Jurph, that is a hilarious and brilliant criticism of a horrible situation.
But should we expect the body armor to be provided by civilians? I mean, with a $500 billion military budget, surely the funds could be found to properly equip the soldiers.
Holy crap indeed.
Did they knock out the shield generator, too?
The guards waved them into the compound because they were wearing U.S. uniforms and driving American-style cars. They didn’t even check the ID’s.
“Shuttle Tyderium, deactivation of the deflector shield will commence immediately, follow your present course.”
Bad strategy and tactics embolden the enemy.
I don’t know- going by what Jurph and others are saying, I’d say it’s the Force that emboldens them.
More realistically, the administration is hoping to delay the final meltdown until 2009, when it will be somebody else’s problem.
John Stewart had a good bit on Emboldened Terrorists.
Another good read: Who Gives a Fuck What the “Enemy” Feels?
While stopping a single AK bullet to the chest is useful, it doesn’t exactly make you bulletproof. Or IED proof. Or 10-people-ambush you-with RPGs and AKs because your translator/police chief friend/kindly mother at the fruit market betrayed you proof.
The other night on “The Daily Show” they ran through a series of clips as Bush and Cheney warned that the “enemy” would be “emboldened” by: criticizing conduct of the “war”; talking about setting a timetable for withdrawal; passing a toothless nonbinding resolution; sending mixed messages. As Jon Stewart concluded, “Damn it! There’s nothing we can do that won’t embolden them! They’re just so emboldenable!”
This account of thecontentious hearing on Gen. Casey is a prime example of emboldening the enemy.
Don’t those Republican senators realize that by asking such questions with their implied, and actual, criticism of our actions they expose deep divisions at the highest levels of government and among military leaders? And don’t they realize that this greatly emboldens the enemy?
Shocking.
Hoenst question; prior to this war, had anyone ever heard the word “embolden?” I had never heard or read the word in my entire life. I had to look it up to actually confirm Bush hadn’t made it up. It’s a legitimate word, as it turns out, but rarely used until recently; the Bush administration seems to be obsessed with it and I’ll bet dollars to donuts it’s been used more in public discourse in the last five years than in the previous hundred.
Ah, yes, the Bush Administration: enriching American vocabularies even as they rifle American pockets and drain American blood.
I had only heard it in bad Victorian verse or romance novels…“Emboldened by the wine, Bryony met Alistair’s eyes unwaveringly.”
That sort of thing.
I doubt the enemy could be much more emboldened, frankly. Why don’t we just start calling them bold? How about brash? Ballsy? Brash, ballsy, bastards springs to mind.
Prior to this administration’s hysteria mongering, I’d never heard an American refer to the US as “the homeland” either.
Fuckin’ A, on that, xenophon41. That Department’s name gives me the willies.
Yeah, “the fatherland” was already taken. :eek:
No shit, that’s exactly what I think of when I hear that. Gives me the creeps.
Why the fuck couldn’t they have just revived “Civil Defense”? Oh, right, because that would have made sense, and Shrub considers such things to be Satanic. You know, this is one time I am not greatful for “truth in advertising.”