The following is merely my opinion only:

The way it appears to me is that President Bush and those in his administration watching this situation closely are allowing Israel to take this as far as they can before making any sort of definitive committment. I believe it's smart to pronounce support for Israel and I also think it's very premature to even consider any sort of military action against Syria and/or Iran. Israel may accomplish that without the U.S.'s help but if (again, IMHO when) Israel takes on Syria and/or Iran and gets a little bogged down, then the possibility of American military involvement becomes not only a distinct possibility but a pretty good bet. I think we will wait until Israel asks for our military aid before President Bush supplies it.

Again, this is merely my personal opinion on this matter. I think the Bush administration is taking a "wait and see" approach at this time which I think is a wise thing to do.

Very quiet from the pacifists, those with no ideas! The only time they are quiet is when Bush does nothing, back to Clintonian ideas. The only ideas are when Bush responds, and those ideas are simply bash Bush!

The do nothing party, except complain. And support terrorists.

I say apply nuclear diplomacy to Iran, and watch how fast Syria scrambles to our way of thinking.

Note: can't get to comments nor permalink on "Why Religion" ("page not found").

The problem with Michael Leeden's way of thinking is whose military is he going to use strike at Syria to take downt he regime. The United States military is a little busy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere right now. We should focus on Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Israel should be able to take out Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as the Syrian regime should this be necessary. If the United States government is smart, they will stay out of the way and allow Israel to handle the Syrian problem.

The biggest problems are not with Iran, Syria, or the terrorist organizations. The biggest problems are with Russia and China. The major terrorist supporting states, as well the terrorist organiztions they support, would be nothing without the support of Russia and China. We need to find a way to get Russia and China to stop supporting these governments.

B.Poster,

The United States and our military are more than capable of dealing with Syria, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea at the same time. You assume that we must send troops into each country. We didn't send troops to Libya and they gave up their nuclear programs -- with only the possibility and their worry about what President Bush might do. But, that was before the liberal Democrats started calling for America's surrender. If the liberal left had a little backbone, we might deal -- or likely have already dealt -- with Syria, Iran, and North Korea in the same way.

The problem in dealing with terrorists, regimes, and potential threats like Iran and Syria is not Russia and China... it is the liberal left and their Democrat supporters who hinders America's ability to deal effectively with world problems! They always have!!!

It's impossible to convince an enemy that the United States is serious and will stop them when the anti-American liberal left is slithering around like a bunch of spineless jellyfish -- more concerned with the rights of terrorists and waving their liberal white and yellow flags of surrender -- than in stopping those who would destroy America and kill Americans!

AAR

BP, I partly agree. Though the Navy and the Air Force are not all that busy right now. They could lend fire support and air support if needed.

But mostly, I think the best move would be to provide Israel diplomatic cover while THEY handle it. Don't let the europeans force trhem to stop just short of victory. Also, as I've said before send them boatloads of ammunition, medical supplies, and food if need be. That whole area around Israel is smaller than most people realize and a little support goes a long way.

But - if Israel is attacked by Iran directly (which would probably mean missiles or aircraft) then our military should utterly destroy every Iranian military unit we can see and put big holes in the dessert where their nuke facilities are. I have to admit that my reasoning is pretty much based upon the fact that I like Israel and I don't like Iran.

BP, I partly agree. Though the Navy and the Air Force are not all that busy right now. They could lend fire support and air support if needed.

But mostly, I think the best move would be to provide Israel diplomatic cover while THEY handle it. Don't let the europeans force trhem to stop just short of victory. Also, as I've said before send them boatloads of ammunition, medical supplies, and food if need be. That whole area around Israel is smaller than most people realize and a little support goes a long way.

But - if Israel is attacked by Iran directly (which would probably mean missiles or aircraft) then our military should utterly destroy every Iranian military unit we can see and put big holes in the dessert where their nuke facilities are. I have to admit that my reasoning is pretty much based upon the fact that I like Israel and I don't like Iran.

BP, I partly agree. Though the Navy and the Air Force are not all that busy right now. They could lend fire support and air support if needed.

But mostly, I think the best move would be to provide Israel diplomatic cover while THEY handle it. Don't let the europeans force trhem to stop just short of victory. Also, as I've said before send them boatloads of ammunition, medical supplies, and food if need be. That whole area around Israel is smaller than most people realize and a little support goes a long way.

But - if Israel is attacked by Iran directly (which would probably mean missiles or aircraft) then our military should utterly destroy every Iranian military unit we can see and put big holes in the dessert where their nuke facilities are. I have to admit that my reasoning is pretty much based upon the fact that I like Israel and I don't like Iran.

The old server error - sorry.

They would not send in troops on the ground. They would use air power. And we are not spread thin in that area. I for fact, can tell you, there are TONS of jets that can be used. I know this because I live on a major base.

Im not saying this is what should be done. But if it came down to it. We have plenty of resources available right now.

I would like to see the appeasment policy currently popular with our "allies" end. The only thing the militant Islamics understand or respect is brute force. Israel is politically and militarilly capable of this without and should be allowed to defend themselves without recrimination from cowards such as the French, has Russia forgotten their recent attacks on their innocent civilians by the Chechnyians

The United States and our military are more than capable of dealing with Syria, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea at the same time.

or as AAR puts it:

lalalalala I can't hear you.

We may or may not have the capability but we sure don't have the money to pay for it. Esp. if China calls in it's markers.

I know you need to feel macho AAR, but how 'bout using a few gray cells for a change. You can't bomb all our enemies, cause there's too friggin' many of them.

it is the liberal left and their Democrat supporters who hinders America's ability to deal effectively with world problems!

Git out da way, whilst I blow up the world.

Stone age solutions for stone age thinkers!!

BTW it's the right wing neo con's manifest destiny heritage that has us in the pickle we're in!!!!

Kahn, AAR, and AFWIFE

Thanks for the additional information on American military capabilities. From all of your previous posts on other threads, it seems to me that all of you are in a position to know more about military matters than I do. Due to a congenital condition, Uncle Sam deemed me unfit for military service. Since you would be in a better position to know than I would be, for now I am deferring to your judgement. I strongly suspect that claims that the military is "broken" are politically motivated. I'm not feeling a whole lot love for the actions of the Iranians either. This is the group whose leader says they are not going to be bashful about saying they plan to rule the world and have threatened to burn the roots of the Anglo-Saxon race.

The United States military is a little busy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere right now.

The US military is orders of magnitude more powerful that it was even at the height of its victories in World War II. The force is all volunteer with no draft, for which the lily-livered leftists breath a sigh of relief. Nothing makes them happier than a free ride. But we have enough firepower just in our aircraft carriers to reduce Syria to rubble. Here's a list of the attack-class carriers in commission and stationed somewhere in the world right now:

CVN 75 Harry S Truman
CVN 74 John C. Stennis
CVN 73 George Washington
CVN 72 Abraham Lincoln
CVN 71 Theodore Roosevelt
CVN 70 Carl Vinson Bremerton
CVN 69 Dwight D. Eisenhower
CVN 68 Nimitz San Diego
CVN 65 Enterprise (my old ship)
CV 67 John F. Kennedy
CV 64 Constellation
CV 63 Kitty Hawk

Each of these carriers can carry over 100 attack aircraft and all their armaments and most have a 10,000 mile / 24 hour strike radius. In addition, we have hundreds of surface and submarine ships loaded with cruise missiles that can strike from as far away as 1,000 miles and hit a target with street address accuracy. Add into that our capabilities in unmanned drones, stealth technology, precision guided weapons systems, bunker busters and all the other modern weapon systems, and you should be able to see that taking on the pipsqueak regimes in both Syria and Iran are not much of a strain on the forces.

If the United States government is smart, they will stay out of the way and allow Israel to handle the Syrian problem.

I don't call that smart. Its a "pay me now, pay me later" situation. We are dealing with all the troubles in the Middle East based on our past leaders' efforts to "stay out of it" and appease the terrorists and Muslim radicals in the Middle East. We have an excellent opportunity here, with little effort, to topple the government of Syria and Iran. Lebanon's fledgling democracy would get a chance to thrive. Who knows what would happen in Syria? And, for those with short memories, prior to our capitulation to Muslim extremists in Iran under Jimmy Carter, Iran was one of our strongest allies in the region. The people there still remember when their cities emulated those of Europe and the stark lifestyles they now are forced to live were reserved for clerics who stayed in their mosques.

Yes, that "Cowboy" diplomacy has worked wonders. The world is SUCH a safer place now.

Ash

First, I'm not here to criticize the Clinton administration. I strongly suspect had George W. Bush been in office in the 1990s and the attacks of 911 not occurred his administration would have followed a very similar policy to the one that the Clinton administration followed.

It was the tepid response to repeated provocations by Islamic Extremists that emboldened Islamic Extremists to pull off the 911 attacks. As we learn more about the former Iraqi regime, more comes to light regarding Iraqi support for Islamic Extremists. Iraq provided active support for these people.

By the same token Israel's tepid response to repeated provocations led Hezbollah to think they could engage in even more naked agression. Weak responses to the attacks of bullies, such as Islamic Extremist terrorists, only lead to more attacks.

This leads to my primary criticism of the Bush administration. We did not committ enough force. We should have sent enough troops to Iraq to overthrow the Baathist regime, secure all of the weapons caches, pacify the country, secure its borders with Iran and Syria, and secure its coastline.

I think you want to sit down at a table and negotiate our differences with some sort of treaty. This is very admirable. There are many people like you on the American side, in Israel, and in the Western world. The problem is no one like you can rise to power in the Islamic world. Their governments would kill them very quickly. Besides it would be difficult to trust them, as their religon allows for chicanery. Furthermore, when we factor in the support they get from Russia and China they become even more dangerous.

You write: "Git out da way, whilst I blow up the world." Your mispellings are probably intentional and are deeply offensive. By leveling personal attacks against the person who holds an opposing point of view, you excuse yourself from having to take them seriously. This happens on both the "left" and the "right." If we are going to have constructive dialog it needs to stop. Btw, It is the terrorists and their supporters who want to blow up the world, not the US and as AAR points out all of the one sided coverage by the media that fails to take into context our actions cannot be helping matters. It only serves to aid and comfort an enemy who seeks to destroy us all.

You write: "stone age solutions for stone age thinkers." You describe the enemy perfectly. This is why it is imperative that we defeat them, however, they are much more cunning than any stone age thinker probably was. Once they understand their goals of world domination cannot be achieved we may be able to negotiate a settlement with them. At this time, the best we would be able to get would be one of those "peace in our time" agreements with them like Neeville Chamberlin got that preceeded WWII. In other words, it would only delay the day of reckoning when we have to deal with these people.

You write: "BTW its the right wing neo con's manifest destiny that has gotten us in the pickle we're in!!!!" This is incorrect. We find ourselves in the position we find ourselves in due to weak responses to previous attacks. This has led a very powerful enemy to think they can push us further. Also, in some cases, we have made some strategic miscaluations in who we have allied with.

Neo cons do not rule the government. They are but one small part. The inner workings of the US government are way to complicated to be ruled by a small group of people. This is especially true when this group of neo cons are almost universally despised by the main stream news media. Besides I'm not really sure what this "manifest destiny heritage" is. It certainly is not to control the middle east or to make the world safe for Israel. we did not commit enough troops or equipment to achieve either of these goals and we still haven't.

You discuss the possiblity of China calling in its markers. This is a distinct possiblity. I suspect we would survive and be able to mobilize. Many social programs would likely have to be cut out. This would likely mean the end of the quasi well-fare state. This will require Americans to make some sacrifices. No long range solution to this problem will be possible until we can get Russia and China to stop supporting the terrorist supporting states. On this note, I kind of hope China does call their markers. This way we can finally declare them the enemy that they are and stop playing nice with them. Also, this will enable us to do the WWII type mobilization that I think is going to be necessary to drive a final stake through the heart of this enemy. This is the type of mobilization that will be needed to defeat China.

With that said, I do NOT want to fight China. Maybe we have some leverage we could use to get them to change behaviour. Maybe we could take our manufacturing elsewhere. I'm not sure.

When you suggest we can't bomb all of our enemies. You may be on to something. The problem is we don't have a partner for peace with whom we can negotiate. Given the geo political realities, it must be impressed upon this enemy that their goals of world domination cannot be achieved. Once they realize their goals can't achieved, a negotiated settlement becomes possible.

Finally, due to a combination of decisions that have been made over the last 30 years or so, some good and some bad, has led to the situation we find ourselves in today. I will reiterate I think the best course of action would be to stay out of Israel's way as they fight in Lebanon and possibly Syria, if their military commanders deem it neccessary. We should help them where and when we can, should they request it. We should continue building up the Iraqi security forces and the 135,000 or so American troops in Iraq can serve as a buffer that hopefully will make Iran think twice about being overly adventurous.

Willem:
You call it cowboy because you're country (much of Western Europe) has been, since 1914, unwilling to stand up against agression. We had to bail you out in WWII (or you'd probably be speaking German now), and Europe's Defense forces couldn't stop the bloodshed in Kosovo, so the United States embarked on it's first preemptive war.

I am not at all in favor of just saying to our enemies "hang em high" but I do believe that at times you have to use force to solve a problem.

How can you possibly say talking can resolve nearly 2000 years of conflict?

How can you also say negotiating with terrorists has worked?

Bottomline... the only way to peace in the middle east will be to have a democratic Palestine, next to a peaceful and secure Israel, and the people having the right to choose their leaders.

And if in the next 50 years, we can figure out another source of fuel, you'll see Western Europe and other countries taking the tack they could give a flying f*ck about the Middle East.

Mark my words.

I thought that we already had a democratic palestine... didn't they elect Hamas?

Ash,

RE: "I can't hear you."

I really wasn't talking to you, or any of you liberals for that matter. I know liberals are incapable of comprehending anything other than their own views, agenda, and religion -- liberalism. The only reason I even respond to the posts of the liberal lefties is to give those who might read the thread something else to think about.

But... it's good to know you are listening -- even if you can't hear!

RE: "You can't bomb all our enemies, cause there's too friggin' many of them."

No, but I can sure bomb a lot of them and make the others think twice about their own actions, and I don't put Russia, China, and a few others in that category. The reason mutual assured destruction (MAD) works with them is that they have no more reason to want to die or be blown to bits than you, I, or any other American does. But, with regimes like Iran, Syria, North Korea -- and what Iraq would have become -- that approach does not work. Some of the fanatical leaders and regimes would just as soon blow us up as not, or at least take out a few American cities and a several million Americans trying. And even if they didn't succeed, think of the mess it would make and the damage to the world's economies for many years to come.

There are some people you (a person, one) with which one can talk and negotiate and there are others where that only serves to give them time to grow stronger and become even more of a threat. That would have eventually happened to Iraq if President Bush had not intervened. North Korea is already so far along that military action will be difficult, but not impossible, and may still have to stop further development. Iran and Syria are not as far along as North Korea, but will be shortly if not stopped. It's better to take them on now than to wait until they have nuclear bombs, missiles, and other and more WMD.

You don't win in a war with blackmailers and terrorists by being weak, by appeasing them, or by delaying the inevitable. That only serves to make them stronger and stopping them even harder, more deadly, and more destructive to both sides. Russia and China could help and give us a better chance of success, but that is not in their interest. They would rather see countries like North Korea, Iraq, and Syria serve to offset their weakness against the United States than to take a rational stand and help stop them while it might be feasible with minimal military intervention.

We are not dealing with rational thinking people here, Ash!

RE: "Git out da way, whilst I blow up the world."

You liberals get out of the way and let those who know how to deal with the likes of Iran, Syria, and North Korea do our job... before THEY BLOW UP THE WORLD for you... or before LIBERALS have a chance to SURRENDER TO THEM!!!!!!

AAR

Frawg Fawg,

RE: "I thought that we already had a democratic palestine... didn't they elect Hamas?"

Looks like they didn't get the message about living in peace with their neighbors. Looks like they need another try or two until they get it right.

Saddam always won his "democratic elections" too -- by 100%. The way it works with terrorists in control of the country -- a democracy, a dictatorship, or otherwise -- is you vote their way, or you don't vote the next time!

AAR

I thought that we already had a democratic palestine... didn't they elect Hamas?

~~~~~~~~~

LMAO! What we consider a democratic election is far different then they do there.

Its called "you vote for XX or you and your family dies". Or its the old "check an X next to the one you vote for" and you see there is only one person on the ballot.

LOL

Georgia, Yes! They elected Hamas. That's why they have lost the veil of deniability. The attacks from Gaza into Israel were by the government of Palestine. The taking of prisoners was by the government of Palestine. Exactly.

Also, Hizbollah is part of the government of Lebanon. They are firing HUNDREDS of rockets specifically and purposefully at Israeli civilians. It is similar to what the British suffered from German V-1's and V-2's. I'm so glad you get it now.

Israel is right to fight back. Now, how much should we support them?

RE: "Git out da way, whilst I blow up the world."

You liberals get out of the way and let those who know how to deal with the likes of Iran, Syria, and North Korea do our job.

Well you've done a FINE job so far, or as my mom used to say: It's a mell of a hess you've gotten us in. Time's up for cowboy diplomacy. We need a fresh approach.

OK - so I've been waiting for liberal opion to gel. Is it the position of Georgia F, Ash, and others here that
1. Israel is in the wrong?
2. Hamas and Hizbollah are isolated and not supported by Syria and Iran?
and, 3. That we shouldn't help Israel - in fact we should condemn them?

It's OK to be honet liberals - convince us of your positions worth.

And really, what is so bad with rounding up the terrorists and either killing them or locking them up?

Dont we do that to the criminals here? Dont all countries do that? We dont just let them run rampant. Do we tell cops to just ignore the bad guys?

Why are people so insistant on just letting the terrorist run around and hold us hostage with fear of their next attack?

I dont know really where I stand on the US stepping in. I think we have to just wait and see how things continue to develop. But I think we should help Israel as soon as they need us. And if the threat starts to be directed towards us, the US.

I think its so stupid to have the stance, lets just wait until they really do harm us or anyone else. Why not take them out before they even get that far?

Ash, you especially... OK, we get you hate Bush and what we've done in Iraq. But what do you think we should do?

I just got in and have been away from the news so let me catch up and I will put down some items.

Here's one I have already submitted: Send George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter to the area as signs that we are taking this seriously. I get it that you hate Slick Willie. But you have to admit the man is a smooth operator. Jimmy seems harmless and H.W. represents his son.

Honestly you imperialists have gotten us in so deep there may be nothing we can do at this point.

Ash, you especially... OK, we get you hate Bush and what we've done in Iraq. But what do you think we should do?

But Ash, Carter bought peace with Egypt (literally). We give them tons of money (as we do Jordan and Israel) not to fight.

Clinton did a pretty good job at Camp David getting the Israelis to give the Palestinians just about everything they asked for. The result? And Israel unilaterally pulled out of southern Lebanon and Gaza. The result?

You plan is tro send a triad of ex-presidents to the region? To talk to who? Hamas? Hizbollah?

Your plan does not inspire me. I'd rather just stay out of the way and quietly ship Israel ammunition if they ask for it.

AAR I think this is an unfair stereotype:

a bunch of spineless jellyfish -- more concerned with the rights of terrorists and waving their liberal white and yellow flags of surrender -- than in stopping those who would destroy America and kill Americans!

Seriously would you like me to stereotype you as an immature man who is insecure and has absolutely no negotiating skills and has to settle all of his problems with bombs? Of course not. So neither do I want to be called spineless. It just isn't true.

Hamas and Hizbollah have the power to stop the conflict right now by simply releasing the three prisoners they hold. They were taken across borders. All they have to do is release them.

Pretty simple eh? Just let 'em go!

I didn't mean for my suggestion to be comprehensive. Of course I think Israel has a right to defend itself. From the few people I know who are informed in these matters, Israel seems to have a pretty up to date and strong military. (In fact one guy I know said they were better equipted in some respects than we are). Haven't we been pretty generous already with backing their military.

Don't forget there are 13 million Jews worldwide. There are more than a billion Muslims. I hope Israel hasn't bitten off more than they can handle. I don't want to see this congeal the entire Muslim world.

How far would you go in supporting Israel? Would you take an active part at any point?

I suspect the conflict goes a little deeper, don't you Kahn? Hey I think all Israel wants is to be left alone and exist. The H's were simply spoiling for a fight in my opinion. I think our course of action should be tailored to keeping this conflict from spreading to a wider theater. I don't consider myself informed enough or intelligent enough to suggest what those actions are.

Okay Jeremiah kind creeps me out, but hey I've read Revelations too. Maybe the endtimes are on us!

Ash,

RE: "...a bunch of spineless jellyfish -- more concerned with the rights of terrorists and waving their liberal white and yellow flags of surrender -- than in stopping those who would destroy America and kill Americans!"

Nope, I don't think it's unfair at all. I think it's fairly accurate; although, I was trying to be polite and didn't say what I really think of you liberals!

As far as what or how you care to stereotype me, you will do that regardless of what I say or do, and you will be just as wrong now and in the future as you have been in the past!!!

AAR

AARmchair warrior, eh?

Ash - first off thanks for telling Julie the ignorant to ignore me in the ultimatum thread (you pip). You guys do hate us and have as much said so many times. You call us stupid and justify the hate. Many of you have even justified violence against Republicans and conservatives. Think about how much you hate us, and multiply it by a hundred and realize thats the level of hatred in the mid-east.

Second off, well. I don't think their will be peace through negotiation there. I think that Israel will just have to kill off the real hardliners. or, conversely the extremists will be able to kill off Israel. If we just leave them alone- israel will win. They have much more national will we have.

Honestly I think we can just sit back and let Israel handle this one. Basically if we just keep the Europeans and Russians out of the situation as well and that will be enough. I believe the Israel military is more than up to the task and that the people are fed up of always living under the gun. Let them fix it.

Honestly you imperialists have gotten us in so deep there may be nothing we can do at this point.

Then I suggest you just step back, go enjoy watching Brokeback Mountain for the umpteenth time while we TCB.

I think this is an unfair stereotype:

a bunch of spineless jellyfish -- more concerned with the rights of terrorists and waving their liberal white and yellow flags of surrender -- than in stopping those who would destroy America and kill Americans!

Sounds about right to me. What did he leave out? Homosexual marriage? Killing of the unborn? Pandering to illegal aliens? What?

I didn't mean for my suggestion to be comprehensive.

You just won the understatement of the day award.

I don't consider myself informed enough or intelligent enough to suggest what those actions are.

Neither do we, because you have shown that you're not informed nor intelligent. Just borng.

Anybody who doesn't think we should help Israel destroy Syria and Iran is not pro-America! I think we should support Israel 110%!

Ash,
You are way out of your leaque-B.Poster has you smoked. Why don't you release some of your pent up frustration towards the conservatives and try to think realistically about the situation. As for ANYONE who thinks Carter is harmless, your naitivity could be dangerous.

Reverend Scaramonga

Thanks for the information on the American military, specifically the attack class carriers. I agree that the American military is many times more powerful than it was during WWII. I think the militaries of Russia and China are also more powerful, as well. We could probably take out the Syrian government or reduce the country to rubble. If this is done, the problem becomes who you replace the regime with and who supplies security for the new government. I think you are going to need boots on the ground from someone to provide security and to make sure the new government does not become another terrorist supporting government.

The main threat of terrorists is not that they will conquer the country. They could cause tremendous damage, such as to take out a city or several cities.

In my view, the biggest problems are Russia and China. The key to winning the GWOT is to get them to stop supporting these regimes. They may be supporting them to get the US to spend resources on these smaller countries to divert attention from them, so they can build up for more ambitious activities.

If the Syrian regime is removed, this would mean Russia will have lost two client states. Those would be Iraq and Syria. Given this situation, Russia may feel it is time to cut their losses and stop supporting terrorist supporting states. At least this is how I hope and pray it works out.

What I mean by the statement that the US should stay out of Israel's way is the US government will need to resist the pressure that will be placed on them by the "moderate" Arab governments and by our "allies" to work to pressure Israel into a cease fire before they have finished demolishing Hezbollah and Hamas. If we stay out of Israel's way, I firmly believe they will solve this problem for us. Eliminating Syria as a terrorist sponsor should greatly help our situation in Iraq, as they will no longer be a supplier the "insurgency."

Boring enough to waste 4 or 5 paragraphs on. Lets sum up your view Reverand knuckle dragger: blow em up.

That ain't gonna win you anything but the cretin of the month award.

You know Rev. Knuckle Dragger you're just a big mouth that hides behind an email address and fake name. Now crawl back under your rock or go over to the middle east. I ain't gonna permit you to sacrifice my son.

Now let's all go watch Tom Brokaw's special on Global Warming.

Ash is your real name-sorry don't buy any of your crap or personal attacks. As for sacrificing your son, why don't you be a man and go fight for your 1st ammendment rights yourself. You certainly don't have a problem spewing your liberal rhetoric.

...pointless drivel from Butt Ranger ignored here...

...that hides behind an email address and fake name.

Listen, you little weasel, I was posting here long before you ever heard of this blog. I'm not hiding. Click on my name and it will take you to my blog. Don't bother leaving a comment there though, see I don't allow liberal poofters to comment on my blog - I have some sense of decency over there. Or would you rather cruise for a young stud instead.

Now crawl back under your rock or go over to the middle east.

Right behind you, scum sucker.

I ain't gonna permit you to sacrifice my son.

You have a son? Adopted? How did a poofter like you get a son? And here's a clue for you...the military is all volunteer. Your "son" doesn't have to go into the military. He can do just like you - just wait around in imagined safety until one of the friendly little fellas with the towel on his head pulls a pin on an exploding vest in your local shopping center and blows you away while shouting, "Allah Akbar!" Or, you and your son can just sit around and hope the grownups kill that terrorist BEFORE he makes a martyr out of you all.

Would that Brokaw special be on the sci-fi channel, can't seem to find it on the "news" channels

Got your goat, eh Reverand Knuckle Dragger? Ah I did my time. Then grew up. I'm guessing your in your 60's. Korea I'm guessing.

Right behind you, scum sucker.

Bet you'd like that. Uh, you did seem a little "sensitive" about your masculinity.

*sigh*

That's the way all the closet queens are.

That's the way all the closet queens are.

You'd be the expert on that, now wouldn't you?

I don't have a goat, but I'll bet you could tell us how much fun you have with yours after a couple of beers on a lonely Saturday night.

Your guess about my age and war are wrong, but that also does not surprise me - but I hope you're right about something soon. I would hate to think you're perfectly wrong all the time.

My war was Viet Nam. What was yours?

Hey goats don't talk back and create honey do lists.

Viet Nam era but I was stationed state side. Lowry AFB, Richards Gebaur, and Scott AFB.Come to think of it none of those are still active bases. Hey it wasn't my fault!

Viet Nam era...

I like the "era" part. And you were a bus driver? That's not the military. That's a vacation. Guess that means you won't be joining the VFW. That is a comfort.

Note on blogging techniques: When liberal posters have nothing to say, have been argued into a corner, or are just obviously wrong they resort to attack and diversion. They will attack you, your religion, anything. And they will try to change the subject. Do not let them get away with this. Stick to the subject at hand.

That being said. Ash had kinda sorta spelled our his take on the Israel/Syria thing. For different reasons, I thought he had agreed with mine and Gozers position to do nothing and let Israel handle it. Though Ash also suggested sending a triad of ex-presidents over to see if they could help.

Rev, please do not waste good air or bandwidth on Ashole! None likes him or wants to talk with him! He's a parrot from the far land of canada, which likes his cake and eat it too! We don't fight for Ash & we don't sacrifice his son(sad thought, to think he may have a son)! So we really don't have crap to say to him!

Rev, please do not waste good air or bandwidth on Ashole! None likes him or wants to talk with him! He's a parrot from the far land of canada, which likes his cake and eat it too! We don't fight for Ash & we don't sacrifice his son(sad thought, to think he may have a son)! So we really don't have crap to say to him!

Rev, please do not waste good air or bandwidth on Ashole! None likes him or wants to talk with him! He's a parrot from the far land of canada, which likes his cake and eat it too! We don't fight for Ash & we don't sacrifice his son(sad thought, to think he may have a son)! So we really don't have crap to say to him!

Ash,

Besides being spineless and weak themselves, liberals and liberalism weaken and eventually destroy everything they and it touches. That includes morals, values, families, ethics, character, the desire and drive to succeed, work ethics, welfare, education, military, economies, and eventually the nation itself.

People in other countries see what liberals have done to the nations of Europe, Canada, and others. They also see what liberals have done to the United States, how liberals have weakened and continue to weaken our nation and everything in it... destroying everything that made this nation great. If liberals and liberalism aren't stopped, they will eventually turn American into a second or third rate country just like they have done to other once great nations.

Yes, liberals want equality for all people and all nations...

BY WEAKENING THE STRONG RATHER THAN STRENGTHENING THE WEAK!!!

AAR

Rev, please do not waste good air or bandwidth on Ashole! None likes him or wants to talk with him! He's a parrot from the far land of canada, which likes his cake and eat it too!

Thanks for the advice, but I kinda like yanking the benny-boy's chain. I didn't know he was Canadian, though. It DOES explain a lot.

O.K. then, I used to yank that chain! But he truly has nothing intelligent or good to say! I'd give it a week, maybe two and you'll be ignoring him also! Till that time, have at it, and have fun doing it! OOH-RAH!!!

Say Rev, bit off the subject, are the cats on your website yours. Or more accurately, are you theirs? If so, I know you are a good person, they are obviously happy and well cared for.

Say Rev, bit off the subject, are the cats on your website yours. Or more accurately, are you theirs? If so, I know you are a good person, they are obviously happy and well cared for.

are the cats on your website yours.

The cats are mine. The calico one is named Tinker and she's my little sweetheart. I found her nearly starved to death when I lived in the backwoods of Northern Michigan. She was trying to catch hummingbirds at my feeders and was maybe two days from being eaten by a coyote - many of which roamed the area. We've been best friends since that day.

The gray one is my buddy Harley, who we've had since he was six weeks old. The difference in their personalities is quite striking. Harley is quiet and reserved and Tinker is very active and demands attention all the time. I would not let anything hurt them - ever.

I like the "era" part. And you were a bus driver?

I was in supply, obtaining parts for the mechanics and driving them to the flight line.

You see they didn't want to send the best and brightest on 'Nam to get killed.

Thats what the Knuckle Draggers were for.

Thanks for the advice, but I kinda like yanking the benny-boy's chain. I didn't know he was Canadian, though. It DOES explain a lot.

Who's yanking whom's chain, Rev Knuckle Dragger?

My war was Viet Nam. What was yours?

That explains a lot K-D. Agent Orange wasn't very kind to you, eh?

Ashole-haven't you caught on yet people are laughing at you NOT with you. As for the Reverend-you go man keep focused, ashole is no match.

I was in supply, obtaining parts for the mechanics and driving them to the flight line.

So tell me, is it true that you're a Canadian? Did you give up your citizenship in America to become one of them? Because if you're Canadian, why would ANYBODY care what you have to say?

That explains a lot K-D. Agent Orange wasn't very kind to you, eh?

Yet another commie socialist displays his claimed "support for the troops." Now what lie are you gonna tell to replace that one? That you aren't gay? That is was just a one-night thing?