1 - 10 Next
In response to:

GOP Platform: War Without End

Soho1950 Wrote: 1 hour ago (4:44 PM)
I did read the article - including Buchanan's ridiculous assertion that the Republicans are eager for war. He's even afraid to use economic means to deal with Iran trying to acquire nuclear weapons for itself, fearing that if if we get tougher with sanctions, "Iran will take back the concessions it has made, and we are indeed headed for war." What concessions, Pat? And just why do you think Iran needs ICBMs with nuclear warheads? To hit Israel? No one is eager for war and I don't know of anyone who thinks the answer to "every" question is American soldiers. But to think that the Muslim factions (as well as the Ukrainians and Russians) will be content to fight with each other is naive. Those conflicts are all about obtaining power and real estate, and the winners aren't going to stop with the first victories. We don't necessarily need to get into the fight with our own troops, but we need to project an unmistakable willingness to do so if needed and to be in a position to do so if there's no other option.
In response to:

GOP Platform: War Without End

Soho1950 Wrote: 14 hours ago (3:43 AM)
Hard to believe Pat could be so ignorant as to believe that if we just ignore the rest of the world, it'll go away. But then again...
In this case, it was a cut-and-paste job from Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_National_Authority) Nice original thinking, there, Taft.
My reading skills are just fine, thanks. This article did little more than string together a lot of bits and pieces of supposition, including a couple of tidbits from a Slate article. The only significant thing here is the information which casts doubt on the PTSD theory, which we don't even know for sure will be brought up (Routh's lawyers are planning an insanity defense, but that may or may not be tied to PTSD). BTW, my stepson served at Balad, and while the facilities were better than some of the smaller bases, to call it "luxurious" is a bit of a stretch.
C'mon, Doug. Seriously? Facial Hair? Better watch out for the Robertsons - they might be covert Islamists.
All Republicans voted yes except Rubio, who didn't vote. No Republicans opposed.
In response to:

Against Terrorism -- But for What?

Soho1950 Wrote: Jan 24, 2015 1:36 AM
I could have phrased it better. What I should have said is that the terrorists' goal isn't ONLY to get us out of their land, but to destroy us as well. Buchanan seems to be stuck on trying to find a justification for us warring with the jihadis. The justification is self-defense, pure and simple. Your concern about nukes is well founded by the way. What's been happening around the Mideast in the last few years should serve as a warning that the only thing keeping operable nukes out of the hands of these loons is the fact that they haven't overthrown the government of Pakistan - yet.
In response to:

Against Terrorism -- But for What?

Soho1950 Wrote: Jan 23, 2015 1:36 AM
Amazing, simply amazing. The goal of Islamist terrorists isn't to get us out of their lands, it's to destroy everything and everybody in the entire world that doesn't bow down to Allah. Buchanan is becoming increasingly out of touch with the world. His foreign policy theories would be laughable if they weren't so dangerous.
I don't favor federal funding of abortions either. Just one point here - any override of the veto has to be done in Congress. SCOTUS has no power to overturn a presidential veto.
Isn't Liberal logic an oxymoron?
1 - 10 Next