Blame America for Iran's ME Plan

Buchanan has always been a very strange duck. He is truly isolationist, some of his positions are well-founded in constitutionalism, but his conclusions are from so far out of the field that it leaves you standing there scratching your head and wondering what he's talking about.

It's great to have principles, but his would get us killed.

Then we could all die happy knowing that we'd taken the moral high road, I guess.

You're first again.

Thanks. I don't know what Buchanan's solution is. He never really states what he would do. I suppose he would like us to close our doors and hide under our blankets, like that would help the situation.

He seems to be supporting mass suicide in my opinion.

I have a tendency to skip Buchanan's articles. One reason is that they are often nothing more than rambling diatribes that go nowhere. Another is his blatant anti Israel position. He seems to have no use for Jews, either here in Israel or over there.
On that basis alone, Brian, I would question his chosen path being a 'high moral road'.
Over the months I have noticed that his articles are getting more pathetic and less comprehensible. I put it down to senility. Poor poor old man is losing it.

Buchanan is indeed losing it. I have no idea what he is up to and I wonder at TH allowing him to still post his columns here if he is senile. He certainly doesn't make a lot of sense in my opinion, unless you are anti Jew and there are quite a few posters coming on TH who are just that.

I'm glad you avoid reading him. He is very upsetting, but quite frankly I don't think he is senile. I just think the true nature of the man is coming through more clearly as the months have gone by. He's written one anti-Semite article after another.

And, you're right there's no "moral high ground" in his writings.

Has Roy been pissin' in your wheaties? LOL!! Loved your..."prcticing your typing skills" quip!!!
Since pat Buchanan wrote The Dying West, I considered him finished. I could agree with a few things, but not much. How he is labeled coservative is a mystery. And, an anti-semite to boot. YUck.

For the longest time, I actually thought that Pat Buchanan was a well grounded conservative.

Granted, he's always been an isolationist, but for some reason I just have this memory of him being a voice of reason.

Whenever he ran for President, he'd be on the local talk shows and seemed like a reasonable fellow.

What happened to him? Maybe he really is burning out and nobody has the heart to take away his column out of respect for his past.

But, you're right, Pep. He's not making sense and hasn't for some time.

I suppose he continues to get a forum because we need to know what influential people are thinking.

I think.

Yeah, Roy got to me on Mona Charon's column. He aggravated the p&ss out of me.

Buchanan is a dinosaur I guess, but I'm interested too in what others think of the Iran nuclear issue.

Thanks for coming by. I used to think Buchanan was a voice of reason too. He certainly is reasonable about the border issue. Perhaps he has two personalities.

What do you think of Iran's messing about in both Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention funding Hamas and causing a huge problem there now?

I think you are on to something with Buchanan. Personally, I think his mind has snapped. He either wants to ignore the crisis we are facing for our survival, or he believes in pie in the sky. You are right. The moonbats will have a field day with his latest rant. Keep telling it like it is, gal, and let the chips fall where they may. Hope you got some after your busy week.

Should be "Hope you got some rest after your busy week".

Well, yeah, I keep sounding the alarm bells like a lot of other people. Buchanan has his head in the sand apparently.

You hope I "got some" after my busy week. What "got some" are you talking about. LOL.

Ha,Ha! I figured that's what you meant. Yeah, I got some rest, not as much as I need, but I still have some time for some more relaxation.

That was quick typing. Think she'll buy it?

Pep,

My thinking about Iran is pretty straightforward, actually, and certainly too direct to ever be considered.

But I am very serious: not only do not take the nuclear option off the table...drop the friggin thing, sort out some glass afterwards and then see if they (and the rest of the world) starts to take some notice.

I hope so. Wouldn't want her to come down on me.

Boy is my face red and I'm still giggling from your responses. I have to be more diligent in my proof reading.

Sounded like a freudian slip to me.

You are being very gracious.

I always "try" to be gracious. I may not always live up to that, but I certainly try.

Back to Iran. Agreed. Get rid of the monster before it eats you. Seems smart to me. It would let the whole world know we mean business and don't mess with us.

...he's also a racist and hates women.

A sample, if you can stomach it:

"White rule of a black majority is inherently wrong? Where did we get that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this." (syndicated column,2/7/90)

"If we had to take a million immigrants in, say Zulus, next year, or Englishmen, and put them up in Virginia, what group would be easier to
assimilate and would cause less problems for the people of Virginia?" ("This Week With David Brinkley," 1/8/91)

"There are only two groups that are beating
the drums for war in the Middle East -- the Israeli defense ministry and its 'amen corner' in the United States." ("McLaughlin Group," 8/26/90)


"If U.S. Jewry takes the clucking appeasement of the Catholic cardinalate as indicative of our submission, it is mistaken. When Cardinal O'Connor of New York seeks to soothe the always irate Elie Wiesel by reassuring him 'there are many Catholics who are anti-Semitic'...he speaks for himself. Be not afraid, Your Eminence; just step aside, there are bishops and priests ready to assume the role of defender of the faith." (New Republic, 10/22/90)

"Rail as they will about 'discrimination,' women are simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and
the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism." (syndicated column, 11/22/83)

Seems like you've been doing some research. Good job.

And I agree with what the others are saying about Buchanan.He has surly lost it. Like Purplegimp, I just skip by his columns now.

In my opinion Ahmadinejad will use every deceptive tactic he can to disrupt any possible peace in the Middle East. He is a power-mad nut-case that will use a nuclear device without hesitation. And more than likely that will be within the United States. Given our open, unprotected borders that can be easily accomplished.

I'm waiting now to see what Israel does with the aggression on it's border. I don't think they will take it much longer.

He's long since gone from radar. You're right Pepp, and I agree with Purplegimp. The drums of war are loud in the ME right now. With gaza falling, and Syria ready for a coup in Lebanon, and Ahmadinnerjacket ranting so much, it must be similar to 1938. The rest of the world has already surrendered. We've got to do the dirty work, why wait. The longer we wait, the worse it will be. Just don't go in like Clinton or Carter, take the gloves off and hammer the mothers.

Well said. It does seem to be a repeat of history. Everyone is turning their heads ignoring what is staring them in the face. I guess no one wants to make the move on what needs to be done. I'm thinking it will be too late this time.

I got you and Goshawk mixed up. So sorry. What I said to Goshawk actually applies to what your comment said.

Thanks. You're right Ahmadinejad is a nut job and the Mullahs behind him are the true evil ones who mastermind the plotting.

I wonder too what Israel will do. But with Olmert the goof, I don't think much. He couldn't save Israel as he can't fight his way out of a paper bag.

Excellent intro, substance, and conclusion.

Very well done.

I think Willi Beax is a Buchannan plant and was trying to hijack the thread away from your original post.

DON'T LET 'EM!

I'm pretty much a Buchanan-skipper (And no, not like on Gilligan's Island, JimmyC!).

He's managed to talk himself into total irrelevancy.

Thanks for the compliments. You cracked me up with WilliBeax being a Buchanan plant. Willi sure did step in it didn't he? What a crack up!

we have Skipper Brian on Buchanan's Banana Boat riding the high seas with Shirley Temple, singing,
"on the good ship lollipop...

I don't skip Buchanan. I like to see what all these dorks have to say. Know thine enemy is what I say.

He is not really a nut. His books are well worth reading because he gets his facts right and follows logical rules. The trouble is that he is a committed isolationist. We cannot be isolationist. We are the economic engine that drives the world economy. We have less than 4% of the world's population yet are responsible of 25% of the world's economic directly and most of the rest indirectly. We have a responsibility to be involved wherever our interests are threatened in the world. Buchanan doesn't care about that. He uses the complexities of contradicting interests and his own anti-semitism to frame arguments that always conclude that our involvement is corrupt and self-defeating. I am always interested in what he says but place absolutely no value on most of his conclusions.

I'm going to be posting my first draft of Fred's announcement speech sometime tonight. I did a rough draft early this morning but had to attend to business most of the day but I am back on it. It's more difficult than I expected but it is coming around. Probably need 2-3 more hours.

He believe in USA, first last and always. We have no business supporting Israel, invading other countries, or involving ourselves in world politics. We should lock the borders and go to Fortress America. This is where he lives. Phil is absolutely right. He is called a racist, and I guess he is. He does nto want the nation to change from how it was in the 50s. That means, keep the blacks down, keep the hispanics out (except for gardners) and keep the world white, safe, and pure. In this, he is a true Conservative according to some defitions. A person who wants NO change.

He is also a wacko who does not understand the world and who would cause Civil War II within the first year of his Presidency, but that is ok since he does not stand a chance in h*ll of getting nominated by any national party or elected if nominated.

I'll be checking your place for the big speech as long as I can stay up, but it is later here. Don't know if I'll make it.

I'm so glad someone else reads him besides me. Even though I don't agree with him I like reading his columns. I think I like your last sentence that you are interested in what he says, but place no value on his conclusions. That's about how I feel. He is an isolationist and he does stand by the border issue, I do like that part of him. But, he does seem to be racist when it comes to Jews in particular.

Thanks for coming by. Well, we might have a war without him as pres. anyway. Not a civil war, perhaps a revolution. You would have to go back an article to get that one.

I admire you for making it through the entire Pat Buchanan article! Yeah, he's a disappointment in a lot of ways. I once thought he was a conservative, too.

Seriously, how can anyone not see that we ARE involved whether or not we act? Iran hates Israel, hates the US. This is nothing new. I'd rather take action and save ourselves from the crazies.

Hey, wasn't the War on Terror supposed to be about going after terrorists AND the nations that sponsor them??? Seems Iran and others are doing a lot of sponsoring. We need to show our strength, dammit. (Sorry, I just feel strongly!)

Great article writeup.
“I have heard this idea suggested and promoted even by some democrats.”

Yea, that is until something is actually done, when they can oppose it. The prior part is his worry about our involvement(actions); AJ is busy destabilizing the surrounding area undermining gov’s he chooses. Instead of focusing on the problems, they lend a voice easily twisted by the opposition.

What smart person could afford to take options off the table? A Texas congressman comes to mind with Buchanan. I bet the enemy would like the isolationist US a lot better. They may even decide to move in with us. And yea, I'm guilty for checking them out too. Sometimes, hopefully, before they are used against us.

Thanks for coming by. Yes, I used to think Buchanan was a true conservative too. Shows you how much I knew. LOL

Yeah, SPPJ, the WOT was supposed to be about going after states that sponsor it. Makes you wonder. Iran is the biggest sponsor of terror and we sit with our thumbs under us.

And, I'd rather get them before they get us too.

Yeah, you're right. The dims talk about something but no action when necessary.

You are right too about what smart person would take options off the table. That would be dumb now wouldn't it to take the nuke option off the table?
What a gift that would be to the Iranian rascal!

She has a great new blog up at TH.
http://thegimpwonders.townhall.com

Purplegimp will be writing about events of all sorts and she has the first hand news on what is happening in Israel.

POSTING PHOTOS

Hi again Peppermint,

Here's the link to Josue's page with the info on posting pics on these blogs. It was easier than I expected!

http://josue.townhall.com/g/e7ac0989-40e7-4270-8718-4729bd55c342

This dang insomnia... at least I can catch up on blogging!

Thanks for the link. I had the same problem you were having. Hopefully I'll get it figured out.

I'm up really late. I don't know where you are but I'm in the EST.

Phil, I agree with what you say about Buchanan's books...I actually wrote something similiar, but when I posted the comment,it got lost.

As far as Iran is concerned Pepp, I am all for making it a glass coffee table. Back when the 241 Marines were killed in Beirut, there were some Russians around...spies and russian soldiers. On good authority,here,the soldiers were murdered in a brutal manner. Spies find who did it. Say nothing, but go out on a little re-con mission. Take out perps in a worse way than theirs were killed. Leaving behind a message- Anymore deaths that way and it's more than an eye for an eye. It put a bit of a damper on the "fun" of the killers. But the message was clear.
That is what needs to happen. Screw the la-la land mechanism. We need to step up, before we get stepped on.

Good morning to you.

I absolutely agree. Only a show of strength will work with these nasty dudes. That is all they understand.

I like your story about Beirut.

I see you are back. How delightful of you to return to TH after a long absence and post your very wonderful and intellectually false comments.

I won't argue your points one by one, as it requires more effort than I wish to do right now. I will tell you this however. Iran has been at war with us since the Carter POTUS. Remember how our hostages were held for 400 days?

Since then Iran has been on a rampage against us and any other western country that gets in their way of spreading their terrorism around the world.

So, much to the contrary of what you say, it is Iran who is the war monger. You just need to get your facts straight.

And, how do I know it's you Kimberly? By the fact that you used your favorite nickname for me, P'mint.

Welcome back Kimberly. I'm sure we'll all enjoy your return. We were worried something bad had happened to you. Now it seems you are OK after all.

Just wondering -- because I really want to understand why some think as you seem to...

WHY would you even give an ounce of legitimacy to a group like Hamas that is an obvious terrorist organization?

Why give legitimacy to Palestinians when they are so eager to 'martyr' their own children to kill 'ape' and 'pig' Jews? Did you know that Palestinians living in Israel are treated well, much better than a Jew among Muslims?

Did you hear about the young Palestinian woman who received medical care in an Israeli hospital, whose life was saved by Jewish doctors and other personnel, only to come back later in good health and suicide bomb those same people?!

Back in the 1940s, would you have said, 'Leave Germany alone, the majority WANT Nazism'?

Are you kind of young, do you not remember relations with Iran and other ME nations over the past few decades? Do you sincerely believe they have no desire to obliterate us from the earth?

Anyway, Kimberly, you sure seem fun!

Are you Kimberlynkc? I thought you got kicked off the site. Too bad you're back. Obviously, TH needs to beef up its own border security.

Anyway, Kim, you need to polish your own facts up. Iran most definitely is cotrolling terr factions in the Palestine/Israel area, very aggressively through Hezbollah.

We're detaining Iranian "officials" in Iraq? You mean those terrorist we captured?

The rest of your post is of the same intellectually bereft and pathetic nature, and certainly not worthy of the time I'd absolutely waste on a point-by-point correction. Notice it's not even a refutation; it's a CORRECTION of your extremist leftist flat-out lies.

Why don't you go play in the freeway?

Admit it:

We're thrilled to have Kimberloon back.

How many times have we lamented her absence?

The other moonbats have taken more than their fair share of beatings in the meantime.

I say: welcome back, Kimberloon. We missed you and the easy target you provided.

Hope you're able escape capture for awhile so that we can enjoy the show!

by Pepp to enter the discussion and stir up some feces. However, seeing that Kimbat is back, the pot is already being stirred! Allow me to continue, by refuting the Dim Dim-ocrat.

She sez......

First of all, the claim being made on the right is that Iran is "inflaming an insurgency" in Gaza. Hamas is not an "insurgency," but rather, the majority party which was democratically elected by the Palestinians. Theoretically, at least, to aid Hamas is to aid the democratically elected majority party in the Palestinian Authority, not arming an "insurgency."

uh...yes, they got more votes, but was it by intimidation and throwing Iranian money around? Was it by declaring that Israel would be destroyed (therefore being ineligible to run for election according to the latest land-for-peace agreements with Israel)?

The Bush Admin. has been exacerbating relations with Iran by:

1) Our reported support for groups inside and outside of their country seeking regime change

Guess what. That's been the policy ever since the 444 day hostage crisis. It was the policy of conservative Presidents (Reagan and...okay A conservative President), center-left Presidents (Bush and Bush), and leftist Presidents (Hillary! in her first Administration). The majority of the people of Iran would support anything except the Mad Mullahs that they have now if they didn't fear for their lives by opposing them. Remember that nobody who even had any hints about opposing the ruling council of imams has been allowed to run for office there.

2) Our detention of multiple Iranian officials in Iraq

If they weren't there causing trouble, they'd still be free. Formenting terrorism is a crime and they should be shot.

3) Our military attacks on an Iranian consulate in Iraq

Striking the source of terrorist activities is perfectly just.

4) The administration's wholesale rebuffing of Iranian efforts to negotiate all issues of dispute back in 2003 (a step which, quite predictably, accelerated Iran's enrichment efforts).

HAHAHAHAHA Where do you come up with such tripe? They've refused to abide by the IAEA demands and the international community. They want to be a nuke power. They refuse to stop threatening Israel. They support Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah. What's to negotiate?

5) The inncreasing overt war threats emanating from the likes of Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman, the song merrily sung by John McCain about bombing their country, and the multiple military maneuvers undertaken by the U.S. with the clear intent of threatening Iran.

Oh, and their threats to wipe Israel from the map?????? Their threats against our forces in the Persian Gulf? Their assistance with North Korea's missile programs and nuke programs? Puh-leeeeze.

6) Four years ago we put them on a short list of "evil" countries

Should have been 28 years ago.

7) We have invaded and currently occupy two of their neighboring countries

Too bad, so sad. Wherever militant Islam resides, that's where we need to bomb and occupy.

Perhaps rather than rail against a voice for debating ALL the facts in a US/Iran potential conflict, it would be wise to also factor in our president and his neocon, warmongering puppetmasters angle on the matter.

Perhaps rather than be a supporter of terrorists and those who wish to nuke Israel, it would be wise to have a clue.

did anyone here really think that I would stir up the pot? Sweet little ol' me? I'm such an innocent bystander.

(waiting for lightning to strike...)

You did me proud. You are a great debater. You had the patience to take it point by point and refute Kimberly's argument. Good, very good job.

You sweet, little, innocent you!

Monkey girls comes, she spews, drops her guano and leaves....why Kimberly, it was wunderbar in your absence...man, you survived siberia? I don't know how...a shame you haven't learned anything while you were away....

Man, I hadn't "seen" you post before The monkey girl went on her trip to siberia, but just wait til Malkin, Limbaugh and Coulter put up their columns for the week...she'll be the first one to post because she has "Screaming Monkey Syndrome" ...see the Monkey in the cave,all night waiting to rant and rave....

It has suddenly dawned on me that the "lovely and charming" Kimberly appears to be doing her level best to deliberately aggravate the serious posters on these TH Blogs with her asinine and ridicules posts. Has anyone else reached this conclusion?
Just the ramblings of an old duffer

You have it right. That's Kimberly's style. She just drops in never to return most of the time. Rarely does she come back after she has been refuted.

He should just admit he dislikes Jews and get on with it.

How succinct and good reply. Just admit to it. I like that.

About now Hillary is asking Bill how well Iran liked him.

Think so? She'll be in a pickle once she takes the WH. I mean if that happens. What is little Miss Sweetie Pie going to do with them?

Maybe she'll send Bill over to Iran to talk to Ahmadnut and see if they can come up with some common interests. Perhaps he could take Monica with him.

of Buchanan. Fact is, he is a 20's isolationist. Where he is now is where the vast majority of the Republican Party was in the 1920's and 30's. After the end of WWI when Wilson looked like a moron at Versailles and the Europeans cynically divided up the remnants of the Ottoman Empire into "Spheres of Influence", The American people were livid that over 100,000 Americans had died apparently just to further the colonial ambitions of Britain and France against those of Germany and Austria/Hungary. There was more to WWI than this, but this was the popular perception at the time that the Republican party exploited. 3 Republicans in a row, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, were elected with an isolationist, Fortress America, rejection of the McKinley/TR Internationalism of the Republicans and even more so, the Utopian Internationalism of Wilson and later, his close protege FDR.

Buchanan is an old school Republican of this tradition. Many in the leadership of the Republican party at that time were anti-semitic, and believed that nothing was an American interest short of border protection. Go back and read some of them in the 30's and there are some who thought Hitler might have a good idea "restricting the Jewish minority to its appropriate proportion of the economy" WW2 and the Rise of the Soviets woke most Republicans up, but a small contingent of Isolationists remained, ok with the Cold War as long as it remained a containment policy and never flashed into actual fighting. These very old school Republicans have been fracturing from the party since the Soviet Union came down, and Iraq simply accelerated this process.

Buchanan is a nut, but to the 1-3% who buy his neurotic tripe, he is a prophet to be revered. Why Townhall feels this man deserves a platform is beyond me. He speaks for a nearly extinct branch of the party that should have been pruned a generation ago.

I sometimes like Buchanan, especially when he agrees with me - I definitely like to read his articles. I even admit to bouts of 'isolationism' - sort of like let 'them' kill each other off for awhile.

I agree Abudinijibjab is a lunatic, he will - if he gets a nuke - at a minimum, hand something off to one of our 'undocumented immigrants'.

But are you and so many others so willing to engage in an additional/expanded war? How are we paying for the current WoT? Are you supportive of a draft? I think the same few hundred thousand troops and their families are the only ones actually paying.

I don't think you were opposed to sanctions or negotiations - just think we need to exhaust all other options.

ps.LOVED your 'article' - what's the correct term?

Thanks for stopping by.

Thanks for coming by.

You asked me if I am willing to support an expanded war? How are we paying for it? Would I support a draft?

What does it matter really what I think as I have no control over the WOT?

I don't even want a war, but I'm not so sure it matters since we didn't ask for it. I know I didn't ask for Muslims to fly planes into those buildings and kill 3000 people. From my viewpoint, the war came to us.

I don't support a draft. I don't think that men who don't want to fight are good men to be with our troops who are willing to fight.

The same thousands of troops and their families. Yeah, I'm one of those families as my nephew fought in Afghanistan and is on ready reserve to go anywhere if he gets called up, which, seeing as how things are going, that seems likely.

And, I feel for the troops and their families because I know what it feels like to be one of those family members suffering. When my brother was in VN, a very unpopular war, my mother and I received hate mail from people who thought my brother was a "baby killer". My mother and I got to watch the body bags being loaded onto the helicopters every night on TV, wondering if my brother was in one of those bags.

Also my uncle was there too and he was killed in VN. So, we had that loss we suffered, not to mention my cousins loss of their father.

And, when I see the troops disparaged I know what those families feel believe me.

what you think and do does matter. Yes, THEY brought it to us.
I see a mis-managed, mess in Iraq. Afghanistan and their poppy fields are being re-claimed by the Taliban and BinLaden is safe in the hills of our ally Pakistan. And Iran is definitely a looming threat/contributor to this.

I think Bush and Co. have hidden the cost of this war - both $$$$ and lives - so that we don't demand an accounting. We are borrowing money to fund this war. Who from? China? the Saudis? seems suspicious.
Troops are being rotated back 2,3, and 4 times - enlistments are extended - its wrong to dump the brunt of this on the 'few'. AND what really REALLY PISSES ME OFF IS VET TREATMENT STILL!!!!!
yes, I lost cousins and friends in Viet Nam - no war protesting on my part - yet, I admit to a few letters to Congress re. the whole stinking country wasn't worth one of our guys - oops , I digress.

Ask any VN vet about agent orange and the 'included for treatment' liver cancers. yeah , there's a few more. BUT we here drive around with 'yellow ribbons' and think we're contributing??!!

I HATE the idea of needing a 'draft' - but, we do - with no exemptions and no deferrals.

What exactly do you want from me?

NO DRAFT!

As a military professional, I'd have to tell you that the draft would decrease the capabilities of our forces. We need soldiers, sailors, and Marines who WANT to be a part of the armed forces. Morale, while not great now, would take a downturn and casualties would rise.

As for the cost...end all unConstitutional entitlements and other items in the budget and we can call it even.

That's exactly what I always hear from people in the military. They don't want draftees next to them on the battlefield. They want men they can trust.

My brother enlisted in the Marines and he sure as hell didn't want another guy next to him in VN who would run from the battle or not look out after his back.

Thank you for responding - oh shoot - the easy part first - all I can say is I agree to disagree in re. some 'entitlements' and yes, I do pick and choose as to what I consider earned 'entitlements'. I already lost this argument on BrianR's blog - don't like it but that's life.

Call it even? in what way? I'm not a pro-tax person believe it or not, I find it wrong we don't pay as we go.

As a 'pro' do you honestly think that when fired upon that a well-trained and equipped draftee responds any worse or less capably than a volunteer?
I think many drafted VN vets would disagree if you are sure they weren't as capable as the volunteers - AND there is no way that I am in any position to make a judgment as to the 'quality' of draftees v. volunteers - I admit that.

My point in the original post was that the vast majority of us are un-touched by this war.

Oh, a sincere question - do you honestly think our military could successfully 'win' in Iran? NOT simply(?) crush them militarily, but be stretched the way you are as 'policeman'.



Thank you for your service!

I know I got 'riled' - not at you btw, just think a lot of 'support the troops' is sloganeering - we are too comfortable here, WWII affected everyone between rationing, war bonds, and lost sons/husbands - vietnam affected everyone, but not so the WoT.

But - I give to 'Intrepid Wounded...' and Fisher House, if I had any needed 'skill' I'd report.

By calling it even, I mean that all of the unConstitutional spending by the Congresscritters is more than the costs of the Iraq war, Afghan war, and the aftermaths, with room to spare.

A draftee, with the bare minimum of boot camp and basic courses afterwards is not the equivalent of someone who has had that training and a bit more, who is motivated by love of country and professionalism, and has embraced his experiance and that of those above him. Most casualties in VN were those in their first 100 days and those in their last 30. The draftees were either a) new to the job, or b) looking forward to civilian life. If you look at the experiences of some of the better units in that war, such as the 1st Air Cav and the 101st Airborne, they took far fewer casualties when they were manned by non-draftees who had put in the time to learn their trade. The 101st was not even 50% airborne qualified by the 2nd half of that war, and that's when they took more hits. Their LRRP/Ranger units took very few casualties while pulling some very tough missions early, but when they started getting draftees in their ranks (non-airborne qual'd), they lost more people.

The WoT would affect more people here if we were fighting to win and the Dim-ocrats weren't opposing it. If the nation got behind the war and supported it....well, we'd quit importing oil from muslims and Chavez, we'd be drilling off Florida, Californication, and ANWR. We'd build a few NEW refineries. We'd step up alternate power in wind farms and nuke plants, in spite of Teddythedrunk (D-Chappaquiddick) opposing wind farms since they'd spoil his view while he's out sailing (and dumping bodies). The muslims have been fighting this war for over 1300 years, and they won't stop until they kill or enslave all non-muslims, or until they themselves are all killed.

Gunny's back from his 12 days alone with the Chief Justice. That's how long it took her to completely wear him out. He's got 3 new posts, and I have one myself.

My ex was 1stCav - the one with the big horse patch right? - he was drafted in '67-68 - he's alive, just impossible to live with, maybe I was impossible to live with. Anyway, all you say makes sense. Perhaps politicians running ANY war is an equal cause of casualties.

"The WoT would affect more people here if we were fighting to win" - shades of VietNam.

My confusion lies in what is a 'win'???

I am 100% for energy independence - perfect.

I wasn't trying to just blow you off. I just wasn't sure of the point you were making. And, my carpal tunnel is killing me to the point of total numbness.

I don't have any answers to any of this. If I had any power or control, I'd turn the clock back to before 9/11. Everything changed for me at that point. Nobody wants to fight the WOT any longer because they are tired of war. It's understandable but that is the radical Islam goal, to wear us all down so we stop fighting and they can either kill us all or convert us to Islam and enslave all of us for whatever in God's name I have no idea. Because we're infidels and pigs I suppose. Who can make any sense out of it?

Rational people don't think like they do, so some people think all we have to do is talk to them or appease them. It's like dealing with a sociopath, you can't sit down and talk things out with someone who has no conscience.

Americans don't have the stomach for any prolonged war and that is exactly what bin laden said, "we're a paper tiger". They, the Muslims, all know is that all they have to do is break our will and they have already done that in less than 6 years. So, if you ask me, the war has been already won by the terrorist Islamic nutjobs. All they have to do now is wait out our complete collapse of will which obviously is not very far off if two thirds of the country have given up and want our troops at home. To do what I don't know because troops are for fighting. When my brother joined the Marines he joined to fight.

That's one thing people forget, these guys join up, like Crawfish said, for love of country, etc.
I didn't ask my brother not to go. He wanted to go. Nothing would have changed his mind. Then, you just deal with it.

Same for my uncle who was killed in VN. He fought in Korea and stayed in the military knowing he could go to war again. That's what these guys do. People just need to accept that instead of bellyaching about our troops having to fight. That is their job.

Your comment to Marie was outstanding. I'm quite impressed.
Be over soon to your blog.

And you're right. We are too comfortable here. It wasn't too comfortable after 9/11 was it? Right after it happened everyone seemed united and ready to fight. It seemed that most people understood the stakes, but as people's memories fade, and I swear Americans must have the shortest of memories, then it's back to life as usual. Except it is not life as usual. The threat remains but no one has the stomach any longer to fight it. At least not until the nukes start hitting.

You can go back further in history for the Jew haters. Gee, it would be nice to think that the republican party is where anti-semitism started. LOL. But, it's been around for a very long time. Long before we took America from the Indians.

- not tonite anyway! I have never had carpal tunnel symptoms even - spent most of the last 30 years at a keyboard - just lucky again (in spite of OSHA I guess). - I've just now probably jinxed myself.

You are right, I don't have the stomach for what appears to be a win-less and unending war, by that I mean I can't figure out what our 'goal' is. It seems our troops achieve everything that is asked of them over and over - but, the 'win' keeps moving. I think we've gotta get smarter - OK - 'someone' has gotta get smarter.

Now, I'm back to 'isolationism' - sc*w em, become energy independent and let the sunnis/shiites/saudis/taliban/ad infinitum kill each other off.

Your brother is a hero, as are the troops.

well...having them fight each other is okay, except...they also want to fight us here, destroy Israel, take over all of Europe and Asia, etc, etc. When they talk peace, remember that the False Prophet commanded them to lie to the Infidels about their true intentions.

The only people the Shi'ites and Sunnis hate more than each other is everybody else in the world. The False Prophet commanded them to kill or enslave everybody who isn't one of them, and after he croaked they couldn't decide on who should be the leader, which is how the Shi'ia/Sunni split occurred. Both are determined to rule the world under Islamic law, but refuse to share the conquest with each other. Guess it's their nature to fight, fight, fight, agitate, then fight some more.

Yes, the 1st Cav is the one with the yellow patch with a black diagonal stripe and a horsehead. They're the ones who fought the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley (Mel Gibson's movie "We Were Soldiers"). They developed the air mobility concept. They took lots of casualties because they were developing that new way of warfare, and the rest of the Army couldn't figger out how to give them the proper support, plus they were given a lot of the really hard missions because they were so danged good! Lots of casualties, but they caused lots more! The ones that were with that unit when they first went over there were true professionals.

Winning. Yep, that's a difficult concept in this war. With a conventional war, it's easy. You take on the enemy forces and kick their butts, take their land, and make them surrender. With Islam, we're not fighting anything near a conventional war. It's a war of religion. I know, that ain't PC to say, and no politician will say it, but it's the truth. We won't have true victory until that's figgered out by the ruling classes around the world. It's Islam vs the rest of us in a fight to the death. We can achieve temporary victory by knocking back the militant factions, but they're now becoming such a large part of the muslim world that I don't know if that'll be doable in the next 50 years. Islam's militancy goes in cycles, but any muslim who doesn't stand for the enslaving and killing of all Infidels is the muslim version of a RINO, a MINO, since he/she doesn't stand for the basic commandments of the False Prophet.

why ain't I on the blog roll?

I've had the same thoughts, just let them fight one another and kill themselves off. But, like Crawfish says I don't think it's that easy.

The problem is these nutjobs are all over the place, not only in Iraq, but everywhere determined to take out Israel and us if they can get the chance.

My friend purplegimp lives in Israel and she sees first hand what the Hizzies and Hamas are up to. It's all being funded and operated by Iran. If we were to pull out of Iraq, we leave a great big vacuum for Iran.

Who knows what the answer is. I wish I had one.
Obviously the war is being mismanaged and by that I mean we should have gone after these people full throttle and nuked them. Then, they would be afraid of us. Just like Japan was.

Geesh! I do apologize. I thought you were on there.
I will take care of that right away.

You're on the blog roll now. Take a look. I am so sorry about that. I have been assuming that you were on there because I have you bookmarked. Duh! Just having a brain fart. Lots of those lately. Too tired and my brain is mush lately

we straight

let's see....start at the Jordan river and going east until ya hit the Pacific (and don't forget Lebanon while you're at it)...carpet bomb with nukes. A couple of weeks later, go in and turn the pumps back on. OPEN UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT!

Well, I wouldn't want to risk offending you.
How did you like my response to your email about the amnesty bill? Pretty blunt?

Carpet bombing sounds good and don't stop until they are all gone.

of being anything but blunt!

BTW, I managed to be among the first 40 to comment on Ann's new column. Usually I'm in the 120's or so.

Could not get onto TH bloggers last night including my own. I gave up on it last night.

I know you're blunt. I'm not usually as blunt though.

Well, hurray for you being in the top 40 on Ann's column. I never had to time to even read it.

WOW - I'm obviously really really ...really new here

Freedom of Speech is sublime, seems 'incognito' should set up his own domain? or at least grow a spine and publish his own blog.

just seemed a strange, disjointed rant

incognito is karennkc who was kicked off TH and now is back as a different screen name.

I had to have her comments removed from my blog on another article due to her foul mouth and anti semitism.

I believe in free speech, but I always say it comes with responsibility.

seems anyone with so much to say should start up their own blog.

incognito probably can't start a blog because she would soon find herself in Siberia.