Boxer's 'Low Blow'

I've been waiting a while to see Sen. Boxer stick her foot in it.
While this will surely blow over and the people of CA are FAR too liberal to send the dwarf Senator home packing...it's somewhat enjoyable to see her taking some heat for the time being.

BOXER'S LOW BLOW

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01122007/postopinion/editorials/boxers_low_blow_editorials_.htm


HIGHLIGHTS:

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, an appalling scold from California, wasted no time yesterday in dragging the debate over Iraq about as low as it can go - attacking Secre tary of State Condoleezza Rice for being a childless woman.

Boxer was wholly in character for her party ... but the Golden State lawmaker earned special attention for the tasteless jibes she aimed at Rice.

Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush's tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."

Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

Breathtaking.

Simply breathtaking.

We scarcely know where to begin.

The junior senator from California ap parently believes that an accomplished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman.

It's hard to imagine the firestorm that similar comments would have ignited, coming from a Republican to a Democrat, or from a man to a woman, in the United States Senate...The vapidity - the sheer mindlessness - of Sen. Boxer's assertion makes it clear that the next two years are going to be a time of bitterness and rancor, marked by pettiness of spirit and political self-indulgence of a sort not seen in America for a very long time.

...one can only imagine the pain felt by the families of those killed and cruelly wounded in service to America. Just as it was hard to imagine the agony of the loved ones left behind on 9/11.

But even to suggest that Condoleezza Rice is not fit to serve her country because she is childless is beyond bizarre.

It is perverse.

Sen. Boxer needs to apologize.

And she needs to do it today.

Don't push your right-wing crap on me, Boxer. Let's rephrase that properly, shall we?

"My fetuses are too old, and my grandfetus is too young!"

There. That's better. Now explain to me why you give a shit again, Babs?

Oozing With Sarcasm,
Double-J

Hey, I completely agree with Boxer. Who in the Administration has ever put their life on the line in the Armed Forces? Not Bush, not Cheney, not Rove, not Rice. Who? And who in the Administration has anyone at immediate risk serving in the Middle East theater? Why oh why have none of the foregoing joined the service? Why haven't their kids done so?

Maybe, just maybe it makes people prudent about going to war if they have flesh and blood on the line.

As a veteran I lost part of my bicep, but I joined and I knew exactly why I joined. But that was MY decision.

The "argument" is rendered nearly irrelevant when one realizes that the army is 100% volunteer.

As Sgt. Hulka would say, "Son, there ain't no draft no more."

Well, you ought to broach that with the families of dead soldiers and see what reaction you get.

Whether soldiers are volunteers or not, their judicious deployment to war theaters is the paramount responsibiity of those in power to order such deployments. With nothing on the line except political considerations, judiciousness often goes out the window.

My cousin is currently in Baghdad. So please spare me the self-righteous assessment of my words. I understand that sacrifice.

You point is that those in power are less inclined to use military force if they or someone they love is placed in harms way. Maybe that's true. However, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon didn't go to Vietnam, Carter didn't go to Iran, Reagan didn't go to Lebanon, Bush Sr. didn't go to Iraq, Clinton didn't go to Bosnia, and Bush isn't going to Baghdad.

Granted, that doesn't include previous service, such as Kennedy's or Bush Sr's time in the armed forces. However, you've predicated the justification of this war on whether the Commander-in-Chief takes a proactive role like Teddy Roosevelt, except in lieu of San Juan Hill, Bush would have to drive a Bradley up into Fallujah.



I find this hard to believe. Bush's party and his reputation have suffered immensely because of the Middle Eastern conflicts. Whether or not you or I agree on this, the judiciousness of this conflict is predicated on the Commander-in-Chief's duty to protect the United States.

Irregardless, this discussion has ventured off of the original point from AppleOnYa, which is that Babs Boxer made a particularly reprehensible comment that transcends the political arena. Similarly, I noted that her matriarchal assertions seem to be ironic, since last time I checked, both Ms. Boxer and her party support infanticide.

[sic] regardless.

Judiciousnes is predicated on judgement. And what in the world is reprehensible about pointing out to someone that they don't have a flesh and blood stake in their judgements?

Irregardless of its grammatical nonexistence, I like it better this way, thank you very much.

What is reprehensible? It's like saying that you can't decide whether child molestation is a crime because you aren't a parent. Boxer made an insinuation that Rice, because she has no children, cannot fathom the sacrifice being made.

And, once again, I've pointed out the hypocrisy of that argument.

It is amazing that any Bush supporter would be "outraged" about someone making an unfair attack. Karl Rove George Bush and Dick Cheney have made careers our of smearing people's integrity, and patriotism. They are finally getting a dose of their own medicine, and it is about time.

Next up the no confidence vote coming in the Senate. I see there is talk that the right wingers are going to filibuster it. What a joke. These are the same people who wanted to abolish the filibuster so Bush could get that nazi Alito appolinted to the supreme court.

After that comes the vote to ban Bush from attacking Iran, which he will violate and then it will be IMPEACHMENT time. It cannot come soon enough.

Why impeachment? Bush aint got time left. It would be like when the GOP really wanted to impeach Clinton in his last 2 years. It got really pathetic when there were motions to impeach him AFTER he had already left office. Please tell me Democrats won't go that nutty.

Besides, considering his political strength right now, he's about as powerful as an impeached President anyway.

Anyway, that filibuster stuff makes me laugh. I remember making a big deal in a debate once about how the GOP trying to erase the filibuster would eventually bite them bloody hard in the ass eventually, when the balance of power fall from their hands.

So yeah, technically could thank the Democratic filibusters from last year, and the moderate Republicans that knew banning the filibuster would blow up in their faces, or else the Republicans would be in even MORE trouble.

My question to Apple, who's still using her reliable Drudge Talking Points, is....does this really matter?

Wow, another U.S. Senator using cheap questions to get political gain against an administration of the other party. I'm shocked. A politician pulling a motion to get easy pop from her home state. I'm outraged.

No, the real issue that we should be asking is....does anybody here actually support the Bush-proposed troop surge, and if so, do you really think it will make a positive meaningful difference for America?

P.S. - Speaking of rulers having their kids serve, Stalin let one of his own sons die in a German camp during WW2, because Stalin refused to trade German prisoners for him.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Anything else from the peanut gallery?

Regards,
Double-J

Yeah, keep it on topic of the thread you two.

Well said JJ. War was declared on our shores by the enemy on September 11th 2001. And there is no doubt in my mind that if the commander in chief of this country, along with the leaders of our allied nations had not made the decision to remove one of the head snakes from the middle east, that snake named Saddam would have eventually funded, supported or backed another attack on our country. Anyone who believes differently is only fooling themselves.

Even though public opinon has turned immensly on this administration, and the war in Iraq has not gone well, I still believe that it was the right thing to go into Iraq. I will alwyas stand by that decision.

Has the original strategy worked? As we are now seeing, it has not. And I am not faltering here because things are going bad, nor am I not flip flopping. I've said it over and over again, many times here right on these boards, almost since the time we went into Iraq, that I felt that the way this war was being fought was the wrong approach. We went in there without enough troops. We went in there thinking that we could fight a war with parameters. Parameters that would not offend the muslim world or the middle eastern people, but at the same time would put our own troops in harms way.

"You can fight in Iraq, but you cannot fire your weapon at a Mosque, even if you are getting fired upon from within that Mosque."

"You can put your life on the line, but you cannot interrogate someone who's just blown up a bus full of children, we don't want to offend anyone."

"You can win this war with 1/3 the troops than were used in Kuwait, which is no where near the size of Iraq."

That's all hogwash and it's a poor way to send our kids into a war to win. It's a recipe for disaster and eventual failure.

No one likes war, but unfortunately it is a part of life. And if the elected leaders of this country decide that we have to go to war in order to protect the or country, then it is their obligation not only to us, but those men and woman who are on the front lines, to provide them with the best weapons, the best strategy, and the right amount of troops needed in order to keep our casualties down and anihilate our enemies at the same time.


Our soldiers should not have politically correct restrictions placed on them when fighting in a battle zone. If our enemies choose to desicrate their own houses of worship by using them as a base of operations, to hide in, or to fire upon our troops, then our troops should blow those Mosques to smithereens if it means saving their own lives and taking another step towards winning the war. Why should our soldiers be forced to respect these houses of worship if the enemies who claim that these places are holy, desicrate them themselves? If the enemy cannot respect it's own house of worship, then our soldiers sure has hell shouldn't be forced to.

More troops should have been sent there from the very begining. Now it's almost like closing the barn door AFTER the horses have ran away.


As for what Boxer has said and done, Ronnie is right. Why is anyone surprised? She's just another politician touting her own agenda, just like the rest of them, republican or democrat, do.




Don Cardi

Senator Boxer is not an appalling scold and she did not attack Condoleezza Rice for being a childless woman. She said (I suggest you watch this exchange)who pays the price for this war.She stated the fact that Rice has no immediate family at risk in Iraq and she said that she (Boxer) also had no family at risk. Senator Boxer reminded us that real people will suffer the consequences for the decisions she is making.

I have to agree with Saladbar on that point. I watched her speech a few times and really did not find that she said anything that offensive about Miss Rice. The only thing that she did insinuate, which was left out above, was that she, unlike Miss Rice, was worried about her grandchildren.

But all in all I think that some of the conservatives are making more out of this than they really should.


Don Cardi

DC I admire your intellectual honesty notwithstanding that you and I have always had a fundamental disagreement over the wisdom of pursuing the Iraq war. IMHO we should have occupied and held Afghanistan and continued to monitor Al Queada cells through whatever means necessary including stepped up security and hit and run military raids when appropriate. I always thought we had no good exit strategy, and I regret we find ourselves in the mess we are in. I never thought invading Iraq was the appropriate answer to 9/11, and the ressurection of the Taliban the growing strength of Iran and the probable takeover of Pakistan by fundamentalists who do not like Musharef will make the world a more dangerous place not less dangerous. Saddam was a "snake" as you put it, but he was also a counterbalance to Iran, and by removing him we have created a vacuum. Worse still it is looking like Iraq will be taken over by some other dictator once we are out of there.

That said, we are there, and we need to find a smart way out of this mess. If the so-called "surge" works, good for us, but I am afraid it is too little too late. I am concerned for troops who are doing their third and fourth tours of duty, and I am concerned that Bush has never asked the American people to make a single sacrifice in what he claims to be the primary front of the war on terror.

BTW Regarding people on my side of the aisle, those who voted for the war, had more information at hand than I did at the time, and for them to be coming forward now and claiming they were "tricked" is disingenuous.

As for Boxer's comments, the only thing I'll ad to my previous post is that what should make the news is a Senator not running at the mouth. They all seem to be incapable of saying inything in less than twenty minutes.

The fact that Apple is even expecting an apology from Senator Boxer is complete bullshit. How can a person who has been so supportive of Ann Coulter and the heartless things she has said suddenly cry foul on Boxer's comments (which were mild compared to Coulter attacking the 9/11 widows' motives)?

Boxer simply put things into perspective. Condi Rice does not feel the pain of losing a loved one in this war, because she has no children. Is that a problem? Hell, I know many who could envy the position Condi is in.

Whether or not Senator Boxer's comments crossed the line, they should not simply be disregarded as invalid.

Oh come on, Apple will get her apology...when I get mine from Kerry for attacking good humor everywhere with that godawful botched joke of his.

That Murderer!

Whether or not Apple or Rice deserves an apology, there is no way on God's green earth that the man or woman with no kids living down the block from my parents could have possibly felt the fear and apprehension that my parents felt while I was overseas fighting.

I concur. Coulter put things into perspective as well, quite nicely I might add. 9/11 widows making money off a tragedy? Bully! Condi Rice has no kids, so she doesn't give a shit? No harm no foul.

Regards,
Double-J

Understandable argument. However, from where does Coulter's questioning originate? We know for a fact Condi Rice has no children, and probably won't be as affected as the average American Military Family. What support does Coulter have for her claim against the 9/11 widows? Do they have a history of greed?

Questioning Rice's grief is not valid; Boxer's "argument" is that because she has no children, Rice couldn't give a shit what happens in Iraq.

Coulter's evidence? Read Godless. It ranges from their magazine interviews to paid public appearances and numerous other (documented) monetary gains that the 9/11 widows have made since the tragedy. Furthermore, Coulter questions why people who have been victims of a tragedy are able to be so cheerful and un-remorseful in all of these public appearences and interviews.

Apple, how old are your kids? Why dont you sign them up for the marines right now?

Wait, parents can sign up kids for the military without their consent?

Oh SHIT!

*Runs for Canada*

A palpable, logical comeback from the "good guys," right? Are you going to double-dog dare someone next?

Someone get those Kennedys drunk driving lessons!

I would much rather check the sources instead of reading straight from the book, but there are more important topics at stake, and I'll take your word for it.



And my question is, how can an administration still be so supportive of a war, which has been so destructive? How can they continue to make public appearances with the same face, same strategy, same message as before? Bush has expressed distaste for the direction the war's heading, but Cheney and Rice are still both very strong, stick to the plan, regardless of the price.

Expecially with the popularity of the war among the American people reaching all time low's everytime you turn around. With the war being in favor of the minority, can we still claim that our leaders represent the American public to it's fullest?

I understand there still is a group in this country in favor of this war that we're in. But can't considerations be made? When a bipartisan group arranges to make changes for the good of the war, and most, if not all of its recommendations are disregarded by the administration, and an entirely different course is taken, can we afford to not ask ourselves, "maybe this is the wrong idea". I don't know, food for thought.

Keep in mind that Truman came out of his Presidency with the lowest approval ration of any President in history. Yet, he is widely considered by many (including myself) to rank in the upper echelons of greatest American presidents.

I too agree with what you've said, I don't think that the Administration sending more troops to Iraq is a good idea, nor have they done a good job of even trying to sell it to the American people. Granted, part of being a good President is making the right, even if unpopular, decisions for your country, however I don't see how sending more of our troops is going to make any difference.

That is, unless of course, they'll be changing their strategy from fighting with kid gloves and trying to appease all of the international naysayers and human rights watchers, into going in there and slaughtering these bastards where they live. Take a lesson from the French and Israel.

Otherwise, I see this as continuing to spin our wheels. Preferably, the move right now would be to find a package by which we'd hand the country over to the Iraqis (preferably with a cerebral leader behind the scenes who supported our interests) and let it die a slow death.

Regards,
Double-J

W ain't Harry Truman.

What you may be saying is that some low approval ratings are justified, and others may not be.

Man, at least Truman was a down to Earth kind of person.

Double J:
Please provide proof of the following:

1. Show me one piece of policy or one article saying we are fighting with "kid gloves."

2. Please list the "international naysayers" and "human rights
watchers" to whom you refer.

3. Who specifically are "these bastards" that we should be "slaughtering," and where can we find them?

Don T, I recently posted over in another topic about what JJ refers to as the "kid Gloves" policy. And I believe that both you and I have had these exact discussions in the past. But I'll give you an example once again anyway.

For example telling soldiers that are fighting on the front lines in a war that they are NOT allowed to fire back at those trying to kill them if those enemies are shooting from within a Mosque, is fighting a war with "kid gloves."

That's just one example of fighting with kid gloves to appease the naysayers and human rights watchers.

Don't believe what I just wrote about that policy? Well then I suggest that you take an hour or two out of your day and seek out a soldier who has been over there and ask him if what I just posted is true or not. You'll be very surprised at what he tells you our soldiers are restricted from doing in that war over there. Makes me want to throw up.


Don Cardi

DC:

I've never read the ROE in Iraq, but I have read summaries of them. Nowhere have I found any words that state that one cannot fire on or actually invade a mosque. In fact, I remember from the news a Marine in 2005 that was investigated for killing an Iraqi inside of a mosque. Your info is anecdotal. Having served in Vietnam I know that ROE as stated is frequently departed from in the field. Those doing so are quite infrequently investigated let alone prosecuted.

US military command makes staregic and tactical decisions based on civilian political objectives which is the way it is supposed to be.

Olivant, with all due respect, it is a fact. I've been involved with Homes For Heroes which is an organization that raises money to build homes for returning vets who've been in the war. EVERYONE of them that I've spoken with have told us that they've been fired upon and attacked from terrorists hiding within the Mosques and they were ordered NOT to fire back at those Mosques.


My best friend's nephew ( who he raised like a son ) was in Iraq. He was part of the group that found and captured Saddam. When he came home, my friend threw a welcome home dinner for him. He told us stories about how restricted they are when it comes to returning fire on places like Mosques because they are deemed sacred. Yet the enemy has no qualms about firing upon them from inside that sacred Mosque.

It is also a fact that about 2 or 3 years ago Zarqawi took refuge inside of a Mosque and our military knew it and had the chance to go in and kill him, but they could not.

I believe that it has something to do with our not wanting to destroy what is sacred to the Iraqi people.



Don Cardi

Well, ROE are subject to interpretation by the commander on the spot in a tactical situation. It's their decision. They're allowed that. My point is that the ROE are not having a "strategic" effect upon our efforts in Iraq. They didn't in Vietnam.

How do you know this?


Don Cardi

That's true, and President Bush is placing a large burden on history to decide upon his fate as a former president.

It seemed though, with Korea, we went to ward the communists out of the south we pushed them up to the 38th and left (after fluctuation and resistance from the communists and the Chinese). With Iraq, it's a much more complex task we're struggling to achieve. You can ask many different sources what we are doing in Iraq, and you may get different answers, but there was only one Korea, and there was only one Harry Truman. We originally invaded Iraq in search of WMD's, and now we're there to liberate them, but you've got a civil war, several trillions later, we're still in there, but nothing's working. We say that if we just pull out now, it will break out into mass chaos and terrorists will seek to end us, but if we stick around, it may happen. We're in a shit situation.

Will we be able to install a republic that can control the violent groups which currently reside there? I don't know. Regardless of whether or not I agree with the action this administration has taken, I hope they can get us out of it, or that we can at least elect someone in 2008 who has some idea.

I can't help you out of your wet paper bag. Sorry.

Try aiming for the broad side of a barn for your next trick.

Warmest Regards,
Double-J

Because a strategic effect would act upon the enemy's ability to make war. ROE are intended to apply in a tactical situation.

Olivant, I sincerely appreciate and respect the point that you are trying to make here. However YOU are the one who brought up ROE. It was you who 'categorized' that our soldiers not being able to fire upon the Mosques as ROE.

Call it what you want or categorize it how you will, but the bottom line here is that if you've ever spoken to the soldiers who have fought over there, and I am not talking about one or two, you would know that they have been ordered NOT to fire upon any Mosques even if enemy fire is originating from that Mosque. These are their words, not something that I've made up.

And I have to take what many of these soldiers have spoken about, when it comes to their being ordered NOT to fire upon these Mosques that the enemy is really using as strongholds, as gospel. I mean after all these guys and gals are the ones in the trenches fighting on the front lines.



You just can't fight a war like that.

I just love the double talk by these politicians that claim to support the troops, but in the same breath they are now voting to defund them. Hypocrites. Not ONE of them has offered some kind of plan except to pull out, PERIOD.

That's not a plan.

Our soldiers are asking for more help, and the Hillarys, the Kennedys, the Boxers, the Kerrys and the Pelosis of this country are telling them "F**K YOU!"

Nice what happened in Washington this weekend at the ANTI-WAR protest. Really nice that a soldier who lost his leg in Iraq was spit on by someone claiming to be against war and violence. Really nice that these peace touting people who constantly quote the law and their rights decided to spray paint our nation's capitol. Such upstanding people who claim to love our country and support our soldiers.


Don Cardi

"The Battle of Algiers" (1965)

Great movie, great scene.

DJ, your thoughts on the Obama-Fox News bullshit?

Why be depressed and watch the news? I just look outside for my weather forecast.

Come on, who you think you are in avoiding the question, Hillary Clinton?!?

If soldiers have been instructed not to fire on a mosque, I'll bet my bottom dollar that it has been at the instruction of tactical unit commander. I am not aware of any general orders that constitute part of ROE that soldiers are not to fire upon a mosque. In Vietnam our ROE allowed us to return fire coming from any target. On only one occassion was I directed by a unit commander to avoid firing such and that was a small temple.

Again, local tactics are not going to affect the strategic outcome of a war.

Soldiers serve this Nation's foreign policy; the foreign policy does not serve the soldiers. They volunteered; I volunteered. I knew what I was getting into. I assume they knew also. Civilian control and disposition of the US military is a principle of this Republic.

If your enemy is holed up in a place that either the field commanders or the general have deemed off limits for attack, and they blast the shit out of your troops from within that off limits place, and take refuge there, and store their weapons there, and put snipers on the roofs there who pick off your soldiers one after the other or force your troops to retreat because they are not allowed to fire back, you're going to tell me that tactics like that are NOT going to affect the strategic outcome of the war?

See, I may not be educated, experienced or trained in military strategies and tactics, but street smarts and common sense tells me that if your enemy is killing your soldiers one after the other because he is holed up in a place where he can fire upon you, but you cannot fire back, you cannot win the fight. Allowing your enemy to strategically base their position in a place where they can kill you from, but where you cannot even fire back at them, is a recipe for disaster as far as I'm concerned. You're doomed to fail when you have ridiculous, rules, strategies or whatever you choose to call them, like that when you are fighting a war.

Especially when fighting a war where the enemy has absolutely no respect or cares about who or what they blow up or kill.

If the enemy does not respect it's own supposed Holy place of worship, then why the hell should we?

Don Cardi

DC you are assuming the only place from which they are attacking us are mosques. That is not the case. I am sure some mosques are used, but the fact is they are stashing ammunition all over the place...probably in their own basements. The real problem isnt that we have a policy against going into mosques, the problem is that we can no longer identify "the enemy." I read someplace that the Malaki government wants us out. You know what? DISCLAIMER: I am only being half serious here.. We should say "fine." If they all want to kill each other for the next 20 years let 'em do it ...."they're animals anyway let them lose their souls."

We keep going around and around on this. If you are obtaining ROE info from former soldiers who fought in Iraq, then the info they are giving you is either mistaken, incidental, or they are lying. I defy anyone to produce a genral order that precludes attacks upon mosques when those mosques are used as a fire base. The right of self-defense forms the basis of US military ROE. Ask those soldiers you refered to to quote the general order that precluded them from attacking a mosque. If they're unit commanders precluded such a tactical response, they made it for a good reason, which, if you were to confront them about it, they would tell you the reason.

I think you overestimate the value of your common semse. The strategic component of the war in Iraq addresses how the weapons and personnel got into the Mosque, not what disposition was made of them once they were there. Yes, lack of education, experience, and training in military staregies counts for a whole lot when one is critiqing operations in a military theater.

For example, one needs to know the diffeence between counter-attack and fire suppression; between fire for effect and for collateral damage; between a 5,56 and a 7.62 caliber shell and their effects. There's alot more to it than on TV.

What relevance does this have to the fact that our troops are being fired upon from areas such as a mosque (as Don Cardi pointed out) and are not given the opportunity to fire back. Your disscussing irrelevant information when the point remains that if you are ordered to hold fire, you can't win a war, weather your intentions are to shoot for collateral damage or for effect.

Madonne! Read the post again and this time read the whole post!

I read the post, why don't you stop dodging the discussion at hand and back up your claim. I'll wait....

Olivant and NYC, sitting UNDEr a TREE, K-I-S-S-I-N-G!

Wow I haven't heard that since kindergarden. WHat is it like being in the same grade as your kids?

Ok, I see where your mentality is on this. I guess that the numerous amount of soldiers that I've worked with and have come in contact with over the last couple of years, on many different occassions, are all lying and colluding on this claim.





You know Olivant, you surprise me by making remarks like that. I always thought more of you. But in truth, you may be right, because common sense was telling me to listen to what you had to say because you said that you served in vietnam. So valuing my common sense I did try lsitening to what you had to say. But I guess that I actually did overestimate my common sense.





Well, the 7.62 cal shell was used in the M14 which was replaced by the M16 which is the newer standard weapon. The 5.56 cal has a much lower recoil and is no longer the standard caliber for U.S. forces on the battlefield because modern and updated body armor will not be penetrated by the 5.56 therefore making it uneffective in today's war. The original 7.62 has been upgraded and will out perform both the original 7.62 and the 5.56, because of it's ability to lethaly penetrate body armor, and also because of it's ability to perform from long range.

TV? No, I don't know these things from TV. I do learn about them from reading, working with and talking with real live soldiers who have been on the battlefields of Iraq and experienced much of what I have tried explaining to you, first hand.

You know it's kind of ironic that when someone from the left critiques the war itself and calls it a failure, and criticizes the soldiers who are fighting there, they are portrayed as excersizing their freedom of speech, excersizing their rights under the constitution. But when someone like myself questions something that has been told to him by soldiers returning from the battlefield, I am accused of not being educated because of the concerns that I have for our troops and the way that they are made to fight the war. Double standards.


With all due respect Olivant, (and I sincerely respect you for serving our country in Vietnam) I don't doubt your knowledge when it comes to military issues. Obviously you would know more than the average civilian would. But that does not make you more superior than anyone else here who has an opinion on things. Your being an veteran does gives you the right to belittle someone just because they have not served in the military. You should be looking to educate others from your experience instead of calling the returning vets liars or accusing people of being uneducated.


Don Cardi

Burn!

fight me

Why? I enjoyed your post.

Regards,
Double-J

im only joking with u

You mean the way I talk? What? Funny how? What's funny about it? He's a big boy. He knows what he said. Funny, how? Let me understand this. But I'm funny how? Funny like a clown? I amuse you? I'm here to fucking amuse you? What do you mean, funny? How am I funny? I don't know. You said it. You said I'm funny. How am I funny? What the fuck is so funny about me?



Tell me what's funny.

Ball Breaker

I don't know, whats it like to be fucked for life like your kids?

Besides, I'm adding as much to the conversation as you and your closet lover are.

ZERO!

Yeah, does he amuse you? Does he make you laugh?



Don Cardi

Im just sayin your funny.....the way you tell the story

Do you enjoy living?

From zero to closed in about 5 more seconds...

Yes, I enjoy living....long enough for this thread to close.

I'll repeat what I already told someone else in a reply post: read my post again!

YOUR POST IS MEANINGLESS AND WORTHLESS.

Please state your opinions without making personal attacks.