Actually Pelosi was blinking in a 50 word per minute encoded transmission to the audience of programmed surrender - bot dems!

Bit OT.
Did anyone else notice S.Kerry bent over streaking up the isle and out of the hall immediately after the State of the Union speech last night?
It looked like his ass was on fire.

Have we heard any disjointed mumblings from Borat Dion as to his stance on the Afghan mission....or is humanitarian military deployment a carbon producing industry he wants to tax?

I sat throught GWB's speech and I don't think he convinced anyone that I could see. HRC looked like she was ready to kill him. Obama looked bored.

Two things I did notice, as well:

1. Either Nancy Pelosi has ill-fitting dentures, she had to go to the WC, or she just didn't want to be there. She looked decidedly nervous to me.

2. Dick Cheney looked as if he was reaching under his chair for more shotgun shells. I don't know who he might be aiming for, though. Maybe Ms Pelosie.

Pelosi is doing what Dem brass tells her to and the Dem power brokers are getting their orders from the same financial supporters who have already coronated McCain as the White house heir apparent. Hitlery ans Osama Obama are diversions, McCain is the insider's selected pony. McCain will stay the course in the ME.

Praetorian imperialism will be carried forth by the upcoming Dem replacement team...it's on to Iran and secure the course of long term US military presense in the ME. Watch for permanent USAF bases in the ME to appear.

There is no decernable difference between Straussian neocon imperialism and Statist Dem imperialism...both carry the foreign policy of the new US military empire forward as directed in PNAC.....and both will militarize domestic federal "homeland security" agencies and persue a pseudo-martial law surviellence state....both will allow the leaky southern border to bleed 3 million illegals a year to please the party supporters who consume wetback labour...both will persue the anti-sovereingtist economic agenda of North American union...both will continue to disarm and subjugate the US populace with laws which ignor constitutional restraints on federal power....both parties are slaves to the funding they need to stay in power and must play in the same sandbox as the affluent patrician oligarchy who continue to write federal policy and direct government agendas from the obscurity of powerful private policy groups.

Do not be surprised when you see a Dem controlled congress and whitehouse in 2008 continue the neocon PNAC agenda and expand or maintain ME military operations. They are just following an agenda which they are bound to by the dominant US economic oligarchy.

The guy who really impressed me was the Democrat who gave the rebuttal. Not because of the content of his speech so much, but more for the effectiveness of his delivery. I watched the SOU on PBS and Mark Shields' comment that "a star is born" may not be far off the mark. I can't remember the guys name, but watch for him. He's good and has a good track record as well.

Actually, what caught my eye with Pelosi sitting behind the President was the fact that her mouth/jaw kept twitching as though she were about to die from thirst. Very distracting. You could tell she wasn't sure how to behave/react to what was being said.

"Praetorian imperialism will be carried forth by the upcoming Dem replacement team..."; WL Mackenzie Redux.
The Empire Strikes Back? How did the Empire arrange 9/11, sinking of the Cole, embassy, WTC, & Beruit Military barracs Bombings, etc?
Wasn't the ME & Far East far more stable when most were colonies of Europe?

WL (as in WL Mackenzie) I now fully understand is an acronym for WACKY LUNATIC.

That is all.

"Via email from an angry MilBlogger offended that the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives sat silent on a call to victory in Iraq yet stood in ovation at the call to support the troops.' who says; "If this is how you support us, please, just *&^%ing stop.""

Without commenting on the general class displayed by the commentator who said the above words, I would like to declare that I think Pelosi did the right thing.

One can support the troops without supporting the war that they are fighting, especially when the war was instigated on flimsy pretenses and which now derives its justification from the results of the initial stages of war. Iraq became a cesspool of Islamofascsism as a result of the war and not independent of it, a fact not lost upon any one who does an objective analysis.

Supporting the troops while not supporting the war implies the acknowledgement that hte troops were in no way involved in the decisionmaking process that led up to the war. Pelosi is showing her disdain for the decisions that led to the war, the same ones that will now purportedly lead to victory. She is not opposed to victory or the troops, but she is not stupid enough to be enticed by rhetorical flourishes such as "support victory", because the people who are making the decisions that will lead to victory are the same ones who have succeeded only at making a royal mess out of the situation.

It is possible to support the troops without supporting the plans, since the plans might be wrong. Supporting "victory" does not warrant that everyone agree wholeheartedly on the method, regardless of their opinion, and follow blindly a group of leaders who ve made many a mistake in the none too recent past.

Following blindly is best left, apparently, to Canadian Republicans.

"There is no decernable difference between Straussian neocon imperialism and Statist Dem imperialism...both carry the foreign policy of the new US military empire forward as directed in PNAC....."

PNAC is DOA so say its chief architects. The only thing keeping the Iraq War going (quite rightly in my view) is the moral obligation that the USA has to see it through to the end and honour its commitment to the Iraqi people (however foolish the war was in conception or execution). The neocon philosophy is dead for a generation.

According to Wikipedia, the following definition applies to "neoconservatives:

"According to Irving Kristol, the founder and "god-father" of Neoconservatism, there are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism:

1. Economics: Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady, wide-spread economic growth and acceptance of the necessity of the risks inherent in that growth, such as budget deficits, as well as the potential benefits, such as budget surpluses.
2. Domestic Affairs: Preferring strong government but not intrusive government, slight acceptance of the welfare state, adherence to social conservatism, and disapproval of counterculture
3. Foreign Policy: Patriotism is a necessity, world government is a terrible idea, the ability to distinguish friend from foe, protecting national interest both at home and abroad, and the necessity of a strong military."

If this philosophy is dead, Jose, does that mean I get to look forward to:

- higher taxes
- stagnant economic growth
- intrusive government
- big welfare state
- celebration of counter-culture
- lack of patriotism
- implementation of a world government
- a weak military

Oh yeah! Bring it on...but first let's legalize heroin and physician-assisted suicide. /sarc off

To my way of thinking, anything other than those "neocon" philosophies as quoted above is a recipe for disaster.

Eeyore: I wouldn't trust wikipedia.

From Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: neo·con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: "nE-O-k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
Function: noun
1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and U.S. national interest in international affairs including through military means

The first, being the original and more general definition. The second, being the common use of the word in US media. The Wiki def looks more like one guy's interpretation, and not an actual definition.

"One can support the troops without supporting the war that they are fighting,"; jeremiah

Wrong; Jeremiah. What you are proposing is Loosing the war. War has two parts; psychological and physical. We are loosing the psychological war.
An old Prussian General said, and this is not a direct quote: a determined and well equipped enemy cannot be defeated unless the whole citizenry of a country rise up and join the battle. Von Clausewitz works are regarded as the authority on warfare.
The Islamofascists don't have the military capability to defeat us but we can deliver that defeat if we don't dump the nonense and work together.

I couldn't help but notice that after all this non-partisan crap that the Dems were talking about, the audience were like puppets on a string with half of them not moving until speaker Pelosi either clapped or stood up. President Bush spoke about a lot of things but as usual the MSM can only focus on Iraq. Forty-one straight months of job growth and dat ain't because of gubmint cretien, ...err creation programs.

For those who still say that the MSM is unbiased, please explain why before the speach MSNBC has Hillory on the pregame show. If that were Canada I'd say there was possibly a senate seat available.

1) Support the troops
2) Support the mission

Some individuals conflate the two; others see a fundamental difference. Agreed?

War does not mean the suspension of freedom of opinion, explicitly or implicitly, especially regarding the methods of execution adopted by a leadership that so far has done more damage than good.

The citizenry can support the army, and I daresay it is, to the extent that opposition to the war is based on opposition to the tactics adopted by an inept leadership, and should not be mistaken as an opposition to the rank and file of the army. Besides, Clausewitz wrote at a time when freedom of opinion was a laughable concept, and a time at which you had no choice but to support the absolute monarch. America is not a Monarchy.

It is true that there are two parts to a war, but the psychological battle was lost long before Nancy Pelosi refused to stand up. The psychological battle was lost when American soldiers asked Rumsfeld why they had to go through scrap in order to create armor for themselves.

It is easy to blame the Democrats for losing the psychological battle because they are pointing out all the glaring mistakes that have been made by the Bush Administration, and arent willing to follow blindly. But what about the psychological impact of the manner in which this battle has been run - promised one thing, recieved another. The day President Bush declared Mission Accomplished, is the day the psychological battle began to be lost. Cant blame Pelosi for it really.

Jose and jeremiah:

You made a wrong turn at Albuquerque. You meant to post at one of these sites:

dailykos.com
huffingtonpost.com
democticunderground.com
kkk.com

Please take your vile stench with you when you go.

If Bush had made a call for defeat Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Dems would have jumped up cheering.

Ahh Cherenkov, I was just tweaking Jose a bit. I take everything I read with a grain of salt, including what is provided here at SDA and the comments. No one or no one side of the political spectrum has cornered the market on wisdom.

And Crabgrass...I can see your point (or part of it at least). But if you don't support the mission, then bring the troops home IMMEDIATELY...do not leave them there fighting with one hand tied behind their back or half blind. Give them the tools and support to finish the mission or have them run away...one or the other. Half-a**ed measures don't cut it in a war. If you don't support the mission while the troops are still there, you are NOT supporting the troops...UNLESS they leave immediately.

The war is far from lost. Ask the troops who are actually fighting it. While I disagreed with the decision to invade in 2003, now that the U.S. is there it is critical that they stay until victory is achieved. I really don't understand a refusal to support an American victory in Iraq. Wouldn't that be the best possible outcome? Leaving without victory is defeat, and would encourage our enemy (and they are OUR enemy too) to redouble their efforts around the world. Patience and perseverance are what are most needed now. If strategy and tactics must be changed to adapt to a ruthless, clever enemy so be it.

Doug

How very mature...I take it asking for a response to an argument is beyond your intellectual capacity?

"War does not mean the suspension of freedom of opinion,"

No it doesn't. But it does not permit you take unchalleged the disengenuous position of paying lip service to the troops as you openly campaign for their defeat.

Because not to support their mission is to endorse failure. No soldier goes into combat consoled that you hope he's safe and warm until he gets the chance to flee with his tail between his legs.

And with failure of those missions you don't support, you enbolden an enemy that is sure to be even more difficult when the day comes that a mission is engaged that you _do_ support.

People like you cost lives. For all the support you claim, in your heart of hearts, you secretly rejoice when the body counts come in, because you believe you can damage your political enemies at home through defeat in Iraq without damaging your nation's security.

What a fool you are.

neocon was first penned to describe an ex Liberal.

The modern context was attributed to Russell Kirk and his ilk.

The word has been perverted in the last few years with attempts by some on the left to draw incorrect comparisons between neo-con and neo-nazi. There has been an attempt to find commonality in the prefix which has nothing to do with Conservatism or Nazism. Ask anyone on the street to play the match game, "NEO - (blank)" and see what you come up with. A few geeks like myself might say NEOGEO, some especially thick will say the guy from the Matrix, but he majority will say Conservative or Nazi. Because of neo-nazism the whole prefix has an evil feel to it. It is for this reason that every other question in the House uses the word.
Sorry for the ramble. My take.

How about sending troops in underequipped? Is that disingenuous? Or declaring Mission Accomplished when the Battle has hardly begun? Disingenous? Or not having a viable plan, and then coming up with half baked plans to pull oneself out of a quagmire? Not disingenous?

Whos campaiging for the defeat? The ones whos decisions have put us in this position, or the ones who dare challenge these amazingly short-sighted decision? Its easy to accuse the Dems of paying lip service now, but what about the lip service the Republicans put forth in the last, whats it been, 3 and a half years? They put the troops in this mess without providing the proper plans or equipment.

Soldiers dont like going to wars that are ill planned, especially when they are underequipped. If the Democrats are guilty, then so are the Republicans, especially sycophants such as yourself who wouldnt tolerate any criticism of the plans even though they ve done nothing to actually help the troops on the ground. The Dems may voice criticism, but hte Republicans can take full responsibility for the manner in which this entire war has been carried out.

People like me dont cost lives. People like you, who swoon so deriliously at every Republican uttered word, cost lives by sending troops illequipped to ill planned wars. At least people like me bother to point out that something is wrong.

As for this sadistic notion that I rejoice when body counts come in, well, thats just pathetic. Unlike you, I value human lives, American, Canadian, Christian, Muslim. I dont think you can say that you do, in light of your own utterances about Lebanese and Muslim deaths. I do not rejoice when human beings die. You do. You play distinctions. I dont. Its the Republican way after all, dehumanising anybody who dares differ. I wonder what you re doing in Canada anyway?

George Bush is a living example of the old saying: "Prepare to fail if you fail to prepare."

jeremia reminds me of the American Idol freak show, a totally unqualified moron with no respect for his betters and no sense of his complete lack of knowledge to discourse on a subject he does not understand. He may even have an entourage cheering him on and telling him how smart he is.

Read his last windy post, dishonest, deceptive, real drivel.

Hey jeremiah, your carved in stone hippie dogma - "war is bad" - does not qualify you as a military and foreign policy expert.

Hey Anon,

No respect for betters? Oh right. Republicans and their Canadian sycophants are better than the rest. My bad. Perhaps thats why you are anonymous.

Dont care much for the barbs, but hwat exactly is dishonest or deceptive in what I ve said. Perhaps you will point it out, what with you being better htan me.

I am not in fact a hippy. As an instructor at a military college, and a former naval officer, I think I can lay claim to some expertise.

eeyore "To my way of thinking, anything other than those "neocon" philosophies as quoted above is a recipe for disaster."

The definition you give for "neocon" is actually classic conservatism. There's actually quite a bit of daylight between classic conservatism and Straussian Neconservatism.

Jeremiah- Amen to that. If people who disagree with you like anon can summon up nothing more substantial than insults like anon has then you've basicaly won the argument.

But the worst thing about the Iraq mess is the very real possibility and (hopefuly not) near certainty that now that America has made a mess of the place that they'll pull out before stabilising that country. The fact that the war was ill considered and badly concieved is not a reason to abandon Iraq. The USA has a moral imperative to do the right thing by the people of Iraq. Civil Wars are long and messy but not infinite in length. If the USA sees things through for long enough that country *will* eventually stabilize. The question is does the USA have to guts to tough it out? I'd like to say yes but I suspect not. Neither political party will want to campaign in '08 on a platform of "we plan to stay in Iraq for 5-10 more years".

Doug "Jose and jeremiah:

You made a wrong turn at Albuquerque. You meant to post at one of these sites:"

I do read some of those blogs but I don't comment on them. I'm a debate junkie. I mean no disrespect or bear any ill will to people whose opinions differ from mine (although my blood does boil on SDA on ocassion, sometimes it's hard to shrug off all the insults). If you don't want to summon up the energy to debate me by all means feel free to ignore me.

Jose, as I am not "nuanced" in my understanding of political double-speak, I honestly don't/didn't know what the "true" definition of "neocon" was...so I looked it up in Wikipedia. Nobody seems to agree with the definition...whatever, I don't care.

You state that the definition I quoted was for classic conservatism. Fine...I'm a classic conservative then instead of a neocon. Still, my opinion remains unchanged: anything other than those "classic conservative" philosophies as quoted above is a recipe for disaster.

As for neocon philosophies that are dead for a generation (as you put it), does that mean that "the assertive promotion of democracy and U.S. national interest in international affairs including through military means" is dead for a generation? Or what other neocon philosophies are you referring to?

Presuming the above to be what you were referring to, you're proposing a form of isolationism then? Are you suggesting that the US should act like the "non-heroes" in society today...they see a criminal act being perpetrated and they do nothing to help? Personally, I would rather play the hero who stands up for those who are being abused and beat back the bullies and thugs.

The liberal philosophy as it seems: hide in the corner, curled up in the fetal position, rocking back and forth with your hands over your ears shouting "Stop! Stop! Please stop!" Pathetic.

But no, that's not how you'd put it, I suppose. "Dialogue. Quiet diplomacy. Nuance. That's how it's done."

In my opinion "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a big enough rock" (Will Rogers). I don't think your liberal philosophy has room for any "rocks".

I think you may be correct, at least partially...it may be dead, but I don't believe for a generation. I suspect the Democrats will take the 2008 elections and then have to deal with their own version of a 9/11...after which, the Americans would welcome a Republican back in the White House.

Your parroted leftie dogma's been consistently debated into the ground for years, it's a waste of time debating with the reality challenged, in debate the nut always has the advantage.

"sending troops in underequipped" Laughably untrue and dishonest.

"declaring Mission Accomplished when the Battle has hardly begun" Untrue, dishonest.

"not having a viable plan, and then coming up with half baked plans to pull oneself out of a quagmire" Dishonest

"amazingly short-sighted" "put the troops in this mess without providing the proper plans or equipment" Dishonest, naive.

"Soldiers dont like going to wars that are ill planned, especially when they are underequipped" This one's a good one, dishonestly implying that the troops' morale is bad.

Insults are all you deserve. Ignoring you is probably best, maybe then you will go away to Rabble or KOS.

Hey, jeremiah, no army enters the battlefield with a perfect inventory of equipment. You can't predict perfectly what you're missing until you have boots on the ground because it depends on what the enemy is throwing at you. Ever read any WWII history or any military history for that matter?

Whatever complaints that the troops had initially in Iraq were quickly corrected four years ago. The US military is the best high tech military in the world.

"People like me dont cost lives."

Oh, yes, you do. Because in times of peril idiots that can't process complicated issues, use logic and get off of their ass to track down basic facts are dangerous to a democracy. Our western culture and secular values are under assault, your illogical shill idiocy is on a par with the fact challenged, irrational Islamofascists we are up against.

Muddled ignorance causes lots of deaths. It brought Hitler, Lenin, Castro and, now, Chavez into power just to name a few.

Jeremiah,

Out of curiousity, what did you do as a Naval Officer? What do you teach at your military college?

Thank you Penny for stating the obvious (to most of us at least). If I remember it was a lieberal government that sent canadian forces into the desert with green cammo. They couldn't get real stuff like bullets and things because their budget had been slashed for the last decade or so. Had to hitch a ride on a Russian aircraft to get there too. The lieberal leaders of the day were fast and furious to commit our troops/peackeepers everywhere but nobody thought about the bill. It was all about the photo op and sound bite.

For the history buffs out there, compare and contrast the RCN and the RCAF before and after WWII. some people never learn from history.

The argument here about classical Conservatism and classical Liberalism is laughable. The positions between the two change and the winds blow. The notion that Republicans are war mongers is ridiculous: Kennedy as a Democrat had no trouble going into Vietnam, FDR WWII, Wilson WW1, Truman The Korean War and Polk the Mexican War.
Since Reagan, the Republican Party and thus Conservatism has adopted the Democratic approach of diplomacy abroad. The Democrats are now slinking backwards into what the Republicans once were (Isolation and Protectionalism). In today's world of nano this and macro that, I dare say the Repbulicans are on the right course.

How could we?

Did you know that 47 countries' have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?

Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?

Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated,

364 schools are under rehabilitation,

263 new schools are now under construction

and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq?

Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities,

46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers,

all currently operating?

Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United State s in January 2005

for the re-established Fulbright program?

Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational?

They have 5 - 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.

Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons,

which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft

(under Iraqi operational control)

which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?

Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?

Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000

fully trained and equipped police officers?

Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq

that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks?

Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq?

They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations,

22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.

Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5

have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?

Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?

Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq

and phone use has gone up 158%?

Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations,

180 newspapers and 10 television stations?

Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?

Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?

OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW!

WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW?

OUR MEDIA WON'T TELL US!

Instead of reflecting our love for our country,

we get photos of flag burning incidents at Abu Ghraib

and people throwing snowballs at the presidential motorcades.

Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves two purposes:

It is intended to undermine the world's perception of the United States

thus minimizing consequent support,

and it is intended to discourage American citizens.

---- Above facts are verifiable on the Department of Defense web site.

http://www.defenselink.mil/

Well said Gunny-99 and Kate. Fools never think from the possible scenerio of what would happen to poor little them if the bad guys win. They have no courage and no imagination. They would be of the ilk who spit on soldiers -like that disgraceful segment of the USA who spit on Viet Nam vets - John Kerri (Dolly), Jane Fonda etc.

"War does not mean the suspension of freedom of opinion,"

No it doesn't. But it does not permit you take unchalleged the disengenuous position of paying lip service to the troops as you openly campaign for their defeat.

Because not to support their mission is to endorse failure. No soldier goes into combat consoled that you hope he's safe and warm until he gets the chance to flee with his tail between his legs.

And with failure of those missions you don't support, you enbolden an enemy that is sure to be even more difficult when the day comes that a mission is engaged that you _do_ support.

People like you cost lives. For all the support you claim, in your heart of hearts, you secretly rejoice when the body counts come in, because you believe you can damage your political enemies at home through defeat in Iraq without damaging your nation's security.

What a fool you are.

Posted by: Kate

Bravo!!! Well said. My sentiments exactly.

"Did you know..."

Now I do. Thanks, Mark. Now if the general population could get the facts.

" People like you cost lives. For all the support you claim, in your heart of hearts, you secretly rejoice when the body counts come in, because you believe you can damage your political enemies at home through defeat in Iraq without damaging your nation's security.

What a fool you are."

sarge here. sarge thinks miss kate talks big fer a chick who aint never gona fight this war, nor lose a brother or a son or a friend. sarge will be in Washington DC this comming weekend the the parents of young sargeant maida who died when his un uparmored humv was destroyed by a IED. sarge and said parents will be in the company of multiple members of young maida' 2nd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment to protest the war. young maida, a hero and a charismatic man, awarded his stripes in the field hated this useless war as does his brother a marine also assigned to the iraq theater. sarge thinks miss kate or maybe little doug ought to show up and tell these boys how you wants to support the troops to death in that sh*thole that is iraq. sarge thinks you armchair dipsh#ts outta look at stars and stripes or other such military publications. the majority of our boys do not support the war but you can be damn sure they support their buddies. you folks and yer ignorant chatroom bullsh&t make sarge ill. the simple fact is, this little fella bush screwed up and now we gona take his toys away. your desperate yappin' in little bush's behalf aint goina change that

"Did you know that 47 countries' have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?

Did you know blah blah blah blah"

sarge here. nice list of bullsh*t. why doncha ask someone who has spent a tour or two in iraq how well its all been going. or better, sarge would take up a collection to send miss kate to iraq so she could blog from there outside the green zone where all is sweetness and light. or maybe little dougie would like to go? sarge has to give mr mckenzie redux a slight prop as old DL is calling the reality of them DLC democrats as bein on the neocon glory train-thats why, despite yer wet dreams, no one here wants old hillery or lieberman lovin' obama. sarge thinks while yer all on the subject of neocons maybe yall should go to the neocon website project for a new american century. the words they like to use is benevolent hegimony and full spectrum dominence of world wide internet, manufacturing, and energy resources. that website is specific that this will be done by any means, militarily or otherwise. old hitler woulda understood the plan if not the language

"sending troops in underequipped" Laughably untrue and dishonest."

anaon, yer ability to say them things i nthe face of reality is quite sumthin. no one who got killed or maimed while in an non armored hummer or wearing body armor without trauma plates thinks thats dishonest. my friends were buying GPS units and knee pads from cabela's before they went over, their parents buying them level 3 body armor out of ads in the "the shotgun news". poor sgt maida struck in the carotid artery by shrapnel that shoulda been stopped by the armor kit his hummv never got over a year after captain codpiece had his little mission accomplished party. yer all a bunch of sick pasty little civvie turds. sarge would love to meet any 6 of ya for a little bit of "correction"

"Sarge",

Nobody love's war, unless they're a fool. But that doesn't change the fact that the Iraq war has to be won. The last thing the U.S. should do is let Sergeant Maida's sacrifice be in vain, or run away just because the going got tough. Not every enemy is going to just roll over and let you walk all over them. You're p***ed at Bush for invading? Fine, but every time you whine about the casualties you're taking all you do is encourage your enemy to try harder. Congratulations, you just made it a little more dangerous for U.S. troops in Iraq. Is that what you really want?

Maybe you should put some of your time and energy into helping find a way to win.

And don't be so sure that people reading and posting to this forum don't know about war and its terrible cost. Canada's got soldiers overseas too.

penny,

If the US had gone in with a proper plan of any sort, or if they had been learning from their mistakes, they wouldnt try to ship out 20,000 troops right now? You can fire all the barbs you want but we all know that Iraq wasnt producing Islamofascists prior to the invasion - and even if you insist that it did - highly unlikely what with Saddam being secular and fearing fundamentalists - then you d have to admit that they werent churning them out at the scale that they do today.

Belisarius,

Navigation specialist. History.

Anon,

Nothing new, really.

Texas Canuck

"For the history buffs out there, compare and contrast the RCN and the RCAF before and after WWII. some people never learn from history."

Not sure what exactly you want us to focus on. With particular regard to the navy, it only got bigger and better in the middle stages of the Second World War, when Churchill insisted that it be deployed in safer waters so that the sailors could train. The RCN recieved bitter criticism in the early stages of the Battle of the Atlantic. Liek I said, not sure what your point is here.

Revnant,

Congratulations on being a sycophant to a sycophant.

For the record, I dont think Bush should withdraw. That said, I dotn think its wrong to criticise his conduct thus far.

That term "Chicken-hawk" certainly rings true. I should add that I m reading about an Indian citizen who served with the US army in Iraq and died recently... methinks Canadians can join the US army too. What say you, Kate and Penny, and all the rest of the self proclaimed defenders of freedom. How about you dont them boots and vests and get on with it? I would, but for a medical condition.

Jeremiah,

Me too. DNO 9101.

Jeremiah,

Oops, should have said from "Belisarius", DNO 9101.

Ah, sarge returns with his folksy "I'm so ruff and tuff" style.
You're going to provide a "correction", sarge?
I suspect you'd stroke out half-way through the lesson.
Anybody else find it hard not to laugh at a grown man referring to himself in the third person?
I'm not sure which bar you picked up your story from, sarge, but maybe it's time you finished your dinner and went back.

"yer all a bunch of sick pasty little civvie turds. sarge would love to meet any 6 of ya for a little bit of "correction""

Shutup idiot, anyone who starts their rant with "sarge here" isn't taken seriously anyway.
You're really tough behind a monitor, everyone here is quivering i'm sure.
sarc

sarge - boring. We've all got the t-shirts from your previous drive-bys. You need new material, the third person histrionics aren't working.

jeremiah - hey, it's the internet, you're free to claim any bio you want, but, I'm not buying ex-military. Any ex-military understands that into the fog of war some gear will missing or useless. That's as old as military history. Perfect preparedness as a standard is ridiculous.

Some people have made unflattering remarks suggesting that Mrs. Pelosi's facial movements and rapid blinking was Morse code directed at Senator McCain.

Anyone familiar with American politics realizes that this is a completely erroneous conclusion and an insensitive one.

Americans are kindly people who are willing to allow some minor Tourette's syndrome symptoms from Mrs. Pelosi, because we realize that she is masking the fact that she is one of a race of reptilians from Zeta Reticuli.

However, the people on this thread would be oblivious to the above, inasmuch as SDA is simply turning into one of the numerous sites dedicated to equestrian erotica.

Note to sarge: God help you if you get what you're asking for.

You beat me by 2 minutes Nazz!
Tharge here, hyuk hyuk.
What a fool.

yap yap said the little pretenders. always yappin never sayin nuthin

I give you sarge, smart as a speed bump at IGA.

"Dion added that Cote's punishment was "exaggerated,'' and that he'd recognized his error and shouldn't be penalized for life."

Fuck. He stole from the people of Canada. He was part of a multi-million dollar theft. Yes, he should be penalized for life. Any other thief would be.

And Dion still attempts the pretense of "newness" and "nothing-to-do-with-the-oldness"??!!!!

jeremiah :

Revnant,

Congratulations on being a sycophant to a sycophant.

Why thank you!!!

Live long & prosper V

Greg in Dallas - Pelosi has had her face lifted so many times to the point that she is permanently frozen in startled mode. Her permanent affect is pure plastic surgeon.

She's a real trip. The eyes. The capped teeth. The voice. The vacuousness. She never deviates from the DNC talking points. Spare us.

jeremiah : My point with the RCN was that at the outbreak of WWII, Canada had all of six destroyers and a few other dinghys. Hardly well equipped to fight a war but after the last shot was fired Canada had the third largest navy in the world.

Your point about sending in Canadian troops in harms way with less than ideal equipment and support is not a new thing.

Canadians have always been able to join up in the US military (Britian too). Even an ex-navy wog would have known that. Challenging some females to put boots on the ground is nothing more than a hollow challenge designed to justify your manhood.

"Challenging some females to put boots on the ground is nothing more than a hollow challenge designed to justify your manhood."

True dat Texas. Gotta love the last sentence too, "I would, but for a medical condition". I guess having no spine is some sort of medical condition.

Jeremiah, Jose, and Sarge must be graduates of our 'guvemint skools' and thin-skinned to boot.
Thank you Kate for this forum. The cuff up side of Jeremiah's head was worth reading. Bravo!!!

sarge here... I see y'all dont like sarges writting. thats too bad y'all dont know where its coming from. but never mind that now. at the risk of sounding snippy sarge wonders why y'all aint disputing sarge's points instead. lets reiterate sarges point:you don't know anyone in harms way, you have never been in harms way, yer friends aint dying over there, or gettin chunks blowen out of em, or coming back messed up by combat stress. if you plump little chipmunks had actually been to the big sandbox y'all would know the only way to "win" over there would be getting the stomach to kill 'em all, or goddamn near most of them. sarge finds that much killin to be a bit uncouth. how 'bout you, chipmunks?

ps, penny yer still nutz but sarge loves ya, ya got spunk and probably full of it too.

Im still waiting for an answer as to which approach taken by the dubya white house was the one right from the start.

rumsfeld wanted to go in light and fast and did get that to some extent.

but 'mission accomplished' was just a photo op to portray the 'war president'.

then the systematic (and fully expected by me) increase in commitment and troop levels.

was this a change in plans or was it the 'plan' all along???

sell it as a 'surgical' strike to get saddam, then make the change, or, was it a case of the REAL quick and light plan at some point was legitimately viewed as unsuccessful and in need of an alternate.

which was it ???

if it was intended to go big at some point all along, then what calculation was made as to the numbers of casualties (vietnam parlance 'kill ratio') was going to be 'acceptable' ???

has that determination even been made ???

was there a decision in the pentagon and/or white house that the US of A was going to freely and knowingly accept 'X' killed over 'Y' period of time in iraq as a 'cost of doing business'???

and what precisely are the american getting out of this payment in young lives ???

brownie points for ridding the world of 1 out of 100 murderous tyrants in the last century ??? for taking baby steps towards the huge political and social and yes, religious changes needed to establish a truly secure and firmly anchored democratic tradition in the cradle of civilization ???

or just a big curtain veneer over the REAL objective of OIL.

which is it ??? what was the determination by the neo-cons et al and who made it and when ???

You can't form an opinion on Nancy by what you saw during the SOTUA. Nancy was not really Nancy in person. That was an imposter doll with an Energizer battery stuck in her back programmed to continuously bling to make us believe that she the Speaker of the House.

Eeyore "Presuming the above to be what you were referring to, you're proposing a form of isolationism then? Are you suggesting that the US should act like the "non-heroes" in society today...they see a criminal act being perpetrated and they do nothing to help?"

How quickly we forget Yugoslavia. Clinton intervened there to prevent genocide. He did it without winning any political capitol (Bush gained political capital and made a few of his buddies rich invading Iraq). That was a noble war and well in keeping with Liberal thinking. Straussian neoconservatism actually doesn't have much to do with either classic Liberalism or classic conservatism it's something different and altogether vile in my opinion. Any political philosophy that thinks enlightened leaders need to lie to the electorate in order to lead them properly is rotten. And that's the philosophical ideal, in practice it just gets uglier from there. Google Leo Strauss the father of the whole thing. Perhaps it will disgust you as it does me.

"not having a viable plan, and then coming up with half baked plans to pull oneself out of a quagmire" Dishonest

Then why are Richard Perle and countless military officers and neocon strategists as well as a majority of troops currently serving in Iraq (according to polls most of them disapprove of the way the war is being run) of the same opinion. Have they been brainwashed by the MSM too?

circe "Jeremiah, Jose, and Sarge must be graduates of our 'guvemint skools' and thin-skinned to boot."

I do get riled on ocassion, not for the a few weeks now though. And I suspect it would take a bit more sand than you've got. Maybe if I try to quit smoking and you tried real hard you might miff me.

Belisarius

Thats interesting. I trained at HMS Dryad. RN, not RCN.

Texas Canuck,

"jeremiah : My point with the RCN was that at the outbreak of WWII, Canada had all of six destroyers and a few other dinghys. Hardly well equipped to fight a war but after the last shot was fired Canada had the third largest navy in the world."

I see your understanding of history is severely limited. Perhaps a little more attention to the Battle of the Atlantic is warranted. I would suggest Marc Milners excellent books on the subject. The Royal Canadian Navy was a right mess for much of the war. The Corvettes lacked proper radars and heating for the crew. They proved spectacularly unable to do much damage to the Germans till the tide had shifted, and Churchill himself had to intervene to get the Canadians deputed to the more easygoing mediteranean where they could engage in a real work up. The large Canadian Navy that came out at the end of the Second World War was professional, but to suggest that it was in the same league as the USN or RN is to make a wild exxageration. To be sure there was no dearth of exceptional officers, and the sailors fought in appalling circumstances, but with regard to equipment, the Canadian Navy was spectacularly illequipped. Even at the end of the Second World War, it was made up of a motley collection of second rate ships, with the Tribal Class destroyers being the only first rate ships (HMCS Haida, now at Hamilton). Do not pretend to teach me history Texas Canuck. I can assure you I have had access to resources that you havent.

suggested viewing for the dubya types regarding the filthy and deadly lies proferred in order to 'give into' iraq and why:

Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War

(from: http colonslashslash www.imdb.com/title/tt0388495/ )

an excerpt from one of the dozens of comments on the highly rated documentary:

What were the real reasons for Bush's invasion of Iraq? Before I attempt to answer that question, two things, One, this documentary is utterly convincing in its indictment of the Bush administration and will be almost impossible to watch by those who supported the war and continue to support the war. The evidence for the massive mendacity is so vividly expressed by

[ NOTE THE FOLLOWING NAMES !!!: ]

knowledgeable and experienced people within and without the government--people like former Ambassador Joe Wilson, former Director of the CIA Stansfield Turner, anti-terrorism expert Rand Beers, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Philip Coyle, retird Col Patrick Lang, and at least a dozen more--that only the most hardened neocons and faith-based True Believers could doubt the subterfuge. Incidentally, it was Wilson's wife, an undercover agent for the CIA, who was deliberately exposed by leaks from the Bush administration in order to punish Wilson for his expression of the truth about WMD.

Two, the real blame beyond the Bush administration lies with the Press and with the Congress..... (SNIP) was solidly pro-Bush. They both kept the American people in ignorance about the real reasons for the war.

Okay what were those reasons? Oil? Of course this was a factor. Notice that other horrendous dictators elsewhere in the world are not removed from power by an American invading force.

To right the wrong that the first president Bush did when he kept Saddam Hussein in power after the Gulf War? Yes, but here is the beginning of the stupidity. ..... Iranian theocratic ambitions.

To demonstrate to the world the awesome might of the US military (the "shock and awe" that had Rumsfeld practically drooling) and show our willingness to use force if necessary? Yes. This is probably the most important psychological and geopolitical reason for invading Iraq......Iran that it needs to acquire nuclear weapons, since it is obvious that the Bush administration isn't about to invade a country that has them (e.g., North Korea, Pakistan).

To mollify the American people, so many of whom naturally felt a great need after 9/11 to see some kind of action taken, any action to Show Strength, like a bull whirling around, swinging its horns at anything near.

To smoke-screen our failure to get Osama bin Laden and the general failure in Afghanistan? Absolutely. Blowing up great mounds of dirt in Afghanistan was NOT satisfactory, and going into nuked-up Pakistan to get bin Laden was not palatable.

To provide business for Halliburton and other corporations close to Bush and members of his administration? Well, that was one of the effects of the war.

To subconsciously get into the minds of soccer moms and make them feel safer by making US soldiers (who get paid for this sort of thing) the target for terrorists in Iraq instead of civilians at home? Possibly. Again, that was part of the effect of the war.

To help Bush win in 2004? Without doubt. Being a "war time" president would give Bush a big advantage over any Democrat. A quick "victory" over Iraq (celebrated aboard an aircraft carrier with Bush in pilot's gear strutting around with a helmet tucked under his arm shaking hands) would allow him to go one up on his father who foolishly abdicated such a possible advantage and lost the next election. BTW, film of the Bush strut is shown in the documentary more fully and more embarrassingly than the nightly news dared show it at the time. You have to see it to believe it........

c'mon all you neo-con wannabes, when are you going to finally admit dubya is a clucking quacking puppet ??? youve been DUPED like millions of your ancestors into supporting a war of economic and political conquest wrapped in the language of patriotism and 'support our boys over there' syndrome.

suggested viewing for the dubya types regarding the filthy and deadly lies proferred in order to 'give into' iraq and why:

Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War

(from: http colonslashslash www.imdb.com/title/tt0388495/ )

an excerpt from one of the dozens of comments on the highly rated documentary:

What were the real reasons for Bush's invasion of Iraq? Before I attempt to answer that question, two things, One, this documentary is utterly convincing in its indictment of the Bush administration and will be almost impossible to watch by those who supported the war and continue to support the war. The evidence for the massive mendacity is so vividly expressed by

[ NOTE THE FOLLOWING NAMES !!!: ]

knowledgeable and experienced people within and without the government--people like former Ambassador Joe Wilson, former Director of the CIA Stansfield Turner, anti-terrorism expert Rand Beers, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Philip Coyle, retird Col Patrick Lang, and at least a dozen more--that only the most hardened neocons and faith-based True Believers could doubt the subterfuge. Incidentally, it was Wilson's wife, an undercover agent for the CIA, who was deliberately exposed by leaks from the Bush administration in order to punish Wilson for his expression of the truth about WMD.

Two, the real blame beyond the Bush administration lies with the Press and with the Congress..... (SNIP) was solidly pro-Bush. They both kept the American people in ignorance about the real reasons for the war.

Okay what were those reasons? Oil? Of course this was a factor. Notice that other horrendous dictators elsewhere in the world are not removed from power by an American invading force.

To right the wrong that the first president Bush did when he kept Saddam Hussein in power after the Gulf War? Yes, but here is the beginning of the stupidity. ..... Iranian theocratic ambitions.

To demonstrate to the world the awesome might of the US military (the "shock and awe" that had Rumsfeld practically drooling) and show our willingness to use force if necessary? Yes. This is probably the most important psychological and geopolitical reason for invading Iraq......Iran that it needs to acquire nuclear weapons, since it is obvious that the Bush administration isn't about to invade a country that has them (e.g., North Korea, Pakistan).

To mollify the American people, so many of whom naturally felt a great need after 9/11 to see some kind of action taken, any action to Show Strength, like a bull whirling around, swinging its horns at anything near.

To smoke-screen our failure to get Osama bin Laden and the general failure in Afghanistan? Absolutely. Blowing up great mounds of dirt in Afghanistan was NOT satisfactory, and going into nuked-up Pakistan to get bin Laden was not palatable.

To provide business for Halliburton and other corporations close to Bush and members of his administration? Well, that was one of the effects of the war.

To subconsciously get into the minds of soccer moms and make them feel safer by making US soldiers (who get paid for this sort of thing) the target for terrorists in Iraq instead of civilians at home? Possibly. Again, that was part of the effect of the war.

To help Bush win in 2004? Without doubt. Being a "war time" president would give Bush a big advantage over any Democrat. A quick "victory" over Iraq (celebrated aboard an aircraft carrier with Bush in pilot's gear strutting around with a helmet tucked under his arm shaking hands) would allow him to go one up on his father who foolishly abdicated such a possible advantage and lost the next election. BTW, film of the Bush strut is shown in the documentary more fully and more embarrassingly than the nightly news dared show it at the time. You have to see it to believe it........

c'mon all you neo-con wannabes, when are you going to finally admit dubya is a clucking quacking puppet ??? youve been DUPED like millions of your ancestors into supporting a war of economic and political conquest wrapped in the language of patriotism and 'support our boys over there' syndrome.

hmph.

I dont usually get caught in the double posting glitch.

nice to see it was worth it with this one....

Hey Sarge, if experience has taught me something, it's be afraid of the quiet guy. The guy who never shuts up telling you how tough he is, is most likely trying to convince himself.
You're a baffoon.

RB -

To cite a source that uses the Plame controversy to bolster its authority only indicates you don't know much about the Plame controversy.

The "leaker" turned out to be Richard Armitage, hardly in the Bush camp, and it was decided that no crime had been commited.

For most people, that would be a clue as to its worth. :)

"If you support the troops,support their mission."

Sorry, but that's illogical. No matter how hard you try to put a patriotic spin on it, the first has nothing to do with the second.

Basically, what you're saying is that if you care about a loved one, you must support them even if you think that they're doing something wrong.

northbaytrapper, you are completely right. "sarge" is a total buffoon. I knew a lot of sergeants in VietNam and mostly they were squared-away guys. Of course there were a few psychos...

"sarge" is impersonating the sergeant role in basic training. Everyone gets out of basic, and the role between the sergeant and men changes to a more congenial one.

You have to remember not all sergeants have any claim to being a tough guy. There are supply sergeants, sergeants who are cooks, and even then remember in our day and time people only get extra stripes for combat when they are in a theatre of operations. Field promotions where privates get their NCOs shot in front of them don't happen as much these days.

A lot of sergeants never leave North America.

I have to get to work and don't have time to go into the interesting history of hand-to-hand combat and the various levels of controversy and effectiveness surrounding different systems.

I figure about half the guys up here could sit on "sarge" without much difficulty.

"... As an instructor at a military college, and a former naval officer, I think I can lay claim to some expertise."
(Posted by: jeremiah at January 24, 2007 04:18 PM)

Absolute, pure, unadulterated bull crap!

There is a difference between espousing and teaching.

The problem is that liberals can't tell that there is a difference.

"The problem is that liberals can't tell that there is a difference."

...because conservatives can?

"Plame controversy to bolster its authority only indicates you don't know much about the Plame controversy"

and thats true.

nevertheless the criticism expressed was not mine, rather c&p from one of hundreds available in the citation. and it could be the posting was made before more information on the leak came out.

so what say ye on the credentials of the dozens of high level personnel in the contributor roster?

THOSE are the views expressed in the film that determine the 'worth' of the time required to enlighten oneself.