Assorted Babble by Suzie
Hi Suzie. I can see you are keen on the USA from your blog, and sure OBL and Mousawi were/are doing great evil, but I think it is worth a thought that the US military is not so perfect, and, that none of this would have happened had USA not supported OBL in the first place, or gone to war in Iraq. ... worth a thought.
Phil, I highly support our military and going war in Iraq along with respecting our President and his decisions. The previous administration should have eliminated OBL. In my eyes and heart, our military can do no wrong.
Bin Laden? Hm... The name seems familiar, but I can't quite place it.
Wasn't he a pretty important topic four or five years ago?
Suzie, I love that you are puting news on your blog... but I do miss your more personal entries. I'd like to know what's going on with YOU and YOUR life! I hope everything is going good for you. You are a very special person... as I've said before.
And, of course, if we had stayed the course in Viet Nam and helped chew up another couple of Vietnamese armies chock-a-block with Soviet and Chinese made vehicles the Soviet Union would have been draining its precious resources to North Viet Nam. By 1972 the VC was done as a fighting force and the battles were actual stand-up ones with the NVA... all using Soviet and Chinese supplied equipment since their own production capability had been bombed out of any real capability.
So, while our military is not perfect, there are far reaching repercussions for not staying the course on a plan of action, also. The actual loss of life by the US had increased as there was actual and hard combat going on. With air superiority armored formation and mobile infantry formation were shredded. By that point in time the USSR's economy was already in heavy decline and they only recuperated once they no longer had to supply the NVA military with much of anything. Soon after that you get Afghanistan, which truly broke their industrial base which could not keep basic necessities supplied to its people *and* fight a war of attrition directly instead of by proxy.
Carter did *nada* against Iran, which turned terrorism into something deeply entrenched in the Middle East and we are paying for *that* today, too. I do blame the Reagan and Bush I administrations for not following up in Afghanistan... but I noticed no one on the other side of the aisle pushing for that *either*.
What Osama wants, hopefully, Osama does not get! Why should we respect his wishes when he has no respect for our very lives? Now he wants favors? He should be told to go "you-know-what" himelf! GRRRRRR!
Thanks everyone for leaving a comment, I've been at the doctors for over 5 hours and too sick to respond or debate....will be back soon. hopefully!
"A reminder to the ones that may be misinformed, we are WINNING the WAR on TERROR. If only we were not underminded by some of our own i.e. several liberals, MSM, ACLU, just idiot moonbats, and the newspapers that leak information to the terrorists such as the traitors... N.Y. Times and their liberal followers that print sensitive information, we would be stronger and united."
--------------------------------------------------
------------
And to that I say Amen!!! I think it is becoming obvious that when Zarqawi and/or OBL felt the need to come forward with one of these tapes they are grasping at straws. Now that Zarqawi is gone OBL is getting even more desperate. If the libs could get their act together we would've defeated this enemy already.
Thoes wily "libs", huh?
Last time I checked, it was the Administration and a Republican congress who pushed tirelessy for war with Iraq, when the enemy was in Afghanistan and Pakistan all along.
First off Phil and I don't like that you and I have the same name because that sickens me. It is plain to see that you can't see that we sided with Iraq to defeat Iran when it was in our best interest to do so. That is much like how we sided with Russia against Hitler in WWII, we always choose the lesser of two evils and we do that to save the amount of loss to our own soldiers so if you can't tell the difference I would say that you are much more moraly confused by what the deffinition of evil really is.
omgwhut why do you use obfiscation to try to twist the argument when you know darn well or if not you should go back to the first speech that President George W. Bush made right after 9/11, Here in a nutshell is what he said and I quote. "We will be going after the Terrorist and any and any and all who harbour and support the terrorists. Zarqawi was in Iraq before our troops even landed in Iraq, that is well documented if you have ever listened to Christopher Hitchens has stated this and has the documentation of proof of that, and he is a Liberal who says the truth unlike you unhinged Lunatic Leftists Liberals.
I find it horrifying that neither of you even bothered to mention weapons of mass destruction in your kneejerk rush to defend the war.
Hell, I also find it sad that you feel a need to isolate and label me as an unhinged lunatic.
All because I actually know the facts behind this war and stand by them today, while you know damn well that nation building in Iraq had nothing to do with a preemptive attack on Iran.
Yea right omgwhut you know nothing, you only get your talking points from the far leftist kooks like the Koz kids. You have no facts other wise you would post your facts instead of jabbering away.
Listen do a little bit of research and find out and tell me where any other Democracy has ever waged war on another Democracy then when you find one post it here with the link. Hint you are not going to find any, Key in point, when you create a democracy in the middle of the middle east you stabelize the middle east making it more difficult for Terrorist to move around that is why the Terrorists are trying harder because they know the same thing.
So don't give me your made up facts by the Liberal Propoganda machine, I know better than that.
Another thing omgwhut the previous administration also beleived that they had Weapons of Mass Destruction so don't use that old line, it doesn't work any longer. We have tapes of them saying it so no need to be making up stuff like that again.
Calm down.
First off, don't tell me I don't know my facts and bash me for not posting them when you didn't even ask.
Second of all, when you say Liberal Propaganda Machine™, I think you're full of shit. You don't know where I get my news, so don't call me a sheep when I'm willing to bet that you're an avid viewer of Fox news yourself. I love how regardless of the fact that the Republican party has a powerful majority control of the executive office, Congress and the Senate, as well as the Supreme Court, conservatives still whine and moan about the Liberal Media Conspiracy, as though they're helpess in the grand scheme of politics.
What are you hoping to do by telling me that Clinton believed Iraq possessed WMDs as well? Really, what are you expecting to accomplish? Do you assume that I'm a rabid supporter of Bill Clinton, who will foam at the mouth for your even daring to suggest such a thing? Are you making the notion that you believe the US has indeed failed in Iraq, and doing nothing more than brushing off the blame?
In those two cases, all I can tell you is based on the evidence we have now, Bill Clinton's administration still did not use the military to attack and invade Iraq for the wrong reasons like the Bush Administraiton did.
The only weapons of mass destruction that Iraq possessed were chemical and biological strains that were given to Saddam's regime by the US, along with satellite photography of Iran troop movements. The Clinton Administration and every administration since the Reagan years knew this. These same weapons shells that Santorum was so briefly parading over a week ago. The same ones that official State Department documents have already dismissed, saying that they're fifteen to eighteen years old, and are no longer a threat. These things have a shelf-life.
You guys want to talk about words straight from the horse's mouth? What about President Bush's infamous sentence during his State of the Union Speech back in 2003?
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Gee, or how about this one?
"We cannot wait for final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Nothing makes the case for war more than that.
So that blatantly says two things. One, that the President obviously had a disregard for what the American intelligence community under Tenet had already been saying about Iraq's "weapons program" if he were so quick to cast aside proof for an invasion, and two, that this Administration had obviously hyped this war up over a nuclear weapons program, which is not what Saddam Hussein possessed.
How can you spin this crap?
For those on the left that want to get out of Iraq “right now”… UBL talks about fighting us until we are sent packing to our own country. Well everyone yapping about how we are helping recruiting for al Qaeda right now, think about it. You think their recruiting will go down if we pull out and UBL is able to send out a tape saying “We’ve won, we defeated the only superpower”?
What, you mean like General George Casey? His tentative plan is calling for the first wave of troop reductions this September.
Hingsight is always a good thing when its too late, isn't it?
omgwhut your still spining your crap unless you can point to links, put links in your statments for proof, otherwise it's just spin.
Any type of withdraw was to be based upon the situation on the ground, not the political grandstanding democrats have been going nuts with. A military leader suggesting what he feels is best to win is far different than politicians wanting to score points. In addition his idea was not to publicize the information in the way politicians do.
I can shut Omgwhut up...by deleting and banning their address from commenting. Sometimes I allow a couple of looney lefties to comment for entertainment purposes....of their stupidity but when it gets to this point....Omgwhut time is up. Your choice....next comment will be deleted and then you will be banned.
For what, telling you guys the god-honest truth and incessantly being labeled a master of spin for it?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS...26/iraq.troops/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...14/
ixworld.html
Yeah, figures. This' only reinforces my belief that yours is always the coward's way to stop someone when they're losing in a debate, anyway.
Go ahead, I don't care.
Thanks for that link! You gave us all a link that has the New York Times disclosing possible troop movements. I can just add that to the list of the way the NYT is blowing the war for us. In addition did you read the line in the piece that said:
“…but neither the general nor Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would confirm such a plan.”
How is the New York Times discussing the plausibility of a reduction in troop levels hurting our military over there? This isn't classified knowledge in the least, its a tentative plan that's being drafted right now, though.
I say General Casey is just a cut 'n' runner, myself.
Commenting by HaloScan
