Certified Madness

I suppose you would argue that GWB - who hid away from any real service is a better person to decide on military affairs? He is a rich little brat who never worked an honest day in his life - why doesn't he send his daughters to do a duty if this is the battle of our times and its so honorable?

I'm not sure what point he is making by including the story of the under trained soldier who was the only one of thirty to survive.
I hope he's saying training is important.

What's the matter Leo, afraid if that if we actually make sure our troops are ready for combat it's going to hurt your US Casualty office pool?

Let's see, today is Friday, so what, you only need 6 more dead US Soldiers and you get that $20

# of days the Cowardly Leo spent in uniform...0

# of days the Cowardly Leo hides behind the troops...every day

# of days the Cowardly Leo tries to get sympathy because he thinks he's the only one with a family member in Iraq...every day

# of days the Cowardly Leo writes about what has no clue on...too many

Your logic escapes me. The reason the Americans were victorious was not because they were untrained and ill-equipped. The lesson here is that with the proper training perhaps more than one would have survived to fight again.

I always like the timing of B4B threads. With all due respect to Mr. Berkowitz and his comment in the Neocon WSJ rag, the civil war in Iraq is nothing like WWII. WWII was not a preemptive war of choice. In WWII we had to go to war with the equipment and training we had. Equipment that was decimated by the administration of isolationist Herbert Hoover. A better example would be the civil war in Vietnam. And as Colonel Paul Yingling said just today in the Armed Forces Journal, US generals failed to prepare their troops properly and had misled Congress about the resources needed for the war. Murtha wants to make sure if you are using troops as police offers, they get police officer type training.

# of times Opuss has posted an intelligent thought: zero

# of people who posted before Opuss on this thread and who are also morons: two

Dr. Rerun, why do you insist on repeating every lame, three-year-old talking point that we've all seen, hundreds of times, on this blog, in the last three years? Are you making a career out of being a moron? You're a spoof, aren't you? There's no way in hell that someone with a so-called college education can be as stupid as you are, and you're one stupid mofo...

kblack...the bile that keeps rising in your throat..how's that workin' for ya?

Leo, you rock. Don't pay any attention to the resident bridge-dwellers.

Jihad Jack Murtha is right. The man is dangerous to America and our Armed Forces.

keefer - you have never posted anything on this site except to call other people names. Why do I repeat? When your right - your right

"I suppose you would argue that GWB - who hid away from any real service is a better person to decide on military affairs? He is a rich little brat who never worked an honest day in his life "

Hmm, are you sure you aren't talking about John Kerry, who has been a poodle to rich women most of his life?

Or maybe Ted Kennedy, who has pretty much spent his life in politics, on the back of letting Mary Jo drown?

I don't remember Edwards serving, Clinton was a confirmed draft dodger, and Hillary sure hasn't served.

Meanwhile, more from Murtha:

Rep. Murtha: "[I]'ve Even Lost Confidence In The Military." (Peter Cohn, "Senate OKs War Package As Post-Veto Plotting Begins," National Journal's CongressDaily, 4/26/07)

Dr. Rerun, I call you names because you're a moron. You claim to have a PhD, yet you can't distinguish between the words "you're" and "your." You can't come up with any original thoughts--you regurgitate stale b/s talking points. And I detest your laziness--phonetic typing is for idiots. So, you're an idiot, and I'll treat you as such. Asshat...

keefer,

I think you're giving him entirely too much credit. A "idiot" is defined as having an IQ of 20. He can't have an IQ much above 10.

kblack77,

Are you a glutton for punishment? You keep coming back with idiotic statements and keep getting slammed.

I know that those with severe cases of BDS do not think that spending nearly two years on Active Duty learning to fly a F-102, running an Oil Exploration Company, being the Managing Partner of a Major League Baseball Team, or serving as the Governor of one of the largest states in size and population are "real" jobs, but they are.

As for sending his "daughters to do a duty" (which I assume you mean enlist or be commissioned in the Armed Forces), haven't you heard, we have an all-volunteer force. But you wouldn't know about that. Like most liberals, you are a coward, and wouldn't think of taking up arms to defend your country. You may call Republicans who never served a "chickenhawk", I call Democrats plain "chicken", cause there's nothing "Hawk-like" about them (with a few exceptions - Zell Miller and Joe Leiberman come to mind).

The units leave their tanks and vehicles in Iraq. NO unit leaving for Iraq has all their heavy equipment, they meet up with gear in theatre. This provision is a lie. It seems to work on the vast majority of "never-served and don't care to read about the military leftists".

Idiots.

Murtha is a traitor and should be regarded as such.

Keefer you are correct in your assessment of 99% of the libs who for some reason feel a need to post their insipid, drone like, poor imitation of thoughts here. I really wish we'd get at least the "B" team libs who were capable of 1 in 10 coherent thoughts.

I'm not getting slammed. I am just being called an "idiot" and an "asshat" -

just repeat talking points? Look we have offered time and time again alternative view points, methods, and suggested alternative policies. You just don't want to do anything but "bomb the muslims", support "victory", and support the "culture of life"...
And you accusing me of talking points??
GET REAL

Kblack, again, I will ask, since you all advocate a Diplomatic solution immediately. Just what is you desire we give away to the terrorists in return for a hopeful lasting peace?

To gain a dioplomatic end, it requires compromise. So, what do we give away to them?

As to your earlier claims about Bush, can't moonbat central ever come up with any fresh talking points that have been disproved time and time again?

Correction: make that "can't moonbat central ever come up with any fresh talking points that haven't been disproved time and time again?"

Dang fingers. Just washed my hands and can't do a thing with them ;-)

"I suppose you would argue that GWB - who hid away from any real service is a better person to decide on military affairs?"

Other than being an utterly vacuous statement it also massively ignorant.

"He is a rich little brat who never worked an honest day in his life"

Boy thats chock full of pertinent thought. Cause you and him were buddies you just know its true....huh.

"why doesn't he send his daughters to do a duty"

I'll type this slowly for you...Its a volunteer army you nitwit. So once again your comment is not only irrelevant but stupid.

Yea I see how "alternative view points, methods, and suggested alternative policies" just overflow from your toilet brain and your little brown thought just float by.

I'm not happy with Bush at all but to turn over control to the mindless zombies of the likes of you would be even worse. I gotta go with the lesser of 2 evils.

Ugg..

No - the problem with your position is that it is always
a) your with us
b) your with the terrorists

There is an alternative. Diplomacy? What do you give up? You give up having a constant agressive military presence in the middle east. You give up on supporting horribly repressive regimes in exchange for cheap oil. You give up only supporting one side in the Palestinian conflict in exchange for having an off shore military base.
You give up what we shouldn't have in the first place - an imperialistic militaristic foreign policy towards the rest of the world

"No - the problem with your position is that it is always
a) your with us
b) your with the terrorists"

Man your reading comprehension must be 0. Where in the previous post did I take any position stating this.

"You give up on supporting horribly repressive regimes in exchange for cheap oil."

Does this mean you support offshore drilling, anwar drilling, the building of more refineries and nuclear power plants...if so then we agree.

"only supporting one side in the Palestinian conflict"

I gave up on the paleswines a long time ago...it has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with the fact they have neither earned nor deserve any more consideration. The crap they are in today is of their own making.

"what we shouldn't have in the first place - an imperialistic militaristic foreign policy"

Imperialism is defined as: The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

Let me give you a hint sparky...thats the way the whole world works not just us...always has...always will. I know its scary to folks like you so you hide under your security blanket of feel good slogans and moral posturing but its not gonna change. But you go on and click your ruby slippers together and keep repeating, Theres no place like home...Theres no place like home...Theres no place like home...

By the way you never addressed the fact that your first post was a completely pointless, irrelevant, inaccurate, ignorant, posturing load of crap.

Does this mean you support offshore drilling, anwar drilling, the building of more refineries and nuclear power plants...if so then we agree.

- nuclear power plants i am fine with. Some new oil resources here - sure - but ultimately these fuels will run out - no matter how much drilling we do.
We need to more seriously develop alternative fuel sources

Let me give you a hint sparky...thats the way the whole world works not just us...always has...always will.

- so your argument is - other people will do it so even though its bad we should too? Let me give YOU a hint - if I decide to kill someone for their money - the fact that many other people have done it in the past doesn't justify me doing it one bit.. If other people do it - they SHOULDN'T EITHER

umm ok.. No my first point wasn't inaccurate. GWB success is based purely on his rich and powerful Daddy- without it he would have never gotten into Yale or Harvard. He wouldn't have been given the opportunity of being high level management in his father's oil companies. He wouldn't have been privileged enough to fail at everything he did until he was 40 - be an alcoholic and still manage to be Gov of Texas or President...

Its a matter of public record that he was a horrible student in high school - but got into great schools based on legacy..
Its a matter of public record that he was a C student at Yale
Its a matter of public record that he was moved around from cushy job to cushy job in his fathers companies
Its a matter of public record he was an alcoholic until he was 40

You give up having a constant agressive military presence in the middle east.

Please explain how we had an "aggressive military presence" in the Middle East in 1979.

You give up on supporting horribly repressive regimes in exchange for cheap oil.

Last I heard, we receive the bulk of our oil from Canada. Surely even you don't think Canada is a "horribly repressive regime."

You give up only supporting one side in the Palestinian conflict in exchange for having an off shore military base.

Last I heard, up until the time Hamas became the majority party, the U.S. has given a lot of aid to both the Palestinians and the Israelis. Seems it has been the U.S. that has done more to encourage both sides to sit down and work it out.

Maybe you could research the Jewish/Palestinian conflict, starting with the Balfour Declaration.

You give up what we shouldn't have in the first place - an imperialistic militaristic foreign policy towards the rest of the world

Ah yes, the old Marxist "imperialistic" America again. Please show me just where this vast "empire" of America's is located. Last I heard, every nation we ever vanquished was returned to the people of that nation intact, after they built their governments so as to not be a threat to others.

Now, care to actually say what you advocate giving up to terrorists in hopes of a lasting peace?

Its a matter of public record he was an alcoholic until he was 40

And what does the "public record" say about all those who still waltz through the revoloving doors of the Kennedy Wing at the Mayo Clinic Rehab?

"If other people do it - they SHOULDN'T EITHER

Theres no place like home...Theres no place like home...Theres no place like home...lol

Ok I'll waste a couple more minutes on this.

Imperialism: The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

Lets break this down into 2 parts. So where has America done a territorial acquisition...lets see we gave Europe back..check. We gave Korea back...check. What territory have we added to the US lately...none. Kinda blows your argument.

2nd part...establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

Do you honestly believe its possible in any trading, business, economic situation for this kind of maneuvering NOT to take place. Or if we don't everybody else will stop.

"other people will do it so even though its bad we should too?"

Its is intrinsically neither good or bad. Its is a normal unavoidable byproduct of humans jockeying for the best position in any type of interaction. Grow up and wise up...the big dogs usually eat first and somebody always has to be it. If your feeling so damn guilty about being luckily born here then move to a 3rd world country and whine about how "its not fair". Its only in lib fantasy world that the world can be always fair.

"umm ok.. No my first point wasn't inaccurate."

umm ok..your first non point was that "GWB - who hid away from any real service"

I'll repeat myself...Other than being an utterly vacuous statement it also massively ignorant and denigrates the fine people of the national guard.

"He wouldn't have been given the opportunity of being high level management in his father's oil companies. He wouldn't have been privileged enough to fail at everything he did until he was 40.

Yea cause you know no ones ever been given a job due to connections. Or helped cause their family was rich. ..so what.

"but got into great schools based on legacy.."

Yea thats never happened before either...so what.

"Its a matter of public record that he was a C student at Yale"

He made better grades than Kerry and Saint Al failed divinity school...so what.

So basically your just eaten up with jealousy that he got a lot better break than you cause Dads rich. Wealth envy the comfort blanket of the lib.

I guess what I'm trying to say to that post is..So the F*** what. Whats your point other than you resent that he might have gotten the same breaks that thousands have been given in one form or another. This is why conservative dismiss and ridicule libs...you've posted nothing of true substance just emotional drivel with no point.

Athough it would appear that most republicans are Christian, this is not the case. I say this because the majority of republicans support a man who has so obviously obvuscated the truth by his arrogance. I need not explain. A tree is known by it's fruit. Is this the legacy of a great Christian leader? A legacy that has forgotten or refused to acknowledge those whom Jesus' disciples supported--the poor, mothers and children and the disabled.

He is no Christian. He allows your children to be killed with impunity. Do you really require explanation as to why Vietnam was not successful? Who was the enemy and who were the innocent?

You are no Christian either. You only parade around in the disquise so you can deny who you really are. And I tell you then to remember that not everyone who cries "Lord, Lord!" will be saved.

I think you're giving him entirely too much credit. A "idiot" is defined as having an IQ of 20. He can't have an IQ much above 10.

Sorry, A-10--I meant "moron." But then again, he claims to have a PhD. I just can't believe that, because he's never passed a writing course in his life.

Dr. Rerun, "you're" means "you are." "Your" denotes possession. If I were to say "your a moron," the real moron would be me. Therefore, let me state, "YOU'RE A FREAKINIG MORON!!!"

Everyone is talking about Bush being the Commander-in-Chief and we should let him run the military. Congress people should not be involved because they don't know anything about the military stategy.

We if Bush did not dodge the Vietnam, he may have some of the (military)experiences that everyone is saying Congress doesn't have.

I see moonbat central is rehashing the Bush dodged Viet Nam canard again.

Obvioulsy they cannot fathom why upwards of 80% of those of us who served in Viet Nam supported Bush over both Gore and Kerry (who served in Viet Nam, you know).

Does it matter to them that flight training takes more time than commanding a medium sized boat? No.

Does it matter to them that Bush wasn't the one who made the Viet Nam War the basis of their campaign? No.

Does it even matter to them that Bush did ask to be sent to Viet Nam under the Palace Alert program? NO.

Did Bush appear before a trumped up Senate Committee to bad mouth his brothers and lie about us all? No.

But, again I will ask those who get their material from moonbat central, why is it service in the Military and Viet Nam was so important to you in 1988, 2000 and 2004. Yet, it had no bearing on one's ability to lead in 1992 and 1996?

My guess is cause the ones like rockhead are shallow minded twits with no comprehension of facts.