Of course these troops are just children who are sent off to war to die for Haliburton and oil because they can't get a job in America, where unemployment is skyrocketing and the people devestated by Katrina are getting their welfare cut off after only two years. These troops are brain-washed by Dick Cheney to parrot the company line. Clearly, they have no thoughts of their own and have no clue how ill-informed they are. If they knew anything, they'd address the effect on Iraq on global warming and how it keeps children from receiving adequate healthcare in the U.S. instead of oppressing the Iraqis, who were obviously better off under Saddam.*

*(I am sure leftist dopes who read the above for nodding their heads in agreement until they reached this parenthetical)

Brian

Pitch perfect. You had me!

CY

Thanks for this.

Tom

Brian, one part of your lefty impersonation rings a little bit false.

To most lefties, most members of the armed forces aren't merely stupid dupes, they're sub-human creatures (lefties won't even call them animals, because animals are always pure and innocent) who enjoy murdering, raping, torturing, looting, and so on and so forth.

The only way to prove that you aren't one of these is to proclaim that every other member of the armed forces is.

For examples, see Scott "I know it was Iraq... or was it Kuwait?" Beauchamp and/or John "Christmas in Cambodia" Kerry.

My son who is stationed in Iraq as part of a joint task force out of Fort Stewart, GA, tells me that he and his fellow soldiers support Gen Petraeus fully. He also said that the support offered by both sides in the US Congress has all of them shaking their heads and wondering what country they are supposed to be representing. "The Democrats haven't a clue what we are doing here, and many of the Republicans who are advocating our withdrawil seem to forget, if they every really knew, what we are doing here. We signed up to serve our country, and to obey the orders of our superiors, and we do it, whether we agree with their decisions or not, but it seems that the "leaders" in congress forgot that they also have a responsibility to us as well," he told me in a recent email. He is his fathers son. I served 22 years in the Army and am and always have been very conservative in my politics and my personal affairs. He makes me proud every time I think of him.

>Posted by: Robert Miller at September 13, 2007 12:03 AM

I'd say your pride is well justified. Hell, I'm proud of him and I don't even know either of you!

No doubt ad writers for MoveOn.org are desperately clawing through thesauri and dictionaries attempting to find synonyms for betrayal that rhyme with "Killip" and "Nicholls."

Why? Does Sgt. Killip have the same track record? I respect the fact that there has been progress militarily...but that was not the justification for the Surge as it was set forth by the President. The Surge was to allow one last chance for political reconciliation within the Iraqi Government, and that hasn't happened. Won't happen.

It pathetically easy to see what you are doing here CY, conflating an everyday average soldier with a politico like Gen. Petraeus, in order to make the criticism leveled at the General by Moveon seem like an attack on the troops. This isn't 2004, and that stuff wont play anymore.

I thought it was called moron.com! Well, that's how they act.

I graduated law school lst December and everything I wrote is something that I heard one time or another from silly liberals there, which includes both students and profesors. I love writing things like that.

For the record, I support our fine General and I believe history will prove Bush correct. And, knowing quite a few military guys, I know what they are all about. I thank God for them every day.

I feel sorry for liberals and Democrats who are so worried about winning an election they can't stand or allow any American success. What do they think, come January 2009, when Bush heads back to the ranch, that terrorism is going to go away? I'll bet a lot of them actually do. I'll take the imperfect action of Bush any day over the perfection of doing nothing.

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/13/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Oh, Brian. You're too generous.

This is bigger for a lot of them then mere elections. This is about how a worldview plays out.

Progressives see themselves as enlightened champions of all that is good and just (and by just, I mean for "the downtrodden"). Never you mind that the results of their actions have very little in common with their rhetoric.

In Bush, you have the ignorant hillbilly whose leadership (greatly flawed as it is) gave 52 million or so people a shot at Democracy in a land and culture utterly bereft of it.

Progressives were on the wrong side of history throughout the Cold War. At the very least many refused to condemn the Communists. Often, they outright supported them. History showed that. For all his self-righteous blather, it was Reagan, not Carter, whose efforts led to the fall of the Soviet Union.

Progressives like to dispute that here, but Eastern Europeans know better. And they're the ones in the position to.

Today, we have an opportunity to utterly change the character of the Middle East. If we fail, we will be tied up in low-level conflicts for some time, on a slow trickle of casualties. Assuming somebody doesn't do anything foolish with a nuke. If we fail and withdraw, we may see the loss of hundreds of thousands if not millions in the long run. But if we succeed, it will have been - again - a conservative who brought real change, real hope and real progress to people who need it most.

It won't be a Progressive.

Even now, for Progressives, how someone dies and who kills them is irrelevant beyond its rhetorical use as a club against America. They cite civilian deaths, but refuse to parse out whether those deaths were deliberately caused by their "minute men."

Hundreds of thousands have been killed throughout the world in the last few decades, and Progressives have rarely batted an eye. Look at Sudan, Angola, Rwanda. Between 1998 and 2003 nearly 4 million people died in the Great African War. How much ink did the New York Times spill over it? Have they advocated much? To draw attention to it would be to draw attention to the uselessness of the UN. And they can't have that. Look at Barack Obama and Kucinich's "Plans" for Iraq.

Like the jihadi, belief is why they fight against the Iraq Campaign. A million deaths is a statistic. A man they once openly supported said that. But Progressive beliefs are something they can't stand to have killed. To have the evil right-wingers bring about a sea change justice, true progress and humanity to the Middle East while they crossed their arms, stomped their feet and said "NO!" is too much.

Amos

A great response addressing the presumed infallibility of progressives/leftists. Even in this thread, Frederick claimed the ability to see the future ("...Won't happen....")echoes the claimed abilitiy of progressives everywhere to predict the future. And yet they are so often wrong--economics, foreign policy, etc.--that to preserve their worldview requires an orwellian rewrite of history on almost a constant basis.

Frederick speculates that:

"The Surge was to allow one last chance for political reconciliation within the Iraqi Government, and that hasn't happened. Won't happen."

I recall leftists claiming that Anbar would never be pacified in 06. Ooops.

Never say never.

If there has been no reconciliation in the Iraqi government how would one explain Sunni and Shia leaders in Diyala pledging to unite to fight al-Qaida and illegal militias or Maliki reaching out to Sunni anti-terrorist leaders in Al Anbar?

The "surge" wasn't even completely in effect until early August. And this idiot Frederick thinks that the political situation should be solved in one month. The intellectual vacancy of the left is stunning!

Frederick, please provide evidence for the claim that the Surge was only to provide breathing room for political reconciliation.

And, since I note that your first link in the above comment was to MoveOn, I should warn you that any attempt to use that website as "evidence" around these parts generally results in gales of laughter at the person trying it. Sort of like trying to use Wikipedia.

Amos,

Like John Stuart Mill said:

"First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility."

Your post proves why Mill was right that all opinions should be listened to and considered. There is some good points in it, along with a lot of nonsense. Thanks for sharing.

Frederick, since you commented on another post today, I know you have been here.

Please provide the evidence I requested above.

I note you were back again, Frederick, and still no evidence.

Seems I chased another lefty away from this thread.

I just caught a tiny part of a long PBS special on Iraq War II, and it seems they could only find mercenaries and doubters in the military over there.

They interviewed two GIs who were coming to the end of the contracts. One was re-signing only for the big bonus. The other was given time to provide a juicy quote - which was that he would never, ever sign up for this military again, then tacked on maybe he would if somebody could explain to him what the hell we were doing over there --- with his point being nobody could, so his never, ever pledge was safe.

Then, when a real news outlet (which I can't seem to locate) would have cut to some balance by showing soldiers who believed in what they were doing and re-signing for more than money....

.....PBS moved on to amplify the last GI's narrative by saying how the country has been lost from the beginning on whether there was a need for a war or not and that we were stuck in a quagmire the next president would have to bail us out of...

So, if PBS can't find soldiers who believe in the mission, I guess this story you posted on your blog can't be true, right....?