The Curse of the Donkeys

[jayjay]

@Lil' Mahoney

What have you been eating, by the way?

The hearts of the children of Democrats…

[New_Iskander]

SteveG1,

Yes, good Americans, one and all. You too. So why are you always carping here?

There is a very old movie, “Best years of our lives”. In one episode, two WWI vets are in department store caffeteria. They both are down on their luck, going through hard times and barely manage to have ends meet. One of them lost his hands in the war. Crippled guy is served by the other vet. Suddenly, anonymous customer starts saying to the cripple, how the war was not necessary, how he got shafted and how ‘others’ profited by it. Crippled vet immediately falls into rage but can’t do anything, so the other vet jumps over the counter and punches the stranger.

I guess the moral is, some things you just don’t say, even after the war. Don’t say this war is not necessary. Unless you insist that there was no war until Bush started it, of course. So make that point very clear.

Once we agree that we are at war, Commander in Chief has a right to conduct it his way. For example, WWII was clearly necessary. But opening the front against the Germans in Africa? WHY? Why not in Norway? Every imbecile could plainly see that Norway was a better place to start the fight against Hitler!! FDR was worse then an imbecile and a moral slug, too!!! Because I said so, that’s WHY!!! See the resemblance?

Same now. We are at war and the war we must have. And we must finish it conclusively so there will not be another one for decades. What do you think was the better place to start? Iran? Syria? Or sit in Afghanistan, at the end of extremely vulnerable supply chain? What do you think would be happening in Afghanistan? Same carnage we had to go through in Iraq, except our position would be a lot more vulnerable, that’s what. Now, we went through the storm and we gained foothold in two countries instead just one.

The only time you are absolutely wrong at war is when you lose. For example, if Commies would lose their nerve first in Vietnam, the whole historical assessment of that conflict would be different. We’d be talking about the vision and genius of JFK and LBJ, instead of trying to change the subject. You think Commies didn’t do mistakes? You think they didn’t sacrifice their forces unnecessarily? Hundreds times more then we did! But they won the war, and at war that’s all that matters.

So stop aiding the Enemy.

[jayjay]

@New Iskander

Unless you insist that there was no war until Bush started it, of course?

I’m seriously going to regret asking you this, but I must. It’s kind of like when you tell yourself you don’t really want to see intestines splattered all over the road but you just have to look at an accident when you pass by anyway…

Who started this war in Iraq, in your opinion?

[Harborwolf]

Stop aiding the enemy? Oh it’s just too little, too late. You had your chance at a partisan pile on and you blew it by being stupid. No point trying to salvage one now by bringing up the war in Iraq.

[Squink]

@New Iskander

I guess the moral is, some things you just don’t say, even after the war. Don’t say this war is not necessary. Unless you insist that there was no war until Bush started it, of course. So make that point very clear.

The president lacks the constitutional power and the moral authority to impose such a necessary lie on the electorate. Maybe if he were dictator for life…

[crowmanyclouds]

@New Iskander

SteveG1,

Yes, good Americans, one and all. You too. So why are you always carping here?

There is a very old movie, “Best years of our lives”. In one episode, two WWI vets are in department store cafeteria. They both are down on their luck, going through hard times and barely manage to have ends meet. One of them lost his hands in the war. Crippled guy is served by the other vet. Suddenly, anonymous customer starts saying to the cripple, how the war was not necessary, how he got shafted and how ‘others’ profited by it. Crippled vet immediately falls into rage but can’t do anything, so the other vet jumps over the counter and punches the stranger.

It’s a WW2 movie moron! The Best Years of Our Lives

[bizzwire]

[QUOTE=New Iskander
I guess the moral is, some things you just don’t say, even after the war. Don’t say this war is not necessary. Unless you insist that there was no war until Bush started it, of course. So make that point very clear.[/QUOTE]

This should be entertaining.

[silenus]

Buck buck Number 68!

<run run run run> <jump>

Ker-smoosh!

[bizzwire]

@New Iskander

Don’t say this war is not necessary. Unless you insist that there was no war until Bush started it, of course. So make that point very clear.

I insist that there was no war until President Bush started it.

HA!

gotcha ya!!

[jayjay]

@bizzwire

I insist that there was no war until President Bush started it.

I predict that his explanation of that one will involved conflating the War on Terror with the war in Iraq once again, as if Iraq had anything to do with either al-Qaeda in general or 9/11 anywhere other than the fantasies of the neocons.

[tomndebb]

FDR was worse then an imbecile and a moral slug, too!!! Because I said so, that’s WHY!!! See the resemblance?

Well, it is esy to see the resemblance between you and an imbecile and a moral slug, so you have me there.

On the other hand, your analogy is simply stupid. Arguing campaigns against the same enemy (Norway vs North Africa against Nazi Germany, in either case) does not correspond to fighting a war against stateless terrorists, then opening a second diversive campaign against a sovereign state–especially one that was also an enemy to the same terrorists and which was not a threat (and had no possibility of being a threat) to us while we battled the actual enemies.

[New_Iskander]

@crowmanyclouds

It’s a WW2 movie moron! The Best Years of Our Lives

So sorry, didn’t type a numeral. My profound, most humble and sincere apologies.

@tomndebb

it is esy to see the resemblance between you and an imbecile and a moral slug

The word is easy you moronic cretin, imbecile, idiotic moron! e-A-sy!

[FinnAgain]

@jayjay

I predict that his explanation of that one will involved conflating the War on Terror with the war in Iraq once again, as if Iraq had anything to do with either al-Qaeda in general or 9/11 anywhere other than the fantasies of the neocons.

Actually, it could be argued that if Sadaam violated the terms of the cease fire then the war never really ended.

Not saying I’m arguing that, just that it’s possible to do so.

[Squink]

@New Iskander

The word is easy you moronic cretin, imbecile, idiotic moron! e-A-sy!

FOOL! He left that A-hole as a trap, and you’ve fallen into it.

[bizzwire]

@jayjay

I predict that his explanation of that one will involved conflating the War on Terror with the war in Iraq once again, as if Iraq had anything to do with either al-Qaeda in general or 9/11 anywhere other than the fantasies of the neocons.

You got yerself a bet. I predict that he studiously avoids any reference to this bit of self-delusion much in the way that someone who farts in an elevator will stare at the floor, even though there is only one other person present.

[SteveG1]

@New Iskander

SteveG1,
Yes, good Americans, one and all. You too. So why are you always carping here?

I’ts what I do.

@New Iskander

I guess the moral is, some things you just don’t say, even after the war. Don’t say this war is not necessary. Unless you insist that there was no war until Bush started it, of course. So make that point very clear.

OK, there was no war until Bush started it. He has still failed to convince ME that it was necessary. I can only suppose, that is because his reasons are inadequate. If the reasons are inadequate, and instead of reasons we only get lies, threats of terminal doom and slogans, well then I still have to say it is unnecessary. Just what are the reasons? Did Iraq attack us? No. They couldn’t attack anyone. No capabilities. Did they have WMD? No. Did they try to buy nuclear materials? No. So why did we attack? Saddam was already whipped before we even started. He was all bluster. Every “justification” has proven not only false, but deliberately false.

@New Iskander

Same now. We are at war and the war we must have. And we must finish it conclusively so there will not be another one for decades. What do you think was the better place to start? Iran? Syria? Or sit in Afghanistan, at the end of extremely vulnerable supply chain? What do you think would be happening in Afghanistan? Same carnage we had to go through in Iraq, except our position would be a lot more vulnerable, that’s what. Now, we went through the storm and we gained foothold in two countries instead just one.

I’m sorry, wasting U.S. lives for “positions” and “foot holds” sounds too much like wars of aggression and empire. Why do we need foot holds? Are we gearing up for more and bigger invasions nearby? Pre-emptive war, based loosely on what MIGHT happen, is insane. According to treaties WE signed, it is a Bad Thing.

@New Iskander

The only time you are absolutely wrong at war is when you lose. For example, if Commies would lose their nerve first in Vietnam, the whole historical assessment of that conflict would be different. We’d be talking about the vision and genius of JFK and LBJ, instead of trying to change the subject. You think Commies didn’t do mistakes? You think they didn’t sacrifice their forces unnecessarily? Hundreds times more then we did! But they won the war, and at war that’s all that matters.

JFK had us in Nam on a limited basis, as advisors. LBJ ramped it up, based on the “domino theory”. Back then, if we didn’t fight Commies there, we’d have to fight them here. Just like the Terrorists now. It is just a rerun of the old, FAILED argument. Robert McNamara years later said it was not a very smart thing to do and regretted his involvement. The Nam war was “predicated” on the Tonkin incident… a Navy ship sailed into Haiphong harbor. It was SUPPOSEDLY attacked. That was used as the “justification” by LBJ. We sailed a warship into their harbor, maybe HOPING it would be attacked(?).

@New Iskander

So stop aiding the Enemy.

You gotta be kidding.

@Vietnam Veterans Against the War

http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=512
Listening to many who speak of that war today, it would be easy to believe it was all glory and honor. Many of us experienced the days of boredom, and most of us survived the minutes of horrors. It was a war of mud, blood, and sweat. We saw things our schools hadn’t taught us, and we smelled various types of feces—not much different from any other war.
Some, even some veterans, believe we could have won. Reasonable people can differ on that. In any case, after all our sacrifices, we lost. But we swore the country would learn “the lessons of Vietnam.”
For most Americans, in the end, it was a war based on lies. We learned that LBJ lied about the incidents in the Tonkin Gulf to get us into the war. We learned, thirty years later, that Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara realized in the early sixties that we couldn’t win—but he kept saying we could win. …
We learned that military operations are ineffective without a well-defined target, a well-defined withdrawal strategy, and a well-defined rebuilding strategy. We learned that military victories don’t necessarily mean that our troops are able put their weapons down.
We learned that our country has a long history of turning its back on the returning troops, beginning with the American Revolution. In our case, our leaders denied the existence of Agent Orange, PTSD, and other war-related problems. We learned that our veterans have to fight our own government to have their problems addressed. …
Those are the lessons of Vietnam. We swore back in the ‘70s and ‘80s that we would learn those lessons before we would send our sons and daughters into war again.
We lied.
Our current leaders supported the war in Vietnam while we were fighting, but most of them didn’t have the balls to go themselves. Today we call them “chickenhawks.”
Chickenhawks didn’t learn the lessons. They stayed home with Mommy and watched the war on TV. From what they saw, they knew that what we were doing was right.
Those chickenhawks are lying to us today. It’s bad enough that our leaders lied to get us into the current war. It’s bad enough that our government is lying to us, telling us that we’re winning, saying there’s a light at the end of the tunnel. It’s bad enough that they have flimflammed the troops to support them.
VVAW might be able to bypass all the lies.
We can’t forgive the many who wrap themselves in the Christian banner—just as they use the Stars and Stripes—to spout the slogan “Support the Troops” while cutting veterans’ benefits and veterans’ health care. Many of them would like to privatize the VA.
We wish them all a special spot in the center circle of hell.
So, what’s your resolution?

Note: Today’s Iraq veterans are finding that they have to fight their own govenment AGAIN, just to get what the earned. So who is supporting the troops? It sure isn’t the people who sent then to this war, is it? You want to support the troops? Give them back their VA benefits and healthcare. Stop throwing them on the trash heap. Give them a straight answer when they ask WHY. By the way, you do know (right) that the reason the troops have no body armor is because OUR government never bothered to order it from the manufacturer. You knew that, right?

@Robert Scheer

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/97_columns/052797.htm
The president’s secretly recorded phone conversations that the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library recently released in response to a court order are an essential primer on the banality of war.
In one cut, Johnson gets into a drawling cracker-barrel chat with his Senate buddy Richard Russell from Georgia about taking the plunge into Vietnam. That was in May 1964, when American troops were still sparsely deployed there.
“I don’t think the people of the country know much about Vietnam and . . . they care a hell of a lot less,” Johnson tells Russell, who reminds him, “I know, but you go sending a whole lot of our boys out there and you will hear something about that.” Johnson broods on that: “Yeah, that’s right, that’s exactly right, that’s what I’m talking about. We had 35 killed, we got enough hell from the public over 35 this year.” …
In another conversation, Johnson tells his national security advisor, McGeorge Bundy, “It looks to me like we’re getting into another Korea. I don’t see what we can ever hope to get out of there with once we’re committed. . . . I don’t think it’s worth fighting for and I don’t think we can get out, and it’s just the biggest damn mess.” But instead of owning up to a failed policy, Johnson lied to the public about the necessity of a war that never made sense to him or his key advisors. …
Three months later, Johnson found his main excuse for the war. American ships had reported a possible attack by North Vietnamese PT boats in the Gulf of Tonkin. Johnson rushed to announce his retaliation bombing of North Vietnam in time for the late evening news. In fact, there had been no attack, and once-secret cables now clearly reveal that Johnson was informed of the likelihood of error well before he took that drastic step escalating the war. The captain of the destroyer Maddox had cabled that “it is supposed that sonar man was hearing ship’s own propeller beat,” which he had misinterpreted as torpedo explosions. But, as Defense Secretary Robert McNamara cabled in response to naval officers who recommended waiting before retaliating: “The president wants to go on the air at 11:15 p.m., that is the problem.”
The president concealed this information three days later when he got Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which he cited as equivalent to a declaration of war. …
Johnson swept the election that fall, but his Republican opponent, Sen. Barry Goldwater, was right when he said, in a 1980 interview, “I’ll be perfectly honest with you, I think it was a complete phony. I think Johnson plain lied to the Congress and got that resolution.” …
By the war’s end 11 years later, Lyndon Johnson and his successor, Richard Nixon, had left 58,000 Americans and 1 million Vietnamese dead. But all of that death had brought with it a perverse pride of purpose. They cannot have died in vain, it was once again said. Patriotism came to be defined, as it most often is, not by rational devotion to the security of the nation but as blind allegiance to the folly of leaders without the courage to honestly lead. …
Think of the consequences–the loss of prestige, the global expansion of communism, the threat to the very existence of the free world. If we don’t defeat the communists in Vietnam, we’ll have to fight them in San Diego, was a thought uttered by more than one ostensibly sane man.

A bit of irony is here. Johnson defeated Goldwater for the election, by painting Goldwater as a war crazy hawk. There even was a classic ad - the one with the little girl and the mushroom cloud. A classic. At least Nixon finally found the will to get us out. As someone who was in the Army at the time, I will always be grateful, no matter what else he got caught doing… I didn’t want to go, but would have if the orders came through. I was one relieved li’l puppy.

@Reuters

U.S. intelligence officials in 1964 skewed evidence of an attack on two U.S. destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin to support claims of communist aggression that led to a massive escalation of the Vietnam War, according to a newly declassified government document.
An article by a National Security Agency historian, released by the NSA this week along with intelligence reports and other related documents, said officials at the spy agency withheld nearly 90 percent of intelligence on the Aug. 4, 1964, incident to back allegations of a North Vietnamese attack.
“It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened. It is that no attack happened that night,” NSA historian Robert Hanyok wrote.
Hanyok’s article, which appeared in a classified NSA publication in 2001, was based on a review of newly discovered signals intelligence documents from 41 years ago.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident gave President Lyndon Johnson carte blanche for a huge U.S. military buildup in Southeast Asia that led to the deaths of more than 58,000 U.S. soldiers and over 2 million Vietnamese civilians.

So now. We haven’t learned anything from Vietnam. We still lie to get into wars. We are using the same arguments and slogans. We are still painting all nonbelievers as unAmerican (just as YOU just did).

@New Iskander

So stop aiding the Enemy.

Maybe I should start calling you Ann Coulter Junior. Aiding the enemy my ass.

[Guinastasia]

SteveG1, I non-sexually love you.

[Revenant_Threshold]

I predict; NI’ll come back with a joke about a typo SteveG1 made, or merely state something in response to the Ann Coulter Jr. comment.

[SteveG1]

@Guinastasia

SteveG1, I non-sexually love you.

Thanks there.
Damn, I almost forgot - the thing that kicked this off was NI’s “learned observation” that the Democrats were {among other things) draft dodging, tax dodging so and so’s. Funny, I saw a few Medal Of Honor holders in there. That doesn’t come in a pack of baseball cards. It’s usually given posthumously. I saw quite a few “fearless war leaders” who in reality are just a bunch of fucking cowards. I should have also included that other great patriot Mister “I shit my own pants and wallowed in it for a whole week to avoid the Vietnam War, but I am a stone killer and bad as hell muthafucka” Ted Nugent for good measure. Fucking cowards, every one of them. I was scared shitless of Nam, but would have gone if sent. Would/did any of them?

My country right or wrong, but when it is wrong, MAKE IT RIGHT. And throw the bums out. How old are you Isky? Are you enough of a true believer to carry your ass down to the enlistment office? In my time, I did that, and took my chances despite my fears. How about you?

[GIGObuster]

@New Iskander

I guess the moral is, some things you just don’t say, even after the war. Don’t say this war is not necessary. Unless you insist that there was no war until Bush started it, of course. So make that point very clear.

There was no connection with 9/11 and Al-qaeda. There were no WMD for Sadam to give to Al-qaeda.

Once we agree that we are at war, Commander in Chief has a right to conduct it his way. For example, WWII was clearly necessary. But opening the front against the Germans in Africa? WHY? Why not in Norway? Every imbecile could plainly see that Norway was a better place to start the fight against Hitler!!

A certified moron you are: Historians are more certain now that the move germany made to take over Norway was stupid, the allies made an effort to stop it, but after leaving, the allies decided that preventing Germany to control the Suez canal in Egypt (and then access to middle east oil) was a better use of resources.

FDR was worse then an imbecile and a moral slug, too!!! Because I said so, that’s WHY!!! See the resemblance?

To an idiot yes, (you, not FDR)

Same now. We are at war and the war we must have.

No we don’t

And we must finish it conclusively so there will not be another one for decades.

“The War to End All Wars”, yeah, I heard that stupid statement before.

What do you think was the better place to start? Iran? Syria? Or sit in Afghanistan, at the end of extremely vulnerable supply chain?

It was made vulnerable by the distraction of the Iraq war.

What do you think would be happening in Afghanistan? Same carnage we had to go through in Iraq, except our position would be a lot more vulnerable, that’s what.

Here more of your ignorance shows:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-28-troop-shifts_x.htm

WASHINGTON — In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures.
The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. When the White House raised a new priority, it took specialists away from the Afghanistan effort to ensure Iraq was covered.

Those were just two of the tradeoffs required because of what the Pentagon and CIA acknowledge is a shortage of key personnel to fight the war on terrorism. The question of how much those shifts prevented progress against al-Qaeda and other terrorists is putting the Bush administration on the defensive.

Now, we went through the storm and we gained foothold in two countries instead just one.

The enemy are islamic extremists, not the the whole of islam you moron.

The only time you are absolutely wrong at war is when you lose. For example, if Commies would lose their nerve first in Vietnam, the whole historical assessment of that conflict would be different. We’d be talking about the vision and genius of JFK and LBJ, instead of trying to change the subject. You think Commies didn’t do mistakes? You think they didn’t sacrifice their forces unnecessarily? Hundreds times more then we did! But they won the war, and at war that’s all that matters.

See the documentary *The fog of war * you moron.

So stop aiding the Enemy.

Osama was happy that we took down Saddam, we are helping the enemy grow the longer we stay in Iraq.