Democrats: What is the most politically-advantageous number of dead US troops?

[Bluesman]

As your party plans the dual campaigns of losing in Iraq but winning the White House (both by next November), what is the ideal number of dead US troops in Iraq? As the surge, called the 'escalation' by Senate Majority Leader Reid (Moonbat, Nevada), is just now coming to full strength, how many of the US contingent should be killed to get the MAXIMUM number of votes for your nominee?

If the force is completely wiped out, no survivors, as has been called for in inumerable anti-war (but pro-Democrat) rallies, will this not cause a backlash with the American voters that may perceive a confluence of the goals of the terrorists and the Democrats (US OUT OF IRAQ! )?

On the OTHER hand, if the US continues to suffer the historically light casualties that it has to date, perhaps not enough of the criminals that Senate Majority Whip Durbin (Whacko, Illinois) and other Democrats have compared to Nazis and Khmer Rouge executioners will be destroyed to really make the world a better place, and the groundswell will not occur with enough strength to utterly destroy the administration's policy in Iraq.

SO, Democrat WABbits, what do YOU think would be the optimum number of US war dead to really make the Iraq War the vote-gettin' disaster that Senator Reid believes it to be?

[gunnut]

As a registered Democrat .... Breathe, Blues, breathe... I think it's more of a trickling of bad news that will have the maximum impact on the American voters, rather than a sudden jolt of catastrophe.

A catastrophic attack on us, or our guys in Iraq, will only piss us off. We will scream for blood, just like after 9-11. A large attack means there's a tangible organization somewhere that we can physically beat the crap out of.

Small, daily attacks, on the other hand, are more like fighting bug bites and shadows. We can be on our guard for the entire day, but get bit for that split second we were busy laughing at the TV.

The MSM will continue to remind us by announcing everyday 2 dead American soldiers here, 6 wounded there, this is the deadliest month for US troops in Iraq since whenever.

[astralis]

bluesman,

with all due respect, sir, with this topic you can go jump off a bridge.

if ANYONE said that i was pleased or found it politically advantageous to see our boys dying in iraq, i'd do my best to kick his face in, MSgt or no.

this is insulting and has absolutely no place here. if i started a topic that said "Republicans: What is the most politically-advantageous number of aborted babies," i'd be banned right quick and deservedly so.

you owe any democrat, or hell, any american who believes in the nation over partisan politics, an apology.

[Bluesman]

bluesman,

with all due respect, sir, with this topic you can go jump off a bridge.

if ANYONE said that i was pleased or found it politically advantageous to see our boys dying in iraq, i'd do my best to kick his face in, MSgt or no.

this is insulting and has absolutely no place here. if i started a topic that said "Republicans: What is the most politically-advantageous number of aborted babies," i'd be banned right quick and deservedly so.

you owe any democrat, or hell, any american who believes in the nation over partisan politics, an apology.

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.

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.

Why is it, do you suppose, that Senator Biden (Idiot, Delaware) thinks we ought to go to Darfur, RIGHT THIS MINUTE, and intervene with all due necessary force? Simple: because Darfur has absolutely NOTHING to do with US national interest. The ONLY time Democrats want military force used is when it will not reduce the threat to national security one iota, OR when a bunch of religious nuts with guns hole up in an isolated compound in Fly-Over Country.

Democrats have been hostile to this country time after time, and take every opportunity to denounce it and side with our enemies, and have been doing it since 1945. You can look it up: 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.

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)?

[S2]

Bluesman Reply

"Democrats have been hostile to this country time after time, and take every opportunity to denounce it and side with our enemies, and have been doing it since 1945."

Wrong. JFK might be classified more accurately as a neo-con republican these days. LBJ, misguided though he may have been, had nothing but this nation's interests at heart.

You're way off the mark here, Bluesman. Way off. 3200 mils, man.

[Bluesman]

Former single-term Senator John Edwards (Nancy-Boy, North Carolina), now a top-tier Democratic Presidential hopeful, said the War on Terror was just a bumper sticker, that it didn't exist and was just being used to scare the American people into voting for Republicans.

So, what do YOU guys think, hm? Just a bumper sticker? Real Threat to the lives and property of people all over the world? Seems a widely-divergent set of viewpoints, so it shouldn't be TOO hard to determine which is closer to the truth.

THE 'BUMPER STICKER' THAT BLOWS UP
by Ann Coulter
July 18, 2007

For six years, the Bush administration has kept America safe from another terrorist attack, allowing the Democrats to claim that the war on terrorism is a fraud, a "bumper sticker," a sneaky ploy by a power-mad president to create an apocryphal enemy so he could spy on innocent librarians in Wisconsin. And that's the view of the moderate Democrats. The rest of them think Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.

But now with the U.S. government — as well as the British and German governments — warning of major terrorist attacks this summer, the Treason Lobby is facing the possibility that the "bumper sticker" could blow up in their faces.

The Democrats' entire national security calculus is based on the premise that "we have no important enemies," as stated by former senator Mike Gravel. He's one of the Democratic presidential candidates who doesn't know he's supposed to lie when speaking to the American people.

Ironically, the Democrats' ability to sneer at President Bush hinges on Bush's successful prosecution of the war on terrorism, despite the Democrats. It's going to be harder to persuade Americans that the "war on terrorism" is George Bush's imaginary enemy — the Reichstag fire, to quote our first openly Muslim congressman Keith Ellison — if there is another terrorist attack.

So naturally, they are blaming any future terrorist attacks on the war in Iraq.

The Democrats blame everything on Iraq, but their insane argument that we are merely annoying the enemy by fighting back has been neurotically repeated since the failed terrorist bombing in London a few weeks ago. The venue of the terrorists' latest attempt, a hot London nightclub, might even shake up the young progressive crowd. Apparently their soirees are not off-limits, notwithstanding their dutiful anti-imperialism.

In anticipation of their surrender strategy becoming substantially less popular in the wake of another terrorist attack, the Democrats are all claiming that the threat of terrorism was nonexistent — notwithstanding 9/11, the Cole bombing, the bombing of our embassies, the bombing of the World Trade Center, the Achille Lauro, etc. etc. — until George Bush invaded Iraq.

In the past week, B. Hussein Obama said the war in Iraq has made us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Americans are "more at risk," he said, "and less safe than we should have been at this point." We would be safer with "better polices" — such as, presumably, Bill Clinton's policy of pretending Islamic terrorists don't exist and leaving the problem for the next president.

Hillary Clinton said we need to start "reversing our priorities. Let's stop sending troops to Iraq and let's start insuring every single child." Yes, that should put a good healthy scare into the insurgents. "Run for your life, Ahmed! All American children are getting regular checkups!"

Sen. Chris Dodd miraculously straddled both arguments — that the threat of terrorism is a fraud and that the Iraq war had increased its danger. He said "al-Qaida is insurgent again" because we've "turned Iraq into an incubator" for jihadists. But simultaneously with warning of a terrorist attack, Dodd also said he was "more skeptical than I'd like to be" of the Bush administration's warning of a terrorist attack. Damn that Bush! He's inflamed an imaginary enemy!

As with the Democrats' claim that the greatest military in the world is "losing" a war with camel-riding nomads, the claim that the war in Iraq is what created our terrorist problem — a terrorist problem that began about 30 years ago — has entered the media and is now stated as fact by the entire Treason Lobby.

CNN correspondent Suzanne Malveaux matter-of-factly reported this week: "President Bush says the central front in the war on terror is Iraq. But when the U.S. first invaded the country almost five years ago, al-Qaida had very little presence. But the intelligence report says that has changed. Al-Qaida not only has become a dangerous threat, the intelligence community expects the terrorist group will use its contacts and capabilities there to mount an attack on U.S. soil."

Say, wasn't the attack of 9/11 an "attack on U.S. soil"? How could that have happened since we hadn't invaded Iraq yet? What a weird aberration. How about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? How about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? The taking of our embassy in Tehran?

Another CNN correspondent, Ed Henry, followed up Malveaux's report with the somber news that "the president was warned before the war in Iraq that if you go in and invade Iraq, you're going to give al-Qaida more opportunities to expand its influence."

Similarly, Hitler and Goebbels never had much to say about the United States — not, that is, until we started fighting them!

But as soon as we entered the war — taking the bait of Hitler's declaration of war against us, which Democrats are urging us to avoid falling for in the case of al-Qaida — Hitler began portraying FDR as a pawn of the Jews. Soon posters started appearing in Germany showing the United States as a country run by Jews and Negroes. Fake dollar bills with the Star of David were air-dropped over Paris.

According to the Democrats' logic, FDR's policies made the United States less safe. Had Germany attacked us at Pearl Harbor? No. Was Hitler able to use America entering the war as a recruiting tool? Yes. Fighting the enemy always seems to make them mad. It's as plain as the nose on your face.

Democrats think they have concocted a brilliant argument by saying that jihadists have been able to recruit based on the war in Iraq. Yes, I assume so. Everything the United States has done since 9/11 has galvanized the evil people of the world to fight the U.S. In World War II, some Frenchmen joined the Waffen SS, too. And the good people of the world have been galvanized to fight on the side of the U.S. The question is: Which side are the Democrats on?

COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

[astralis]

bluesman,

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Bluesman]

"Democrats have been hostile to this country time after time, and take every opportunity to denounce it and side with our enemies, and have been doing it since 1945."

Wrong. JFK might be classified more accurately as a neo-con republican these days. LBJ, misguided though he may have been, had nothing but this nation's interests at heart.

You're way off the mark here, Bluesman. Way off. 3200 mils, man.

No. I AIN'T.

I don't care who sees it, but this is TRUE: Democrats have been trying to get us beat in wars since Harry Truman's cabinet was SRO for full-fledged commies and their dupes. (Look it up; THAT is TRUE FACT, and was known at the time.)

They spent the entire Vietnam war rooting for the Viet Cong, and they fondly look back on that time as the acme of political awareness, so don't tell ME that I'm wrong. THEY celebrate that time; their heroes that helped bring it about are their heroes STILL, even as we can look back and see what terrible consequences it had for our country and our allies (some of whose countries didn't survive the experience).

Look back through the voting rolls of America's fiercest critics, the ones ACTIVELY working to frustrate American interests and tell me which party they voted for.

You don't want to call a spade a spade, you want to maintain a collegiality with this crew of vipers? FINE, but tell me I'm wrong again, and I'll cite chapter and verse of instance after incident after anecdote of HOW, WHY, WHERE, and WHO among Americans have tried their dead-level best to see to it that America's enemies are coddled, America's military is hobbled, and America's vital national interests are betrayed.

I know history, thank you very much, and it is replete with examples of exactly what I'm talking about.

I'm WRONG? BULL.

[Bluesman]

bluesman,



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.



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.



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.



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?

You're the stupidest smart guy I've seen on here in a long time.

[astralis]

bluesman,

You're the stupidest smart guy I've seen on here in a long time.

the compliment goes right back at you, sir.

[Bluesman]

bluesman,

funny, considering i'm not even a registered dem anymore.

Bully for YOU, then.

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.

Find me ONE INSTANCE of me saying that. I'm not on record anywhere of saying anything remotely like that; I'm all for ANY strategy that produces victory, and all I'm pointing out is that the Democrats are in favor of NO strategy that will produce it.

So jam it, dickhead.

i can't even say how many times the republicans have screwed over our boys over there for political advantage.

I'll just BET you can't.

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.

You're not understanding, or you're being obtuse.

I never said, and never WOULD say, that Republican policy has been flawless. So stop setting this up as me saying that if you're not 100% behind every Republican policy you're a traitor. I never said that; I never would.

But I notice that you weren't denying that Democrats HAVE done some screwing-over of the US for political gain. Because really, you couldn't defend that proposition.

What I DO say is that Democrat policy has been defeatist and explicitly anti-US.

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?

This thread isn't ABOUT Republicans, what they've done, what they've failed to do. Have they made mistakes? Oh, HELL yes; LOTS, and BAD ones, too. But it was always in pursuit of VICTORY, and NOT of the domestic political kind, the only kind the Democrats give a dam' about.

and if you can't admit THAT, you're a damn fool or a damn liar, sir.

I haven't lied once, not a single time. Quote it if you can find it.

and that is the entire problem with you, bluesman.

Nah; THAT isn't my problem, although I've got a few more.

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?

That's not the best, but I believe it was you who said:

if ANYONE said that i was pleased or found it politically advantageous to see our boys dying in iraq, i'd do my best to kick his face in, MSgt or no.

Yep; there it is, first post you made in this thread.

who benefits from this? al-qaeda must be laughing all the way to his mosque.

And I believe this war has continued this long exactly because the Democratic Party has given our enemies a reason to hang in there just another day, just one more election, because they're THIS CLOSE to winning; as soon as a Democratic administration is inaugurated, maybe sooner, with a Democratically-controlled Congress, eager to lose as fast as possible.

And can you imagine WHY it is that John Q. Iraqi won't help us anymore than he's already doing, with Senator Barack Hussein Obama (Laughingstock, Illinois) declaring that the post-defeat genocide ain't our problem?

You say you support the operations in Iraq? Can you even conceive WHY what the Democrats have done to-date is likely to see us defeated there? Do you imagine that the Democrats in power don't KNOW that?

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.

Who do you think Code Pink votes for, genius? How 'bout Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, the whole crowd of loonies that make up anti-war marches? You think THOSE are loyal Americans, eager to see American troops win through to victory?

Or are we likely to see them every evening outside Walter Reed Hospital, jeering and cursing at the wounded troops that have to pass by them and their sick placards as they go out to see a movie, or go bowling or have a meal with their families?

Who do you think they vote for, hm?

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?

I acknowledge that SOME of the Democrats wear suits. Happy now?

how many times are you going to call dems traitors, and in so doing all but advocate for an one-party state?

Oh, I'm not the one advocating a one-party state, that's usually a Democratic talking point. No, I just wish we could have two PRO-American parties, not just one.

because we shouldn't deal with traitors, let alone put them on the political scene. we shoot them.

Well, I'm not quite there, because I'm not Janet Reno.

well, how about it, blues?

Name the time, and I'll make myself available.

[S2]

Look It Up

"I know history, thank you very much, and it is replete with examples of exactly what I'm talking about."

Looks like cherry picking to me. SRO with communists, eh? G.C. Marshall? James Forrestal? Just a couple of names. But standing room only doesn't leave a lot of room for exceptions, particularly from somebody who "know[s] history".

"They spent the entire Vietnam war rooting for the Viet Cong, and they fondly look back on that time as the acme of political awareness, so don't tell ME that I'm wrong."

Did they? JFK, LBJ? Let's go contemporary- Jack Reed? Jim Webb?

"...you want to maintain a collegiality with this crew of vipers?"

No. Separating myself from you on this issue sounds just about right, though. I've thrown enough names out to give pause, I'd think. I won't toss the democratic party under a bus. Just now, it's a Republican administration that is failing to protect our "best and brightest", not the Democrats.

From Astralis-

"...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."

That's it in a nutshell. Given an overwhelming mandate and control of Congress, the Republican administration has produced the above-plain and simple.

I'm sure as hell ready for any administration that can do better than that legacy. Big time.

[crooks]

I think Astralis is on to something here:

who benefits from this? al-qaeda must be laughing all the way to his mosque.

So true, I mean the sheer HATRED Bluesman, to your countrymen!
I know, you'll claim they're "traitors", "slime of the earth" and "gutless" etc, but they're your people!

I'm not going to get on a soapbox and preach, but your division IS helping AQ, they realise that they can drive a wedge between two halfs of a country, each viewing the US's position in the World differently.

No other country in the world takes politics to this level of extreme, and I think each of your sides is as bad as the other........you both need to realise that your stubborness will not be an end to AQ, but and end to the US.
Never forget the words of possibly your greatest president, words that inspired millions around the world for many reasons, you need them now:

"A house divided against itself cannot stand" - Abraham Lincoln.

[astralis]

bluesman,

I'm all for ANY strategy that produces victory, and all I'm pointing out is that the Democrats are in favor of NO strategy that will produce it.

and what of your continual calls for keeping troops indefinitely in iraq, and lambasting any thought of possible withdrawal? it may very well be that the democrats have not come up with a strategy that will produce victory; but then again, neither have the republicans. but a lack of a winning strategy does not mean that the dems are actively looking for a losing one, either.

I never said, and never WOULD say, that Republican policy has been flawless. So stop setting this up as me saying that if you're not 100% behind every Republican policy you're a traitor. I never said that; I never would.

good. so, then, why are you painting those who would have the temerity to vote dem as somehow happy as all hell that american troops are dying?

But I notice that you weren't denying that Democrats HAVE done some screwing-over of the US for political gain. Because really, you couldn't defend that proposition.

why should i deny it, when such has happened? on the flip side of the coin, you can't, and couldn't, defend the proposition that republicans HAVEN'T done some screwing-over of the US for political gain.

What I DO say is that Democrat policy has been defeatist and explicitly anti-US.

and this is what i am against, if not on ideological grounds, then at least on common-sense grounds: there is hardly an unified democratic policy, with hillary clinton's policy on iraq differing rather dramatically from say, kucinch's or lieberman's.

But it was always in pursuit of VICTORY, and NOT of the domestic political kind, the only kind the Democrats give a dam' about.

ah, i see. so when the administration slapped down gen. shinseki's assertion of the number of troops needed, and when they slapped down the hundred-billion dollar estimate of the war, and when they told americans that the war would be a cakewalk, it was indeed in pursuit of VICTORY, and not political advantage.

That's not the best, but I believe it was you who said:


Quote:
Originally Posted by astralis
if ANYONE said that i was pleased or found it politically advantageous to see our boys dying in iraq, i'd do my best to kick his face in, MSgt or no.

Yep; there it is, first post you made in this thread.

sir, i think by now you know me for a pretty rational fellow. that i made such a statement only goes to show how sensitive i am to this; you're talking to a guy who volunteers his time to go help out vets.

however, i'll gladly admit i was wrong here and i retract what i said out of anger. i extend my apologies to you, MSgt.

And I believe this war has continued this long exactly because the Democratic Party has given our enemies a reason to hang in there just another day, just one more election, because they're THIS CLOSE to winning; as soon as a Democratic administration is inaugurated, maybe sooner, with a Democratically-controlled Congress, eager to lose as fast as possible.

balderdash. do you think al-qaeda really cares who's in charge? do you think sunni nationalists and shi'ite militia-members would simply say "well, too hard of a job; time to pack it in"? insurgencies have lasted decades, with both sides showing no give. humans are stubborn animals.

Who do you think Code Pink votes for, genius? How 'bout Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, the whole crowd of loonies that make up anti-war marches? You think THOSE are loyal Americans, eager to see American troops win through to victory?

Or are we likely to see them every evening outside Walter Reed Hospital, jeering and cursing at the wounded troops that have to pass by them and their sick placards as they go out to see a movie, or go bowling or have a meal with their families?

Who do you think they vote for, hm?

and for every code-pink member and loony, how many more are red-blooded americans who patriotically serve in our armed forces? what percentage of the democratic party are made up of these loonies, and how many are average americans? just because the democratic party has these loonies, does not mean that they make up the entirety of the party.

[Bluesman]

"Democrats have been hostile to this country time after time, and take every opportunity to denounce it and side with our enemies, and have been doing it since 1945."

Wrong. JFK might be classified more accurately as a neo-con republican these days. LBJ, misguided though he may have been, had nothing but this nation's interests at heart.

You're way off the mark here, Bluesman. Way off. 3200 mils, man.

Not willing to let this go unchallenged.

Okay, so when JFK had a choice to back an ally, he had him shot, instead. Instead of killing Ho Chi Minh (you know, the ENEMY head-of-state), he went ahead and blew away a guy he was talking war strategy with on the phone a week earlier: his ally, Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam.

When he had a chance to back an ally that he'd pledged his word to for air support against a communist dictator...he made sure his allies could GET to the scene of their slaughter, but made absolutely certain they couldn't avoid same. The Bay of Pigs is as clear an example of mis-placed trust in a Democrat's word as can be found, and when the choice had to be made between a commie strongman and an ally that needed US help...well, the tradition of Democratic duplicity was just being solidified at the time, and who could blame the Cuban patriots for falling for it?

When he had the chance to face down a communist illegal act - explicity in violation of a long-standing treaty, he made sure that he offered only a platitude...then flew away to the safety of the White House. The Soviet plan was: 'If the Allies challenged the barrier, the East Germans were to fall back and were not to fire first under any circumstances.' [from Wikipedia] No such challenge was forthcoming from your heroic JFK, and the wall stood until Ronald Reagan demanded that it be torn down, and in due course of creating conditions for same...it was. And over vociferous objections from JFK's party, who were apparently fond of the symbol.

You want me to detail some more of JFK's Democratic Party credentials (they ARE impressive), or should we move on to LBJ?

Three victims of Democrats and their communist allies