Comments on: More anti-democratic acts from Democrats

By: ymarsakar

ymarsakar — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:24:55 +0000

Right. Prussian Junkers. Markos is ex military. So is all the attack dogs he grabs to call you folks chickenhawks. Either ex military or reserves like Soltz. Revolutionary movements always require allies from the military aristocracy. Blackfive covered this subject quite well concerning the sergeant that got into a confrontation with Stolz over uniform and the surge.

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:10:36 +0000

“Military” aristocrat?

By: ymarsakar

ymarsakar — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:21:34 +0000

Scratch a Kos Kid and find a budding military aristocrat.

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:31:54 +0000

Back to Book’s first point about the House vote - scratch a Liberal/Lefty, find a utopian fascist.

By: Don Quixote

Don Quixote — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 02:37:01 +0000

Great post, Keiki! I’ll be interested to see if Mr. Mosley responds. I’m not holding my breath, but I’d welcome it if he did.

By: Keiki

Keiki — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:21:04 +0000

So much vitriol for the sake of defining an “other” against which to rail! And so much effort spent on rehashing decisions from 4 years ago.
DQ is coming from a good place. If we can all acknowledge that we made a mess, what can we do to clean it up? And withdrawing doesn’t turn the clock back; the mess doesn’t clean itself up.
Viewing Iraq as a “republican” problem only distracts us from seeking an “American” solution for our good and theirs.
And Mr. Mosley, voicing your Service as credentials only make it sound as if you’re demanding accolades. Service doesn’t give someone absolute moral authority any more than an election gives someone infinite wisdom. If we crossed paths in our respective uniforms, I’d remind you to stop calling all of the DoD down with your petulant chest-pounding. Bearing, Mosley.

By: Don Quixote

Don Quixote — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:46:34 +0000

Hi William,

FYI, Bookworm is female. “I’ve buried better men than you” didn’t make a lot of sense. I’m curious, though. Even though you, like I, believe that we should not have invaded Iraq, we did and we are there now. What would you suggest we do now? In a broader sense, what would you suggest we do about those who have declared a holy war against us?

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 14:26:34 +0000

Absolutely, Book. I believe that, in all, there were 23 reasons for going to war with Saddam Hussein. However, one point that is often overlooked is that we were already at war with Hussein. The first Gulf War ended in a ceasefire, not a peace agreement. Saddam Hussein had repeatedly violated that ceasefire by firing on American planes. In addition, we know that he was behind the first attack on the World Trade Center (an act of war).

By any measure, to retain our own international credibility, the U.S. was obligated to respond. However, Mr. Mosely, for all his tough talk and representations, would have us turn tail and run home to lick our wounds. Now, that’s a winning formula.

By: ymarsakar

ymarsakar — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:12:57 +0000

Another Vietnam veteran I see. Produced from the cataclysmic psychological operation called the Fall of Saigon. One thing people should learn to avoid in the 21st century is not producing bitter veterans from wars that they failed to win. Somebody’s got to pay, you see, and it might as well be the GOP and Nixon that pulled the US out of Vietnam. The VIetnamese are offlimits, at least after Phoenix Program.

Should Iraq be made to fail and the effort murdered, the United States will acquire even more veterans like Mosley. Not exactly a condition for success.

They will try their damndest to make Iraq into a simulacrum of Vietnam because anything else would demonstrate that Vietnam could have been won. That all the sacrifices could have been for something. But they weren’t, because Vietnam failed and people failed it.

The Iraq War must have been started by lies because that is the only thing that could explain why Vietnam was lost. At least the only explanation for Mosely. But others might blame the John Kerries or Jane Fondas.

When they enjoyed twelve years of Republican rule (both the house and senate were in the Republicans majority), what the hell did they do?

They played patty cake with the Left and treated Democrats with respect. Fatal mistake.

By: Bookworm

Bookworm — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:02:18 +0000

Wow! To be so mad and so factually inaccurate. I’ll just point out (a) that intelligence at the time indicated that Hussein had, or was within reasonable reach of, WMDs, (b) that there is still indication, once one cuts through the Plame/Wilson lies, to believe this was true, (c) that Saddam Hussein intentionally misled the world about his WMD capabilities, and (d) that this was a reason, not the reason for the war, with the reason being Saddam’s flouting of UN sanctions.