Comments Posted By grognard
Displaying 81 To 90 Of 108 Comments


And the best way to facilitate the left coming back into the fold is to call them every name in the book. Everyone knows that when some one is calling you every vile and despicable name they can think of you are listening intently to their message and not thinking anything about the stream of bile.

Comment Posted By grognard On 19.06.2007 @ 13:31


There are options we can try short of a military strike. Despite being an oil exporter 40 percent of Iranian gasoline supplies are imported. Cutting off gas supplies as part of a sanctions package will have a serious effect on the Iranian economy and will put the regime in the difficult position of explaining why it was a good idea to develop nuclear technology instead of building refineries. Any military strike has severe consequences that must be weighed before going forward. Shiite reaction in Iraq, Hezbollah actions in Lebanon are just a few options Iran has to counter a US strike with, they know they can’t stand up to us militarily but they can create chaos throughout the middle east. As far as the left and right go there is now so much bad blood between the two groups that a serious discussion is impossible.

Comment Posted By grognard On 18.06.2007 @ 23:50


Even if we had won in Vietnam it would have been at great cost, spreading more “Vietnams” throughout Latin America and Africa would have been a viable strategy for the Soviet Union, wearing down the US with constant wars through proxies. Castro was the primary driver for a lot of the Marxist revolts in Latin America and Africa. He wanted to be seen as the world revolutionary leader, so I don‘t see any let up of revolutionary wars as a result of a Vietnam victory. The trouble was that while Castro got the credit for being at the forefront of revolutionary Marxism the Soviet Union got the bill, and a dictator of questionable loyalty. Vietnam’s war with Cambodia, China’s war with Vietnam, and the Sino Soviet border dispute that Nixon so skillfully exploited to break China away from Russia shows that nationalism often trumped “International Communism”. It is the nationalist element of the Vietnam war that is so striking [ read US Army report on the subject] the number of people they lost to throw out the foreign invader , France and the US, explains well why they would not take any interference from China later.

The real damage was the mortal wound stuck against the United States, the left became radicalized over the war and the right radicalized in response. Each side views the other with suspicion at best, usually loathing and pure hate. Civilized discussion is gone, now it is all venom and bile, and to top if off people have found out that bashing the other side is very profitable creating yet more alienation. It will take a generation before we recover from the war politically.

As far as the options go I favor #3. I don’t think Iran will have as much influence with the Shiites in the south, it is amazing how people who have gotten their hands on the oil money resent others trying to tell them how to spend it. The South is not monolithic, the factions of Shiites will be consumed in an internal power struggle and the Sunnis will be forgotten. If the Kurds will not do anything about the PPK, the Turks will educate them and nobody will care, they will suffer the consequences of their actions. The Sunnis might come out in the best shape, numbers too small to challenge the other regions so they would stay on the sideline, if oil is discovered they have a piece of the oil pie with no strings attached.

Comment Posted By grognard On 9.06.2007 @ 11:06


Rick, suit yourself, I don’t really care. It is not the left, by the way, that you need to worry about, it’s the center. The Left and Right share the same dilemma, they need the [insert derogatory term here] center to win elections. What I point out to both the left and right is that the partisan attacks don’t play all that well with moderates, and yes I know I am a voice in the wilderness. You wont change but there is always a chance one of your readers might. By the way I was a ranter once myself so I am not claiming any moral high ground here. I realized the error of my ways after hearing a speech by Joe Lieberman on how but both sides were speaking past each other to energize their base and how he felt there we could find some common ground on the war if we could end the partisan attacks.

Comment Posted By grognard On 9.06.2007 @ 22:55

Yes, because the left spewed vile first that justifies the right doing it. You perfectly illustrate my point that being in the middle is like refereeing a schoolyard fight between foul mouthed juveniles. Here is a thought, try elevating the level of debate by leading by example, and not responding in kind.

Comment Posted By grognard On 8.06.2007 @ 07:38


I went through sort the same thing, after years of John Wayne movies is was an eye opener that there was another side to all this. One thing Whites did not understand was “horse stealing”. When the horse [mysteriously for native Americans] appeared on the plains the tribes that had them found themselves not only more mobile than in the past but also far more militarily powerful. To keep up with the neighboring tribes there was a huge incentive for tribes to acquire horses, at first just for survival. This changed over time. The warrior who had many horses had a considerable amount of prestige, horses not only gave him mobility but also measured his courage in that they were usually acquired in dangerous practice of raiding another tribe. What developed was a “ game“ of taking and loosing horses between tribes, not done so much to inflict damage on the other side but to show courage and wealth. Native Americans certainly would trade for horses but, in a way, that would be cheating at the game, acquiring horses for prestige without the danger of raiding. The Europeans never understood this, theft of a horse was a serious economic loss and you certainly did not steal from someone else to offset what was taken and to gain prestige. For us Native Americans were thieves too lazy to work.

Comment Posted By grognard On 6.06.2007 @ 11:50


I know most of the people involved were there to visit sick relatives but never the less the State Department warnings about travel in Iran [effective 10/2006] were very specific at the time they went. Iran does not issue visas to the US, it does not issue passports to the US.. Iran does not recognize religious conversions, there are demonstrations where American citizens could be a target. There is no US diplomatic mission in Iran, all contacts must be through the Swiss embassy. Above all the State Department warned that Iran does not recognize dual citizenship, if there were any problems the Iranian government might not allow contact with the Swiss embassy on the grounds that the person in trouble was solely an Iranian citizen and not eligible for any contact with a diplomatic mission. The State Department did specifically warn about the possibility of arrest and harassment. The warning that is now in effect is only slightly different than the 10/06 warning, the difference being that the now there is a statement that people have been detained. You can‘t blame the bureaucrats for this ,“Foggy Bottom” can only warn you about the consequences of travel, they can’t stop you from going. There is some personal responsibility involved when you ignore State Department travel warnings.

Comment Posted By grognard On 2.06.2007 @ 23:11


“I guess six years of enduring the unhinged, BDS paranoia and conspiracy theories of the lickspittle left can do that to a man.”

Thank God you can still blame the left, I thought you might actually go off the deep end and take a good hard look at the right. Yes, of course, it’s the lefts fault alone; it always will be.

Comment Posted By grognard On 1.06.2007 @ 21:04


Hmmm, let me read what I said again, no I don’t see any excuse for Clinton, and no mention of Bush and legality either. Oh I get it , you think I am a left winger, and are reading into what I said the talking points of the left. No, not so. My point was that you can’t justify the actions of Bush by the actions of Clinton, it is like saying Putin can justify his disbanding of opposition parties based on what Stalin did. Both presidents were well within their constitutional authority to appoint, fire, or move people around. That does not mean it is a good idea to use the Justice department as a political tool against the other party, that the “performance” of an attorney is to be judged on how many members of the other party are under indictment or investigation, or conversely how many members of your party are ignored for criminal behavior. Don’t worry I do not give the Democrats a free pass for deficit spending or earmarks because Republicans did it too.

Comment Posted By grognard On 30.05.2007 @ 17:23

Clinton did it too, that makes it OK! Bring on the interns! That’s also OK now using this logic. This is great, a new rally cry for the Republican party! “If Clinton did it we will too.” LOL.

Comment Posted By grognard On 30.05.2007 @ 11:27

Powered by WordPress

« Previous Page

Next page »

Pages (11) : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11

«« Back To Stats Page