Prev | List | Random | Next
What’s been your impression of the troops here you’ve talked to?That from a Stars and Stripes interview with Cher. The rest is at the link - do read it all.
It’s not different than the other ones I’ve talked to. They want to get better to get back to their unit. The main thing that people say is they want to get better. They want to go back. Obviously, I can’t speak for them, but it seems to me that going back to their buddies is more important than almost anything else. Going back to their group. Going back to their unit. Going back to their friends. It happened today and it happened a lot at Walter Reed.
It’s been quoted that you’re against the war in Iraq but for the troops. Explain that. Help me understand that. How can you be against the war but for the troops?
I don’t have to be for this war to support the troops because these men and women do what they think is right. They do what they’re told to do. They do it with a really good heart. They do the best they can. They don’t ask for anything.
They just do what they’re supposed to do. So, my beef is not with them at all. I want to go to Baghdad; I’m really excited about doing that. I don’t want to go in the summer, however. I want to go when it cools down a little bit.…
Is that plan in the works right now?
It’s hard. I was supposed to be brought here by the congressmen, but if I waited for them, I wouldn’t be here. I really came because (Col. Gamble) said come over there. I want to go to Baghdad and this congressman asked me if I wanted to go. I said yes. `
Will you do any performing there?
Just talking and going to meet the guys. I’d like to go outside of the Green Zone. I’d like to go to other places. …
Why would you do that?
It would be really exciting for me to go and see people who don’t expect to see anybody. Also, it seems really — when I say this it’s going to sound dumb — but it seems like the least you could do. People are there. They’re fighting. Even though I don’t believe in the war, if they’re there, they’re fighting, it seems like it would be a good place to be.
Talk about Operation Helmet and what the goal is there.
Robin Williams comes to mind as one of the few other entertainers in this category.
Update: I can confirm this passage as accurate:
They want to get better to get back to their unit. The main thing that people say is they want to get better. They want to go back. Obviously, I can’t speak for them, but it seems to me that going back to their buddies is more important than almost anything else. Going back to their group. Going back to their unit. Going back to their friends. It happened today and it happened a lot at Walter Reed.Not the first time I've heard this. In fact, I hear it first-hand on my all too rare visits to the wounded. But Mrs G, who devotes much more time to the cause along with Maryann at Soldier's Angels Germany can testify to this too.
Our time here is fast coming to an end - and Soldier's Angels Germany could use a few more hands. If you're in the KMC area (although Maryann commutes from quite a bit farther away) visit the web site and offer a hand. You'll be glad you did.
I think that there would be a lot less frustration on this issue if the distinction was made between the war effort and the decision to go to war. Those who support the troops, but oppose the war EFFORT are hypocrites. It is, however, possible to support the troops and not agree with the decision to go to war, so long as the person actually supports the troops efforts towards achieving victory. To not do that is to hope for an American loss, and that is not supportive of the troops.Posted by bandit.three.six at July 16, 2006 08:11 PM
I'll simply say that I support the troops and their mission and pray that they come home safely.Posted by Anna at July 16, 2006 10:53 PM
I found the apparent intent of this article to be to create bad feelings between the families of the Fallen heroes David J. Babineau, Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker and the families of those who are accused in the rape of an Iraqi girl. It added little else to the story. Just another example of drive-by journalism where the innocent by-standers are the families of all involved. I think Greyhawk's analysis of the NY Times story was right on.
Oops! Meant to post this under the previous article.Posted by Marian at July 17, 2006 01:05 AM
Henry Rollins is like that also. Very much against the war and GW, but very much supportive of the troops and has made a number of trips to Iraq. I disagree with nearly everything he says, but I dont doubt the level of support he gives the troops.Posted by buzz at July 17, 2006 02:53 AM
I'm not buying this. People with this dual take are saying, in effect, what you are doing is illegal, immoral, counter-productive, etc - take your pick. But you, personally, I think you're just fine. You may not have the moral courage or the intelligence to see that what you are doing is wrong, but you're just fine.
It is the biggest insult to a fellow citizen soldier involved in a life-and-death struggle that I can imagine. It is also patronizing as all hell.
This imposes an impossible psychological burden on the troops. There is a difference between a non-combatant war critic saying this, and a soldier on the battlefield left to ponder it.
It is, basically, nonsense; a tortured kind of self-serving moral equivalence. At least with pacifists and subversives you know where you stand. With them I have no argument on the field of honor. They are fighting for something they believe in.
This argument is a position without honor, and it imposes on the troops a narrative of their own combat history as dishonor foolisly conspired in, with which they are supposed to live for the rest of their lives . . . if they buy into this. It is the same bill of goods now being sold to previously/supposedly dishonorable Vietnam Vets like myself.
Don't do this to another generation of soldiers. Don't dare co-sign this knife in the back so sharp a soldier is not supoposed to feel it.Posted by John Boyle at July 17, 2006 03:04 AM
As much as I appreciate all the entertainers who 'support the troops', I do have a problem with that added "...but not the war". Here's why. Saying you support the troops but not the cause they are literally risking their lives for (as volunteers, no less) is a very patronizing attitude towards folks that deserve a little bit more respect than that. It's the short-hand and polite equivalent of saying, "Well, gosh, those Marines and Soldiers, they're just so friendly and adorable, I think the world of them. Unfortunately, they aren't very bright (unlike actors and singers, of course) or they would have seen through Bush and Cheney's schemes and refused to show up for this racist, illegal war for oil. Regardless of their mental and moral shortcomings, though, I really do support the sheep...er, I meant troops, and I really do hope they come home safe so they can come to their senses (with the help of me and my celebrity friends, naturally) and help elect a President who isn't a total fascist warmonger".
Thanks but no thanks, if it's all the same to me. I would just as soon have folks like Charlie Daniels, Ted Nugent and Tom Selleck in my corner, who support me AND the cause I'm fighting for, and leave Cher and the rest of the 'limosine left' out of it. If I want to be treated like a slightly retarded child by some pampered celebrities, I'll ask for it. Or not, as the case may be.
Pave Low John
John Boyle and Pave Low:
OK... But where does that leave those of us on the left who are honestly and sincerely against the war - yet don't feel animosity towards the troops? "Some of my best friends are troops."
The major difference here is Cher is against the war, yet she got involved with a project to help protect the troops. She's not the most eloquent spokesperson out there, but her actions speak louder than her words.Posted by SFC D at July 17, 2006 04:46 AM
I agree with SFC D. And I think if she hangs around the troops long enough, she *will* be supporting the war. I don't see her as condescending.Posted by Maggie45 at July 17, 2006 05:03 AM
I support the troops. I want them to come home where they belong, rather than be ground up in the Liar-in-Chief's failed neocon imperalist adventure.Posted by WW at July 17, 2006 05:14 AM
That's very nice.
One thing that I think people who are opposed to the war and support the troops would do well to realize is that most of the fighting there is figurative. Very few of the people there do any actual fighting; just a lot of hard work, in poor conditions, under constant threat.Posted by aaron at July 17, 2006 06:21 AM
Here's a new angle for ya. The President gave the military a mission, or "adventure" as you call it. Therefore, if the mission fails it is because we in the military failed to achieve it. How does claiming that the mission failed support the troops?Posted by bandit.three.six at July 17, 2006 07:01 AM
I dont really buy into it either. I have seen people explain how they can support the troops but not the mission, but it is rare.
Inevitably in most, as in Cher's case, they come out and say how they feel the troops are just doing their jobs and that others sent them there. Cher pretty much says that when troops tell her they feel that they are doing the right thing, she takes it to mean that doing the right thing is following orders so as not to get into trouble. Wrong. When I say I think we are doing the right thing, I am talking collectively as in the mission is the right thing to do.
The condescention comes into play in that they know the average soldier is not a decision maker in the macro sense and has little say in the overarching mission. That does not mean that the avarage soldier does not have the ability to make these decisions if the situation requires it, or in their own personal lives.
I dont know, maybe she didnt mean that and I am just too sensitive to the stereotype of "poor dumb cannonfodder just doing what they are told" being spouted by people whose entire military education comes from Hollywood movies and HBO miniseries.Posted by TJ at July 17, 2006 07:16 AM
I'm an active duty member of the Army, and I just got back from Iraq about a month and a half ago, and when I went back home on leave all of my friends were very supportive of both me and a buddy of mine I brought home. Out of all of my friends, only one of them can actually be said to be 'for' the war in Iraq.
To put this into its proper perspective, quite a few of my friends are hardcore lefties who make Al Gore look like Pat Buchanan. Hell, a collective of vegan anarchist environmentalist musicians played at one of homecoming bashes, and they were very sincere in their support and concern for me -- and I certainly didn't make a secret that I am very proud of what I did in Iraq.
To be honest, my own feelings about the war are conflicted. In fact, it would probably be accurate for me to say that I'm 'against' it at least as much as I am 'for' it. And I'm not the only one; I know a lot of guys who would rather go to Afghanistan than Iraq.
However, none of that kept me from pouring my heart and soul into my work and doing the best job that I could. And now that I'm in the rear, it's not stopping me from providing the best support for the Company that replaced mine.
Yes, there are a lot of people out there who repeat the "against the war but for the troops" mantra insincerely, but there are many who actually mean it -- and in my own experience, there's a lot more of the latter than the former.Posted by Chris at July 17, 2006 08:03 AM
Thank you for your service. I will spend a day next weeek with my former Vietnam Battalion, on its way to Iraq from Fort Knox in a few weeks, and I'll be interested to see how they feel about the war there now, and how they feel while there, and after they return.
What you describe at home sounds like the usual leftist sympathy/pandering for the victim. Is that how you see yourself? Because, if you are proud of what you did in Iraq, they are telling you they are not. Do you not notice that? It is beyond me how anyone - you on the one hand, your "friends" on the other, can disconnect the individual from the existential situation in furtherance of which he invests his all, even his very life.
So, my question to you is this: why don't you feel animosity toward the troops? How soft is your opposition to the war? How do you arrange your moral vision to be able see the war as something "other" than those who actually wage it?
If nothing else, this exchange has given an old timer like me an insight into the moral confusion that has been bred into the younger generations. Everyone's point of view is just as valid as everyone else's, and people who are at complete odds about issues of life-and-death and civilizational survival can be on both sides at once and not even see the incongruity.
Or is it that this war is imagined to be just an historically insignificant little sideshow, of no lasting or vital importance to us as a people, so it's no big deal what face you put on in regards to it?
And the day comes when nothing is worth fighting to preserve; it is all just a random choice - vanilla, chocolate or strawberry.
Maybe, to my horror, I am a closet Marxist after all, because I have to agree with Marx that "the personal is the political" and some on this thread have somehow managed to remain in denial about that conclusion.Posted by John Boyle at July 17, 2006 03:30 PM
How does claiming that the mission failed support the troops?
How does worshipping a Liar-in-Chief and his lies, including the thousands of casualties and hundreds of billions of dollars it has cost, support the troops who are dying for nothing?Posted by WW at July 17, 2006 04:30 PM
"I want them to come home where they belong"
"worshipping a Liar-in-Chief and his lies"
No WW, you do not support the troops. That's ok, you don't have to support us, we don't really care. BTDT, go the t-shirt and the PH. I would go back if they let me. Whether or not you support me has has no bearing on my actions or feelings.
Why do you want us to believe you support us when you do not?Posted by Mike at July 17, 2006 09:04 PM
At least she has the courage of her convictions. She will put her money where her mouth is. And the guys would love to see her. Her visit might do more to combat radical Islam than a host of RPGs.
Do I like her politics? No. Does it matter? No. If she does what she says, she will have earned our respect.
And that is all anyone can ask for.
SubsunkPosted by Subsunk at July 17, 2006 09:17 PM
Uh, Sub, are you sure that the guys would 'love' to see Cher? Don't get me wrong, I've been deployed, I know what happens to your standards when you're downrange too long, but damn, I'd have to be pretty long without female companionship before I started looking forward to a USO visit from Sonny Bono's old ball-n-chain, know what I'm saying? Forgot politics, where the hell are the cheerleaders? And didn't Hooter's do a USO event in Kandahar not too long ago? Lucky bastards...Posted by Pave Low John at July 18, 2006 12:51 AM
She didn't have to go there. I am conflicted about people like her, but as others have said Henry Rollins & Robin Williams visit the troops, and are lefties. It was a good thing she did.Posted by Baldy at July 18, 2006 02:30 AM
Pave, here.Posted by aaron at July 18, 2006 04:08 AM
No WW, you do not support the troops. That's ok, you don't have to support us, we don't really care. BTDT, go the t-shirt and the PH. I would go back if they let me. Whether or not you support me has has no bearing on my actions or feelings.
Why do you want us to believe you support us when you do not?
And whether or not you believe me has no bearing on my actions or feelings. Want to go back? Fine, go. I just wish you'd hold a bake sale to finance it rather than keeping wasting my money on a losing war fought for Israel and Big Oil.Posted by WW at July 18, 2006 07:08 AM
By the way, Mike, after three years how come the U.S. can't even control the capital of the occupied country? Think about Vietnam. The U.S. controlled Saigon up until the final week or two. You have failed. It's over. It's lost. Congratulations.
...and the true colors are finally revealed.
C'mon, WW, be honest. You're not anti-war, you are merely on the opposing side. It's okay, you can level with us. If you think UBL, AMZ, and Saddam are merely 'misquoted' while GWB is truly evil and the thought of another massive attack on a U.S. city (along with the attendant thousands of dead white oil-consuming imperialists) just fills your lefty heart with delight, go ahead, shout it to the virtual sky. We don't mind, better an honest enemy than a dishonest 'supporter'...Posted by Pave Low John at July 18, 2006 11:42 AM
Thank you for your service as well.
No, I don't see myself as a victim at all. And I can say with certainty that I wasn't treated as a victim when I went home on leave, and I definitely didn't feel like I was being pandered to in any way. (In fact, the very thought that they were treating me like a victim makes me laugh when I think of some of the conversations I've had with my friends.)
The personal isn't the political. I didn't buy that claim when my Leftist friends were saying it back in the day, and I don't buy it now. That notion and its full implications strike me as distinctly un-American.Posted by Chris at July 18, 2006 11:52 AM
I think Saddam was a nasty dictator. Not as bad as some (Mao, Stalin, Hitler, the imperial Japanese, Kim il Wang & son, Idi Amin, the theocrats who ran Tibet prior to the Chinese, the Burmese junta) and on a par with many (the Chinese, Castro, the bad Russian tzars, the Saudis, the Nigerians, the whackjobs who run Uzbekistan, the nutcase in what used to be Rhodesia).
Osama bin Laden is a garden variety pirate who (from his viewpoint) got lucky. al-Zarqawi was a low-level thug magnified for U.S. propaganda purposes.
It's true that I am no pacifist. Sometimes you have to go to war. But it should be with great reluctance. You'd think the whackjobs who run the U.S. would have learned that one from Vietnam, but no. They decided that we lost that one because of "the hippies," which couldn't possibly be further from the truth. So they had to go do another one, and get defeated again.
Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11th. Nothing. If you want to prevent another attack on a U.S. city, a more logical response would be to attack Saudi Arabia. The most logical response would be to declare that the U.S. will henceforth be neutral in Mideast conflicts involving Israel, and that we will immediately get dead serious about energy conservation and alternative sources.
The Liar-in-Chief should have gone on TV the week after Sept. 11th and set a five-year goal of cutting U.S. oil use by 25% within five years, and 50% within a decade, and imports to zero within 25 years. He should have offered immigration to all 5 million Israeli Jews, and told the Arabs that by mid-century at the latest we will no longer be their customer and they ought to look in the mirror and start making something of themselves quickly.
It's phenomenally stupid of the Arabs to be fighting the Jewish presence in their region, but it's not this country's business to force it. I'd rather have Israel's Jews over here anyway. If the Arabs are stupid enough to want to throw 'em out, let their loss be our gain.
THAT would be a lot for logical than what your Liar-in-Chief has done.Posted by WW at July 18, 2006 05:13 PM
Now we see the Truth. It's the Jews' fault.
Saddam was only Evil minor. Not Evil Major like Stalin or Hitler (probably because he could only kill 3 million people instead of 40+ millions). Osama is just a pirate and Zarqawi is just a thug, made more important by the US for our own nefarious purposes (which would be stealing oil and making huge profits only for Bush's close personal friends, but no one else in the oil industry would make a buck).
Why, those stupid people who were captured, tortured and beheaded by Zarqawi were just supporting Bush, so they got what they deserved. ZMan was just a piker in the world of Evil. It's Bush who trumps them all.
BUT sometimes we have to fight a war. Of course, Willy can't name a single one he would support except to wage war on Saudi Arabia in the hopes that such a war would not piss off Muslims any more than killing them in Iraq would! Since the Saudis have a much smaller military and fewer arms and people than Iraq, and after 9/11 they did what we told them to do (cooperate with us), by all means let's pick on the easy target and forget those who could really do us harm (and have said so time and time again, in public, and covertly with their intelligence services and covert assasination programs).
By all means piss off every Muslim the world over by invading Mecca and Medina, or cut off the world's nose just to be spiteful by nuking the Saudi oilfields and cities just to satisfy our wounded pride. That's a brilliant strategist for you --- kill people who support the US with oil, without finding an alternative supply first, but hate the US because we are liberal in our values. But the Saudis are Evil Incarnate, much more so than Saddam who kills 3 million, Hitler who kills 40 million, and Stalin and Mao who kill 200 million between them. More than Pol Pot (3M), the VietNamese (5M), Idi Amin, Rwandans, Hutus, Rhodesians/Zimbabweans, Serbs/Muslims, Chinese/Tibetans, etc..... because Saddam, he was just a little bit evil. The Margarine of Evil, the Tab of Evil (just one calorie), the Lite Beer of Evil.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 (except the training supplied to alQaeda by the IIS, the free passport and housing given to Zarqawi by Iraq, the training for over 300 alQaeda cadres at Salman Pak, the representation by Iraq at each Annual World Symposium on Highly Imbecilic Terrorist Schemes (AWSHITS) held throughout the Terror World's playgrounds, including in Iraq over the years, and the support given other regimes which harbored alQaeda, and the correspondence found which links Saddam's regime as a sympathetic supporter of bin Ladin with money and training, even though Willy and some in the CIA think there is no way Saddam and bin Hidin' could agree to assist each other; even though Jacques Chirac and Saddam could, Vladimir Putin and Saddam could, and Kofi Annan and Saddam could all assist each other, and scratch each others backsides).
Don't believe me? Go to CAPN Ed's website and educate yourself.
Our women wear bikinis, our men drink beer, our kids do drugs. Therefore we must be exterminated or converted. Willy thinks those sentiments don't deserve to be fought. He can't see the forest for the Saudi Arabian sand in his eyes. Maybe we aren't really saying who the enemy is, but at least we are fighting them.
And Willy wants to invade and knock off the regime that officially keeps those sentiments in check, although it subsidizes them as charity, and continues to sell oil to us and the rest of the Free World, so we can continue fighting their intellectual bankruptcy and their moral impossibilities.
Willy wouldn't lift a finger to fight radical Islam. Because they never did anything to him. And they are obviously not competent enough to actually, you know, hurt anyone. They are just misguided children who should be treated with kid gloves and infinite tolerance and patience, so they can go on killing, raping and oppressing in the name of God. He'll never know the difference. All because he doesn't think his sister wears a bikini or his mother drinks wine occasionally.
Willy. Defender of the Faithful. The Islamic Faithful. Lord of the Rift. Sultan to the Berbers. And Killer of Civilized Society. Because he wouldn't lift a finger to support a war in its defense.
It may not be going perfectly, Willy. But it's going a damn sight better than your war to save us would be. You don't win your Freedom, Liberty, and Life by sitting on your ass waiting on Kofi's Blue Helmets to rescue civilization. Until you learn that action is required to make things happen in this world, you will always be a passenger at the back of the Bus of Life.
Talk's cheap, turd. Don't like things the way they are? Get off your ass and change it.
SubsunkPosted by Subsunk at July 18, 2006 10:25 PM
I can't say any better what I've said already several different ways. No one can argue with your personal experience. That is what it is. It may be a generational thing. I think, from what you tell me, your generation is in trouble, and part of the trouble is you don't even know it. But I always recall an old saying: "When we are young, we want to change the world, and when we are old we want to change the young." What I do know is I won't be around to find out how the story ends. I'd be happier going if I knew I was wrong.
"Uh, Sub, are you sure that the guys would 'love' to see Cher? Don't get me wrong, I've been deployed, I know what happens to your standards when you're downrange too long, but damn, I'd have to be pretty long without female companionship before I started looking forward to a USO visit from Sonny Bono's old ball-n-chain, know what I'm saying? Forgot politics, where the hell are the cheerleaders? And didn't Hooter's do a USO event in Kandahar not too long ago? Lucky bastards..."
Posted by Pave Low John at July 18, 2006 12:51 AM
Pave Low John,
Even us old farts (Master Sergeants and LTCs) need a boost every now and then. Cher still looks pretty good for her age. And a mostly naked woman downrange looks good even to a youngster who has nothing appropriate nearby to refresh his memory from 6 months ago.
I would agree that the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders or their equivalent might be better received by the majority of the Men. But I'm sure none of the Men would kick Cher off the FOB for eatin' crackers. Especially if she's half naked as she seems to enjoy during her performances.
She's not for everybody. But she ain't useless as entertainment. (I can't believe I wrote that).
PS, I'm sorry if any of you ladies are offended by the half naked comments. But you ladies are what makes the world go 'round for most of us red-blooded 'Merican males. So if the Truth I've spoken hurts, I'll bear it.Posted by Subsunk at July 18, 2006 11:47 PM
Ah, I see. Anyone who criticizes Israel's actions or its influence on U.S. policies, is an antisemite. This is what George Washington said about such accusations:
Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
If the U.S. was interested in fighting radical Islam it would attack Saudi Arabia, which does more than all of the other Islamic state combined to spread that world view. Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with al-Qaeda or 9/11.Posted by WW at July 19, 2006 06:18 AM
"Ah, I see. Anyone who criticizes Israel's actions or its influence on U.S. policies, is an antisemite."
Posted by WW at July 19, 2006 06:18 AM
In your case, Willy, I'd answer yes. Anyone whose answer to Middle East unrest is to blame it on Israel is an anti-Semite.
SubsunkPosted by Subsunk at July 19, 2006 03:52 PM
But I haven't blamed it on Israel. Looks to me as if the Middle East is a viper's nest. The U.S. should tread lightly rather than cozying up to any particular species.Posted by WW at July 19, 2006 08:49 PM
Don't know how much more lightly America can tread on this Lebanon-Hezbollah-Israel thing, do you? Absolute and totally uninvolved is what I would call what we're doing right now.
That and strapping on pom-poms and short skirts to cheerlead from 5000 miles away.
SubsunkPosted by Subsunk at July 20, 2006 02:54 AM
Israel is playing with fire.Posted by WW at July 20, 2006 07:54 AM
"Israel is playing with fire."
Posted by WW at July 20, 2006 07:54 AM
Since you said it twice, I will too.
If Israel is playing with fire, then Hezbollah must be extra crispy right about now.
SubsunkPosted by Subsunk at July 20, 2006 12:44 PM
Israel is helping advance Hezbolla's cause. The crispy critters are civilian children.Posted by WW at July 20, 2006 04:19 PM
"Israel is helping advance Hezbolla's cause. The crispy critters are civilian children."
Posted by WW at July 20, 2006 04:19 PM
Really? Pray tell how many children are dead? Give me the count. I'm sure some are, but I need you to quote an exact count. And how many of the 300+ are definitely civilian? The Lebanese PM says all 300+ are civilians. I don't believe him. I don't believe Hezbollah has only lost 5 personnel in 10 days. I don't believe the offices of any mosque are justified in being built 30 meters below ground level, for any purpose other than to store weapons, ammunition, and plan attacks on innocent people in Israel.
What do I think the Truth is? I don't know. But I'm pretty sure any religion that makes lying to infidels its national pasttime is not gonna have any credibility with me. Journalists will print anything Hezbollala says as gospel truth. Journalists will also completely ignore the press releases of the US military, especially if there is something more evil and sensational to print which makes Israel or its borther, the Great Satan, look bad. So they do it with the IDF releases as well.
Until there is an actual bullshit detector built into each news story, I judge the veracity of war stories by who fired the first shot without warning, and the track record of the source quoted. That makes Hezbollala a Liar in every word that leaves their mouth. Their track record sucks. They claim the destruction of all kinds of Israeli infrastructure and casualties galore in Israel and the IDF as well. So far everything they've said makes them look like the biggest Liar on the scene since Baghdad Bob. "We're big, we're bad, yadda yadda yadda. Of course we can't stand in the open anywhere, hold ground under attack, and actually win any battles, but we matter because we're Muslims".
Muslim regimes wouldn't recognize Truth if it hit them in the ass with a bass fiddle.
The crispy children you claim, Willy, live in Hezbollalaland and are dead because Nasrallah and company hide their weapons and their sorry carcasses in civilian homes, threatening those civilians with harm if they don't agree to be part of their murderous affairs, and brainwashing other Muslims to support them by preaching and insisting everyone in Lebanon hate everything associated with Jews and Christians.
They got nothing I want. They got nothing I'm concerned about. When they start showing respect for my citizens, or respect for the rights of Jews, then I will listen to what they have to say. Until thenj, they deserve to die. In large numbers. As gross and gory as it comes. Because until they learn to shut up and join civilization they are only barbarians and deserve to be treated as they treat us. With contempt.
Your support for Hezbollala makes you complicit in their evil deeds. And if you aren't saying you are against them, then you definitely have chosen sides, now haven't you? If you ain't part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Sounds like you are either with us, or against us. Words I agree with 100%.
SubsunkPosted by Subsunk at July 21, 2006 02:22 AM
As gross and gory as it comes. Because until they learn to shut up and join civilization they are only barbarians and deserve to be treated as they treat us. With contempt
Behold the alcoholic wingnut fringe's respect for life.Posted by WW at July 21, 2006 06:40 AM
"As gross and gory as it comes. Because until they learn to shut up and join civilization they are only barbarians and deserve to be treated as they treat us. With contempt"
"Behold the alcoholic wingnut fringe's respect for life."
Posted by WW at July 21, 2006 06:40 AM
Actually, Willy, it is my respect for civilization and the rules it provides for the preservation of Life. Bad people who have no respect for my life and the lives of my fellow citizens of the Earth need to die. I believe it is commonly called an eye for an eye. It has worked quite well at deterring uncivilized behavior for thousands of years. Not perfectly, but well enough. Until Western civilization unilaterally disarmed itself of this concept in the last 75 years or so, aggressors were a helluva lot more careful at initiating hostilities.
Today terrorists start killing whenever an imam in a turban feels like whipping up frenzies at Friday prayers so he can ask for donations to help the poor widows and orphans of homicidal maniacs. Its about the money! All terrorist sympathizers want is to be the Jimmy Swaggart of Islam, showing how noble and compassionate they are by ----- wait for it ----- sending their flock out to kill Jews and Christians, --- I mean, pigs and apes. Now that's civilized behavior! That's compassion! As long as you aren't Jewish or Christian.
And every time Willy and his kind let them get away with it, with their complaints about how barbaric we are and how much they hate fundamentalist religion in the US, but say not one word about fundamentalist religion in the Muslim world, they work to defeat us. That defeat will mean elimination of Christianity, secularism, and laid back, laissez faire Western Civilization, including the elimination of welfare states, compassion, NGOs (unless they are Islamic), and will mean torture and death for anyone who doesn't follow an imams' agenda.
Choose your future. Decide how you wish to live. You can either join Islam and be controlled by a guy with less brains than you have, but who claims some sort of legitimacy because he says he's studied the Koran, or you can continue to think for yourself and live in peace when the Muslims allow you to. Solve your own problems. Think for yourself.
But remember that "an eye for an eye" works when all rational rules are ignored by terrorists.
SubsunkPosted by Subsunk at July 21, 2006 12:46 PM
Choose your future. Decide how you wish to live. You can either join Islam and be controlled by a guy with less brains than you have, but who claims some sort of legitimacy because he says he's studied the Koran, or you can continue to think for yourself and live in peace when the Muslims allow you to.
On the other hand, I could be "led" by a guy who sole two elections, has fewer brains than I have and claims legitimacy because his favorite philosopher is Jesus H. Christ.Posted by WW at July 21, 2006 06:11 PM
"On the other hand, I could be "led" by a guy who s[t]ole two elections, has fewer brains than I have and claims legitimacy because his favorite philosopher is Jesus H. Christ."
Posted by WW at July 21, 2006 06:11 PM
Aw Willy, you say that like its a bad thing. If you don't like it here, don't let the doorknob hit you in the ass on the way out.
SubsunkPosted by Subsunk at July 21, 2006 07:15 PM
Love it or leave it!Posted by Nicholas at July 22, 2006 04:22 PM
I don't think the U.S. should have any particular quarrel with Islamic nations. They certainly don't live up to my conception of human rights, but then neither does this country. That's become clear in the past couple of years as the Liar-in-Chief's torture policy has been exposed.
The U.S. just doesn't have any reason to go to war with Iran, just as we had no reason to make war on Iraq. These are essentially Israel's quarrels. It would be cheaper, smarter and safer for the United States to return to its traditional neutrality in the Middle East than it has been to align itself so closely with Israel's strategic and now even its short-term tactical aims.
If Israel wants to go to war, let them do it without us.Posted by WW at July 24, 2006 10:26 PM
"I don't think the U.S. should have any particular quarrel with Islamic nations. They certainly don't live up to my conception of human rights, but then neither does this country. That's become clear in the past couple of years as the Liar-in-Chief's torture policy has been exposed."
"The U.S. just doesn't have any reason to go to war with Iran, just as we had no reason to make war on Iraq. These are essentially Israel's quarrels. It would be cheaper, smarter and safer for the United States to return to its traditional neutrality in the Middle East than it has been to align itself so closely with Israel's strategic and now even its short-term tactical aims."
"If Israel wants to go to war, let them do it without us."
Posted by WW at July 24, 2006 10:26 PM
The old "they are no worse than we are" argument, eh, Willy?
If they are truly no worse than we are, then why aren't there drill holes in the flesh and knees of the Abu Ghraib detainees, Willy? Where are the rubber hose marks? Where are the empty eye sockets of detainees? Where are the intestines ripped out of the prisoners' rectums with rubber hoses? Where are the ears cut off by the dull knives? Where are the hands and feet severed on the opposite sides of the bodies while the torturers look on and laugh? Where are the brands and burns of hot irons and coals our guards put on our prisoners? Where are the executions of those prisoners with gunshots to the head or slitting of throats, Willy? Where are the rapes of their wives and children in front of the detainess? Where are the shredded body parts and remains of detainees fed into shredders feet first while they were alive? Where are the videos of their bones being broken, cars running over their arms, legs, hands? Where are the videos of them being thrown off the top floors of multistory buildings with their hands and feet tied?
Where are the beheading videos of our soldiers cutting off detainees heads, Willy? Where are the accusations of any such things as I've listed perpetrated by a member of the United States military on an Islamic detainee?
Your only evidence of torture is forcing detainees to sit and sleep on a cold floor, stepping on their toes, chaining detainees to the floor or their beds, and putting panties on their heads while a girl makes fun of their naked manhood!
You want to explain to me how that is in one single case worse than what I have just mentioned? Show me how intelligent you are, twit! Prove to me that anything I've mentioned, which are common and documented Islamic torture practices as evidenced by our enemies and our Islamic allies since 9-11, has in any way shape or form been perpetrated by a single US soldier or policeman.
Come on Willy. Show us how smart and wise ande intelligent you are. Prove that the first list is better than the second list. Prove that maiming, killing and raping is not really as humiliating and painful to the human body and Islamic dignity as womens' underwear placed on the head of an adult Arab male. Death before Dishonor, right? Except the Islamic male will beg and plead for his life without shame and gladly wear the frilly thong on his head if Saddam or Osama was running his cell block.
As for the reason to go to war with Iran, if and when the time comes, war with that regime has been justified hundreds of times already. Support for terrorists in Palestine, IEDs shipped to Iraq and Afghanistan, and extrajudicial killings of infidels the world over by Iranian secret services and thugs in hundreds of cases is more than enough reason to replace the most evil regime in the world.
I vote we listen to their rhetoric. I say we take their claims to turn America into a lake of fire, and to stand violently against Americans everywhere and everytime all over the world at face value. I say we believe their stated intentions to wipe Israel off the face of the map. I'm not blind to history. History does repeat itself if you do nothing about it. It's 1937 right now. And you and Europe and liberals everywhere play the part of Neville Chamberlain with gusto.
Our so-called neutrality got us 9-11, Khobar Towers, the USS Cole bombing, the embassy bombings in Lebanon, Kenya, Tanzania, the retreat from Somalia, and numerous smaller bombings and murders. It brought Munich, the Intifada, and all the Arab-Israeli Wars in history.
In history books, the blood doesn't rub off on your hands. In history books, your head stays on your neck when the guards' swords swing down on it. In history books, you don't have to smell the dead, see the destruction, and feel the bullet enter your brain.
But in the real world there is only one thing between you and the very real fate of the Jews, the Russians, Poles, Czechs, Slavs, Filipinos, Chinese, Burmese, and American POWs in 1945. That is the American Fighting Man like GreyHawk, BlackFive, Jimbo, Froggy Ruminations, our combat vets, and United States soldiers as well as our allies like the Israeli, British, Australian, and New Iraqi and Afghan militaries.
You won't fight. But you don't have to. Because Better Men than you are in front of you in the line.
A Coward Dies a Thousand Deaths, the Valiant Die But OncePosted by Subsunk at July 25, 2006 08:28 PM
Bush's military re-opened Saddam's rape rooms under new management. Torture is for losers. And guess who's getting its ass kicked in Iraq?Posted by WW at July 25, 2006 08:43 PM
"Bush's military re-opened Saddam's rape rooms under new management. Torture is for losers. And guess who's getting its ass kicked in Iraq?"
Posted by WW at July 25, 2006 08:43 PM
Teddy Kennedy, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, and the Iraqi Resistance Brigades, in that order.
What? Isn't this the identify who said what game? Was the last answer supposed to be Willy, Billy and William Snout?
SubsunkPosted by Subsunk at July 25, 2006 09:08 PM
Again WW, do what you want, think what you want. I don't care. Why do you want me to believe you support me when you don't?Posted by Mike at July 26, 2006 12:48 AM
Was @flank speed pinging away when I first made
contact,thought I might drop a depth charge or
2 (just kidding SUB SUNK) BUT I would like to
give WW an MK-4 ASROC where it would do the
most good!! Folks like WW are parasites who think
its far better to get than give and if they
don't they just snivel,bitch and whine till they
do...So you don't like the war,well to MFB...
You show me one swinging dick that does!!show
just one live humanoid that is getting his or her jollies off on this war JUST ONE SONNY JUST ONE!!For the retards who hate this war and continue to disrespect our troops,listen up its
not Dubyas war its ours and Iraq is a line in the sand to the rest of the world and the Islamic faction first and formost...this latest
mess started in the summer of 1972 and has been
getting worse every year since and Bush is the
only person who's done one damn thing about it
the only one who has had the cajones to give
the sand babys a good smack down...WW when the first IED,CAR BOMB goes off in America I would
like to see someone put a size 12 where it would do the most good...