Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, May 04, 2007
Linda Chavez :: Townhall.com Columnist
Anti-war or Anti-troop?
by Linda Chavez
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Now that they have failed to override President Bush's veto of the Iraq war funding bill, maybe Democrats can quit posturing and get down to the hard business of legislating. Democrats knew when they passed legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops that it would not become law. Now they must negotiate with the White House, a process that began within hours of the president's veto.

But can Democrats resolve the dilemma they've created -- to hasten the war's end without also undermining American troops?

For all their anti-war rhetoric, Democrats are terrified of being labeled anti-troop, with good cause. One of the lessons Democrats learned after the Vietnam War was that antipathy for America's soldiers is bad politics.

Not even the most strident anti-war activists today are calling Iraq war veterans "baby killers," or spitting on them as they return home from war, as Vietnam protestors did a generation ago. A telling illustration of this reversal in tactics is the attempt by Joan Baez, a Vietnam-era anti-war activist and folk singer, to entertain injured soldiers at Walter Reed Medical Center.

Baez's "peace" activism during the 1960s included being arrested and jailed for blocking military induction centers. But this week, she was trying to sing a different tune. Army officials apparently weren't ready to forgive and forget her earlier transgressions, however, and Baez was disinvited from performing.

It is one thing to be civil to America's fighting men and women and another to support them. If Democrats insist on tying the military's hands in executing the war -- even if they drop actual pull-out timetables -- they will undermine the troops' safety. But that does not mean Congress and the Democratic majority don't have a legitimate role to play.

The problem in Iraq is not the performance or the mission of American forces. The biggest problem is that Iraq has become a battleground in an Islamic jihad against not only America and the West, but non-Islamist Muslims. Al Qaeda targets the Shiite population, while Iran and its puppets in Iraq target the Sunnis. This is not civil war as commonly understood but a proxy war between two radical extremes in the Islamic world.

But the problem is also the Iraqis -- both the government and, unfortunately, a sizeable portion of the people. Al Qaeda could not operate without the assistance, or at least acquiescence, of a significant portion of the Sunni population. Moqtada al Sadr and his ilk would not be effective if ordinary Shiites did not shield and support them. And, of course, Iraqi politicians reflect these large sectarian splits and seem incapable of doing anything to move the country forward.

If the Democrats want to be effective in changing conditions on the ground in Iraq, they should explore ways to pressure the Iraqi government to resolve its internal differences -- and punish others, including Iran, if they continue to interfere. Americans are generous, and we have given blood and money to rebuild Iraq -- but that generosity should not be limitless.

If Iraqis, for example, cannot come up with a way to share their oil wealth among different regions and sectarian groups, we shouldn't continue to pour money into rebuilding their infrastructure. If they can't rein in corruption and graft, why should we foot the bill?

The Democrats have set up the wrong benchmarks. The solution isn't to withdraw U.S. troops but to hold back U.S. dollars from re-building projects. The Bush administration has been too patient with the Iraqis, and this hasn't helped them get their act together. The Democrats could play a constructive role in stiffening the administration's backbone.

But first, the Democrats would have to recognize that we are not fighting in Iraq primarily for the Iraqis' sake but for our own interests. In order to accept that premise, Democrats would have to give up pointing fingers at the administration for "lying" us into war. Whether or not it was the right decision to go to war against Saddam Hussein in 2003, the war in Iraq is now the primary theater in the war on terror. And we have no choice but to stay until we win this battle.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Linda Chavez is chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity and author of Betrayal: How Union Bosses Shake Down Their Members and Corrupt American Politics .

Be the first to read Linda Chavez's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
I could list a plethera..
...of examples of your bias, but will give you one (on behalf of those who may come here):

"If they can't rein in corruption and graft, why should we foot the bill?"

Have you ever heard of ILLEGAL ALIENS?

Too much credit
Linda, sadly the Dems have no interest in helping the Iraq war, defeating terrorism or doing anything to assist in forwarding the cause of freedom and justice in the US much less the world.

They want to control lives, lifestyle and your income level. Socialism is their bread and butter. Now that 46% of the Americans, and most of the 20 million illegals, do not pay enough taxes that can support their expense to society, the time is right to go socialist and drive the country into their utopia of equal squalor for all.

Thanks to their policy and active recruitment of voters, legal and illegal, they are on the verge of using the system to triumph.

And you have often come out in favor of illegal aliens "rights". It is too far from funny that you wrote this column.

However I thank you for thinking and speaking in favor of our troops. You get my kudos for that part. Many more are lagging behind in that regard. Oh, did I mention the Dems?

If we want to win the war
Loosen the ROEs!

In WW2 we blasted the monastery at Monte Cassino, a holy landmark, to rubble when the Nazis used the location as the position for artillery spotters.

We won't even fire in the direction of a mosque from which enemy fire is coming.

That's gotta change.



A pile of brown steamy sinky stuff
This is so full of factual mistakes and demagoguery, rhetoric and propaganda I can't even speak or write.

So how are we going to get Victory?
No civil war? REALLY!

Predictions of doom if we leave are right of course, since all other predictions where right. (greeted as liberators, won't last 6 months, mission accomplished, insurgency in last throes, its getting better all the time (sung to the beetles tune of the same name).

I am tired of the Terrorism Wing of the GOP spreading TERROR with the "WE STAY OR DIE" fear mongering.

You lady, Mss Linda Chavez, are a fool. Have your read the Iraq study group report? Do you think doing the same thing we have done for 4 years OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND AGAIN will magically produce Victory?

What is victory? Really what is your realistic practical expectation in truth and all honesty based on reality?

All americans want to win with all their heart and I PRAY every day. DO YOU?

However SHAME ON YOU to claim that Dems or other americans are traitors or what ever to promote you campaign of fear for staying in Iraq with OUT END.

No bench marks or progress demanded and a war with out end is the GOP plan? Did you know Linda Chavez that we have stopped training Iraq troops. We are not doing that any more. We know that they are out killing people in death squads.

I get party loyalty and TEAM spirit, but the attitude towards the world and IRAQ of F U WE'RE TEAM AMERICAN AND WE ARE HERE TO HELP, is not ringing very true.

We are making it worse there. When we draw down and "transition the mission" (and we will), we will still have influence in Iraq and the region. Do you think the al qaeda Navy and Air Force is going to get us. Do you know that the moderate Muslims in the region, Jordan and Morocco hate us now.

WE BLEW IT; WE NEED TO RESET, START OVER, RECOVER, REPAIR AND MEND THE MESS. The only way we can start this is get out of Iraq (but stay in strength in the region). If the the Iraq people will NOT STAND UP, than we are going to leave. Makes sense does it not.

So what is Bush's problem? He wants to stay with NO exit until Jan 2009. WHY? Well Bush can than say, by keeping this going 626 more days, he can say WE WHERE WINNING AND THE DEMS BLEW IT BY LEAVING AFTER I LEFT OFFICE. It was "improving". BULL.

The surge (which is less total troops than we have had in the past), is doing the same thing we have done for 4.5 years, but somehow is going to change things. The only reason to stay and hail-mary some retarded peter-pan hope that the surge will win VICTORY, is to SAVE THE GOP PARTY
AND Bush's so called legacy.

If they where honest and say we need to stay 10 more years, 6,000 more us lives, 2 trillion more and may be a draft, than I would respect Bush's policies. However all we got and still get is HAPPY TALK, like we are stupid.


The only people that still approve of Bush are the LOCK-STEPPER, RIGHT WING Hard core base. FLAME A WAY. Thank God for the constitution and God, who will guide us when we get a real leader in the white house in 626 DAYS! America and her people have voted in Nov 2006 and will in 2008. This is not communism and you fanatic fervor for your party will not take down a great NATION. GOD AND COUNTRY FIRST, Amen!

Chavez Brilliant
Linda Chavez is as good as it gets in the conservative movement. Her portrait of Iraq as a proxy war is brilliant.

Lorie and the Republicans
Lorie Byrd is very, very good indeed. She's providing some important: a view of the world that emerges from the Democrats' retreat strategy, and that's a very dangerous world. I hope everyone that has a blog will link Lorie's site, because she has a lot to say.

On my site today (click on name above), I have what I hope is the best analysis you'll ever read of debate last night involving the 10 Republican candidates I tried to keep myself "MSM free" of presuppositions and write about the debate that actually occurred -- one that impressed the heck out of me. I write briefly about about ALL TEN of the candidates. I even responded to the challenge of some regular readers who chided me for advoiding Tom Tancredo, who said something profound near the end of the debate. Anyway, I hope to hear your views on what I wrote. Thanks -- steve


Jet-pilot,BrianR,Jimmy
I am tired of your rants. You offer nothing of substance.
Jimmy- Great!
BrianR...Let that gas-powered rifle rip and we ccan get it done!

C: Anti-American
Schumer Calls For "Immediate And Unconditional" Surrender

http://kilroyreport.townhall.com/g/3f5c2514-a1dc-444c-90d9-f580ab1038ba

WASHINGTON, DC- Announcing today that Washington, DC has been effectively surrounded and U.S. President George W. Bush has been isolated and is "alone, in his bunker", a smiling Sen. Charles Schumer, (AQ-NY) called on any American troops still under arms to surrender immediately. "To continue resistance at this late stage of the war is only sealing their fate", Schumer said.

When asked about the danger of continued fighting, Schumer was confident that, while some "fanatical troops, out of a misplaced sense of loyalty to their so called Commander in Chief and Constitution", may continue attacks, most have been effectively neutralized by "The Murtha Plan". "We've been choking off their ability to resupply and to bring in reinforcements for some time now, thanks to John", Schumer said, referring to Rep. John Murtha's, (AQ-PA) successful disruption of American supply lines.

Echoing Schumer's, confidence, Sen. John Kerry, (AQ-MA), declared that the days of ... "young American soldiers ... going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women", are over.

In other war news, Sen Dick Durbin (AQ-IL) announced the liberation of several "POW Camps" including one in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Durbin, cited reports on the scene, "describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings," It is expected that Durbin will be lead prosecutor for planned war crimes trials to be held in Havana, the nearby capitol city of coalition partner Cuba, in early 2009.
WASHINGTON, DC- Announcing today that Washington, DC has been effectively surrounded and U.S. President George W. Bush has been isolated and is "alone, in his bunker", a smiling Sen. Charles Schumer, (AQ-NY) called on any American troops still under arms to surrender immediately. "To continue resistance at this late stage of the war is only sealing their fate", Schumer said.

When asked about the danger of continued fighting, Schumer was confident that, while some "fanatical troops, out of a misplaced sense of loyalty to their so called Commander in Chief and Constitution", may continue attacks, most have been effectively neutralized by "The Murtha Plan". "We've been choking off their ability to resupply and to bring in reinforcements for some time now, thanks to John", Schumer said, referring to Rep. John Murtha's, (AQ-PA) successful disruption of American supply lines.

Echoing Schumer's, confidence, Sen. John Kerry, (AQ-MA), declared that the days of ... "young American soldiers ... going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women", are over.

In other war news, Sen Dick Durbin (AQ-IL) announced the liberation of several "POW Camps" including one in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Durbin, cited reports on the scene, "describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings," It is expected that Durbin will be lead prosecutor for planned war crimes trials to be held in Havana, the nearby capitol city of coalition partner Cuba, in early 2009.

Real and fake reasons
Moving troops from Iraq to the US does not endanger them in any way. If you're in favor of keeping US forces in Iraq, please give real reasons.

Partial Withdrawal?
The plan that the Dems appear to be offering for Iraq is to disengage from the Baghdad chaos and wait for Al Qeada to show its head somewhere, and then go after them. They want to cut back our forces to 50% or less of the current level. The troops would also do border patrol and Iraqi training. There are serious dangers to this plan that need to be discussed.
The biggest problem is the idea that we can hang around waiting for AQ to show up. Exactly how we would determine when an attack is being instigated by AQ is not made clear, precisely because it isn't clear. What if AQ is teamed up with Sunnis or ex-Bathist groups? Do we fight only the AQ members? Which ones are they?
The second problem is that a bunker mentality is a poor position from which to fight. Our bases would be subject to continual hit & run attacks with no way to stop them. This is going to result in more casualties and no improvement in our strategic posture.
The third problem becomes, do we stand by idly while various groups in Baghdad, including AQ members we cannot identify, go about slaughtering innocent civilians caught up in the middle of this mess?
The answer to all this is a resounding no to the idea. We cannot be in a halfway war, any more than a football team can play a halfway offense/defense game. Either we are in with a goal of victory, or else get out. The choice before us can only be one of the two.
In that light, victory should be defined as an Iraq able to keep order on the streets, defend itself against foreign enemies, and representing the Iraqi people fairly. None of these tasks will be accomplished until the capital is secured by the Iraqi Army. That is the current short term goal, get the city under the reasonable control of the Iraqi Army, then push the political aspects to stablize the government.
Given the nature of terrorism, we should expect that the bombings will be around for a long time. To think that the Iraq Army could totally stop that at this point in time is naive. They can however, keep roving gangs of murderers from causing death and destruction and defend their own country. The politicians, given some sense of order on the streets, should then be able to govern appropriately.
The truth is, none of this will happen without our help. Therefore, the surge needs to be given every chance to succeed. If stability of an acceptable level is achieved, then the Iraqi government must be pushed to make the hard decisions needed.
In the end, as everyone says, if the people of Iraq cannot or will not do their part, then a new game is in order. The current hand however, must be played out with a vigorous effort to succeed. If it fails, America will find a way to deal with a different future. We always have been able to respond and change, it is part of our nature.
The Democrats plan of a halfway measure is really a formula for defeat. If they believe that the war is lost, they owe it to America and the troops to call the hand and offer legislation for a total withdrawal. I for one do not support giving up. There is no substitute for victory, and for the sake of America's interests worldwide, and the hopes of ordinary Iraqis, we should finish the job by being victorious, not quitters.
For more on this and other topics important to our nation, I urge you to visit my website, joeolivaforpresident.org. I am a candidate in the 2008 election, and I believe that there are options and choices other than the same old propaganda put out by BOTH DEMS & GOP. Check it out, you will be glad you did. Thanks, Joe

A tad simplistic
Chavez' account is not patently irrational, but it does seem to be wrong, and to reflect a simple minded view of the region.

The primary problem is this desire to fit the middle east into proxy wars. We saw this with Lebanon where Hezbollah was accused of being a proxy for Iran. They get support form Iran, but to miss that they are essentially Lebanese is to misunderstand the situation.

Similarly Sadr is a Shiite religious fundamentalist. But he is also an arab nationalist. He has traditionally been less close to Iran than his rivals. He may have no difficulty accepting support and aid from Iran when their interests coincide, but to think that he and his supporters are fighting a proxy war for Iran is silly.

The same is true on the Sunni side. Al qaeda's interest in Iraq is to score points by creating strife and attacking us. But they are small in numbers. And while the sunnis may tolerate them because they hate us and the shiites, they certainly are not acting as proxy for them. The central problem really is the civil war in the conventional sense in Iraq. People there lived under one unfair distribution of power. Now they are trying to figure out how to live in the new order. Outside interference is noise. It is not the heart of the matter.

Secondly, what will be effective in getting the Iraqis to reach accord depends upon what they feel they cannot live without. It is possible, but unlikely, that the threat of less building funds would do this. It seems more plausible that an end to American troops providing the security for their inaction would be more effective.

and Linda was so close to making sense
"If Iraqis, for example, cannot come up with a way to share their oil wealth among different regions and sectarian groups, we shouldn't continue to pour money into rebuilding their infrastructure. If they can't rein in corruption and graft, why should we foot the bill?" Linda the proble is we never did effectively rebuild and most of the initial corruption was ours from no bid contracts to work not done. We have abondoned our trrops in the middle of a civil war. There is NO question even that the D's are the ones demanding funding, care and equipment for our troops. Look at the vetoed bill Boehner called that "excess costs".



jetpilot
I see your ranting is getting the better of you again. Your blood pressure must be way up there. I guess it's because you've been flying at 50,000 feet without your oxygen mask for way too long ............

Jetpilot is A pile of brown steamy sinky
so please just stuff it. (Thanks for giving me the words to use back at you.)

You really are a fool, aren't you?

Great post, Marc of CA
Thanks for phrasing it so well.

and linda was so close
Hi Hal Got one for you. How do you think the majority of the commerce gets transported in the U.S.? Before you start yelling war for oil let me finish. Right now in my neck of the woods gas is3.19 a gallon. What do you think it will be if we leave Iraq and let al- Qeada take over? If we let this happen, do you think they will be happy with Iraq? Lets say their next target is the southamerican oil producers. Don't laugh there are contingents of Al Qaeda allover the world. Right there they control a large portion of the oil reserves or at least can disrupt them at will. This could bleed the free world quite handily. This could turn out to be not a war for oil but a war for survival for some here.

eastlake joe
A trick question LOL. Whoever said Al Q would take over? I actually doubt they can or will. SA oil? Come on one of Bush's first acts was to try and over turn the Chavez government - we see oh that went over. When you go for the king you better get him or come so close he knows you will get him next time. As with so much this administration tries they failed. Things are bad real bad down there

eastlake joe
And the next point we are no more than 5% of the world population and use 25% of the energy. That is stupid! Talk about creating vulnerability.... When I was at the Pentagon that vulnerability used to drive us crazy.

eastlake joe
My somewhat educated opinion is we hunt them down and kill them period. Don't use the blunt instrument of an Army for gods' sake. With our allies we did a damn good job

Phony Chavez
I don't read Chavez anymore since she's become an outspoken advocate for the Illegal Alien Invasion. Even in this case where I might agree, I have no interest in hearing her say it. As a matter of fact, I don't care what else she has to say on any other issue because the rest of it is meant merely to give her cover and credibility, so she might be taken seriously on the amnesty issue.

TH should boot her as in the case of Navarette, but it won't since she refects the business interests of the Republican party - views that TH's management widely support.

J-C (never thought I would agree with Jimmy Carter): You hit it - her hypocracy is of a scale only the logic challenged could tolerate - or a total sycophant of Bush and the Bush Cult.

Hal
Good idea bus asI said before, How do you identify them? No member in good standing card. Yes, you may Identify the leaders, but the followers are just like the plain people. Think back to RVN. the papasan helping load your truck this morning is the same one tossing morters in on you at night.

anti-war or anti-troop?
I'd say democrats are more anti-American, pro-terrorists. Domestic enemies. They don't like to be called unpatriotic but they are. I'll say it. And I'll say it without fear because our brave troops allow me to say it. So, while these men and women in uniform protect me over there, I'll protect them here.

Hal Donhue
Yeah, 5% of the population -- us -- uses 25% of the oil, and produces goods and services to match in the strongest economy on earth.

So what's your point? You want us to become Somalia or something? Yep; they're sure energy conservationists, no doubt.


eastlake joe
We never had any trouble. When we flood an area and start killing in big numbers with a heavy hand it gets much harder. Right now over 60% of the Iraqis say it is ok to kill our soldiers. That means we lower our profile or commit genocide your choice

BrianR
Wake up please. I am not talking the environment at all. I am saying by using 25% of the world's energy we create a huge vulnerability for our national defense.

Hal D: I stand corrected
With that I agree, if your point is to allow more aggressive development of our domestic resources.

Loribme
You want to protect the troops? Well you better get with the D's. The R's call things like adequate armor, unit equipment and training excess expenses. Notice I didn't even mention medical care. What this president appears to be doing is abandoning the troops in Iraq in a, I hope, vain attempt to leave office saying he did the right thing in Iraq

BrianR
Actually we wanted and I suspect the planners still want domestic production limited. Use "their" cheap oil and save ours for emergency. The Alaskan field has at best two years national supply why empty it? No we advocated developing technology to reduce consumption, identify national resources and time to access them and expand the national reserve and keep it full.

energy
considering that we have the technology(coal gasification,hydrogen as examples) and plenty of reserves of coal,and that during the late 30's and early 40's Germany under attack from all sides was able to come up with alternatives to oil after their bid to take the oil fields of the cacuses, shouldn't we be able to come up with something. However our dependence on ME oil is a lot lower than that of Europe.

ch47 jockey
LOL true about ME oil we depend on SA oil LOL. But know oil is fungible it goes anywhere theprice is highest in normal times. Since your beast devours fuel at shall we say a healthy rate, you know how key fuel is. Synthetic fuel is doable but not cost effective at least now. That means we don't have the plants etc in place. Conservation works at least for a portion. All I was pointing out is this oil thing is a vulnerability

Scary
2 things we are in agreeance on in the same column. 1.energy is an achilles heel in our national security and 2. niether the D's or the R's are doing enough for the soilder in the field. I noticed that the auto industry put out a report on the future of the auto, same engine only smaller and hopefully more effiecent. More nuclear powerplants are a start,one area that France has taken a lead in the world,although we aren't too far behind

Hal D: of course
that's a better solution, but I actually wasn't referring to the strategic reserves; I was thinking more along the lines of off-shore reserves and increasing refinery capacity, as well as bringing on-line nuke power, etc.

As technology develops, efficiency has greatly increased and will continue to do so. I remember the car I had in college, in the mid-60s, got about 12 MPG, and that was considered pretty good at the time for a V-8 powered car with 240 hp.

Now my Pathfinder has a 3.5L 6 cylinder 260HP and gets 19mpg.


ch47 jockey
The synthetics don't pan out too good for the ecology.
They produce just as much greenhouse gas plus other toxins.
The "Biodiesel" also produces nitros oxide.
Yep, that's the stuff that makes nitric acid when it contacts water.
Want it in our rivers, streems and lakes?

http:www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269886,00.html

brianr
Sorry to disillusion you guy but you are comparing shaft horsepower to brake horsepower. apples and oranges guy. Go strictly by miles per gal. I had a Transport van that got 29.5 miles to the gal with the biggest 6 cyl pontiac makes and had to buy a new 2005 town and country. The pont. was a 95 and got 29.5 mpg the 2005 gets 25mpg. 10 years newer and 4.5 mpg less! wheres the advancement?

Eastlake: Well
That's a shorter term than I was positing, as my college car was a '65 Dodge Dart 270.

I was comparing the 60s to now. In the 60s, a car that could get 20mpg was virtually unheard of. The VW Bug was the economy King, and as I recall it was only in the mpg range of the 20s.

Now we have cars with much more power squeezed out of smaller engines with better gas mileage. My Dart had a 270 cu. in. V-8 delivering about 220 hp. That's a 4.4L engine. My 3.5L V-6 delivers 260hp and gets better mileage.

The mighty Bug now gets in the 30mpg range.


Just in car engines
that's due a variety of factors. Better metallurgy allows tighter engine tolerances and higher op pressures. Better fuel systems; injection as opposed to carburation; greater understanding of exhaust-system effects; better aerodynamics; better burn chamber systems; cat converters; and on and on.

Technology advances, and efficiency increases.


BrianR
I had a Sport Dart with the 340 engine.
13.5mpg BUT IT MOVED!

ch47
If as your name depicts you were a47 jock we have something in common. I was 67N2F in RVN. Hello from a fellow fling winger! Sorry I digress! You mention nuclear as one answer and it could possibly be someday. But for one thing, there is no place to store the waste safely and the plants are so very vulnerable to attack. Most are guarded by rent a cops. The one east of Cleveland only has a small perimiter of off limit area on the lake, not to mention the large ships that sail the shipping lanes could contain weapons large enough to take it out.The shipping controls, While improving are still a joke.

eastlake joe/ch47
Sadly Joe is right I did a review of a PA nuke facility horror because of waste. My question is what do the French do? These cooling ponds are targets waiting to be realised. Sorry to scare you 47 LOL. I remember in the 80's taking a grad course in the UK. The chief economist for BP said that the world consumption over the next X yrs would be this which was slight growth or this and showed a 45 degree slope which was like triple current consumption. We all went like Duh... Then he says know the difference? Whether the US goes back to eight cylinders. Well looking back the SUVs, big houses etc are the equivalent of going back to 8 cylinders

eastlake joe/ch47
I am not condemning either but it creates vulnerability. That is demand that cannot be adjusted immediately. That affects national security.

MyOpine
And gas was like 25 cents a gallon on a bad day

loss
Hal I read Your post on the other site. Sorry about the loss, You know how I feel about that. I feel them too regardless of my views.

Has anyone else noticed...
Am I the only one who has noticed that there is not a single woman who writes for TH who favors premature withdrawal?

Most, in fact, believe in the surge. I can understand their desire for a longer, deeper penetration into Iraq. Sure it's hard, but nothing good ever comes easily. If we want to bring this war to a climax, we certainly cannot pull out too early. We need to keep pounding away, over and over again, until we reach a mutually satisfying conclusion.

Whew. I need a cigarette.

Waste
Hal, I read where a good amount of nuclear waste is "misplaced" each and every year and cannot be accounted for. I forget the exact amount but was enough to make several small dirty bombs. this is what I meant by SAFELY stored. Any bets as to where it is? How many of your loved ones do you want to bet?

Hal
That was during the time a friend & I borrowed another friend's yacht for a party and decided to use it to water ski.
Pulled into Big Break, told them to fill it up while we ran over to get some takeout.
Came back to learn that thing had FOUR 200gal tanks!
Even at 27.5 cents per it made a mark on my gas card!

MyOpine: Very freakin cool - and Hal
Yeah, that was the HOT model. I wanted that.... BAD!

Hal, yeah, LOL. I remember my folks telling me to buy my gas at Scott (a discount chain in MD) because it was 2 cents/gal cheaper. They'd drive the extra 4 miles to save the 2cents/gal.

Those were the days!




Genius
The true genius of the Bush-ies is that they have managed to equate “support the troops” with “support the war.”

It is genius, albeit evil genius.

Myopine
like you had said on another column,"everyone of the alternatives has it's own fishhooks" paraphrasing of course. eastlake were you a 46'er?

ch47
No 47s were large but slicks ruled the skies!UH1s were the only way for me at the time.

the prettiest military birds
I have seen would have to have been the Austrian super-huey's,shined up,gloss paint looked like a showroom car. speaking of gas guzzlers the UH-60 drinks soo much more than the UH1,and the operating cost is a multiple of the UH1....not that the hook is a inexpensive machine to operate

MyOpine
Beat yeah there LOL. About the same time, I had to pay to refuel four F-4's in Sweden with my AX card LMAO. A crazy time

Hal
Ouch,

CH47
Thanks for helping me wake up my mind. I just thought of another problem for our troops. Take the UH1, it was a proven aircraft in all types ofsituations. It became obsolete and the blackhawk replaced it. I understand progress needs to take place. My question is why replace it with an aircraft that has, by what I can see, a very pooroperational record. As for the 47, the hillclimbers were always a very dependable aircraft. Is this what is known as giving the troops the best?

eastlake joe
My experience is that it goes into the environment. Like in my cop days (how I got thru college) I realised the only way we caught so many criminals was the idoits were just that. Terrorists are not much different. Sadly for 9/11 even a blind squiral finds the occasional acorn

ch47 jockey
AX still carries me at their highest level in case I do it again. LMAO thank allah or whoever Fin came thru quickly

ch47 jockey
The only rotary wing I have ever flown was a Benson Gyrocopter and between two of us we probably set an all time world record for breaking rotor blades.

UH60
not sure but I have been hearing alot about the LUH from some folks I know down at Ft. Rucker,not sure if it will be the replacement for the Kiowa or the Blackhawk,UH60 improved as with all new machines it takes a while to work out the bugs,

Hal
perhaps it was mamon, lol.,A cop buddy of mine said the best way to catch criminals would be to drop cameras into a high crime areas and wait pick up copies of the film(pre digital days of course),youtube kind of proves it.

CH47
You talk about pretty aircraft. Did you see the picture thats going around of the Mi-24 that our guys painted like an eagle? Man, that is one beautiful aircraft. It's flying in Afganistan and is probably making some afghan sh#t in his pants. Yankee enginuity at its best!!

ch47 jockey
With all the ash and trash I have been in I am pretty near convinced heavy equipment like you operate can even fly LOL. Hell I have about 30 min in a 47 simply because I said I was bored and might try playing with the red covered switches

nice paintjob
it is a wild looking bird

Myopine
hopefully only blades got broken,it is a little different than the fast movers.

ch47 jockey
Firmly convinced Darwin is at work in much of our crime. Trust me the same applies to most terrorists. My nephew said they took out three teams repeatedly showing up to arm the same IED. He just shrugged his shoulders

ch47 jockey
"hopefully only blades got broken,it is a little different than the fast movers." At least we seldom had to worry about being injured LMAO

Republicans Do Not Support Our Troops
*40% of Marines and 55% of soldiers in Iraq say they would not report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent Iraqi civilian.

*One-third of Marines and one-half of soldiers say there is no need to treat non-combatants with dignity.

*10% of Marines and 10% of soldiers report mistreating civilians by hitting or kicking them or damaging their property "for no good reason".

From a liberal blog? No, from the Department of Defense's Task Force on Mental Health, which has issued an urgent warning that 38% of soldiers, 30% of Marines, and 50% of National Guardsmen are returning home with symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Extended and open-ended deployments cause emotional breakdown: we have known this since World War II, but those running the Iraq war have chosen to ignore the knowledge. Those in charge of teaching ethics to our troops, and those in charge of caring for their breakdowns in mental health, are alarmed. There is a difference between being brave in battle and being wantonly cruel to civilians: stressed-out troops are more likely to be cruel. (google: CBS News)

Republicans blame Democrats for not supporting our troops? I would say that our Republican leadership has been abusing our troops.

ch47 jockey
Several of us flew gyrocopters out of an old Xed out strip near Tracy.
My frind & I had many rough landings but were never hurt.
One guy lost his mast at about 300ft.
One guy flew into a power line.
Two were busted up badly in crashes.
We were lucky!

MyOpine
what exactly is a gyrocopter?

Eastlake: you flew slicks in Nam?
When?

It would be a hoot if I rode your taxi into Indian Country.

And, BTW, I fly fixed wing
Got my CASMEL using the GI Bill.


Hal: A gyrocopter
is the aborted child of an airplane and a helicopter, a fixed wing aircraft with a passive overhead rotor to aid in lift, so it has shorter take off and landing field length requirements.


Don't call me sir I work for a living!
BrianR 70&71 Red Knights Vinh Long Delta region.
I didn't fly them I was a Gunner and mechanic.

Hal
It is sort of like an open air one man autogyro with a pusher engine in the rear instead of in front like an autogyro.

BrianR
You just described an autogyro.
Gyrocopter is smaller with no fixed wing.

HHmmm seen pics
Thanks, are they still around?

hmmm
you still fly them MyOpine

Gyro
my opine actually if you picture a frog with wings to keep it from bumping its assets when it jumps you have a pretty good picture.LOL

hmmm you guys must tell me more
Be well the wife has the hook. Enjoy the weekend!

Hal
At my age I don't even ride dirt bikes any more.
You get as old and fragile as I am and you need to take care not to break things that don't heal.

I haven't seen one in many years.
The kind of nuts that flew them are building "Ultra Lights" now.

They are easy to make though.

brianR
You didn't say when you were over there.Also where?

Eastlake:
69 - 70, 46th SF, I Corps and points west (Laos).

Solleee, Cholleee, me no know you.

Sin loi.


MyOpine: Dammit
You're right!

Okay, enough of the single-malt for tonight.


BTW, Eastlake
As far as I was concerned, everyone on board those suckers as crew was flying it when I was on board.

I sure as he11 wasn't keeping that damned thing in the air.




BrianR
They didn't all fly. I had one come in on sliding skids. It was a good landing tho I walked away. Laos was another cluster F. I did makeone flight into Cambode tho. Seems like a hunnert years ago and at the same time just yesterday. God, I wish I could be there helping those kids now.Oh well the bed and a fused spine are callin. Good night all.

sorry about that
got called away by the better half,night guys. hey Brian which is your favorite single malt?

CH:
Glenfiddich, of course.

And you, sir?

CH
Sounds like you're hitting the rack.

Get back to me on the blog, pard.

Wlcome home, bro.

Lilly
you forgot to call them baby killers, or maybe you did but in a different way.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.