Finland? They have a military? Their military instructors have an opinion? Who cares? Finland? Is that really a country? It is like Lapland or Never Never Land? Does Anybody anywhere in the world care what they think? I sure don't. Next you'll be telling me recently discovered residents of the dark side of the moon hate Bush.

Poor bastard lives in a country that has a conscript military. That's the worst part.

"Finland? They have a military? Their military instructors have an opinion? Who cares? Finland? Is that really a country? It is like Lapland or Never Never Land? Does Anybody anywhere in the world care what they think? I sure don't. Next you'll be telling me recently discovered residents of the dark side of the moon hate Bush."

Reverend Scaramonga

Typical remark from an ignorant American who doesn't want to know about, hear about, or care about, any other country besides the good old U.S.A. You don't realize how silly this attitude makes you look to the rest of the world. Oh! that's right, you don't give a damn about the rest of the world. Continue to live in your own little bubble, bury your head in the sand and forget that there are others who share this planet with you.

CO,

We've just got a lot of contempt for the European "military" establishments - we're not sure that if push came to shove they'd do other than surrender. The Poles would probably fight with some determination...but the rest of Europe?

Mark
Read your history. The Finns were attacked by Russia who at that time was controlled by the Commies. They were not fighting as allies of the nazis.

Mark
By your logic, my father and uncles who fought in World War II were helping the Russians. How should they feel about that?

sometimes i am surprised at what countries have a military. LOL. we recently had at our base the swedish air force visiting us for a joint exercise. i said to my husband, "Sweeden has a military, and an air force"? LOL

sorry, little OT. go ahead and make fun of me now. LOL

Those Finns, they have a different word for everything...

Typical remark from an ignorant American

That really hurts, coming from a Canadian and all. Oucby.

The operative word is "care" about and the one you left out was countries who bash America. You're right, I don't care about them. But in the case of this country Finland, they've already denied that the statements reflect official positions and offered an explanation of why the recruit thought them to be:

Update: The press counsellor at the Embassy of Finland, Kristiina Helenius, tells me that it is "totally not typical" of the Finnish military, nor "part of the training." They're "very sorry this has happened." She said Finland is "100% sure it's just an individual."

Update II: The conscript tells me that the pictures of Saddam, Bin Laden, and Bush were all on a powerpoint presentation. This makes it seem, he suggests, that it was endorsed by higher military authorities and regularly used. All this took place in a lecture on WMD.

That's a pretty fast retreat, even for a Euro-weenie. I'd say they were our friends and allies, but then I looked up a list of who the NATO nations and guess who isn't in NATO? Finland. Here's why:

The main contester of the presidency, Sauli Niinistö of the National Coalition Party, supported Finland joining a "more European" NATO. Fellow right-winger Henrik Lax of the Swedish People's Party likewise supported the concept. On the other side, incumbent president Tarja Halonen of the Social Democratic Party opposed changing the status quo, same as most other candidates in the election. Her victory and re-election to the post of president has currently put the issue of a NATO membership for Finland on hold for at least the duration of her term.

So they get the protection of NATO without having to join.

Continue to live in your own little bubble, bury your head in the sand and forget that there are others who share this planet with you.

Now now...dry those big old Canuck tears. That kind of 6th grade insulting language just blows your "intelligent" and "world caring" hogwash all to smithereens as the unstudied and illogical clap trap everyone (outside of Canada) suspected all the time. Now go find one of those RCMP dudes in the red coats and ask him if you can ride his pony.

CO,
You constantly condradict yourself, first you complain that we are to involved in the world's situations, and now you are condemning Rev., stating we aren't involved enough. You think the rest of us do not recognize that Rev. has very good insight into the situations and many HERE enjoy his insight. Let me remind you of the web address you are typing in each time you come here blogsforbush.com. The people here are into rational discussions and debate regarding political issues. Once again I pose the question to you, you are Canadian why do you care????????

,,,my father and uncles who fought in World War II were helping the Russians. How should they feel about that?

Since the Soviets were our allies in WWII, pretty good. Things change, but the Nazis didn't - until we destroyed them. The Russia that existed before and during WWII was different than the one that emerged after two American traitors - the Rosenbergs - sold the technology to Russia to make atomic bombs. The cold war was on and they went from our ally to our adversary. Now the Soviet Union is no more. As separate countries emerge from what was the USSR, they are taking different political tacks and making their own choices. Some will be our friends and allies, others may decide to oppose us.

So your question is relatively meaningless given that short history. Did you really not know any of that?

Read your history. The Finns were attacked by Russia who at that time was controlled by the Commies. They were not fighting as allies of the nazis.

Suggest you do the same. The siege lasted for a total of 900 days, from September 8 1941 until January 27 1944. Notice anything strange about those dates? Pretty close to the start and end of WWII. Now, lets see...World War II was between the Axis (Germany (the Nazis), Italy, and Japan) and the Allies - too many to mention all of them but a couple of note are the USA and Russia.

Now stay with me on this... If you fight against Russia during that time, you are fighting against what was called the Allies. Since the people who were also fighting against the Allies were the Axis (including the Nazis), you are fighting on their side. Did you stay with me on that one? In other words, what you said was dead wrong, based on history. So my suggestion, once more is Read your history.

BTW: a siege is not a defensive measure. A siege is a prolonged military blockade and assault of a city or fortress with the intent of conquering by force or attrition. A siege occurs when an attacker encounters a city or fortress that refuses to surrender and cannot be easily taken by a frontal assault. Sieges usually involve surrounding the target and blocking the provision of supplies, typically coupled with siege engines, artillery bombardment or sapping (also known as mining) to reduce fortifications.

Ed. Note: The writer of this entry engaged in both anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic slander and will never be permitted to post on this blog again.

Enough with comparing *anybody* to Hitler. Even Bush.

Liberals have had that mud slung at them as well.

Wade

No more drive by Steve?

Finland is a dark and cold nordic country. It has a high alcoholism rate. It's citizens enjoy a short summer, then clamber off into the darkness to live a long cold drunk and depressing winter. It is, a very unhappy place.

Much like the mind of so many Democrats (sorry, couldn't resist).

Rev, have you been having fun giving such an informative and accurate history lesson to CO? I have been having fun reading it, and enjoying the fact that you are so right.

Oh Casper..

Here is a picture along with details of Finnish.. participation in WWII

http://www.feldgrau.com/finland.html

Note..the uniforms are NAZI...

Casper,

The Finns were attacked by Russia - in 1940; but in 1941 the Finns, allied with Nazi Germany, attacked Russia.

To all the Bush Supporters on this Blog.

I apologize for my earlier outburst. Some of you, I realize now, do know something about Nations, other than the ones you invade. I should not have made such a sweeping generalization. I guess I'm guilty of judging all Americans by the ones I've met in my travels. Sorry.

CO,

No problem - if we were to list all the times I've flown off the handle and issued unfair comment, we'd be here quite a while...

The Finns joined Germany to attack the Soviet Union on June 39 1941 to gain back territory that The Soviet Union took from them in 1940. On some areas of the front Finnish troops crossed the pre-Winter War border in order to gain favorable defensive positions along geographically advantageous areas (waterways, lakes etc.) but refused to join the German attack on the city of Leningrad. That does not make them Nazis anymore than our joining the Soviet Union makes us Commies. From 1944 to 1945 they fought Germany in northern Finland until the last German troops left on April 27th, 1945. It sounds to me like a small country caught between a rock (The Soviet Union) and a hard place (Nazi Germany).

The bigger point here is that you are making a judgement of an entire country based of a comment by one person. Does everyone here wish to be judged on comments made by other individual Americans wheather it be George Bush, John Kerry, Ann Coulter, or Michael Moore. I know I don't.

Casper,

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones - and given that this was a Finnish military officer and given that the last time the Finnish military was engaged in battle it was on the side of Hitler's army...well, perhaps that Finnish soldier should have thought things through a little better?

Of course, more importantly is what it illustrates - Bush hatred, in America and around the world, has become absurd. Never, I think, in human history has a man fighting for liberty and justice been so reviled...Goebbles, at his most crude, didn't say about Churchill and FDR the sort of slanders which have been launched against President Bush.

Personally, I think it is because President Bush is a clearly, deeply believing Christian...and that just brings out leftwing hatred like no tomorrow.

Wait...

So, because a country fought against an ally of ours almost 60 years ago, we still consider them an enemy?

Wow...

Were you even alive during World War II?

Mark
I disagree. I have been a Christian my whole life and I feel that Bush's beliefs are one of his strongest points. My problem with him is his performance. I have been a republican for over 20 years with a strong belief in small government and balancing the budjet, neither of which Bush has accomplished. I was 100% behind him when we went into Afganistan after Bin Ladin and the Talaban. He lost me as a supporter when he dropped the ball and attacked Iraq without finishing the job. I don't hate Bush but I am very disappointed in him as a president.

This should go in the post about Murtha getting sued, but I'm not sure that anyone still checks that post:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-08-04T225747Z_01_N04187611_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-HADITHA.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C3-politicsNews-3

Casper,

Ever hear of the SS-Division "Wiking"?:

This Division was formed in December, 1940. Initially, the Division was called Germania but the title of the unit was changed to Wiking in January, 1941. In February, a Finnish Volunteer unit was raised and attached to the Division (For more about this specific foreign unit, please look under the section on German foreign units in the section on Finland). Training for the Division took part at Truppen-Ubungsplatz Heuberg. The Division was ready for action in April, 1941.

The bigger point here is that you are making a judgement of an entire country based of a comment by one person.

Since you got it all wrong on the story about the Nazis, why should we look to you for the bigger picture?

BTW: It was me who published this in my comment early in this thread:

Update: The press counsellor at the Embassy of Finland, Kristiina Helenius, tells me that it is "totally not typical" of the Finnish military, nor "part of the training." They're "very sorry this has happened." She said Finland is "100% sure it's just an individual."

It appears that at that point, your "point" was moot.

CO.
Your .....non apology..duly noted.
Snarky, snarky..........tsk, tsk!!!!

Hitler certainly killed many more people than Bush ... however, if you think about it --- if Bush were allowed to stay in power for more than 8 years ... how many more do you think it would take to approach Hitler's number of 6 million?

maf - do you REALLY mean that? You hate him (and apparently the United States - because he is OUR president) enough to think he would, we would kill six million people?

Can you spell out a plausible scenario where this (kinda hateful) statement might come to fuition?

But just so you know. Hitler did NOT kill six million people. He and his party set up a system to systematicly murder six million Jews - yes. But the death toll in World War Two was FORTY MILLION. The Soviet Union alone lost TWENTY-FIVE million people.

World War Two was so much worse than so many people understand. And you equate (because your statement does equate) George Bush with Adolf Hitler. Come on, admit it. It really just highlights your ignorance.

Again - Can you spell out a plausible scenario where this statement might come to fuition? If not, well what... move on to insults or change the subject?

It is funny that the subject of this post has turned out to be a Finnish soldier ignorant of his own nations history. And his statements have been echoed by Americans... ignorant of our history.

(Might be a double post)

Can you spell out a plausible scenario where this (kinda hateful) statement might come to fuition?

The plausible scenario I mentioned above was if Bush were allowed more than 8 years in office. Since he became President, he has been responsible for the deaths of what ... conservatively speaking (no pun intended), 60,000 people? If you don't agree with that figure, then what would you put it at?

Now, if Bush remained President after the 2008 election, and he were to invade (dare I say "nuke") Iran, or Syria, or N. Korea ... then certainly that death toll number would climb dramatically. Not to mention the total number of deaths in Iraq.

Now .... I am not equating Bush & Hitler on any level except the bottom line of number of people killed. But 60,000 people are dead because of him. That is a fact. And whether or not you believe that the means justify the end, that sure is a whole lot of people, no? Even a cold-blooded Neo-Con should be able to admit that.

Here's some reality for you libs.

Um, Mary --- did I miss WWIII?

In all seriousness --- if Muslims are the absolute evil enemy of America, as you guys believe --- then why hasn't Bush advocated just carpet bombing all of them? I am not being hyperbolic.

Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and N. Korea for good measure. I'm sure I am forgetting others. You have announced these as our true enemies. They have declared Holy War (or some form of other war) against the United States, and they cannot be talked out of it. So why doesn't Israel and the United States just bust out the nukes and blast these people back to the 7th century?

This is what you want, no?

Maf, on that one, comparing the number of people Bush is supposedly responsible for killing, and the number Hitler was responsible for killing you are way off base. Hitler went after all who disagreed with him, not just the Jews. How do I know this? Well I had family in Germany that disagreed with him, good Christian/Germans. Some were killed outright, and some went to a concentration camp. I may not be old enough to remember the war, but I am old enough to understand why my family that is strongly of German descent always hated Hitler and what he stood for.

The killings you say Bush is responsible for are really the responsibility of the terrorists and extremists that attack indescriminately against the civilian populations.

Maf, get real. What do you really want to do, talk to the Taliban? Talk to Hezbollah? Make nice and pray they will do the same? Carpet bombing is a foolish idea, but it may come to targeted bombing if they do not learn to stop funding the terrorists.

maf - who said that’s what we want? I think we're desperately trying to NOT go to war. When do you think the Republicans became the War Party?

World War One – Democrat got us into it
World War Two – Democrat got us into it
Korea – Democrat got us into it, Republican ended it
Viet Nam – Democrat got us into it, Republican ended it

So was it that George H W Bush invaded Kuwait? Oh, wait no it was Iraq. Was that our fault? Warmongering Republicans helping free Kuwait?

Was it George W Bush that built a safe haven for Al-Queda in the mountains? Oh wait, that was Afghanistan. Was that our fault? We wanted the 9/11 attacks? You seriously think that?

You seem to forget that George Bush did not invade Iraq. The United States of America did. His actions were sanctioned by the duly elected representatives in the United States Congress. One Senator voted against it. ONE.

You think it would be our fault (automatically, without even spelling out a PLAUSIBLE scenario) if war came with Iran or North Korea. FYI - we are still at war with Korea. There is no peace treaty, only an armistice. But - well that’s kind of technical.

What part of the country do you live in? Is it someplace where liberal groupthink makes it possible for you to feel so passionately about things with limited facts and no thought? Do you really harbor all the ridiculous prejudices about Republicans? Or do you just sit around the coffee house nodding your head?

By the way, my father (he's been dead thirteen years now) was a Korea War vet.

His artillary unit was over run by Chinese and they had to thermite his howitzer when the Cat wouldn't start. His stories of wave after wave of soldiers charging them... only the first few ranks had guns. As they mowed down the Chinese with quad-.50's and small arms the rear ranks would pick up their weapons. Even his 155mm Long Tom was firing down the bore. Some people reading will understand what that means.

He would tell us the stories. But also, he'd have flashbacks. We'd have to have the Police put him into protective custody when that would happen. He'd be screaming fire missions into the phone - looking wildly into the distance. It would usually end with him saying "Oh my God" over and over.

Thats what I remember as a child. You think I don't know what a war with Korea would be like? A war that was caused by our turning away from the world and dismantling our power after World War Two? People who think that all we need to do is force a "regime change" are ignorant. Koreans support that wacko - they worship him. His Army is not going to buckle. THAT war will be awful, and bloody. You presume to think that I don't know that? That I want my kids to suffer like my Dad did? You must be the most ignorant person in the world.

maf,
you are in deep denial if you believe that Islam is anything but a "religion" of hate. As posted here many, many times their Koran preaches the complete detruction of the infidels, you know, anyone who doesn't believe as they do. I'm for what ever it takes to win. The love I have for my country and my family far outways and concerns I have in regards to negotiating with terrorists. Ever hear the phrase "it's like talking to a brick wall!"

Man are liberals so blinded by hatred and stupidity. It is really scary. I mean REALLY scary.

All I can say is that it will take another major attack on the USA for these people to get it, and even then they will probably scream that we "deserve it" and that we need to "understand" them.

"All I can say is that it will take another major attack on the USA for these people to get it, and even then they will probably scream that we "deserve it" and that we need to "understand" them."

Warrior,

Let's hope and pray that this isn't the case ... and even if it is, let's hope the liberals aren't THAT stupid. One attack was scary enough, I hope and pray to God that our country never sees something of 9/11 magnitude happen again.

At any rate ... this Bush/Hitler comparison thing is something that needs to be stopped dead in its tracks. If it weren't for President George W. Bush, we probably would have already experienced numerous other 9/11 magnitude attacks. I know that the author of that Bush/Hitler comparison statement probably doesn't give a crap if that is the case, but all Americans sure has heck need to stand up for our leader, cause I believe he's one of the finest we've had in a long time.

If we'd stick to the democrats tactics "Turn Tails and Run" we'd be making ourself liars, and not to mention that the Iraqi society with what progress it has made, would crumble in on itself. It would be a sad day if we decided to cut and run. People of other countries would look at America and say "They're nothing but a bunch of liars who make broken promises, they care about no one..." I don't wanna see that happen. Not only for our sake, but for the Iraqi peoples sake. They have gone through countless years of hellish torment from Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. These people have had no freedom, no lives, and no purpose to fight for. The Al Qaeda and Saddam sucked the hope out of them. But thank God that President George Bush decided to stand in the gap and is now working towards making a CHANGE in this battered country.

No ... we can't cut and run, too much is at stake. Those that support liberal senators need to wipe the tar off their eyes, and try to see the evil intentions of the Democratic Party. THEY are the ones who don't care. President Bush is working toward a steady improvement in Iraq, but I believe it's going to take two-sided support for it to keep continuing.

Lucas.

I'm for what ever it takes to win.

So are they, marys; the hate/blame-America left is for whatever it takes...to win back their power in D.C.

You're wasting your time, mary; these lemmings are blinded by hatred--it trumps logic. It trumps the truth...

All I can say is that it will take another major attack on the USA for these people to get it,...

A major attack on Hollywood, SanFran, Seattle, Boston, or Chcago might wake some people up, but the remaining kooks would just blame Bush and America. That's where we are now; if it's bad, it's our fault. If, by some chance, something good happens, and it's too obvious for the drive-by media and the kook left to ignore, they will say that it's about time--the law of averages kicks in now and then.

That's where we are now. Sadly, there's no cure for this divisiveness. Harry Reid-tard speaks of wanting Congress to work in a bi-partisan manner, while all he means is "we want our way all the time." And the left is about to nominate the most divisive candidate ever. It ain't gonna get any better, no matter what happens in November, or in '08. A DemocRAT victory will not result in the instant kookification of free-thinking, logical people.

Thanks for your time. War

Keefer,
I can't yet post as eloquently as the article I cited. I was attempting to add something I felt was important to the thread, but, alas I'm afraid you are correct. The hatred of the left is blind to reason, hopefully the article proved interesting for those here who want a real discussion of the issues. As you, Rev and Retired Spook say, don't mess with trolls!!!

Keefer,
I can't yet post as eloquently as the article I cited. I was attempting to add something I felt was important to the thread, but, alas I'm afraid you are correct. The hatred of the left is blind to reason, hopefully the article proved interesting for those here who want a real discussion of the issues. As you, Rev and Retired Spook say, don't mess with trolls!!!

There is no difference between Finland and Russia. Sure, the aircraft sells cars.

More garbage in garbage out by the Eurorail rats.

Kahn,
I didn't see your post until this am, my computer crashed last night. I am sorry for what your dad went through, and what you had to witness as a child. I admire him for his sacrifice, and for all who have sacrificed so we have the freedoms we have today. Our troops do their duty like no other "employees" in the world. They don't call-in sick, they don't question their mission, they don't have signs in their tents b*tching about their jobs, they don't pawn off their duties to others, and they don't get to come home every night and get on their computers to whine or complain. They don't get to hug their families each night before bed. I don't have words strong enough to express my admiration for the military. My gratitude is infinite and the constant scrutinity they face by the libs and the press sickens me.

Mary S,

You are doing just fine... great in fact!

I'm certainly not an eloquent and articulate writer or speaker, but I give it a try.

I encourage other conservative and Republican readers to join in with their comments. It's not hard once you get started and get the hang of it and it gets easier as you go. Just get a thick skin and don't let the liberals bother you! We need more straight thinkin', straight talkin', and straight shootin' Americans -- not more "Slick Willies"!

Write letters to the editors of your local paper. Let your friends know what is really happening in America and inform them about the real liberal agenda via e-mail, conversations, or whatever means you choose.

AAR

Mary S,

I agree that it is a waste of time trying to teach or educate the trolls in anything rational or logical.

At the same time, however, I don't think we want their warped views and cheap shots to stand unchallenged for others who may be reading the comments.

When someone says you are wasting you time with trolls, I take that as a comment to alert readers to the fact that those comments are from trolls, have no value, and should be ignored. It's a way of [used sparingly] occasionally telling readers to ignore their comments, without wasting time on them!!!

AAR

AAR,
Excellent points! I'll continue to try to expand my knowledge. you've been a great help, and YOU are an eloquent poster!!

AAR,
Your points are valid, and I will remember them. I hope to continue to learn and post more eloquently. You in fact post very eloquently!!!

Deleted - Offensive reference to others.

Maf,
This is the problem with not teaching values, because people don't understand what responsibility means. You say 60,000 people die while Bush was in office in armed conflicts connected to the one we're involved in. By your logic, Churchill and FDR were responsible for millions and millions of deaths, because that's how many people died in armed conflicts connected with their countries while they were in office. Do you get it yet? I'm totally with the crowd that doubts many "innocent" Lebanese have been killed, because they riot by the hundreds of thousands in support of Hezbollah, just as there is great support in North Korea for Il, and there's great support in Iran for its "president." I certainly don't want to see millions and millions die, but can you logically explain to me what we did, what George Bush did to become an "infidel" who deserves to die, what all Americans and Israelis did to deserve to die? Because I'm not understanding it, so please explain it logically. If Bush is an aggressive, expansionist madman as the left portrays him to be, why haven't we attacked Canada and Mexico? Are their militaries even as strong as Saddam's? Why hasn't Bush attacked them? If he's like Hitler, that's what he'd be doing. Why hasn't he exterminated non-whites like Hitler, rounded up Jews and Gypsies into camps? If he's like Hitler, he's falling down on the job. Next time you talk about Bush being like Hitler think about why people hated Hitler before speaking. Hitler's neighbors weren't attacking him when he attacked them. The Jews weren't cutting the heads off Germans. Hitler could have lived a long time if he was willing to let others do the same. Bush wasn't in office for a year before they killed two thousand Americans. When was Hitler provoked like that? You may gain some perspective as long as you keep telling yourself that in your logic, so far Bush is responsible for a hundredth of the deaths that FDR had been responsible in less time. Why didn't FDR ever learn to listen to his enemies?

Georgia,

Nope - just making an observation; considering the source, and all that.

Caspar,

I guess that is fair enough - as for me, I'm not much of a fiscal conservative. It just doesn't interest me all that much: money matters being just so trivial in the long run, and its not like anyone can actually foreclose on us. Where I am a fiscal conservative, even most fiscal conservatives won't go...and thus, in my view, expose themselves not so much as fiscal conservatives, but liberal financial sharks who just want the ability to take advantage of the system: boiled down, I want us back on the gold standard so that no central bank or other group can manipulate the value of our money - "deflate" the currency by replacing existing currency with a new currency at a 10 for 1 ratio...ie, you turn in a $10 and get a new $1 in return - but backed by a fixed amount of gold and silver in the US treasury; everything would be reckoned in value as 1/10th what it is now...make $20 an hour today, you'll make $2 an hour tomorrow; own a 400k home today, own a 40k home tomorrow, etc. The reason for this is so that it is possible to have a dollar's worth of gold (which would be pegged at $30 per ounce)...inflation was never much of a problem in the US until we went off the gold standard and Uncle Sam and the major financial institutions gained the ability to pay back bad money for good. Outside of myself, I don't know of anyone else who advocates this truly fiscally conservative position.

On the social issues, President Bush is 100% solid, and they are far more important for the future of our civilization than any trivial argument over levels of spending.

And as for Iraq - it was the vital thing to do: it was, in my view, more important than going in to Afghanistan to topple the Taliban...had I been President, I would have liberated Iraq long before I turned my attention to Afghanistan. We're engaged in a War on Terrorism, not a War on bin Laden - and that means that we have to go to the root of the problem, which is the socio-political milieu in the Arab/Moslem world. By striking at Saddam's Iraq, we siezed the strategic center of gravity in the middle east - its no accident that Mesopotamia has been a battlefield for 4,000 years - and by inserting a democratic regime, we have placed ourselves in a position to remake the entire middle east. It was always a gamble, and always a hard task - but short of exterminating the population of the middle east, it is the only way to win the war.

Our Canadian voyeur says:
" I guess I'm guilty of judging all Americans by the ones I've met in my travels."

May I suggest that your travels extend beyond San Francisco and Boston?

Or maybe not. Because if you pull that snarky passive-aggressive crap in the Heartland you may end up having your snotty Canuck ash handed to you on a platter---and we'll ship you off to Alberta where they will finish the job.

Stick to the neorad blogs where you are with your own kind...............

Thank you, morris, for your excellent post. We do need to challenge these invented figures that are just tossed out for the gullible to snap up.

No one knows how many have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of those who did die, no one knows how many were innocent civilians and how many were un-uniformed combatants. Of the children, and the women who were not combatants, no one knows how many were in harm's way because they were placed there specifically to provide either shielding or propaganda fodder if they were killed. Of those killed, no one knows how many were killed by coalition forces and how many were killed by their own to provide a photo op and propaganda.

The Left's figures are totally meaningless.

What we do know is that we have found the remains of approximately 300,000 people slaughtered by Sadaam in his death and torture chambers alone----not knowing how many other bodies are buried in mass graves around the country. And we know that that kind of killing was stopped when we took over the country. Aside from a very few isolated incidents involving unauthorized actions by individuals, this has ended.

I don't know of one rational person who ever hoped for, much less promised, a Utopia in Iraq. All we could hope for was a decrease in our national vulnerability by interrupting Sadaam's WMD program, an interruption of funding to various terrorist groups from Iraq, a halt to the brutality of the Sadaam regime, and an atmosphere in which the Iraqis could choose their own form of government. We have made incredible progress toward achieving those goals.

No one ever promised, much less anticipated, a sudden lurch into a calm and peaceful western-style democracy. Anyone who thought that would happen simply had no grasp of the facts. But an improvement was possible, and an improvement was achieved.

The absolute silliness of rejecting or denying the progress we HAVE made is impossible to understand. The determination to put the worst face possible on our efforts, even if that means lying and exaggerating and stubbornly insisting on things that simply are not true is very bizarre.

And the only reason I can think of for such intransigence is that some deep-seated emotional need is met by such negativity, such wallowing in blind hatred, such devotion to the untrue. I don't really understand it, if understanding implies any degree of empathy, but I think I can identify it. And I find it deeply distasteful.

This is why I really appreciate the calm, rational, intelligent and insightful posts of so many here---AAR, Mary, the Rev, Spook, A-10, kimberly, Kahn, Annie, kjstrouble---this is like an Academy Awards speech, where suddenly I hate to think of leaving anyone out---and now morris. I've learned so much from all of you, in addition to being encouraged to know there are people like you out there balancing the kook element we keep seeing here.

Almiranta,
Thanks, and I mean that. It's a nice change from the liberal blog where I used to comment. As much as I believe I must challenge their perceptions, I got tired of their personal attacks. Your warm words remind me of something I read years ago by Edmund Burke: "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."