Another "looney leftist Bush hater"

[TallPine]

Another "looney leftist ant-american Bush hater......"


http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt131.html


Oops, 35 years in govt service .....

 

[gc70]

Another "looney leftist ant-american Bush hater......"

She worked for the State Department, so your description is redundant.

 

[modifiedbrowning]

I wasn't heckling anyway. I was speaking on behalf of the American people.

That's as far as I was able to read.

 

[javafiend]

Tallpine wrote:

Another "looney leftist anti-american Bush hater......"

Reflexive ad hominem and character assassination have become the standard operating procedure for the Bush Admin and its fellow-travelers to deal with critics of US fedgov aggression in Iraq. Built on lies, the war is an indefensible failure on strategic and moral grounds. The government's resort to torture, chemical weapons, and widespread destruction of Iraq show the US to be a rogue state, earning us the enmity of the world.

gc70 wrote:

She worked for the State Department, so your description is redundant.

So does Condi Rice? So what? Just another way for you to sidestep the real issue.

 

[Sewerman]

This is why I say the system is broken and cant be fixed, half the country (or more) is the same sort of ilk.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

...earning us the enmity of the world.

I'm interested in hearing which country in the world giving us this "emnity" does not live in a glass house.

 

[CAnnoneer]

This lady certainly has some problems, but is not completely bad. Just like Bush has a couple of good qualities, but is otherwise a loser.

Just because we now have to remain in Iraq until it can stand on its own feet does not lessen in any way to responsibility of Bush & Toadies Inc. for placing us in the mess in the first place. This administration is in many ways criminally negligent and negligently criminal, and for that history and our descendents will have a few harsh things to say.

There is a middle ground between being a blissninny crying rivers of tears for the problems in the world, and being so close-minded as to justify any crap that comes from Dubya on the basis of his not being that loser Kerry. Extremism is bad regardless of which end of the spectrum it happens to represent.

 

[NavyDoc]

Tallpine wrote:


Reflexive ad hominem and character assassination have become the standard operating procedure for the Bush Admin and its fellow-travelers to deal with critics of US fedgov aggression in Iraq. Built on lies, the war is an indefensible failure on strategic and moral grounds. The government's resort to torture, chemical weapons, and widespread destruction of Iraq show the US to be a rogue state, earning us the enmity of the world.

gc70 wrote:


So does Condi Rice? So what? Just another way for you to sidestep the real issue.

The article "Indirect Fires in the Battle of Fallujah" mentions nothing about chemical weapons...unless you consider WP (incindiary) and smoke "chemical weapons" (for that matter a flintlock is a "chemical weapon" Hey! It's got chemicals in it!) SMoke marking rounds may be stinky, but they are NOT mustard gas or anything that could be construed as a "chemical weapon".
You abviously know nothing about the military or military technology. I'm amazed that such an ant-military zealot posts on THR.

Listen up...we are not war criminals or babykillers.

 

[javafiend]

Lower opinion of U.S. in global survey
Saturday, October 16, 2004
By Beth Gardiner
The Associated Press

And this article was published a year ago. I don't know how much lower global opinion of the US has dropped since then, but I imagine that if you really interested, you could do a few web searches.

 

[confed sailor]

i wonder?

perhaps she was part of the US Army LSD testing program?

And a retired colonel also, I think its time to pull the UCMJ on her sorry behind, because if she did 29 years in the army, shes a retired officer. RETIRED OFFICERS COME UNDER THE UCMJ FOR LIFE!
id like to see how comfy she is if she was reenstated just long enough for a court martial, and tossed out minus her retirement. (Typical officer anyhow , puts mouth in gear before brain is in drive )

to use a Nuke term, she's UNSAT.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Reflexive ad hominem and character assassination have become the standard operating procedure for the Bush Admin and its fellow-travelers to deal with critics of US fedgov aggression in Iraq.

I agree here.

Built on lies[/URL], the war is an indefensible failure on strategic and moral grounds.

It was built on lies, but there are sound strategic and moral reasons for it, along with some pretty selfish and despicable ones. Now that we are in, we have to see it through, or it will be worse.

The government's resort to torture, chemical weapons, and widespread destruction of Iraq show the US to be a rogue state[/URL], earning us the enmity of the world.

There, you are going too far, IMO.

 

[Derby FALs]

The article "Indirect Fires in the Battle of Fallujah" mentions nothing about chemical weapons...unless you consider WP (incindiary) and smoke "chemical weapons" (for that matter a flintlock is a "chemical weapon" Hey! It's got chemicals in it!) SMoke marking rounds may be stinky, but they are NOT mustard gas or anything that could be construed as a "chemical weapon".
You abviously know nothing about the military or military technology. I'm amazed that such an ant-military zealot posts on THR.

Listen up...we are not war criminals or babykillers.

Want to play with some WP in your backyard?

 

[NavyDoc]

Want to play with some WP in your backyard?

Sure...the back 40 could use some cleaning out!


WP is not fun, but still NOT a chemical weapon!

 

[confed sailor]

uuuuhhhhhhh

im just a nuke so they dont let us play with anything fun,

but isnt Willy Pete an incendiary, not chem?

 

[Derby FALs]

Sure...the back 40 could use some cleaning out!


WP is not fun, but still NOT a chemical weapon!

Relatively harmless?

 

[NavyDoc]

Relatively harmless?

I didn't say harmless. I didn't say it was not a weapon...just not a chemical weapon! Java posted "chemical weapons" to get an emotional, anti-US military response and to evoke images of genocide by posting a link to an article that mentioned no such thing, hoping, I surmise that know one who actually knew anything would read it. I was calling him on it.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Just so I'm clear here...many of you would prefer a world where Saddam Hussein was still in power?

I'd like to have a respectful discussion about this rather than links to how "the world despises the U.S." The world always despises the U.S. just as the lazy always despise the successful. I'm still rather unclear as to which country is so pure of heart as to be able to judge the actions of the U.S. in the past few years.

The "lies" upon which the Iraq War is supposedly based were supported by U.S. Democrats and Repubs alike. Now that our stomach is getting queasy because it's not a slam-dunk like Gulf War #1, the Dems are piling on to an Administration that actually DID something about Saddam not living up to his terms of surrender.

Personally, I prefer to live in a U.S.A. that does not kowtow to the whims of the United Nations.

I've put forth my beliefs in this situation. I would like to hear what those of you who dislike George Bush would have had the U.S.A. do in March 2003.

 

[TallPine]

Mostly the responses I expected ...

 

[javafiend]

NavyDoc wrote:
"The article "Indirect Fires in the Battle of Fallujah" mentions nothing about chemical weapons...unless you consider [white phosphorous]" chemical weapons.

See Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

White phosphorus is a waxy solid which burns easily and is used in chemical manufacturing and smoke munitions. Exposure to white phosphorus may cause burns and irritation, liver, kidney, heart, lung, or bone damage, and death.

See the film Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre by Sigfrido Ranucci, RAINews24

"I heard the order being issued to be careful because white phosphorus was being used on Fallujah. In military slang this is known as Willy Pete. Phosphorus burns bodies, melting the flesh right down to the bone," says one former US solider, interviewed by the documentary's director, Sigfrido Ranucci.

From GlobalSecurity.org.

The Battle of Fallujah was conducted from 8 to 20 November 2004 with the last fire mission on 17 November. The battle was fought by an Army, Marine and Iraqi force of about 15,000 under the I Marine Expeditionary Force (IMEF). US forces found WP to be useful in the Battle of Fallujah. "WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out. ... We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions."

In August 2003, the United States admitted dropping the incendiary weapon of napalm on Iraq, despite earlier denials by the Pentagon that the “horrible” weapon had not been used in the three-week invasion of Iraq.
See the British newspaper The Indendependent, August 10, 2005. "We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," the paper quoted Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11, as saying.

See also Fallujah: Napalm By Any Other Name .

So the US is using chemical warfare in Iraq. Remind me again why we're there? Remember what Our Fearless Leader said back in October 2002 when he was drumming up support for his planned invasion of Iraq?

In Iraq

weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people.

Hmmm.......a murderous tyrant using chemical weapons to destroy thousands of people.....

 

[NavyDoc]

Again...not a chemical weapon. Not gas. Not anthrax. Not a wide area use weapon. You still don't know what you are talking about.

"Fallujah the Hidden Massacre" a hit piece by a leftist journalist.


Disagree with the CIC as for motivations, but this US Military=babykillers is a load of drivel.

 

[308win]

Just so I'm clear here...many of you would prefer a world where Saddam Hussein was still in power?

Just my .02 but on a scale of 1-10 of circumstances critical to the world's well being, Sadaam Hussein in power would rate about a -10. If the Iraqi sheeple were so disabused of their personal well-being they should have done something about him; it is after all their county.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

I am extremely confused here. A death by Napalm or phosphorous is worse than a death by a bomb, knife or rifle shot? Isn't all death bad? Should we also avoid the use of accurate rifles? Guided missles? Come to think of it...night vision just isn't fair either.

 

[Derby FALs]

Just so I'm clear here...many of you would prefer a world where Saddam Hussein was still in power?

I'd like to have a respectful discussion about this rather than links to how "the world despises the U.S." The world always despises the U.S. just as the lazy always despise the successful. I'm still rather unclear as to which country is so pure of heart as to be able to judge the actions of the U.S. in the past few years.

The "lies" upon which the Iraq War is supposedly based were supported by U.S. Democrats and Repubs alike. Now that our stomach is getting queasy because it's not a slam-dunk like Gulf War #1, the Dems are piling on to an Administration that actually DID something about Saddam not living up to his terms of surrender.

I had never lost any sleep over Saddam, who I doubt would make a pimple on a real monster's ass. Most definitely not worth 2000 plus of our young men's lives. The politicos that supported the action by washing their hands of the decision to declare war should be hung until dead for mass murder and treason. After a fair trial, of course.

Personally, I prefer to live in a U.S.A. that does not kowtow to the whims of the United Nations.

Me too...

I've put forth my beliefs in this situation. I would like to hear what those of you who dislike George Bush would have had the U.S.A. do in March 2003.

Let the inspectors finish. If the US is going to fight the UN's fight, they should have a UN majority approval.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Just so I'm clear here...many of you would prefer a world where Saddam Hussein was still in power?

I certainly wouldn't prefer him in power. But, I also do not believe removing one foreign dictator is worth 2000 dead soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars of my country's money.

I'd like to have a respectful discussion about this rather than links to how "the world despises the U.S." The world always despises the U.S. just as the lazy always despise the successful. I'm still rather unclear as to which country is so pure of heart as to be able to judge the actions of the U.S. in the past few years.

Agreed. Other countries have other interests. We should be motivated in our actions by our national security and interests, not what might look good in the halls of the UN.

The "lies" upon which the Iraq War is supposedly based were supported by U.S. Democrats and Repubs alike.

They were misinformed and gave support believing the information given to them was accurate and presented in good faith. That they did not dig deeper is a failure of judgment, but that is another issue.

Personally, I prefer to live in a U.S.A. that does not kowtow to the whims of the United Nations.

Agreed.

I've put forth my beliefs in this situation. I would like to hear what those of you who dislike George Bush would have had the U.S.A. do in March 2003.

1) make the borders opaque at a fraction of what we have spent in Iraq (thereby also stopping illegal immigration)
2) prohibit foreign nationals of Arab descent or name to enter the country for a period of 10 years, ban being renewable as necessary.
3) confiscate the property of any and all individuals and organizations preaching or financing jihad and would ban them from entering the country for life. (thereby generating revenue)
4) put bounties on the heads of all prominent leaders from #3
5) discontinue any and all aid to Israel. After all, many jihadists hate us because of it and we gain nothing by it.
6) discontiue any and all aid to countries that have anti-American groups. Enough biting the hand that feeds you!

That's just for starters.

 

[TallPine]

Isn't all death bad?

What an interesting thought ...