bluesman,
Quote:
It was YOUR Senate majority leader that stated that the Iraq War was a political winner; it's YOUR party that wants to lose as quickly as possible, and labors day and night to make it happen. Rep. Murtha (Criminal, Ohio) came up with the 'slow bleed' (which, by the way, refers to US blood, NOT the terrorists') strategy to slowly cut off necessities to US troops fighting in the field.
You can suck my unit, junior; I don't know how ANYbody that cares a dam' for the country can even BE a Democrat anymore, not when they are trying as hard as they can to defeat American war aims. And they do it for political advantage, and if you deny it, you're a dam' fool or a dam' liar.
|
funny, considering i'm not even a registered dem anymore. what i am tired of is how you continue to insist that following any other strategy other than the one bush outlines is stupid at best and outright traitorous at worst.
i can't even say how many times the republicans have screwed over our boys over there for political advantage. everything from too few troops, to a nonexistent security plan for two, almost three long years, dismissing the insurgency, alienating our allies, craptastic treatment of veterans...it sure as hell does not cut it with me that the dems, and the dems alone, have screwed the US over for political advantage. republicans, to a greater degree- for it was a republican administration in power, and for a long time, with a republican congress- that have landed us in our current situation. again, as i said in the other thread, even if american domestic support was more ironclad, would that make the conditions on the ground in iraq any better than it is today?
and if you can't admit THAT, you're a damn fool or a damn liar, sir.
Quote:
|
You want to take it personally? Well, I hope you DO, and if you'd like to do anything about it, I'll email you a Mapquest page to tell you exactly where and when you can meet me.
|
and that is the entire problem with you, bluesman. by god, you said that you were perfectly alright with tony blair, because he knows what the goddamn problem is and what needs solving. well, you're talking to a social liberal (or rather, libertarian) who is a hawk, who supports both military operations, and who loves his country, and the best you can come up with is a schoolyard challenge?
who benefits from this? al-qaeda must be laughing all the way to his mosque.
Quote:
|
Democrats have managed to be on the opposite side of American national interests, and have been hostile to the American military, since the Eisenhower Administration, and it really isn't arguable.
|
it damn well is, and i've argued it many a time with you. not that i think it is getting through; you've already convinced yourself that anyone who ever pulls a democrat lever is nothing more than a traitor.
Quote:
You want an apology? You'll get one when your party stops treating the American military as a coup-minded threat to the Republic or some kind of weird social laboratory or a jobs program to be frittered away on foreign adventures that have dammit to do with defending the country and advancing the national interest, AND when they stop investing our enemies with virtues and their own country with vices that neither have.
So, I'm looking right at YOU, astralis: how many US troops SHOULD be killed in Iraq to REALLY make them voting booths hum the Democrat fight song ('We Gotta Get Outta This Place/In a Rut', by The Animals)?
|
so, bluesman, how many times are you going to try to paint me, or for that matter, the entirety of the democratic party as a bunch of hippies? how many times are you going to call dems traitors, and in so doing all but advocate for an one-party state? because we shouldn't deal with traitors, let alone put them on the political scene. we shoot them.
well, how about it, blues?