Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 641 To 650 Of 657 Comments
Trust. Trust. Trust.
"Saddam has WMDs and is threatening us."
"We're totally taking care of the Gulf States after Katrina."
"We didn't have anything to do with firing the USAs."
"The insurgency is in its last throes."
"Pat Tillman died in a battle with terrorists."
"Al Quida in Iraq are the same people who attacked us on 9/11."
"I don't recall if I sent Gonzo and Card to pressure Ashcroft in the hospital."
"Random soldiers at Abu Grahib spontaneously decided to perform a 'Viet Nam' on prisoners -- we never suggested it."
"We don't torture."Comes a point, even if you trust a person, that they can (and should) lose that trust if they keep lying to you. Otherwise, we're all just enablers.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 1.08.2007 @ 09:36
@G Mitchell:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 1.08.2007 @ 14:39
Sunni block just walked out of Iraqi government (well, since they are on vacation, I suppose they just won't come back).
@G Mitchell:
I agree with you -- war is about blasting your enemies to holy hell.
My problem with this conflict is, its not a war. Its the same problem thats been around since 9/11 . . . you can't have a "war" on "terror." You can have a war against an opponent, but you need there to be some entity to eventually say "no mas." We could win WWII because Germany and Japan surrendered, and the people of the countries went along with that. Thery wnet along with the surrender (IMO) because they had something to lose.
Viet Nam -- what did the Viet Cong have to lose (aside from their lives)? They had no reason to quit attacking, regardless of the fact that they got their keisters handed to them in pretty much every battle we had.
Iraq -- who would surrender to us? The insurgency isn't a cohesive, single opponent. It's lots and lots of differnt fighters, with various reasons to want to die. If, hypothetically, Moqtada Al-Sadr ordered the Madhi Army to lay down their arms, would the fighting end? Probably not -- there are plenty of other attacking groups, and there's every reason to believe the solders in the Madhi Army would simply form another group, or join one of the currently existing ones.
Army vs. Army is straightforward -- shoot the people in the wrong uniforms. Army vs. a population is a little more complicated.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 1.08.2007 @ 12:08
They are politicians. What did you want them to do -- get things done?
I said it last thread, I'll say it again. The military CANNOT stabilize the country. They CAN kill the people who are shooting and bombing, but they can't create a working government. That's just not their forte.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 1.08.2007 @ 05:41
congratulations!
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 31.07.2007 @ 12:24
A SHORT POST ABOUT GRASPING AT STRAWS
@r4d20:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 1.08.2007 @ 14:25
Amen. If we had rolled in with the 300,000-400,000 force, put a soldier on every damn streetcorner, and let the Iraqis make their own government, we'd have been out of there by '05-06. AND it would have been a success.
Sunni block just walked out of the Iraqi government. Suppose that means we need a few more months. Just a few. A couple. Three, five mabye. Six tops. I totally swear we're almost gonna win this.
Ain't no "surge" gonna make a legit, functioning government there.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 1.08.2007 @ 14:21
@Mark:
Can it be won? Sure, and the path to accomplish it is pretty clear. WILL it be won? The only way to pull anything close to a successful outcome requires the Iraqi Goverment to play their part on this dance, and they just aren't.
Should they? Obviously. Are they? Sadly, no. Will they? They haven't yet, and its been years. I'd love for them to get their collective head out of their backside and get focused, but I can't see any facts to suggest that's going to happen. We will keep shooting at insurgents, terrorists, innocents, extremists, call them whatever you want -- this won't end by us fighting, but by them stopping the fight with us. The military can't make Iraq a country, or make the government there care.
I sincerely hope you are right.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 30.07.2007 @ 17:27
Amen. No doubt the US Armed Forces can clear and hold territory, but if the Iraqi Government isn't concerned with getting competent enough to handle it, we're stuck with territory we don't want. The military (and hypothetically) the surge can make a good environment, but if the government don't grow, you've just got a pile of compost.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 30.07.2007 @ 13:43
WHOSE FREEDOM? WHAT IS SPEECH?
@ Mr. Moran:
I definitely don't see a hate crime, unless there are substantial facts not covered in the case summaries you and Ms. Malkin gave. I used to work in criminal justice, and it seems to me this is a prosecutor going with the "charge him with everything under the sun, then agree to drop most of them if the defendant cops to the real charges" approach.
re: the distinction between the Koran, flag, and crucifix --
There is a difference between "rules" and "religious commandments." Yes, there are rules for the proper disposal of Old Glory. Not to follow those rules, however, is not a sin, as in an action that will condemn your soul to Hell. Like I said, it makes you a jerk, but not damned. Same goes for the Bible -- while many people believe it is the Literal Word of Jaweh and revere it, there is nothing in the Christian faith (that I'm aware of) that proscribes destroying a copy of the Bible, or highlighting importand text, or doodling in the margins, whatever. Its not a SIN.
Mishandling the Koran (or allowing it to be mishandled) is considered a SIN, not just bad conduct. I'm not Muslim, and I don't believe it is a sin, but the rules of the faith damn the follower for the transgression.
Example: I cut the hair of an extremely devout Jew (I think the term is Hassidic?). In my mind, I've just assulted him. In their mind, they have sinned against God, and their soul may be forfeit. That goes way beyond "offended."A non-religious (and extremely sloppy) example. As a white male landowner, I can burn wood on my property. I can burn shapes on my property. I can burn a wooden cross on my property IF I'm not displaying it to Black Americans. If I am showing it to them, I'm looking at a crime, whereas if I burn a cross with my white buddies, its a campfire.
"You’re saying that because one religion spells out how a book is viewed, they are entitled to being protected from offense?"
essentially yes, but change "viewed" to "handled" and "offense" to "losing their eternal soul."
The problem with viewing this from the Muslim perspective is, well . . . we're not Muslims. From our theological upbringing (presuming you were raised in some Christian faith in America), the proscription against defiling the Koran makes no sense, and that makes it hard to see Muslims as anything other than whiners when situations like this come up.
I think that's where the "hate crime" charges is coming from -- for the Muslim, its a different situation than the Christian. Its not a matter of being offended, its a matter of being damned. Thats the trouble with mixing Law and Religion -- one tries to be based on reason, and one tries to be based on faith. The two don't go together well.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 30.07.2007 @ 10:00
