second you already show you have no idea what Syria is and it's history. I can forgive a bit becuase you are a pup. Syria is not a backwater typical middle east shithole. It;s long been a cultural and political power in the middle east. So go educate yourself and then come back. Next time you tell me to GFY I will despam you myself for now I have deferred your banning and submitted a request to Rusty's judgement. I you can do no more that curse and call for beheading it's not worth the space on my theads.
One thing for sure you have shown you have no idea WTF you are talking about anyway.
Posted by: Howie at January 29, 2006 12:03 PM (D3+20)
Posted by: Howie at January 29, 2006 12:04 PM (D3+20)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Carter calls for funding Palestinians
The unabashed naivete of this man never ceases to amaze me. He does have one redeeming value.....as a negative barometer. Do the opposite of what he recommends and chances are it will prove to be the right move.
A day after Hamas swept to an upset victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, former US President Jimmy Carter on Thursday said that Wednesday's voting had been orderly and fair.
"The elections were completely honest, completely fair, completely safe and without violence," the former president said.
Carter, who led an 85-member international observer team from around the world organized by the 'National Democratic Institute' in partnership with 'The Carter Center,' urged the international community to directly or indirectly fund the new Palestinian Government even though it will be led by an internationally-declared foreign terror organization.
"The Palestinian Government is destitute, and in desperate financial straits. I hope that support for the new government will be forthcoming," Carter said at a Jerusalem press conference.
Funding families of suicide bombers and diverting 100s of millions into Arafats private accounts tend to have that effect.
Companion OpiniPundit
Posted by: Traderrob at
11:50 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Oh, so all those pre-election political assasinations an dgeneral harrassment in the Gaza strip were just Hamas 'getting out the vote'?....what a dumbass.
Posted by: Grim at January 26, 2006 11:56 AM (y6n8O)
2
Naiive? Is he really just a useful idiot? Seems more like his eyes are open and he prefers our enemies....
Posted by: pst314 at January 26, 2006 12:02 PM (OA547)
3
We shouldn't give them a damn thing. Let the Arabs take care of them if they want to. Anything we give these people is likely to be used to purchase weapons or free up other funds to purchase weapons.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 26, 2006 04:18 PM (rUyw4)
4
If Jimmah Critter wants hamas to have $$$, let him give them his. Hopefully, the US State Department remembers we don't support terrorist groups.
Posted by: bubbe at January 26, 2006 06:00 PM (vZBQO)
5
Great opportunity for the Libs/left to personally open their wallets!
Conservatives do it all time - without any fanfare of PR for their/our causes.
You could have something like a LiveAid concert in GAZA! Carter can MC - think of all the bands and celebrites available! and don't forget to flaunt all those leftist social values (and skin) to a hugh audience of traditional and extremist muslims! Now I would pay good money to get PPV to see this live!
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 06:33 PM (3aakz)
6
You knwo I could have sworn Jimmah was on morning edition saying if Hamas held executive branch offices it would in fact be unlawful to support them backing Bluto's post above. As I understand theis process they will get to pick the new Prime Minister and other ministers all executive positions. So even if the top executive is still fatah it seems to me that would be enough. I expect he will resign as these types of Democratic arrangements also allow "No Confidence Votes". If they can I would expect Hamas to go after Abbas if he stays.
Posted by: Howie at January 26, 2006 08:31 PM (D3+20)
7
I hope Carter soon meets the assassin he so richly deserved while in office, but fate was not kind enough to supply. I would die a happy man if I could just see his head explode on live TV.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 10:48 PM (0yYS2)
8
Maxie
Advocating the assasination or welcoming it of a former (or current) President of the United States is "poor form" - even if the guy your referring to is a pompous dick. Its also questionable content for a public blog which can lead to "misunderstandings".
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 11:56 PM (3aakz)
9
Frankly carter should step down and return to his origional job with HABITAT FOR HUMANITY he was better off building home for the homeless then he ever was running this nation
Posted by: sandpiper at January 30, 2006 10:06 AM (A2P9P)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
CSM, Letters in Support of Jill Carroll.

It is now seven days from the deadline set by the terrorists who kidnapped her. Today the Christian Science Monitor has published some of the letters they have received in support for Jill.
Among the letters is one from Susan Hallums, the daughter of
Roy Hallums, who was held for many months before his rescue.
Susan Hallums VIA CSM : I am praying for the safe release of Jill Carroll in Iraq. She was there to help the people of Iraq. She is a good, kind, giving person who put herself there to give to and to teach Iraqis. My family suffered for 311 days while our loved one Roy, a contractor in Iraq, was being held hostage. It was so difficult to keep going before his release. If we can help Jill's family in any way, we are here for them. Stay strong and keep the faith. We have a website: hostagefamilymatters.com.
Susan Hallums
Corona, Calif.
Patrick Kerr Via CSM : I was a public affairs officer with the Marines in Iraq last year and had the privilege of working with Jill on several occasions. Her professionalism and objectivity were unparalleled within the media community. I saw her in Husaybah, on the Syrian border, in early December shortly before I returned to the States. Aside from being very personable and down-to-earth, what really struck me was Jill's bravery. She seemed to fit right in with the Marines and Iraqi security forces. It is this attribute, I believe, that will see her through her current ordeal. My family and I will continue to keep Jill in our prayers. I am hopeful for her eventual release.
Patrick Kerr
New Orleans
To convey your support for Jill and join the chorus of voices calling for her immediate release, follow this link.
Our prayers go out to Jill that she will be released unharmed.
See the Jill Carroll Acrhive for background.
Posted by: Howie at
09:36 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Thanks for the link to help Jill-she sounds like a truly amazing person!
Posted by: Music Maniac at January 26, 2006 11:33 AM (rjg51)
2
Did you see the the Americans released the 5 female Iraqi prisioners that the kidnappers wanted?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182843,00.html
That's a little scary.
Posted by: Mark at January 26, 2006 11:52 AM (ga+7P)
Posted by: George Ramos at January 26, 2006 03:50 PM (5E0ex)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Playboy Is Porn, Sellers Should be Arrested
(Jakarta, Indonesia) The planned publication and sale of
Playboy magazine in majority-Muslim Indonesia has prompted angry protest (
pic) from several groups. It's believed the magazine will destroy the morality of young people and the nation.
From Antara News:
The Indonesian Journalists Association (PWI) Chairman Tarman Azzam has said every effort should be taken to prevent the publication of the Indonesian version of playboy magazine or the sellers should be arrested should the pornographic magazine reaches the children.
"If the magazine publication comes into being and their circulation reaches the children, the producers as well as the sellers should be arrested, and bring them to the court to make them afraid," Tarman said after inaugurating the temporary board members of the PWI here on Tuesday.
Several rejections to the planned publication of the Playboy magazine among other things came from Youth Affairs Minister Adhyaksa Dault, and the country's two largest Muslim organizations respectively Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama (NU).
Opposition groups are calling for arrest and prosecution under pornography and child protection laws. Pretty extreme,
I think. According to Ahmad Rofiq of the Association of Muhammadiyah Students (IMM), assertions by the publisher that the magazine would contain only lifestyle, conventional issues, culture and politics and no nude pictures are
not believed.
Interestingly, the Indonesian public protest and debate of a free press issue is in stark contrast to the way the Chinese communists deal with free speech. In Indonesia, a democratic (albeit Muslim) country, the controversy is open to public discourse and, presumably, a decision will be made in a democratic manner. Conversely, China, a police-state dictatorship, yesterday specified the manner which Google would censor information on Internet searches. No debate and no discussion allowed. It makes no difference what the public wants in China.
The Indonesian version of Playboy was licensed in November 2005 and is planned to hit the news stands starting in March for 40,000 rupiah (about $4.30).
Companion post at Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
08:36 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Hugh Hefner should be hanged with his bunny
Posted by: sandpiper at January 26, 2006 09:04 AM (U+eLg)
2
They're concerned about "protecting" children from seeing flesh, but not about protecting their heads from being separated from their bodies.
Posted by: Oyster at January 26, 2006 10:25 AM (osKlJ)
3
In a part of the world where prostitution, including child prostitution is rampant, it seems a bit ironic that what gets everyone upset are pictures of boobies and hoohahs.
Posted by: Graeme at January 26, 2006 10:45 AM (esk0L)
4
ol' Hugh's head being sawed off with a dull knife, now that would make front page al jazeera for a month!
Posted by: goesh at January 26, 2006 11:32 AM (1w6Ud)
5
Well this all follows the logic that even married people shouldn't see one another naked, as a recent fatwah stated. It's okay to have sex with children in islam, just don't look at them naked.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 01:19 PM (0yYS2)
6
Good point, Maxi. One wonders how these people can continue to exist in the confusing and archaeic societies they have created. It's as if they never left the Middle Ages.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 26, 2006 04:21 PM (rUyw4)
7
Also, there's porn in Playboy? I always thought it was one of those trade magazines just for advertising expensive cigars and crap like that.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 10:49 PM (0yYS2)
8
A centerfold with a babe in a burka? Well - it does leave a lot to the imagination! It does!
Posted by: hondo at January 27, 2006 04:54 PM (3aakz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Tale of Two Lawsuits
Jay at
Stop the ACLU sends word of two separate, and disgraceful, lawsuits.
First, ACLU lawyers are suing the government for barring Tariq Ramadan, a "scholar" from Switzerland, from entering the US. It might have something to do with Ramadan's ties to Islamist groups...and the fact that he was banned from entering France on suspicion of ties to Algerian terrorists. Read about this one here.
That's right. Not only does the ACLU not want the government intercepting terrorist communications to agents within the United States, now they want us to let the terrorists' recruiters in, too. ROTC should hire the ACLU.
For your further edification, Jay reports that psycopathic mass-murderer Saddam Hussein's lawyers are helping him file suit against the United States for "destroying Iraq". Read about this pathetic travesty here.
And don't you dare question their patriotism!
Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.
Posted by: Bluto at
12:06 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The ACLU is americas own AL QUEDA this disgracful organization is located in SAN FRANCISCO or beetr known as HANOI ON THE BAY
Posted by: sandpiper at January 26, 2006 09:07 AM (U+eLg)
2
Funny how you put "scholar" in scare quotes to suggest Professor Ramadan is not a legitimate scholar. He just so happens to be teaching at Oxford right now, perhaps the most prestigious univeristy in the world. They don't exactly hand those jobs out to anyone.
Posted by: ACLUFan at February 24, 2006 03:43 PM (NtaV+)
3
"Scholar" is, by definition, a peaceful occupation. And Oxford isn't above "handing out those jobs" on the basis of political correctness.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 24, 2006 04:01 PM (RHG+K)
4
Furthermore, why should "ties to Islamist groups" be grounds for exclusion from the U.S.? What if one had ties to Christian groups or Jewish groups? Would that be improper too?
I suspect the author meant to say "Islamist extremist groups" but I've seen no evidence of a connection between these groups and Ramadan. In fact, Ramadan has been a consistent critic of Islamic terrorism.
Think logically for a second - would Notre Dame (not exactly a leftist school) really want to employ Ramadan is he has ties to terrorist groups?
I'm sure you all will continue to oppose this lawsuit simply because it was filed by the ACLU and you've been indoctrinated to believe that the ACLU is somehow harmful. But the facts suggest otherwise.
Posted by: ACLUFan at February 24, 2006 04:53 PM (NtaV+)
5
There's a difference between "Islamist" and "Islamic".
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 24, 2006 05:03 PM (RHG+K)
6
Fair enough, I stand corrected on that point.
Nonetheless, I haven't seen anything to suggest that Ramadan has connections with these groups, and I've seen a lot to suggest he actually opposes them.
This is government oppression, plain and simple. Ramadan is a critic of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and the administration doesn't want opposing views expressed in this country. This is nothing new...our government exluded countless numbers of people under similar provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act in the past, purely for ideological reasons. So, the ACLU has filed suit to protect the rights of Notre Dame and others who want to hear what Ramadan has to say. And consevatives have the gall to label the suit "disgraceful."
Posted by: ACLUFan at February 24, 2006 05:18 PM (NtaV+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 25, 2006
Joel Stein Might Have Gotten Enough But Now It's My Turn
As I'm sure most people who follow the news are aware of by now an LA Times writer, Joel Stein, wrote a controversial piece insulting my career titled,
Warriors and wusses. Mr. Stein is entitled to his opinion and he's been a pretty good sport about the criticism he's received due to his editorial that bashes the troops. However, I think as an American, a blogger and a service member I'm entitled to address Joel Stein directly.
Warriors and wusses is an interesting title. But I don't believe that Joel Stein intended it to be an insult to service members directly. I believe that Mr. Stein thinks that is you support the troops but not the war then you're a wuss with a misguided sense of direction. Joel Stein probably believes that most people that have a yellow ribbon of some sort displayed some where hate the President, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Conservatives but still want to support the troops. I honestly don't think it occurs to Mr. Stein that there are people out there that actually support the troops and our wishes on a grander scale than he imagines (he might now since he's written his editorial).
The fact that Joel Stein says that he thinks he would like the troops and admits he knows not a single US service member doesn't surprise me. Mr. Stein, you should seriously consider meeting some of us before you say you don't support us. We're just like you in almost every way the only thing that separates us from you, sir, is the fact we work for the Department of Defense and have probably been to more countries than you without spending nearly as much money. To help Mr. Stein along in meeting some of us I'd like to extend an open invitation to Joel Stein to come and spend some time with my daughter and me in our home in Colorado. I could invite some friends over and he could meet people from every branch of the Department of Defense if he so wanted.
I honestly don't think there is anyone left out there that supports the troops and not the war. Joel Stein's piece certainly indicates that support for Operation Iraqi Freedom has certainly started to dry up on the left side of the aisle. That dwindling support is even more apparent when you read left-wing blogs and listen to Democrats. However, when you step over to the right side of the aisle and the right-wing blogs support for me and my fellow service members couldn't be stronger. For the moment, we're the majority of America and it will probably stay that way due to articles like Mr. Stein's.
Joel Stein also points out that "people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible" for what the left considers the wrongs of the war. Mr. Stein stops short of saying that we should all be hauled in front of a war crimes tribunal but he certainly implies that we should be. He's more than welcome to think that. However, I'm not sure how his home would look after the world realized that there was no way the United States could defend itself and the Pentagon was now the Penta-gone. Mr. Stein states, "An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying." I think that Joel Stein's lack of knowledge about military service shines through on this one. I go to work every morning because I'm ordered to. I take courses because I'm ordered to. I better myself because it's expected of me. I live by a set of rules that makes the US Code look like a children's book and follow everyone of them to the letter because I made the moral choice to do so. I took my Oath of Enlistment very seriously and I'm very proud to continue to serve my nation and defend Joel Stein's right to write bad things about me and my second family.
All-in-all, I respect Joel Stein's opinion. I think it's a very misguided opinion and I'm more than willing to help him meet a few of his protectors and their families, however, I don't respect Joel Stein the person because of what he's written. Just like how he doesn't respect me even though he's never known or met someone even like me. If Mr. Stein reads this then we'll be on the exact same playing field. He's more than welcome to discuss morals with me at the time of his choosing.
UPDATE: Joel Stein Responds
Technorati Tags: joel stein, LA Times, military, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Department of Defense
Originally Posted at
Posted by: Chris Short at
09:05 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 801 words, total size 6 kb.
1
I think Joel represents a certain segment in America who have never been exposed to anything other than a liberal lifestyle with little or only minimal contact with what I would call normal people. They do not hunt, fish, shoot, or participate in sports or outdoor activities.
They would never dream of joining the armed forces, have minimal contact with our men and women in the armed forces, and are pretty ignorant of military matters. They are not stupid, as a matter of fact most are well educated in the liberal sense of the word, but are lacking in what we would call common sense. They aren't capable of doing routine maintenance on a vehicle, and certainly can't or won't do yard word, home maintenance, or many other things that the average American does on a daily basis.
Posted by: The 'prophet' rapes children at January 25, 2006 09:34 PM (rUyw4)
2
Joel Stein is an idiot. What he said was idiotic.
That said, to claim that most Americans support the illegal war in Iraq is nothing short of delusional.
To think that any soldier in Iraq right now is protecting anything in America - aside from the vested financial interests of oil and defense contractors - is similarly naive.
Hey, I want all the troops to come home, soon, alive and well.
But please...we've done nothing to Iraq and the Iraqi's but spread ruination.
This war has done nothing for our country except drive it deeper into bankruptcy and lower our standing in the eyes of the world - and yes, that does matter, because it has become apparent to all the world that America no longer knows right from wrong.
And lying to ourselves about it is not helping anything.
Posted by: rougy at January 25, 2006 10:34 PM (/JLfh)
3
A good link:
http://www.freedomroad.org/content/view/175/40/
Scroll down to:
"Let me explain something, by way of a war story."
Posted by: rougy at January 25, 2006 10:46 PM (/JLfh)
4
Rougy, I'm not sure what blog you think this is, but you're probably wrong. Now go peddle your chickenshit defeatism somewhere else you spineless little infinitessimal fraction of a man.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 12:37 AM (0yYS2)
5
Rougy completely forgot the entire theme of Chris's post and the reason and meaning behind it as soon as he imagined something was being said that he didn't agree with. All reason goes out the window and he can't resist the troll urge to jump in and make an idiot of himself spouting his opposition to something Chris DIDN'T EVEN SAY.
With that said - Chris, you're a better person than I in your patience and forgiveness for the "Rougys" and Steins of the world. I would gleefully punch either one in the nose. It's the only way you can extend your hand to them and not pull back a stump.
Posted by: Oyster at January 26, 2006 05:49 AM (YudAC)
6
My family subscribed to the LAT from 1954 - 1988. In 1964 (big O)the Communist shot puter from Stanford (Joel's alma mater) took over and vowed to make the paper as antiAmerican as the NYT. By 1970 he was there. They ran thousands of antiAmerican editorials as "news" items from 1960 - 1988. I wrote several letters to the editor complaining about: A.printing out right lies about America as "facts" or "news" and B. publishing opinions or editorials on the front page as "news". I finally got fed up and canceled my subscription 18 years ago.
It is not hard to understand why the LAT has been losing market share the last 35 years and has spent most of that time losing money. Which has resulted in 3 or 4 series of layoffs the last 5 years.
To their credit this year they have added some writers/pundits from the middle. The first time their new hires have not been America haters in 47 years.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 26, 2006 06:42 AM (xcy9v)
7
Great post Chris. I think you got to the heart of it. Joel, because he has never met anyone in the military or apparently anyone who supports the military, doesn't even know what that kind of thinking looks like. He lives in a little bubble.
(Just recently found your blog and am really liking it. Thanks. Great writing!)
Posted by: Terri Goon at January 26, 2006 07:55 AM (WetdX)
8
Roughy's website is theblackflag.org, so I suppose he's some sort of anarchist. Which would explain his persistent delusion of "vested financial interests of oil and defense contractors."
Posted by: pst314 at January 26, 2006 09:13 AM (OA547)
Posted by: Jeff at January 26, 2006 10:12 AM (rf03a)
10
If someone is truly an anarchist, there are plenty of places in the world where the only law comes from the barrel of a gun, so they should be perfectly happy there, and we should all encourage them to leave.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 10:43 AM (0yYS2)
11
Most of the anarchists I have ever seen are raging against the trustfund from Daddy.
Posted by: dave at January 26, 2006 11:01 AM (CcXvt)
12
You've gotta say at least one thing to Joel Stein's credit: By openly acknowledging his non-support for both the troops and their mission, he's proven that he's got bigger
cojones than any of his endlessly waffling and equivocating ideologocal brethren who actually hold any political power in Washington.
So I say forget Hilary; the Dems should nominate
Stein for president in 2008! Sure, he'll probably get slaughtered by whomever the Republicans put up, but so would any other Dem including Hilary. At least with Stein as the Dem candidate we can be assured of a campaign that's both honest and entertaining (although after his little conversation with Hugh Hewitt, Stein might want to bone up on his debating skills.)
Posted by: Joshua at January 26, 2006 11:28 AM (2c7xL)
13
That's true Dave, they're mostly a bunch of trustafarians who have never had to do an honest day's work in their lives and exist solely as parasites. Fortunately, when it comes time to round up and exterminate all the degenerates in society, as must be done occasionally if any civilization wants to survive, they'll be easy to identify by their tattoos, piercings, ratty clothes, and body odor.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 01:17 PM (0yYS2)
14
I would die so that Mr. Stein may speak his opinion without fear of retribution.
Would he do the same for me.
Posted by: Sentinel at January 26, 2006 01:52 PM (6OibN)
15
I wouldn't die for any piece of shit like Stein or anyone else who openly commits sedition and offers aid and comfort to the enemy. I don't usually pick up on memes, but as someone said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. You're either a loyal citizen, or you're not, there is no third way.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 03:17 PM (0yYS2)
16
If JOEL STEIN wants to see a wussie he should go look in a mirror
Posted by: sandpiper at January 30, 2006 10:10 AM (A2P9P)
17
Most liberals now-a-days are sliver spoon fed elitists who rebel out of guilt for being raised without a care.
Meanwhile the true heros are the everyday men and women, like yourself, who defend this country. You are the real heros.
Sadly many of my young Jewish counterparts, like Joel Stein, would've appeased Hilter and probably not fought to defeat even him.
Many young Jewish people like Joel Stein have no concept that Islamic facisim is one of the biggest threats in the world. People like Stein think they can appease those who would want to kill them by blaming themselves, like most liberals do.
Oh how they forget that concept didn't work in Hitler's time also.
Posted by: Concerned Jewish Person at January 31, 2006 05:01 AM (IgFdS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
She Missed One
Michelle Malkin has a list of 25 ways to ignore Joel Stein and support our troops.
All of them are worthy, and I wholeheartedly support her effort.
So I'll give you Number 26. If you really, really want to support our troops, and you are of the proper age, then by all means, sign up and join them.
No, I'm not making some sort of "chickenhawk" argument here. I do not look down on people who haven't enlisted. It's none of my business how you plan your life. Not only that, the home front is every bit as important to the success of this war as the fighting fronts.
No big deal, really, just something to consider.
Posted by: Vinnie at
06:31 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The army has raised the age limit to 42. Non citizens are also welcome, about 10% of recent recurits are non citizens. I think the total length of commitment is 8 years.
Posted by: john ryan at January 25, 2006 11:02 PM (TcoRJ)
2
Oh really.
The maximum age for non-prior service enlistments for active duty, for each of the services are:
* Army - 34
* Air Force - 27
* Navy - 34
* Marines - 28
* Coast Guard - 27
The maximum age for enlistment in the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard Reserves is age 35. The maximum age for enlistment in the Army and Navy Reserves is age 39. The maximum enlistment age for the Air and Army National Guard is age 35, although this can sometimes be waived, depending on individual state requirements.
Source
I don't see the age "42" listed there, do you?
Posted by: Vinnie at January 26, 2006 12:10 AM (f289O)
3
If it weren't for my damned RE3 status, I'd have been back in long ago, but even the NG won't return my calls. Oh well, I can still stock up on ammo and rope in preparation for my own festivities when that glorious day comes.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 12:35 AM (0yYS2)
4
improbulus maximus,
backup plan: Go Blackwater USA , or other Private Military Company.
good luck/ and after deployment pass along any clues for us 59 year youngsters to get in?.
Posted by: Rubin at January 26, 2006 01:12 AM (LgYqk)
5
Tried it all Rubin, everyone I contacted had people lined up to join.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 02:51 AM (0yYS2)
6
My husband is an Italian citizen and served in the US Army many years ago. He's is more of an American and loves this country more than a large chunk of those who were born to it by accident.
Posted by: Oyster at January 26, 2006 05:58 AM (YudAC)
7
Uhh, for the wife of the Italian. Good work. Really, good work. Conratulations. [pat self on back]. More irrelevance, please....
Posted by: Rob at January 26, 2006 09:05 AM (56rPU)
8
Uhh, for the wife of the Italian: Good work. Really, good work. Conratulations. [pat self on back]. More irrelevance, please....
Posted by: Rob at January 26, 2006 09:05 AM (56rPU)
9
I tried joining back in 1990, when I was a young man, and even then, my medical record disqualified me. At 37 and 250 lbs, I doubt my odds have improved.
My father served. My maternal grandfather served. Both of my mother's maternal uncles served. My brother-in-law served. Countless numbers of my cousins have served or are still servig, some of them career. The fact that unlike them, I will never have the priviledge of wearing the uniform is a regret that will haunt me to my dying day.
Posted by: Brian B at January 26, 2006 09:08 AM (rGfpg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Soldier Answers Joel Stein
The American Thinker has
posted a reply to Joel Stein's
LA Times column written by serving Lieutenant Colonel Steve Russell. Stein, has admitted that he has absolutely no military expertise or knowledge, and thus would be completely incapable of performing LTC Russell's duties. Ironically, LTC Russell is a talented writer, and seems more capable than Stein at setting his thoughts down in a powerful way:
more...
Posted by: Bluto at
06:26 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Outstanding piece, Bluto. I thought about writing a piece about the editorial at CT but decided that Mr. Stein probably got enough of an ear full from others. I might send him an e-mail or give him a call.
Posted by: Chris Short at January 25, 2006 08:04 PM (0OCQY)
2
In point of fact, Stein did a better job of using good grammar than Russel. "Cannot" and "Do not" are not sentences unless the writer is working for an ad agency.
I'm a veteran. I did 10 years in the navy, so while I've got no better idea of what the Army thinks than Stein does, I have some insight into things military.
"Supporting" our troops: I've got no idea what this is supposed to mean. The only support from civilians that I was aware of was financial and involuntary--my paycheck and the $10K repair bill for a new receiver assembly on our CIWS mount, for example. I would have been ticked off if U.S. civilians went out of their way to blame me for our foreign policy, but tying ribbons on trees and waving flags did nothing to encourage me. I joined up knowing my job was to go in harm's way. Catching an exocet was an occupational hazard. A patriotic display by the folks in the states didn't change this.
Officer Babble: Anything written by a presently serving comissioned officer over O-3 for public consumption is B.S. Officers do not get promoted for telling the truth to civilians, nor should they. They aren't even very candid with enlistedmen. I thought the least of our officers when they drew us up in ranks and bloviated while we stood at attention stared into the distance. We ignored the propaganda, but I think they knew that. One of the rare and fine things about the U.S. military is that its people don't *need* to be pumped up with propaganda. They train. None of their adversaries do.
What the troops want: No one I knew in the military wanted a U.S.O. show or praise, least of all from a civilian. We wanted sex, fun, and money. In dangerous places we wanted safety too, but we were inclined to barter off an alarming amount of it for the first 3 things. Our officers were more interested in our safety than we were. My big disappointment in the Med was being prevented at the last minute from taking a tour of the battleground at El Alamein when we pulled into Egypt (too dangerous!) A shipmate got busted in Israel because, rather than party in Haifa, he went to go see the hellhole of south Lebanon.
I don't know what Stein was talking about when he got to morality (the true last refuge of the scoundrel.) Joining the military isn't supposed to be a statement of support for a president or for a given policy. Both could change overnight and you'd still be obliged to serve the successors. If you've got a problem with our foreign policy, the person to blame is the president, not the guys who are hired to enact it.
Posted by: ShannonKW at January 25, 2006 09:48 PM (dT1MB)
3
ShannonKW, you might have noticed that I said Russell was a better
writer than Stein, not grammarian. Grammar is the province of editors, and besides, good writers know when to break the rules.
An example, from Shakespeare's
Hamlet: "...to take arms against a sea of troubles..."
This is a mixed metaphor; it's grammatically incorrect. An editor would probably change "sea" to "host", and by so doing, ruin the tone and flow of the passage.
Russell's writing is better than Stein's because it has what writing teachers call "truth telling" in the piece. "Truth telling" (I know, I hate that phrase, too, but I didn't make it up) adds power and emotional emphasis to writing.
Stein's lacks this power, mainly because he simply didn't know what he was writing about, which he admitted on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. Stein's writing also lacks maturity and the wisdom that comes from experience.
It's sad that you wasted ten years of your life. Pretty much all of my friends and family in the military understand and value the support they feel from the folks at home. And they don't appreciate Stein's column. Very much don't.
I've had to work under some true assholes who were ex-officers (and they always seem to have been light colonels). But I've also met and worked for some damned fine former officers, too. I wouldn't even make as absolute a statement as you did about officers about lefties.
Support for the troops is independent of their mission, or the party of the Commander-in-Chief. If you were incapable of being at least somewhat cheered by the thought of average citizens wishing you well and being thankful for your service - going into harm's way, well, you aren't representative of the military people I know, and I have to feel a little sorry for you.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 25, 2006 11:28 PM (RHG+K)
4
I think Joel Stein is making a point about the hypocrisy of most contemporary pacifists and anti-Iraq war critics. He's right you can't both wrap yourself in the flag and criticize the war.
He also makes the point that a soldier makes a choice in going to war. If you don't agree with the soldier, its hypocritical to pretend you think he or she is some sort of moral hero. Face your own convictions.
I think this war is wrong and the people who enlisted for it were duped. Sorry about that, but it doesn't make me immature, like people are suggesting here.
Posted by: John B at January 26, 2006 02:11 PM (Fk6dh)
5
One doesn't have to espouse a position to illustrate it John. What he said was classic sedition, just like the rest of the libs spout constantly, and for which people used to be executed when this nation was still interested in survival.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 03:19 PM (0yYS2)
6
John B., a soldier makes a choice in volunteering for the military, not "going to war". What you, and the uninformed Master Stein seem to forget is that all soldiers take an oath, not only to uphold and defend the Constitution, but to obey the "lawful orders" of their superiors. To suggest that serving member of the armed forces pick and choose which wars they'll participate in is...what's the word I'm looking for?...retarded.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 26, 2006 06:05 PM (RHG+K)
7
When Joel Stein sees first hand the fact that an entire race of people has been subjugated by an immoral dictator for at least 35 years, he will see the fact that human beings, much like himself, have hopes and dreams and desires, however, they may not be realized due to the unfortunate circumstance of the country in which they have been born. Is this their fault, hardly. But if noble men do nothing but stand by and observe this, than they are no better than those who have subjugated those whom they (and the rest of us) pity. -- Joel Stein's point is completely invalid about Soldiers' morality until he sees the suffering of those whom have been oppressed by an immoral government against which he himself admits he is afraid to take arms against himself. In fact, he is a moral coward, and I pity him in his ignorance.
Posted by: John Smith at January 27, 2006 10:22 PM (2Uqwd)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
I'm not dead yet
I'm feeling much better now.
TMI warning.
more...
Posted by: Rusty at
05:41 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Alright, I'll take one for the team. What are the 180s?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 25, 2006 06:13 PM (RHG+K)
2
I was wondering that myself. Puking and the runs at the same time, maybe?
Posted by: Vinnie at January 25, 2006 06:36 PM (f289O)
3
I certainly hope you're on the mend by the time you read this.
Get well soon!
Posted by: her at January 25, 2006 06:43 PM (XU9K/)
Posted by: Leopold Stotch at January 25, 2006 07:06 PM (BcJKd)
5
No. I think it's explosive diarrhea that rebounds off the bowl. Backblast.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 25, 2006 07:22 PM (RHG+K)
6
You killed Rusty! You bastards!
Posted by: hondo at January 25, 2006 07:43 PM (3aakz)
Posted by: Howie at January 25, 2006 08:28 PM (D3+20)
8
Black death, perhaps? I hear it's been going around, along with TB and bedbugs, brought to us by our new neighbors fresh off the boat from the stone age.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 12:39 AM (0yYS2)
9
lemme guess.
you got the poo soooo bad that when you leave the toilet you take 3 steps only to realize that you have to do a 180 and repeat?
hope you feel better.
Posted by: Dr. Zubov at January 26, 2006 01:38 PM (mJD6w)
10
No, Vinnie has it right. It's where you endlessly rotate your position vis a vis the porcelin god. First one way, then the other.
Posted by: Rusty at January 26, 2006 01:47 PM (JQjhA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Why Stop With Ben Franklin?
Because I'm a kind, caring, compassionate soul, I have decided to try and help our lefty friends by coming up with other famous quotes they can place on their
nearest convenient protest banner:
Mister, down this wall! - Ronald Reagan
4 score and seven years ago, we perish from this earth - Abraham Lincoln
Read my lips, no taxes - George H.W. Bush
We the order form establish justice - The Constitution
We hold that all men are endowed - The Declaration of Independence
Give or death! - Patrick Henry
A day that will live in the armed forces of Japan - Franklin Roosevelt
I did have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky - Bill Clinton
Posted by: Vinnie at
03:51 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Howie at January 25, 2006 04:16 PM (D3+20)
2
God almighty, Bill Clinton finally told the truth!
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 25, 2006 04:33 PM (rUyw4)
3
Hey, here's a couple more:
Mission! - George Bush
Bring it - also George Bush.
You're right. These are great.
Posted by: Mark Reilly at January 25, 2006 04:52 PM (UHKaK)
4
Hey, feel free to add your own. I could use a good laugh.
Posted by: Vinnie at January 25, 2006 05:14 PM (f289O)
5
If you want a good laugh, Vinnie, go to Babalu blog and read about Castro getting punked. I laughed my butt off.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 25, 2006 05:30 PM (rUyw4)
6
Okay, I'll have a go at this:
Ask, for you. - John F. Kennedy
Free, dream! - Martin Luther King Jr.
Yeeearrrrrrgh! - Howard Dean
Wait a minute.....something's not quite right with that last one.
Posted by: Graeme at January 25, 2006 05:51 PM (UrtKW)
7
We hold that all men are endowed
Heh. They wish.
If there was any doubt that Vinnie wrote these, it is hereby dispelled.
Posted by: tee bee at January 25, 2006 06:14 PM (q1JHF)
8
Take time to deliberate, but when the time for action arrives, stop - Andrew Jackson
Be religiously careful in our choice of all public fruits. - Elias Boudinot
When you are in any contest you should work to lose it. - Dwight D. Eisenhower
Let us resolve to be the victims of our history, giving way to blind suspicions and emotions. - John F. Kennedy
Posted by: Vonski at January 25, 2006 06:15 PM (Srmrz)
9
Move 'ZIG'
For great justice!
- Zero Wing
Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at January 25, 2006 06:42 PM (1kqww)
Posted by: SheriJo at January 25, 2006 08:35 PM (2F8P7)
11
Clinton (and say it like he would to yourself :
" I did have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Albright". "Actually it was a threesome, Arafat on one end, me on the other, I called heads! Ha Ha!"
Posted by: Howie at January 25, 2006 08:41 PM (D3+20)
12
How can you tell when BILL CLINTON is telling a lie? his mouth is open
Posted by: sandpiper at January 26, 2006 09:11 AM (U+eLg)
13
Bill Clinton doesn't have to speak to lie, even his body language is untrue.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 10:44 AM (0yYS2)
14
How about this great quote by Nietsche:
"That which does kill us makes us stronger"
Posted by: Brian D. Kohl at January 26, 2006 01:59 PM (/QwDV)
15
Be Franklin's full quote still applies to this situation. So I really don't understand your stupid reaction.
I don't know about you guys, but I consider the 4th Amendment to the Bill of Rights to be an "essential liberty" and I also think the NSA warrantess wiretapping qualifies as providing "temporary safety".
Then again, I actually care about the Constitution. Maybe that is my problem?
I appear to be stuck in that Constitution-loving pre 9/11 mentallity. Sorry about that.
Posted by: The Disenfranchised Voter at January 27, 2006 01:33 AM (agR1e)
Posted by: The Disenfranchised Voter at January 27, 2006 01:34 AM (agR1e)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Tin foil Patrol Across The Pond
Yes first we have Cindy, remember Cindy? She reveals herself as a hater of all government including Bill Clinton. No wonder the left has dropped her like a hot rock. Bill is Evil, Bush is Evil the only person she has not accused of evil is the terrorist er us excuse me “freedom fighters” who actually killed Casey. Her strategy for defeating terrorist is; just lay there and take it. Well practice does make perfect Cindy. She thinks it’s all mcbillarybusherburtonwardaddy’s fault anyway.
Via Alarming News :And about Bill Clinton . . . . You know, I really think he should have been impeached, but not for a bl*w job. His policies are responsible for killing more Iraqis that George Bush.
Oh but there is more Via
NEWSLINKER :
Idiotarianism: Cindy Sheehan has authored a statement of her ideology, called Matriotism. If I tried to explain it, you would think I was unfairly satirizing her position. You have to read it to believe it
Also via NEWSLINKER :
Pork Soup Becomes Political in France: Small groups linked to the extreme
right are ladling pork soup to France's homeless. Critics and some officials
denounce the charity as discriminatory: because it contains pork, the soup
is off-limits for Muslims. Critics view the stew — dubbed "identity soup" by
its cooks — as a cynical far-right ploy to penetrate the most vulnerable
level of society while masking their intentions as humanitarian.
Yes an evil rightwing conspiracy to feed people who love pork.
Posted by: Howie at
03:38 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Pork soup? Could it be that the French are finally going to start fighting back against the horde of subhuman scum that has infested their land? Hell, if they manage to expel the muslims from France, again, I'll have to stop making fun of them!
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 25, 2006 05:34 PM (0yYS2)
2
Could Casey Sheehan have committed suicide to get away from his sick, stupid, idiotic mother?
Posted by: greyrooster at January 25, 2006 06:47 PM (YjVDY)
3
I tried to read her "Matriotism" screed. I got to the second paragraph. I think that's a record. The farthest I had ever read any of her screeds was about one sentence.
Posted by: Oyster at January 26, 2006 06:03 AM (YudAC)
4
Do you think CINDY SHEEHAN will have her picture in the war museum there in HO CHI MIN CITY there in vietnam? after all JOHN KERRYS and JANE FONDAS pictures are there
Posted by: sandpiper at January 26, 2006 09:19 AM (U+eLg)
5
DO NOT TOUCH OUR PORK SOUP !
You may have heard about the Identity Soups. These traditional pork soups are distributed in several towns in France and Belgium by Identity associations that are wishing to help their compatriots living in poverty.
These de Identity soups have been accused of racism because, since they contain pork, they would exclude Jews and Muslims. Still, pork meat is key to the traditional Gallic art of cooking (Read again the AsterixÂ’ adventures !). It is also the cheapest meat and this is an important factor of choice for non-subsidised associations. And, last but not least, when Jewish or Muslim associations are helping their fellows from the same religion they choose to serve kosher or hallal soups and this does not shock us nor does it shock anybody elseÂ… Now, when Europeans are trying to help their fellow compatriots with pork, why should it then be considered as racism ?
January 14th 2006, following a request from the Mayor of Strasbourg (North East of France), the Prefect (representing the French State) has prohibited the distribution of the Identity Soup with the support of the police and has arrested the head of the association organising the soup, named Solidarité Alsacienne (Alsatian Solidarity).
IN FRANCE THE STATE PREVENTS
FRENCH PEOPLE TO HELP FRENCH AND EUROPEAN PEOPLE !
All European nations are concerned by this measure : if we do not react today, tomorrow they might prohibit the croissant as the racist symbol of the European victory against the Turkish Muslim army that was at the door of Vienna in 1683. Or, like a director of a British school did, they may prohibit to tell stories such as “The three little pigs” under the excuse that it could heart the sensitivity of Muslim kids. It is now that we shall react !
OUR ARMS ARE THE PHONE AND THE EMAILS !
If you want to protect French and European culinary traditions and especially the freedom of Europeans to live on their own soil according to their ancestral customs, phone, send a email and ask your friends to do the same to :
- the Prefect of Bas-Rhin, Jean-Paul FAUGERE : chantal.jaouen@bas-rhin.pref.gouv.fr - tel. (33) 03 88 21 67 6

,
- the Mayor of Strasbourg, Fabienne KELLER : fkeller@cus-strasbourg.net - (tel. (33) 03.88.43.65.0

- the Mayor’s « Premier Adjoint » Robert GROSSMANN: rgrossmann@cus-strasbourg.net - (tel. (33) 03.88.43.65.03),
- the local newspaper: redaction@dna.fr (tel. (33) 03.88.21.55.00),
- please copy us using the following address (this will be used to count the emails sent) : contact@les-identitaires.com
This call is sent in more than fifteen European countries as well as in North and South America, Canada and Quebec. Our objective: that the Prefect, the Mayor and the local newspaper receive each 100.000 emails asking for freedom for Identity Soups. No insult, no threat, no attachment, just these few words as a title :
FREEDOM FOR OUR PORK SOUP !
LIBERTÉ POUR NOTRE SOUPE AU COCHON !
For any information on Identity Soups :
http://solidarite-alsacienne.hautetfort.com
http://www.association-sdf.com
http://www.soulidarieta.org
http://www.renaissancesociale.be
Posted by: Identitaire at February 02, 2006 09:42 AM (o8BSM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Hitchens at Slate.
The latest message from Osama Bin Laden may be an indication of weakness.
Slate : The conditions for this latest truce are of course impossible as well. All one needs, in order to earn Bin Laden's mercy, is to give up Afghanistan and Iraq. But this raises a more intriguing question. Why are formerly triumphalist jihadists using the language of "truce" at all? Not very long ago, God was claimed to be on their side and victory certain.
Debbie at ITB has more. Howie thinks it was a blink too. I find I only agree with Christopher half the time so I read one skip one so on and so forth.
Posted by: Howie at
03:22 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Howie, a truce offer from OBL is definitely a sign of weakness. This truce is nothing more than a hudna, a chance for al-Queda to regroup and regain its strength.
This is the time that we should re-double our efforts against these jihadists. We need to hit them hard, hit them often, and make them pay dearly. No matter what some believe, al-Queda is running out of quality recruits or they would never offer a truce.
No Islamist has ever offered a truce that they intended to keep. It is only done in an effort to fool the opponent. Remember, lying to a non-Muslim is acceptible and good, and should be used to whatever advantage may be attained. That is the reason they offer a truce.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 25, 2006 04:00 PM (rUyw4)
Posted by: Howie at January 25, 2006 04:14 PM (D3+20)
3
I disagree that a truce offering is a sign of weakness. In the history of militant Islam, a truce often is suggested to rebuild, but it has also been a last-chance offer before a strike.
I don't know which one this is from Bin Laden, but I do think it's too early to suggest this is a sign of weakness. There are many signs of weakness for AQ and OBL specifically, but I'm not sure this is one of them.
Posted by: Chad Evans at January 25, 2006 04:34 PM (+DXHJ)
4
When has a truce been offered by militant Islam as a last chance previous to a strike? I can't think of one, but I'm here to learn, so clue me in.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 25, 2006 05:07 PM (rUyw4)
5
>>>last-chance offer before a strike.
oh bull honkey. Mohamedans are blood thirsty savages, yes, but they aren't stupid.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 25, 2006 05:42 PM (XA7De)
6
I think Chad missed it by about a mile. For Osama to even speak the word truce, it shows that he has given up hope. He probably won't last much longer with his health and all, and sees his organization's infrastructure falling apart, his fighters killed by the scores, and nobody in the world making more than token efforts to come to his aid. He is screwed coming and going, and is afraid he will live long enough to see the end of islam as a serious threat to civilization if he can't call a time-out. I hope he does live that long. Just.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 25, 2006 05:42 PM (0yYS2)
7
Bin Laden is tired of running I mean, Chasing Americans down and wants a truce so we will stop and wait for him to catch up.
This is how I predict the war will go:
Bin Laden makes the call. Al-Zawahiri shoots to the right, (look at 'em go!) Meanwhile Ahmed Mohammed Hamed Ali will fake with a running play and go for long play down the middle. BIN LADEN Hammers the ball.... straight Down the center -- WHOA!
(there's a flag on the play)
(REF-CANADA) "face mask against the Defense (U.S.) 5 yard penalty," repeat 4th down".
OKAY...
4th down and with only 3 yards to go.
JIHADI Cave Dwellers have called their 3rd and final time out While they speak with their coach, PAUL MARTIN
Oh MY GOD! DID YOU SEE THAT! The Cave Dwellers Mascott just spit on the The fans of the U.S. Patriots and now he's kicking the U.S. Patriots Mascot.
This is despicable, This is really bad sportsmanship. Someone please get that Camel off the field.
I can't believe this. We apologize folks for the delay. Let's get back to the game, shall we.
28 - 23 U.S. Patriots are in the lead. Here at IRAQI STADIUM,(I'm Steve, and I'm BOB and we're your host for tonights show)(BOB) 4th quarter with only 40 seconds left on the clock. U.S. Patriots are really dominating the JIHADI Cave Dwellers.
(Yes, BOB)"Cave Dwellers really need to make something happen out there tonight".
Well Steve; looks like they heard your demands and they're going for it!
here's the break and WHOA!...U.S. Brings the House to the line of scrimage. (WOW! They look ready to INVADE this QUARTER BACK!!)(IT COULD BE WORLD WAR 3 ANY SECOND!!)
Here's the snap and Bin Laden pulls back and out of the pocket breaking 1, 2, no wait..3 tackles.
He looks left, see's no one open. Looks right, see's Abdelkarim Hussein Mohamed Al-Nasser
(bet you can't say that 3 times fast BOB)(I won't even try steve) (CHUCKLES...)
he's wide open, Bin Laden draws back and drives the ??pig skin?? over the heads of the defense.. BUT WAIT...Here's BUSH Down the center and in the air.. EAT YOUR HEART OUT MICHEAL JORDAN!...He DENIES THE BALL PASSAGE.
if you think that's strange BOB,look at that!!!.. "WHAT THE HELL"!!... IT can't be.. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...it's RONALD REAGAN.. vearing down the left side, HOOKS THE QUERTERBACK! and down goes BIN LADEN. Ronald is now, what appears to be biting BIN on the ankle. Ouch Steve, that looks like that hurts. (and the Jihadi fans are booing) (Glad the REF didn't see that one BOB)WAIT!!! WHERE's The BALL??? FUMBLED and it's picked up by...... TACO BANDIT....(LISTEN TO THAT CROWD CHEER LOUDER THAN EVER) to the 50...40...30...20...HE... COULD... GO... ALL... THE... WAYYYYY....!!! TOUCH DOWN AND THE U.S. PATRIOTS HAVE DONE IT AGIAN!
I'm Bob and I'm Steve saying this has been the weirdest friggin football game in history. I'm up for a beer wadda ya say Bob, sounds good steve....
Please stay tuned for Bin-ladin On ICE....
Posted by: Taco Bandit at January 25, 2006 05:56 PM (MOKXn)
8
Taco Bandit gets a new lightsabre!
Posted by: Howie at January 26, 2006 08:22 AM (D3+20)
9
"Blink" is the term I've been using for it. Nerves or maybe trying to sucker us in. Either way don't let up.
Posted by: Howie at January 26, 2006 08:40 AM (D3+20)
10
Chad is talking about the attacks in London and Madrid. Offers of a truce were given prior to these two attacks. There may be other examples.
Posted by: Debbie at January 26, 2006 11:43 AM (RHhPT)
11
Debbie,
Rather than a truce I consider these offers to be a ruse. I suppose you could say that he proposed a truce with parts of Europe, but I think it was more of a threat against Spain and Britain to withdraw their troops from Iraq. I don't consider that particular offer to be a truce. However, I might be mistaken as my memory is not as good as it once was.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 26, 2006 09:11 PM (rUyw4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Pine Bluff Chemical Arsenal Security Breach
Probing to see test our security or maybe nothing.
Seattlepi : WHITE HALL, Ark. -- The Army stepped up security at an arsenal where chemical weapons are stored after three people entered a restricted zone, officials said Wednesday.
The security measures were taken as a precaution at the Pine Bluff Arsenal after the intrusion at a forested federal preserve 30 miles south of Little Rock. Officials didn't know what the three people were doing there, spokeswoman Cheryl Avery said.
Worth watching.
Posted by: Howie at
03:18 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 92 words, total size 1 kb.
1
This story has popped up a couple of times in obscure sources over the past few weeks. I have no idea what this is about.
Posted by: hondo at January 25, 2006 03:25 PM (3aakz)
2
You do know that we have members of our military whose job it is to breach security at these joints.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at January 25, 2006 03:48 PM (5ceWd)
3
Yes I the only common thread I found was they were all vauge. Maybe someone testing our security. They tresspass and then obsereve the reaction to that or some drunk kids mudding and got off in the wrong area. If anyone see's the resolution before we do email me or one of the others ASAP.
Posted by: Howie at January 25, 2006 03:49 PM (D3+20)
4
Err uh add a please to that last request.
Filthy: So how long would that target in your idea be allowed to go on before the revaltion and the bawling out part? Good point. Filthy has a pretty good sniffer on these things I think he may be correct. But I have seen reports as well that the enemy also does this to guage our security reaction. It will all come out in the wash I reckon.
Posted by: Howie at January 25, 2006 03:55 PM (D3+20)
5
I was over at Bayou Meto, which is pretty close to Pine Bluff, last weekend duckhunting and I can tell you that the locals think that potential terrorists are probing the security at the Pine Bluff Arsenal.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 25, 2006 04:08 PM (rUyw4)
6
Down that way it could easily be a couple of off-season hunters - something to jaw about down at the local Dinner.
Remember once long ago pulling guard duty on an isolated explosives point in Missouri. Got the hold security briefing spiel.
Boring gig! But 2am - car with lights out off in the distance pulls behid some buildings - partner and I are armed, fired up and spooked! - commo's not working (typical).
Partner is a nervous trigger happy dickmoron from Bumfuck Ohio (no offense). We carefully approach the vehicle ...
I get up to the window - shine a flashlight n' point my M16 - two teen locals doing the horizontal bop in daddy's car - she screams - partner freaks n' accidentally fires round into ground (nearly shot himself in the foot!).
Some night! Talk about interuptus!!! Anyway - they leave - I keep private spare rounds - for accountiblity purposes (ha ha) - n' document - nothing! n' smack Ohio Bob!
few weeks later I hear "stories" - possible terrorists (White Supremist type), security breech, shots fired, they fled - all started by Ohio Bob.
Senior NCO comes to me - whats up? - Nuthin'! Who ya gonna believe - smart guy like me from NY or dickhead Bob who likes his barracks room cause its bigger than his trailer back home!
Senior NCO is PR from Jersey City - nuff said.
Simple story - but this is how stories begin. Wouldn't be surprised if Ohio Bob was an aging square badge security guard there.
Posted by: hondo at January 25, 2006 05:03 PM (3aakz)
7
Poachers. That's my bet.
Posted by: Rusty at January 25, 2006 05:34 PM (JQjhA)
8
Rusty
On all military facilities hunting is either not allowed or severely restricted - and the game do know this! Its a hunters paradise if you don't get caught.
Watched a herd of whitetail waltz thru and munch out on a 45cal range - shut range down - popped of a couple of rounds to spook them off - they didn't flinch!
Posted by: hondo at January 25, 2006 06:17 PM (3aakz)
9
In answer to your question Howie, in the book "Rogue Warrior" the author describes how he left SEAL Team SIX, and was tasked with doing security intrusions into Naval bases, and other important facilities, as a team called "RED CELL"
He said his team was able to breach one U.S Embassy that was later targetted for a bomb, and had warned about suspicious local activity and the possibility of it being a target of attack.
I had never heard that before, I should imagine it would be covered-up and corrected, and not become a news story if possible?
Some people question his stories though. I thought I'd throw it out there.
Posted by: dave at January 25, 2006 06:19 PM (CcXvt)
10
Hondo: White supremists are not terrorists.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 25, 2006 06:57 PM (YjVDY)
11
I happened to be in St Louis on Friday and was able to read the Post Dispatch they report a guard thought hw say people but further investigation found nothing. However Security was increased as a precaution.
Quote " whatever it was it was not human"
So there you have it Aliens or wildlife the dogs got all happy and wanted to chase but did not indicate human was what they were smelliin.
Posted by: Howie at January 29, 2006 11:52 AM (D3+20)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Essential Liberties
Jay at
Stop the ACLU points us to an important
post by Michelle Malkin exposing the radical Left's hijacking of Benjamin Franklin's famous, and always mangled, quote:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
In this photo, you see one of the most popular variations of Ben's words.
more...
Posted by: Bluto at
11:33 AM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I've got one by Jefferson that says, "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither".
That being said the NSA search for information to prevent an attack during a time of war I find entirely reasonable. This info is not used for prosecution just for military protection of the US. Now I'm sure 99% turns out useless but then again they have no idea just where good info will come from. You have to have evidence to take to the judge if you want a warrant not much but at least a smidgen so you could go after acceptable evidence that could be used in criminal prosecution. I would imagine that being around here that my communications are monitored. Gee I sure feel sorry for that guy his job really sucks he must be bored beyond comprehension. So I'm all for liberty and don't really like the Patriot act much I'd rather just fight them. But the NSA stuff don't bother me it's
reasonable to me. If the NSA did not look and there was an attack they would blab on about how we should have been looking. Dem-ned if you do and Dem-ned if you don't.
Posted by: Howie at January 25, 2006 12:00 PM (D3+20)
2
It always kills me how they never plan ahead for their home-made posters. They always have to squeeze in the last few letters and often have to squeeze a forgotten letter into the middle somewhere.
Posted by: Oyster at January 25, 2006 12:12 PM (osKlJ)
3
Oh well, the blanket seems about the same as the original quote, or close enough to be used in propaganda.
Well, anyways, I was going through some oldies, and I noticed many people threatening me with viruses and giving out my server infos, and the other Baber tried to Nemesis some pic to me but apparently N. doesn't support umlauts so blaah blaah blaah....
The actual point was to say how very public commenting actually seems to be. Despite threats being seemingly pointless as they certainly haven't shown any actual activity
(except some floodbot for MSN Messenger, which I don't even use and probably some e-mail viruses I never read due to hotmails "all in the trash"-option (last time I read my e-mail: spring 2005 or autumn 2004)), I'm shocked at how easy it is to get info just by asking or checking my own temp. files and such with a rather unstable omni-reader.
I strongly support selfcensorship, as the Internet is not a private place thanks to "terrorism" and "international security" laws that allow pretty much anyone to gather info on pretty much anything if it seems even remotely anti-system or near-criminal. Especially if you're using a non-Windows-system, you can't even blend in with the mass then.
They can even keep a track of what you search if they have even the slightest excuse to do so. So you can't search for porn. =F So see ya, I'm off the Canuck, Brit, Arab and Yankee sites, they're the ones under Big Brothers allseeing eye already. They are after Google now, goodbye freedom to search for "weapons of mass destruction", "Allah kill president" and anthrax.
Posted by: A Finn at January 25, 2006 12:32 PM (lGolT)
4
After reading her comments on DOWDIFYING BEN FRANKLIN, it seems to me Ms. Malkin's largest complaint is not with civil liberty absolutists or Maureen Dowd; it is with the intellectually lazy.
The quote generally attributed to Benjamin Franklin--though sometimes attributed to author Richard Jackson--has surely been mangled by the left in their efforts to voice displeasure with the Bush administrations’ recent eavesdropping revelations. But why be selfish; political discourse is littered with miquotations of this line. As Richard Minsky has stated in researching his upcoming, The Bill of Rights, (www.futureofthebook.com), the phrase has been widely misquoted by “libertarians, conservatives, neo-Nazis, and and every imaginable mainstream and fringe group.” Sorry, but all in all, her wriitng is a pretty disingenuous --and intellectually lazy--piece.
Posted by: Drew at January 25, 2006 12:37 PM (UHKaK)
5
Of course they miss the irony that the original statement was made regarding capitulating to an aggressor for the sake of peace. Or maybe they don't?
Every argument they've made since time immemorial has basically been a version of why we should either pay the Danegeld or surrender outright without putting up even pretense of a fight in either case. Liberals are cowards and traitors and should be treated with all due and proper contempt.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 25, 2006 12:51 PM (0yYS2)
6
Also missed is the fact that the original 1755 writing became most famous for its use in a 1759 book written solely for the purpose of ... you got it; propaganda.
Posted by: Drew at January 25, 2006 01:10 PM (UHKaK)
7
Quotation aside - the entire basis for using it is the left's "what if" exaggerated and hysterical arguement and fears of AMERIKA THE POLICE STATE. This is part and parcel of their core fundamental belief systems - the current NSA flap is simply being incorporated into it - they've had these beliefs long before it - and will retain them long afterwards.
I don't buy or accept their "what if" arguements or opinion of AMERIKA. I also know the the majority of Americans don't either. That's why I'm not interested in playing this "NSA Debate Game Thing".
I know where their heads are at - thats what matters - they need to sell their hysteria and fears to the general population - and they've never been any good at that.
What they are good at is alienating the uncommitted bystanders with their idiotic antics, "performance art", and ideological baggage which they invariably drag along. Go to an anti-war protest and what you will see are banners - Free Mumia, Pro-Abortion, Gay Rights, Save The Rainforrest, etc etc etc and a few actually about the War (but often twisted to their own Anti-Amerika rant).
They have no clue about presentation or salesmenship! They couldn't sell a bottle a water to a thirty man in the middle of the desert without first giving him a 2 hour speech on the logic of one of the causes - and not notice that he's already moved on to look for water somewhere else!
Posted by: hondo at January 25, 2006 01:20 PM (3aakz)
8
So successes in politics are just really good sell jobs?
Posted by: wavygravy at January 25, 2006 04:07 PM (UHKaK)
9
Er, Yes wavygravy! That is a BIG part of it - and thankfully - you didn't know that!
You can't do jack till your actually sitting in the big seat first!
So wavygravy! Go sit on the floor in yoga fashion and hum.
Posted by: hondo at January 25, 2006 05:10 PM (3aakz)
10
A Finn: (1) doesn't sound like you. Have you reached puberty at last?
(2) Do you have a point?
Posted by: greyrooster at January 25, 2006 07:06 PM (YjVDY)
11
Thanks for clarifying Hondo. I was under the mistaken assumption that public policy was based upon the merits of said policy,its stated goals, whether or not it served the interests of the public and actually required their input. I should have been more cynical, realizing it was all about who's the better "salesman." Works for cars and furniture, why not public policy, right?
Posted by: wavygravy at January 26, 2006 08:32 AM (UHKaK)
12
Pompous and pretentious, aren't you? Keep on hummin' and chantin'.
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 01:13 PM (3aakz)
13
Not really; it just seems that way to the ignorant and the ill-mannered. And you keep on sellin'
Posted by: wavygravy at January 26, 2006 03:13 PM (UHKaK)
14
"I was under the mistaken assumption that public policy was based upon the merits of said policy, its stated goals, whether or not it served the interests of the public and actually required their input".
The problem, wavy, is that most of us can't agree on the merits of said policy. What you might think is meritorious I might think is downright stupid, such as welfare. I'm not trying to put words in hondo's mouth, but perhaps he was referring to an attempt to get other people to see your side of the argument. And I just used welfare as an example, and I'm not saying I oppose it. j/s
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 26, 2006 04:36 PM (rUyw4)
15
Sure, I see the point he was making about the necessity of persuasion, i.e. "selling", in policy making and who does it better, but that's what's so maddening---that's almost all it is today. Hondo's sentiments are dead-on with the way vast swaths of the public thinks about government policy in general; he or she who packages the "truth" best and then sells it to the most people is the winner and should be. I like to think there more to defining a policy's merit that that.
Posted by: wavygravy at January 26, 2006 05:02 PM (UHKaK)
16
Public policy is based on debate, arguement and functional concensus - you have to talk to people and convince them ...
You have to sell your arguement - you have to market your position - anyone who can't see the functional analogy with salesmenship - is a disillusioned fool.
When they lose - they look everywhere for an explanation, someone or something to blame - but never self-examination - never themselves.
The public is stupid - ergo - they are smarter - which gives them solice. that's cool - I can live with that - I am an illiterate backwoods racist sexist yahoo living in a trailer park with a truck outside parked up on concrete blocks - if that makes you feel better wavygravy (love the handle) - that's absolutely fine with me!
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 06:45 PM (3aakz)
17
"I was under the mistaken assumption that public policy ..... whether or not it served the interests of the public and actually required their imput."
WOW! Did you even read what you wrote? - Classic Meritocracy is also Classic Elitism! You spelled it out so beautifully! Others (who are worthy) will decide what serves and whether public imput is required - all for their own good of course!
And for a moment, I thought you were smart! You just "advertised" your strongest belief - and greatest weakness!
Way to go wavy - I love it!
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 06:58 PM (3aakz)
18
The full quote still applies to this situation.
I don't know about you guys, but I consider the 4th Amendment to the Bill of Rights to be an "essential liberty" and I also think the NSA warrantess wiretapping qualifies as providing "temporary safety".
Then again, I actually care about the Constitution. Maybe that is my problem?
Posted by: The Disenfranchised Voter at January 26, 2006 07:18 PM (agR1e)
19
Hondo: Yeah, I didn't put that well; the "whether or not" was only meant for the part about serving the public interest, not the part about public input--that is ALWAYS required and not to be left to the leaders to decide.
And....I think you're reading way too much into it what I've been saying. Your original post above was something to the effect of Dems being lousy at selling their ideas, that they couldn't sell water to a guy dying of thirst and that's the biggest reason why their ideas never gain traction.
My retort was to say that there is a lot more to putting good policy in place then being good at selling it--or at least there should be.
Yes, you must get people on your side and yes, you must persuade. But the ideas have to be good ideas in the first place and THAT is what's missing.
I think these days some real crap is being well-marketed by politicos of all stripes and either too many people paying too little attention are letting this stuff slip past them or they're letting their partisan loyalties suspend their critical thinking --conservative, liberal and everything in between.
The idea that a well-marketed but poorly conceived idea deserves its place in public policy--which I took your original statement to say-- is just bad government.
If that's not your position, then I stand corrected.
Posted by: wavygravy at January 26, 2006 07:46 PM (oxMjD)
20
What is good - is by its very nature - open to subjective interpretation. I would never advocate (sell) something I did not thing is "good". I do believe in what I say and think (its not an act or con) - You can disagree - fine - but the simple act of disagreement doesn't make my "good" bad - save your own personal interpretation.
You still have to convince (sell) others - as I/we must continuously convince same.
Things aren't going your way - self-examination is in order - but you don't do that. Your still looking for ways to dismiss the opposition and critize the others (public) for not seeing things your way.
Not a winning strategy - winning is everything - otherwise your "good" remains nothing more than unfulfilled wishes and dreams.
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 08:21 PM (3aakz)
21
Two points of disagreement: not all "goods" are subjective, some are universal. Examples: policies that do not allow for child exploitation and those that permit any race to vote.
Second, at the governmental level, it's not really a zero-sum game; I think you'll find more "goods" are typically "won" through compromise than not. Otherwise, you make sense.
Posted by: wavygravy at January 26, 2006 09:00 PM (oxMjD)
22
Yep, wavy, their are some things we can all agree on, that's for sure.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 26, 2006 09:17 PM (rUyw4)
23
Your smart - and you knew damn well what I meant about "goods". Of course there are agreed universals - but by even bringing up the obvious (which is not in contention) you achieve nothing but mischieviously sidestepping the issue that much of everything else IS SUBJECTIVE!
You want to score a point - fine - but see how meaningless that was - and how the selling (yes! Selling!) of ideas is so extremely important. Would you feel better if I used a thesaurus and used a different word?
Compromise goes hand in hand with selling - it is OBVIOUS! (Hell! There even is a political term called horse-trading!) When you have to - you do - when you don't - you don't. But bear this in mind - on compromise you automatically assume two distinct sides - there are not! There are MANY! Some differing from one another by only degrees. To achieve success/compromise you work with that reality and built the consensus for action.
I understand what your saying - I'm not being confrontational - I'm actually trying to be helpful (in my subjective way).
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 10:06 PM (3aakz)
24
Hondo: yes, I did know what you meant and when you boil it all down, you're right -- without the sell, nothing actually ever gets put into action. Like all of politics, it's a matter of degrees. Set, game, match: Hondo.
Posted by: wavygravy at January 26, 2006 11:24 PM (oxMjD)
25
wavygravy
OK - Oh, welcome to the board if you wish to hang around. You may encounter a few voices who will want to gut you with dull knives and kill all liberals (along with a lot of other things) - but it goes with the territory - take it in stride (and give back and use your head when doing it!). Other than that - join in and try to enjoy - comedy works for me (sometimes satire - there is a difference).
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 11:33 PM (3aakz)
26
Hondo: yeah, I see you've noticed I probably lean a bit further to the left then the typical blogger here. But what the hell, that's why I came, to try and find good political debate--helluva lot more informative than seeking out an echo chamber of my views. So far, so good.
I'll take you up on your offer and drop by now and again. As for those who'll want to hang me, I've found that trying to give their opinions a little respect (when possible of course) goes a long way in disarming even the hardest of the hardcore. And when I'm out-argued, out-foxed or plain out-matched, all the better it be a conservative. Good talking with you.
Posted by: wavygravy at January 27, 2006 12:04 AM (oxMjD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Sunnis to Zaqueery GTFO My Province Beotch
Sunni insurgent groups join together to run Al-Qaeda out of Anbar Province in Iraq.
Via The Australian News :
"There was a meeting right after the bombings," one Ramadi resident said, speaking anonymously for fear of reprisals.
"Tribal leaders and political figures gathered to form the Anbar Revolutionaries to fight al-Qa'ida in Anbar and force them to leave the province.
"Since then, there has been all-out war between them."
Last week, three local Islamist groups around Ramadi - the 1920 Brigades, the Mujaheddin Army and the Islamic Movement for Iraq's Mujaheddin - met to distance themselves from their fellow Islamists in al-Qa'ida.
The statement condemned "armed operations which target innocents" and affirmed "a halt to co-operation with al-Qa'ida".
In a further sign of the rifts emerging within Iraq's insurgency, Zarqawi has also stepped aside as the head of a new council of radical groups in favour of an Iraqi, according to a posting on a website used by al-Qa'ida.
Hat Tip:
Jihad Watch.
Sing it with me! GTFO GTFO GTFO my province Beotch!
Posted by: Howie at
10:05 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It's just a turf battle. Don't read too much into this.
Posted by: Ariya at January 25, 2006 10:24 AM (uxW3N)
2
Ah yes but a turf battle I can delight in.
Posted by: Howie at January 25, 2006 10:28 AM (D3+20)
3
Me too, Howie. And kind of interesting how the "civil war" has not manifested itself. Instead, those who try to instigate such a war end up getting their a$$es thrown out.
Posted by: Oyster at January 25, 2006 10:33 AM (osKlJ)
4
You're right Ariya, but it would be far better for Iraqis to be in control rather than al Qaeda, even if they are still fighting our forces, because they're fighting for different reasons, and are not committing acts of terrorism against their own people. Also, if they are just fighting to get US troops to leave, then local sheikhs can be put in charge of local affairs, and our troops can go fight AQ elsewhere.
This is a compromise situation, but any compromise which gets us closer to our goals is acceptable. We don't necessarily have to have the Iraqis as our allies, but we certainly don't want them as enemies, so if they're willing to take up the fight against AQ, we should try to make an agreement with them.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 25, 2006 10:33 AM (0yYS2)
5
Well, the Sunnis just want Al Qaeda out so they can force their own standard on the country (again). And we know how that went...
Posted by: Ariya at January 25, 2006 11:06 AM (uxW3N)
6
Yeah but it's too late for that now, they've gotten to like the taste of freedom, and voting seems to be all the rage these days, so any recidivists will be engulfed by the majority who just want peace and prosperity.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 25, 2006 11:19 AM (0yYS2)
7
Heh...
Article from Rooters:
-----
An Iraqi television cameraman was killed in clashes between Sunni rebels and U.S. forces in the insurgent stronghold of Ramadi on Tuesday, witnesses said on Wednesday.
-----
Like I said... turf war.
Posted by: Ariya at January 25, 2006 01:06 PM (uxW3N)
8
A muslim is still a muslim. Same as a rat is still a rat. Vermin at best.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 25, 2006 07:12 PM (YjVDY)
9
Heh. Couldn't have said it better myself rooster, but in defense of rats, they can't help what they are, but muslims are
supposed to be human beings, complete with free will and that little thing we call humanity, but which we know they lack.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 12:42 AM (0yYS2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Iranian Official Calls Ahmadinejad “Certafiably Insane”.
If you suspect IranÂ’s moves are just to drive up oil prices to make more money, yes thatÂ’s true. But is that all? I think not.
MichNews : "’This guy is not a politician,’ the source quoted the official as saying. ‘He is certifiably insane.’" (In America, we would call a person like that a "religious nut.")
Why? Because he is such a religious fanatic of the lunatic sort that he is causing alarm even among his own Muslims. There are Muslims and then there are even the fringe, "insane"
Muslims who believe that the world will change for the better when it gets worse.
The Messiah can only reappear when there is global chaos. At present, there is not enough of that. Therefore, the Messiah awaits his disciple, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to see through the details. That is why the President will not heed UN Security Council sanctions, nor dialogue with mere mortals, when he is already hearing messages from the invisible one yet to return.
Chaos part of the plan indeed! ItÂ’s in IranÂ’s interest to push up tension. More tension = higher oil prices. But is that all?
That is why Muslims in Iran state that the new President is not actually a politician. He is a religious zealot of a killing cult called "Islam." Actually, all Muslims are a part of that murdering cult; but the President is even more so.
Muslims believe that America is the Great Satan and should be conquered; however the more astute hold that such should not be broadcast globally. However, this new President says what he believes for the world media to pick up his every breath. That is because he seizes so strongly his fanatic message network with the invisible that he concludes the world should know of his privileged status with the one yet to return.
“Murdering cult”, not my words but hey at least he’s honest about it.
Note the cultic rituals overseen by the new Iranian President: "Meeting with his cabinet shortly after taking office last August, the new president reportedly had Cabinet members sign a loyalty oath to the 12th imam, which they dropped into a well near where the Shiite messiah is believed to be hiding.
"Reports in government media outlets in Tehran have quoted Ahmadinejad as having told regime officials that the 12th imam will reappear in two years. That was too much for Iranian legislator Akbar Alami, who publicly questioned Ahmadinejad's judgment, saying that even Islam's holiest figures have never made such claims."
So when members of a “murdering cult” describe you as a “religious nut”…never mind enough said.
Related Via Drudge :
TEHRAN - Iran's defence minister hit back Wednesday at veiled Israeli threats of an attack, saying Iran and its allies could put the Jewish state "in an eternal coma" like that of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Hat Tip: Cube Neighbor Dave in whom I've now succeeded in creating an addiction to Michelle Malkin's blog. Muahahahahaha!
Posted by: Howie at
09:14 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 501 words, total size 3 kb.
1
So he's 'insane' not because he wants to destroy Israel and the US and have Islam rule the world, but rather because he unceremoniously kicked people out of their priveledged positions and blabs about the secret plans for Islam to rule the world. Okee Dokee.
Posted by: Graeme at January 25, 2006 10:10 AM (UrtKW)
2
Oh no it's all the above +.
Posted by: Howie at January 25, 2006 10:13 AM (D3+20)
3
He's a grab-bag of symptoms really, all of which cry out for immediate termination.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 25, 2006 10:35 AM (0yYS2)
4
Muslims believe America is the great Satan? The problem with muslims is that they fornicate with swine. This affects their ability to think rationally because they like pigs better than muslim women. On this, we agree. A yorkshire is more appealing than a raghead in a veil running down the street with fist raised cursing their betters.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 25, 2006 07:20 PM (YjVDY)
5
Yes, I agree that the iraian president is
totaly insane. And his remarks about the
holocaust being a myths makes him look like
the fool that he is. The world does not need
some one like him in it. And the idea of
making the whole world islamic, no way. He
needs to be commited into a mental ward.
Posted by: T.J. at March 14, 2006 03:52 PM (WdYWm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
WTW Free Ham! Or Why I love The JOOOOOS
Cube neighbor M, just one row over and forward of my current location, is having company this weekend. Parts of her family are Jewish so they have a Kosher and Non-Kosher fridge. A set of dishes and pans as well one “
no pork allowed” and another “
has touched pig” set. I’m not really privy to all the details but one affects me greatly. When they come over M also finishes off all the pork. That way there ain't any pig in the house when said fine Jewish guests arrive. Well, by golly, prosperity has hit me in the ass again! They were unable to finish off all the ham they had so today I gets me some
FREE HAM and all day long.
Outstanding!!! Now if you will excuse me time fer breakfast.
Living high on the hog, baby, high on the hog.
Here are your White Trash Wednesday Bloggers
Posted by: Howie at
08:31 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.
If I Get This Stupid, I'll Be A Government Contractor AP Reporter Too
WASHINGTON (AP) - Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.
Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.
Germany, Spain, UK, S. Korea, Kosovo, Croatia, Japan, do I really need to list all the places where no war is currently being waged where U.S. troops are deployed?
But only Iraq is hindering our abilities?
Will anyone admit to hiring "retired officer" Krepinevich?
Nice try, Associatedantiamerican Press, but it still won't work. You've been beating this drum for over 4 years now.
Now get back to the real news you're good at. We thirst for all that is Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.
UPDATE: My apologies to Mr. Krepinivich, wherever you are. It's not your fault the AP is going to take the slightest hint of bad news and run with it.
Anyway, my point is, if the Army is stretched too thin, a large part of the problem is the fact that they're sitting in places where they're not needed to be.
Just what the hell are we still doing in Kosovo anyway? Weren't we supposed to be out of there like, 7 Christmases ago? What are we defending Germany from now? The war's only been over for 60 years.
Posted by: Vinnie at
03:41 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Horn of Africa, Malaysia, Phillipines, Central and South America...it is a global war on terror.
Lest we forget.
Durand
Posted by: durand at January 25, 2006 03:59 AM (IdRWM)
2
"will anyone admit to hiring "retired officer" Krepinvich?
Whoever that lost soul was disappeared on a rendition journey. deservedly LOL, but that won't stop the usual suspects from holding up Krepinvich's still born child all thru out the 2006 election cycle.
great site this btw.
Posted by: Rubin at January 25, 2006 04:41 AM (AFNsp)
3
What a tease! Where are the Brangelina pics?
Oh well. I'm sure the troops in Iraq agree with this guy. "Oh God, we marines... we just can't TAKE it anymore. Somebody, please, get us out of here! Can't UNICEF handle this?" This is opinion, not fact, but I just don't see it.
Posted by: AbbaGav at January 25, 2006 04:59 AM (5XR09)
4
Haven't we seen throughout history what a broken fighting army looks like: starving soldiers, ragged uniforms, broken down equipment, ammunition and fuel shortages, mass surrenderings, desertions, high casualty rates. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong reports and images, but the US Army doesn't look anything close to broken to me. It makes me wonder how much the Pentagon paid for this study.
Posted by: Graeme at January 25, 2006 05:54 AM (UrtKW)
5
"Germany, Spain, UK, S. Korea, Kosovo, Croatia, Japan, do I really need to list all the places where no war is currently being waged where U.S. troops are deployed?
But only Iraq is hindering our abilities?"
I wonder what's different between those places and Iraq?
Posted by: actus at January 25, 2006 09:19 AM (TEHSD)
6
Krepenovich is a highly regarded analyst in military and national security policy circles. He's a West Pointer with a Harvard PhD and has written more important books and articles on defense subjects than just about anyone alive today.
That doesn't mean that he's right--much less that the AP assessment of what he said accurately captures his report. But he's not just some yahoo.
Posted by: James Joyner at January 25, 2006 09:38 AM (UjbiU)
7
Graeme, I'm with you. I realize that equipment and training are very important, but morale and will are the two most important aspects of victory. Our soldiers have high morale and they intend to win this one in Iraq, so I totally disagree with the study, or how the study has been portrayed by the AP.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 25, 2006 10:05 AM (rUyw4)
8
Vinnie Andrew Krepinevich isn't a fool. His opinions are respected by many which is why he was chosen to do this study. Nor does he say that the army is broken however if we expect to stay in Iraq until the insurgency is eliminated that our army may well be in danger of breaking. He may not be as adept as some in talking points such as "tipping point" but his views do deserve more than a cursory dismissal. You might try reading his Sept 2005 article in Foreign Affairs which is published by the Council of Foreign Relations, which would really be difficult to view as "left leaning".
Posted by: john Ryan at January 25, 2006 10:17 AM (TcoRJ)
Posted by: Graeme at January 25, 2006 10:18 AM (UrtKW)
10
Of course rectus doesn't understand the difference between what's happening in Iraq and every other place where the Army is deployed, so I'll spell it out with small words so he can understand.
Rectus, men and women join the Army so they can do do Army stuff, like kill the enemies of their country with all those cool bombs and guns and such. This is fun. This is why most soldiers and Marines volunteer for multiple tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, but very few join the military because they want to do a Kosovo tour where they are consumed by boredom from following the same pointless routine in a long, pointless deployment, instead of fighting the enemies of their country. Let me make it even simpler: Killing jihadis = good, spending 18 months watching North Korean soldiers watching you = bad.
I don't expect you to understand, because you're just a whining, snivelling, limp-wristed, bedwetting liberal, and therefore
not a man, and so not likely to understand manly things, like war, muscle cars, red meat, cold beer, hot chicks, etc.. War is an act between two groups of people, one of whom is the aggressor and the other the defender, and is usually undertaken because one group wants to control the other, or simply wants something the other has. Of couse this is where you start mindlessly chanting about blood and oil, but you're an idiot, and that's to be expected, but you're still wrong.
In case you've been comatose, living in a cave, or liberal for the past few decades, and therefore unable to keep up with things in the world, you might be surprised to learn that muslims have been at war with civilization since they started calling themselves muslims, and have been attacking America and murdering its citizens for the last 27 years, counting from 1979, when Iran, currently the largest burr under our saddle, attacked our sovreign soil, i.e., the embassy, and took Americans hostage, for which they have not yet paid. This is mainly because there are too many whiney liberals like you who would rather hide under the bed than go out and make the bad men go away, like Men are supposed to do. Well, they are basically savages from the late stone age, and therefore are no smarter than you, although at least they have enough balls to face their enemies, suicidal though that course may be for them. You, on the other hand, have probably already bought a koran, a mandress, and a prayer rug so that you can show them what a good little dhimmi bitch you are.
Liberals like you offer nothing to the furtherance of civilization, but rather contribute to its destruction at every chance. If your kind aren't stopped, you will eventually have wiped all trace of it from the earth, and will have replaced it with some corporate-branded, neo-tribal, socialist multiculturalism in which the only sin is to be an individual who thinks for themselves. Your kind are the ones who were first in line to join the Nazi's in Germany, and the Fascists in Italy, and the Communists anywhere they were committing their murders in the name of whatever demegogue was leading them. You are subhuman scum and should be taken out and shot, and are only saved by the fact that you are afforded the right to be so by the very system which you seek to overthrow. Liberals should all be killed for the good of civilization.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 25, 2006 11:00 AM (0yYS2)
11
"... the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency."
The study is something that should have been done. The conclusions may even be true. But I don't understand why this statement should not have been 'classified' - its release is clearly damaging to the war effort, whether the conclusion is correct or not.
Posted by: Glenmore at January 25, 2006 11:30 AM (h/mwe)
12
The guy is a good officer. This wasn't intended to give aid and comfort to left - but you all should expect something like this to be twisted and used for the anti-Iraq and Afghan crowd.
There have been other similar analyses within the military - its all part of a current internal debate revolving around a massive on-going re-organization/direction and utilization within the military initiated by Rumsfeld and his supporters. I'm not one of them.
There are "complaints" - there have been "mistakes". Normally we would be able to discuss these "openly" and deal with them - but given the current internal political climate and the nature of the internal opposition - we can't.
We are stretched thin and overtaxed - funding is skewered as well as resources.
Some of us are looking at three possible corrections. Withdrawl from Korea, the Balkans, and reduction of NATO involvement to a few key airbases and some small troop deployments in Eastern Europe only.
Posted by: hondo at January 25, 2006 12:16 PM (3aakz)
13
Any anti-Iraq, Afghan anti-war anti admin-adherent who wants to cuddled up we me because of what I've just said - I'll bitch slap ya like a lil' pussy n' go off on ya like a Jersey truckdriver! - And I norally DO NOT converse like that - but I will make an exception this time.
Posted by: hondo at January 25, 2006 12:22 PM (3aakz)
14
Did I just get bitch-slapped by James Joyner?
Sweet!
Hey, if I'm wrong I'm wrong, I don't mind being corrected. Except on my own blog. I'm never wrong on my own blog.
Posted by: Vinnie at January 25, 2006 12:51 PM (f289O)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
182kb generated in CPU 0.0654, elapsed 0.3091 seconds.
137 queries taking 0.2689 seconds, 484 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.