From the front page of the New York Times yesterday. His story here.
You can only look at the picture and cry.
.jpg)
5.29.2007
It's Time To Bring Them Home
From the front page of the New York Times yesterday. His story here.
You can only look at the picture and cry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
Amen
I hate these threads, but I am inexplicably drawn to them. Let's go ahead and get the following phrases on the record, as they will inevitably be used by one or more members of that ever-dwindling minority of war-apologists:
cut and run
surrender mentality
9/11
let the terrorists win
rooting for America to lose
WWII
i love the liberal mindset
LIBERALS
left-wing media
stunning.
Another true American hero.
God bless him and all the other true American heroes who choose to protect our country and the freedom we cherish.
War is indeed hell but often unavoidable. Bringing them home is not going to deter our enemy one bit. They will view our premature surrender as victory and will subsequently be emboldened even more.
This war is not going away anytime soon regardless of how many bleeding heart libs whine about it.
Way past time. Something like 5 years late.
well, here we go again... how does it feel to be the propoganda leaders for our enemies? All we ever hear is how we're losing the war. Fumnny, though, that all this comes from the democrats, whose sole purpose is to get elected, the good of the country be damned.
War is hell, I understand that. and of course, all the liberals say this is George Bush's fault. But you can't deny that Clinton had as much to do with the bad times in the Middle east as Pres. Bush did. They hated us long before George Bush came into power.
So let's bring em all home. Pull em all out. Then Iraq will fall into the muslims' hands for good, and the world will be an even more dangerous place. Maybe they'll even come back over here and bomb our cities. Let's not take the fight to them at all. Let's just sit back, smile and ask them if we can be friends.
But let me make a request: Someone, ANYONE, tell me what your alternative would be on handling the war on terror. I have NEVER heard one solution from the liberals, only blame pointed at the Bush administration. So, what's your answer, liberals? WHAT DO WE DO?
If in WWI and WWII we had the advancement in news as we do today, would you be saying the same thing about those wars? The news media is playing on the horrors of this war to get the public reaction it wants and it is working. Sometimes too much news isn't a good thing when it is a biased affair.
yep.
Did you read the comments from this soldier's family?
Though Regan died in combat,, his family's support for the Iraq war remains strong. Criticism of it, either in the media or by politicians, serves to undermine the effort, said Regan's father, who is also named James Regan.
"What is written in the papers and what is being politicized out there by our candidates is undermining our service," said James Regan, a senior vice president at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, a Manhattan financial services investment bank.
"These gentlemen that are out there are mission-focused," he said of the troops. "They're trying to do the best job they possibly can. There have been mistakes made, why even list them? ... You cannot put men in the field of battle and then change your mind and go out as a whip-dog. Let the men do their job."
They are in support of the war effort and in support of his fellow soldiers.
9:47 - Let's get a few things straight here:
1. There's no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attack.
2. Most Muslims don't hate Americans or America but many/most do object to our foreign policy support of Israel.
3. You’re concerned that if we leave Iraq then "Iraq will fall into the muslims' hands for good"? Well, just who do you suppose lives there? Yes, about 98% Muslims. Remember, Bush is trying to bring democracy to Iraq. Who do you think those democratic Iraqi voters will elect?
4. If you're really interested in going to war with 9/11 attackers' countries, be prepared to invade Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
i propose thatbefore we go invading another country, with no possible way to win, the first people on the first boat shall be the president's/congressmen/senator's sons,daughters, wives and husbands.
also we might include these other idiot's (those for this worthless war) sons and daughters.
the sacrifice would mean more to them then. let them get their ass's blown up by roadside bombs.
8:06 Nice job but you forgot a few:
War is hell (although most who say that have never been)
Embolden the enemy (So they can do what exactly? Get on their Air Force planes or in their Navy boats and come get us?)
Protecting our country (They really mean protecting our future oil fields until we can manipulate the Iraqis into signing the 70% profit for us deal.)
Clinton who hasn't been in office for what?... About 6 years now.
Liberals have no solution to the WoT (Stop listening to O'Lielly and Limpbaugh and you might hear some solutions.)
WWI
Liberal media
I'm waiting for this one:
fighting them over there...
Sigh...never changes. But, at least, there are fewer voices piping in this bull.
Well said 10:54 ... I've been wondering that myself. Iraq, Vietnam, and current conflicts are so different than WWI and II, not necessarily because of the justness of the cause, but because it is watched every night on the news. Only time will judge the history of this cause.
Why is showing a photo of a dead soldier being mourned automatically "propaganda" that aids "our enemies?" A soldier is dead. Respect that for one gd minute.
And then ask why he was there in the first place.
From 9:47:
OK, Anon 1:06, my bad for the woprd "muslims", please allow me to use the word "terrorists". Sorry bout that.
However, I wasn't asking who's to blame, who's at fault, etc., although it doesn't matter what the current government says, the liberals will only believe twhat they want to believe, truth or not.
STILL....I want SOMEONE to answer me with their resolution to the conflict. Like I said, you liberals want the soldiers pulled out? OK, then what? WHAT DO WEO DO?
As bad as I hate to admit it, the liberals could very well win the 2008 election. THEN WHAT???
An answer, please...
TxSheehan, I thought you were going to shut up and go back to California.
I was just kidding. I don't really love the liberal mindset. Let's all bow our heads and thank Jimmy Carter for all this mess.
To you milktoast libs- most of the soldiers in Iraq are warriors and they willing put their lives on the line. They're not whining to come home and would be outraged at your misuse of their deaths. They want to finish the job over there. There are some cut and runners over there, but they are mostly your spawn.
Just a prediction. This immigration bill that Bush and the liberals are trying to ram down our throats is going to allow Republicans that oppose it to sweep the elections in 08. Thanks Bush and Kennedy.
5:09 Dead wrong. The majority of our soldiers want to come home and they are speaking out more and more every day.
Pay attention.
5:09:
Of course they are willing to put their lives on the line -- as am I -- in the defense of our country or in the service of many other good causes. The point you seem to be missing is that, in my judgment as well as the judgment of an ever-increasing majority of Americans, THIS is NOT one of those good causes.
Finishing the job over there will never happen if Bu$h has his way.
Bush envisions U.S. presence in Iraq like S.Korea
Only Iraq is nothing like S. Korea.
The Bush fanbois need to listen closely to Ron Paul. He's made more sense than anyone.
from 9:47 and 3:53:
well, no answer yet on the solution you liberals have to stop the terrorism... I knew it! You're all just a bunch of loud mouths that like to stand back and stab the ones making the decisions, but you don't have the intelligence/guts to make the decision yourself.
I'll give you another chance: HOW WOULD YOU DEAL WITH THE WAR ON TERROR?
It's 2008, you've won the election, NOW WHAT? I bet your answer will be to stand there anbd bemoan how it's impossible to "clean up George Bush's mess."
Do ANY of you liberals have an answer for me?
I'm waiting...
Interesting, you anticipate Democrats claiming difficulty cleaning up the mess made by Bush. Isn't this the chorus Republicans currently retreat to claiming all the world's problems are because of Clinton?
As for your primary question - how do you fight a war on terrorism? Terrorism is a method - not a person or country. You will be forever frustrated if you continue this war on something you can't see or take aim at.
I would propose that the US troops be withdrawn immediately from Iraq and go back to defending America from people who would do us harm. For instance, improve our control of our boarders, ports, farms and infrastructure. I would have a ready capacity to assist legitimate governments to maintain their security - if they request our help. This would be a costly endeavor but less expensive that the $$$ hole we've created in Iraq. I'd insure that any future foreign military involvement was with the support of the world community (i.e. WWII, Bosnia). I'd provide for an adequately trained and equipped military before I committed them to combat. I'd level with the American people honestly about the risks and real costs of involvement. I'd pay for the effort with taxes so that our current generation finances our involvement and I'd ensure that all factions of our population share in the sacrifices implied.
I realize that none of this resembles our current policy. This is why it might actually work.
From 10:47...
Anon 11:17: THANK YOU for at least trying to answer my question. I applaud you on your effort, and no, I'm not trying to be cute. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
However, a couple of questions:
1. What you propose, i.e., sitting back and waiting to defend ourselves on our own soil, doesn't that sound reactive as opposed to proactive. And maybe I'm just spoiled as a US citizen, but I don't want ANYTHING taking place on our soil. I'd rather find a real enemy, and take the fight to them.
2. Concerning the need to have the support of the world in another conflict: When I first read this my first thought was "who cares?" For years and years and years we have been the first ones to respond to a nation in trouble. In times of disasters, etc., we've always been the first to jump to another country's rescue. (And how dare MEXICO citizens boo the USA Miss Universe contestant--how many times have we bailed their sorry country out of one mess or another, but don't get me started! lol) However, there are other governments out there who simply don't like us for whatever reason. The communist nations hate us for our freedoms (the former USSR, Cuba, et. al.). The muslim nations (talking about extremists) hate us for our religion and, in fact, want to obliterate us from the face of the earth. Other nations are jealous of the US since we're the "biggest kid on the block". Wouldn't it be fair to say the only real friends we've had over the years have been England and Israel? We shouldn't need the approval of the other nations, ESPECIALLY the stupid United Nations, who hold the US in contempt more often than not.
You know, I may be way beyond my comprehension level as far as world politics, but this is just my take on things. But again, 11:17, THANK YOU for some actual dialog about the solution instead of simple bashing and finger pointing.
Democrats Offer Bold Security Agenda
On the scant chance that you will actually bother to read this, well...there you go.
from 8:53 a.m....
to txsharon:
Yes, I ACTUALLY "bothered" to read it...however, it sounded like a lot of democratic soundbites, such as:
"Eliminate Osama Bin Laden"...
"Make our troops the best trained, etc., in the world, with the proper equipment, etc"...
well DUH!
Maybe I didn't read it well enough, but it sounded,like I said, a lot of soundbite material that sounds good to potential voters, but there wasn't a lot of substance, was there? I'm really not trying to be cute, I'm being honest about what I read.
Sorry, txsharon, I actually thought 11:17 had more substance and less rhetoric with their response than the democratic spin machine website had...
txsharon -- the Dem document on security is a joke.
A synopsis: "We'll do the same thing that Bush is doing, only better. And we hate George Bush."
Noteworthy is the emphasis on "equipping and training our first responders and others on the front lines here at home." The Democrats know where the war on terror is going to be fought if they control national security -- here at home.
A bad joke. The Dems are going to "ensure that 2006 is a year of significant transition to Iraqi sovereignty?" Hello Dr. Dean and your fellow deanwits, but I believe 2006 was last year?
This is like a registered sex offender advertising in the Mess for free babysitting services!
Reading comprehension deficit?
The plan encompasses a lot of what 11:17 mentioned and more.
Do not even give me that fight them over there bullshit. Even my 12 yo son can shoot that faulty logic all to hell.
It was stated EARLY on that the purpose of United States military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq were implemented with the intention of keeping CIVILIANS safe WITHIN the United States.
Though POORLY executed, thus far, the WARS are a SUCCESS.
As harsh as it sounds, it is NOT the responsibility of the President of the United States to defend and protect the civilians of OTHER nations.
I don't think you can credit the wars for keeping us safe at home. There have been attempts by terrorists that were stopped by intelligence and better security. IMO, that is a much saner answer to terrorism than killing a whole bunch of people who did nothing to us. The Iraq war is now a magnet school for terrorists and once trained they are spreading to other countries.
How many terrorists do you think will be created by Cheney/Halliburton's oil deal that gives U.S. Companies 70% of the Iraqi oil profits? Lots of room to create future terrorists there.
txsharon - Did 9/11 happen in your world? We were not at war with Iraq when it happened. The war in Iraq did not "cause" terrorism. Islamic terrorists attacked American targets throughout the 90's with impunity.
Your point of view is why I am so vehement. You, and those who think like you, will get us killed.
WordKyle said: "Your point of view is why I am so vehement. You, and those who think like you, will get us killed."
Right back at you!
I agree with the other posters. You used to make me angry but now it's like reading a parody. Are you channeling Colbert?
"Right back at you!" -- I'll give this one to my daughter to use in her next debate contest.
The rubble of the World Trade Center is the evidence that my argument is valid. On what do you base your beliefs? The Daily Show? The Colbert Report?
I guess in your world it's always September 10.
In case you haven't notices, wordkyle constantly proposes a false premise to arrive at his (invalid) conclusion. Over and over. His rants are humorous and benign as he reflects only a small (uninformed) right-wing minority.
I think we've noticed that he's full of hot air but it's nice of you to point it out.
4:27 - Inasmuch as the Liberal Democrats -- especially those who post here -- use ad hominem attacks and lies, deception and misrepresentation as their main weapons, I can see where you would be threatened by my using facts and evidence on which to base my opinions and my arguments.
Like cockroaches, Lib Dems scurry for cover whenever a light is shined on them.
Post a Comment