Comments Posted By SShiell
Displaying 131 To 140 Of 223 Comments
NEW JIHADI VIDEO GIVES HEART TO TERRORISTS
"Does confronting the terrorists in and of itself breed more terrorists?"
To hear the Liberal Narrative as spoken by the Democrats and the Far Left, you would have to believe it is true. Statments such as:
"We are generating more terrorists with our even being in Iraq."
"They don't hate us for what we are, they hate us for our actions."
Etc.I remember as a child being faced with a bully in the local school yard. I was tall for my age and with that tallness came awkwardness. But being tall also brought problems different than others may have - I became a target. The little punks and the bullys wanted to assert themselves.
My Grandfather took me aside one day and gave me some advice. He said, "Make the bully look to other targets other than yourself. And the way to do that is not cringe from him in fear but stand up to him. Make it cost him to deal with you. You may not be able to beat him but you will make him think twice, even three times to mess with you. He will see easier pickings and turn to them for his power. Don't let him. Stand up not only for yourself but for the weak around you. Together, you and the weakest there will turn him away."
It worked. I got my nose bloodied a couple of times but after a while the effort became too much for him. He turned to easier targets. I stood up for them also. Slowly, the tide turned against him. One by one even the weakest amongst us, by standing together, stood up to the bully and he finally just left the playground - looking for an easier place to dominate.
And that is what nobody wants to talk about - domination. Terror is all about the collective caving into the horror of terror. We may not even know what they want but we can't wait to please them in hopes they will turn away from us and go to another target. But that becomes a never ending circle of fear. Terror cannot be appeased. You literally give them an inch and they will demand a mile. Why not? You have given them nothing to guard against. You have virtually told them you will give in if only they won't hurt you. What's to stop their demands? Nothing! Appeasement feeds their need for domination and costs them nothing in return.
It is my belief that appeasement breeds far more terrorists than any confrontation could do.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 5.07.2007 @ 09:07
HAWKS, DOVES...LET'S TALK TURKEY.
The military option for Iran is different than that for Iraq. Sanctions have a chance to work here where thay would never have worked for Iraq.
For one, Iran's economy is more vulnerable to sanctions than that of Iraq. Iran's economy is built around oil but their infrastructure is stuck in the 1970s. It cost 4 times what it does in Saudi Arabia to bring a barrel of oil out of the ground in Iran. Pressure on oil prices, as was seen earlier in the year, put Iran's economy on the breaking point. Iran was even having trouble paying for the Nuke technology and instrumentation they were buying from the west.
Second, the emerging opposition within the country is extremely vulnerable to any potential nationalistic fervor. An attack on Iran would "rally" the people to the flag more than anyone in the west could ever imagine. And that would vitually destroy any opposition forces within the country.
Between the two, Iran could be "managed" in a way that Iraq could never have been.
But one note of caution. Do not put it beyond the Mullahs or the likes of Allinmydinnerjacket to "create" a crisis in order to facilitate the semblance of war in order to create such a "rally". It has been done before and when the Mullahs control the media, it is relatively easy to do it again. Military pressure in Afghanistan and Iraq, and at Israel by the Iranian stooges Hezbullah and Hamas could trump the power of any sanctions.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 19.06.2007 @ 09:53
LATEST CIVIL LIBERTIES OUTRAGE: SPYING ON GLOBAL WARMING
Given the CIA's track record for the past 40 years, the only interesting question I see with their participation in the "global warming" discussion is where they will f*ck it up.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 15.05.2007 @ 10:15
Hank: I have said time and again that we will be able to readily tell when the Army is nearing the ragged edge. There will be two significant indications:
1. Re-enlistments will plummet. And that has not happened.
2. Fragging incidents will rise. There has been only one such incident in this war and that was during the runup to the invasion.Those were indicators of our failing military at the end of Viet Nam and should be considered primary indicators today. It is easy to just say "Our Military is Broken" but it is a whole lot harder to back it up with demonstrable measures of merit.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 4.05.2007 @ 18:06
With the likes of Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann running the debate, Fred Thompsom came out miles ahead by not being there.
Having said that, for the debate participants, the highlights for me were:
Mathews asked Romney this inane question, "What would you say to Roman Catholic leaders who would deny communion to those who support abortion rights?"
Romney's answer "I don't have anything to say to them. They can do whatever the heck they want!"Best line of the night:
Question to Huckabee - "Grade the Iraq War."
His response "I don't give grades in the middle of the test!"Dumbest line of the night:
Comment Posted By SShiell On 4.05.2007 @ 10:57
Mathews question "What do you dislike most about America?"
The answer someone could have won the night with "Stupid self-righteous debate moderators like yourself!"
BUSH VETOES CONGRESSIONAL INVITATION TO AL QAEDA TO SLAUGHTER IRAQIS
Here's and example of camments made by the good Major General John Batiste which is an example of criticisms that Bush "never listened to while they served". From a report dated 15 November 2004:
Despite a rise in the number of terrorist attacks, and contrary to the perception created by media reports that focus almost exclusively on bad news, the commanders told Abizaid that progress is being made in their areas of operation and they were confident that the outlook for Iraq's future is generally good.
"I'm confident because we've got some great Iraqi security forces. We've got great Iraqis who are patriots, committed to a free and democratic Iraq," said Maj. Gen. John Batiste, commander of the 1st Infantry Division. "Our recent experience in places like Samarra is that these units, well-led and well- equipped, did a very good job. I expect them to continue to do so."
The 1st Infantry Division is headquartered in Tikrit, about 90 miles north of Baghdad. The division is responsible for helping to promote stability in various other cities in northern Iraq, including Kirkuk, Baqubah, Balad, Bayji and Sulaymaniyah.
Batiste noted that though the number of attacks has "spiked" lately, they have actually resulted in a relatively smaller percentage of fatal casualties per attack. He said the increase in the number of attacks in recent weeks is the work of desperate insurgents.
"The insurgents are going to try to get back in full what they used to own," Batiste said. "Our job is, with the Iraqi security forces, to make sure that doesn't happen."
Batiste said more people in the U.S. would also feel optimistic about the situation in Iraq if they knew about "the work we're doing with security and governance and in improving the quality of life and the infrastructure of this country."
Now that sounds like a man who is giving Bush what for in his criticism of the war. Boy, how could someone like Bush or even Rumsfield stand up to such scathing remarks as that.
Believe it or not, Richard Bottoms, your comments, for what they are worth, mean more to me than those from a man who wouldn't and didn't speak up "while they served" and is now trying to ingratiate himself with the political powers of today.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 2.05.2007 @ 17:59
First - Hankmeister. Your comment #26 was outstanding.
Second - bloodstomper. That is the same Major General Batiste who wrote, "We have the best military in the world, hands down. We must complete what we started in Iraq, and there is no doubt in my mind that we have the military capacity to do that, provided the political will is there."
That was the opening paragraph of an OpEd for the Washington Post written by Major General Batiste (former commander of the 1st ID at the beginning of the current Iraq War) in 2006 demanding Rumsfield's resignation. But nowhere in this OpEd did he mention Bush. His ire was completely directed at Rumsfield.
Why? Was it because the good Major General was really disppointed with Rumsfield's handling of the war? If that was true, show me his criticisms while he served. (Some simple links would be fine.) Or could it be the good Major General had a problem because he did not get promoted to Lieutenant General?
Now, let's get to it and you show me something Major General Batiste said or wrote "that Bush never listened to while they served".
Go ahead, I'll wait.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 2.05.2007 @ 15:22
For those who do not understand the import of our ability to confront "any enemy anywhere" I would like to offer this comment. Look at it from the perspective of the troops coming home.
Yeah, the troops are really going to enjoy coming back home to air conditioning, milk, beer, beautiful american women dressed to please, and all of the Mom and apple pie analogies you want to pile on them.
But they will also come home to a country of leaders like Harry Reid, John Murtha, John Kerry, Dick Durbin. Leaders of our country who have referred to them as losers (Reid), murderers (Murtha), stupid (Kerry), and Nazis (Durbin). They supported the troops and brought them home.
And the American people sided with them.
How do you think these young people will view the next time they are sent into the fray? How do you think these young people will react to people that burned soldiers in effigy or others who carried signs that said:
"F*ck the Troops"
"We support the troops who kill their officers"And the American people sided with them.
How do you tell these young men who never once retreated in battle, who beat the enemy in every fire fight, who killed their enemies at a rate of 40 or 50 to one, who are now walking away from a country where they bled and died to give total strangers an opportunity for freedom that they are losers.
And then tell them "Now get ready for the next time we need you to face any enemy anywhere."
Comment Posted By SShiell On 1.05.2007 @ 01:03
SHERYL CROW IS ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON
An Ode to Sheryl Crow
There she sits all broken hearted
Tried to sh*t but only farted
Upon that throne her mind did glean
She had no paper with which to clean"Oh What Joy, a tree is saved"
But her joy came much too soon by half
For at that moment her bowels did heave
And rank wet poo her cheeks did cleave"Now what to do" she was heard to moan
And once again her bowels did groan
And though she mightily did strain
More poo came forth in spite of her painAnd with that groan the door did open
And her hero Al Gore did chance to enter
"Oh thank heavens" she said, expecting help
Came but a single square made all of kelp"Carbon Neutral" the Gore declared
while Sheryl looked upon that single square
"is our goal and the earth to save"
Sheryl decided she must be brave"This sacrifice I make for all mankind
My *ss to wipe and clean my behind."
"And what else can I do to save us all"
She asked of Gore outside the stall"You can also save more of this planet,
Comment Posted By SShiell On 24.04.2007 @ 00:30
By conserving water so other may have it"
"When you have wiped your butt so fair
Save the flush - eat the square!"
Ed, you want to ask about the metrics which will define victory in Iraq. So start up the conversation! What do you think? Answer your own questions.
How many car bombings in Iraq per month specifically constitute victory?
How many American deaths per month specifically constitute victory?
How many Iraqi deaths per month specifically constitute victory?
How low specifically must U.S. spending go in Iraq per month before that measure can be called a victory?
Start up the development of the "Iraq War Measure of Metrics". Put a point system together and establish a scale. Add additional questions to the list such as:
How much of the infrastructure rebuilding has to be complete (a defined percentage) before we can declare victory?
What levels of governmental tolerance should the various factions reach before we declare victory? (Obviously this would be a scale that would vary depending upon Shia, Sunni or Kurd - but hey, put some bogies in there and we can work it out.)
How many more House or Senate Resolutions need to be introduced relating to the end of the war before we can declare the war over and come on home? (Note: At last count we were up to 18, including the non-binding ones, so we may have to set this standard pretty high - 100? - 200? - Oh well, put a number there, we can work around it - Congress usually does.)
How many . . . .
You get the idea! Lay some thought and work into it and come on back with your ideas. We can pass it around and get endorsements and coordinations from all sorts of organizations. We could even get the idea in some sort of referendum. Put it on the ballot. You could be a hero!
This is kinda fun!
Comment Posted By SShiell On 19.03.2007 @ 18:18
