very hard to feel sorry for occupiers.

kinda like people who rooted for the redcoats.

RIP

These souls do the grim work that enable kissy-snack
liberals to whine about their soft lives.

SHAWN should be ashamed of itself.

Yep, Shawn. We should just pull out and let these people fight it out....

When can we pull the cops out of the inner cities of America....

You're okay with that too. Right, Shawn?

#3

oh america is the worlds police officially now?

why do you wanna spend money making someone elses country better and leave america behind.

oh america is the worlds police officially now?

very hard to feel sorry for occupiers.

kinda like people who rooted for the redcoats.

#1 | Posted by Shawn

I know 2 Afghan men who are 21 and 23 now, born in Afghanistan, came here a few years ago to escape the Taliban, went to Cherry Creek High School in Denver, finishing up at CU and one is joining the CIA as an interpreter and the other is going back to serve in government. These are their convictions. I hope they succeed!!! They want their home country back from the Satanist!

So, they love the "occupiers" you fucked up asshole! They love them because they are a huge weapon against the backward thinking women hating Taliban.

We should just pull out and let these people fight it out....
#3 | Posted by Washboard

.....yes.....we should just pull out and stop wasting our lives and our money......

......it's not our fight.......and there's nothing to be won.....

one imperial apologist after another.

i suppose you motherfuckers supported the nazis when they took poland too.

"all we need is space"

"all we need is space"

#8 Posted by Shawn

i suppose you motherfuckers supported the nazis when they took poland too.
#8 | Posted by Shawn

.......the Taliban are Afghanis, we are not protecting one country from another........

......we are taking sides in a civil war, where regardless of who wins, we have nothing to gain.......

.......additionally, we paid to form the Taliban (back when Russia was in Afghanistan), we continue to pay the Taliban through payments to regional tribes, and we pay even more to Karzai's government, to fight against them........

......we are financing both sides in the civil war......

......and we wonder why we can't win anything there......

Liberals don't understand people serving their country for love of country. They despise them and have historically preferred to spit on servicemen and women than salute them. I'm sure Harry and Nancy will have an extra toast of Champaign tomorrow night to commemorate the loss of what they consider 10 more American Terrorists.

Liberals don't understand people serving their country for love of country. They despise them and have historically preferred to spit on servicemen and women than salute them.

You're right, you guys built and defended this country all by yourselves

fascists don't understand that people who love their country aren't desirable.

your roman comic book character didn't love rome you stupid assholes.

he supposedly loved people. ALL PEOPLE.

one stupid jackhole after another.

Liberals don't understand people serving their country for love of country. They despise them and have historically preferred to spit on servicemen and women than salute them.

LOL.

Well, that's certainly the narrative rtards have spun fer themselves over the years and hardcore morans like yerself apparently still buy into it.

That noted it was a lie the first time it was sed, the last time it was sed and will continue to be a Big Lie for the foreseeable future.

K?

Here's the deal, snowflake.

You think conditional support which is what most liberals have fer the military is in some way inferior or not real when compared to yer rtarded "my country right or wrong" unconditional support of the military. Which, as we've seen all too recently in many rtards, goes up to and including torture.

Good liberals question everything.

Good conservatives, apparently, question nothing.

Supporting the neccessity of the military and appreciating the job they do (which includes facing loss of sanity, limb, or life) while still holding them accountable for any gross violations of human rights or Geneva conventions is a bit of a moral balancing act but it's certainly a more creditable and noteworthy form of patriotism than the kind you seem to believe in.

People like you would make excellent citizens of a totalitarian state in that you would never question, always obey and do anything you are told to do in the name of the state and raw power.

That makes you less a patriot and more of a coward and a sheep.

K?

Glad we had this li'l talk.

Be Well.

Bomb Kills 8 CIA Employees in Afghanistan

LOL.... bye, suckers.

Have a blast.

How many mercs can dance on the head of a pin, I wonder?

Good conservatives, apparently, question nothing.

#14 | Posted by dethspud

How come Conservatives question EVERYTHING that Barry, Harry, and Nancy are doing?

The ignorance continues....

People like you would make excellent citizens of a totalitarian state in that you would never question, always obey and do anything you are told to do in the name of the state and raw power.

#14 | Posted by dethspud

Where are you getting this shit?

AMAZING!

You only get two minutes of hate, Eddie. Make 'em count!

You only get two minutes of hate, Eddie.

Why does the right get less than the left? That doesn't seem fair.

Why doesn't Goatman read a book?

Why doesn't Goatman read a book?

I usually read at least one a week. Did you have one to suggest?

How come Conservatives question EVERYTHING that Barry, Harry, and Nancy are doing?
#17 | Posted by Eddie

.....I guess according to Bogey1355, conservatives:

"don't understand people serving their country for love of country. They despise them and have historically preferred to spit on, than salute them.
#11 | Posted by bogey1355"

Did you have one to suggest?

1984.

"Did you have one to suggest?"

1984.

Excellent suggestion, but I read it 40 years ago and I seldom re-read books. So many books, so little time, you know.

You should re-read it. I usually don't repeat books either, but that's one I'd suggest reading, especially now that you're older.

You should re-read it. I usually don't repeat books either, but that's one I'd suggest reading, especially now that you're older.

You could be right. Though I seldom re-read books, I've re-read a couple of Heinleins as an adult and saw a deeper story than the simple adventure I read as a kid.

It also might help you understand my Two Minutes of Hate comment earlier. Assuming you weren't being deliberately obtuse, which admittedly is quite possibly a faulty assumption on my part.

It also might help you understand my Two Minutes of Hate comment earlier.

I missed the connection the first time (as I said, it's been 40 years) but I remember it now.

I missed the connection the first time (as I said, it's been 40 years) but I remember it now.

Congratulations, your memory is better than Reagan's was during Iran-Contra.

Most conservatives don't understand that the country was not set up to fight wars for other people. We were not set up to meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations.

I think we are causing more of a problem there than a good. We create a larger target to attack, we plant ourselves in the main cities to defend them, yet draw a lot more fire on ourselves and by association the innocent civilians around us.

If we want to support one side of the conflict, fine, but we do not need to have our troops there and our resources when we could greatly use our troops and resources here at home in the present circumstances.

I hate this stupid mentality that pro military = patriotic. That is not true in the least.

If it is, we need less patriots who are motivated by shearly by their emotions, and more thinking individuals who can be rational and calm in the face of danger and difficult circumstance.

The "conservative stance of 'it is better to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission" is quickly getting tired and has always been ridiculous, as we hate when anyone else decided to act that way.

We are the hypocritical nation filled with hypocritical people.

#30 snoof
1984. LOL. Good one, Snoof. Definitely a must re-read for the happy Goat slave. Speaking of goats, perhaps Animal Farm too.

He who let's the goat be laid on his shoulders is soon after forced to carry the cow.

Old Italian proverb.

Considering the kind of clandestine operation they are running, with the drugs and all, It's really no more tragic then what's going on in Mexico every day.

Most conservatives don't understand that the country was not set up to fight wars for other people. We were not set up to meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations.

I think we are causing more of a problem there than a good. We create a larger target to attack, we plant ourselves in the main cities to defend them, yet draw a lot more fire on ourselves and by association the innocent civilians around us.

If we want to support one side of the conflict, fine, but we do not need to have our troops there and our resources when we could greatly use our troops and resources here at home in the present circumstances.

#31 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2009-12-31 08:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

What are your recommendations for avoiding a failed nation state in Afghanistan and return of the Taliban to power; a return that likely would provide an expanded safe have for al Quaeda to plan and train for global terror operations (particularly within the U.S. if they can pull them off)?

What about the nukes in Pakistan? Ready to cede possession to radicals there as well?

I am not convinced that deploying our military in Afghanistan ultimately will result in much more than continued loss of blood and treasure (our tax dollars); but, what is a viable alternative?

safe have = safe haven

I usually read at least one a week. Did you have one to suggest?
goatman

My Pet Goat doesn't count.

What are your recommendations for avoiding a failed nation state in Afghanistan and return of the Taliban to power; a return that likely would provide an expanded safe have for al Quaeda to plan and train for global terror operations (particularly within the U.S. if they can pull them off)?

Why do you think it's such a problem? A major reason that Afghanistan is the mess it is today was the 1979 Soviet invasion and American response, to fund the mujhadeen. In addition to the millions of dollars of aid and Stinger missiles, we even went to far as to air-drop "textbooks" reminding them it was their duty in Islam to drive the infidels from their country.

So, what we're left with is perhaps an unwanted aspect of the so-called Peace Dividend.

But at the USSR isn't around to threaten us any longer.

On the whole, would you say it was worth it, or not?

I would like to find a right-winger to honestly tell me, yes, 9/11 regrettable, but worth it if that's what it took to bring down the USSR.

So far nobody has agreed with this, which makes me wonder why so many on the right still favor American military intervention if 9/11 is the sort of blow-back we can expect.

very hard to feel sorry for occupiers.

kinda like people who rooted for the redcoats.

#1 | Posted by Shawn

What a piece of scum you are. You must have forgotten that we are there because the people who killed 3,000 Americans trained there. And the redcoats had good reason to be here too. We were trying to break away from their rule, which gives them a very valid reason for attacking. Okay, go ahead and go back to your self loathing and America hating. I'm sure you revel in it.

I am not convinced that deploying our military in Afghanistan ultimately will result in much more than continued loss of blood and treasure (our tax dollars); but, what is a viable alternative?

I would suggest that a problem thirty years in the making won't be solved overnight. Additionally, extremism takes root easier when people are desperate and feel, possibly with some justice, that they have been wronged by superpowers like the United States.

Short version: Instead of dropping bombs on Afghanistan, if we were to simply drop money it might be more effective getting the results we want, and cost less too.

Another thing that might help would be if we curbed our demand for opium-derived drugs. But I don't see that happening, since our society has decided to address the criminal symptoms of addiction while ignoring medical treatment of addiction.

And another thing, Shawn. These are the guys who are out there every single day doing the things that are necessary to keep your sorry ass safe and secure. You may not believe that but it couldn't be more true. You owe them your undying gratitude for your way of life and the fact that you can speak your mind and have the type of security that most people in the world don't have.

These are the guys who are on the real front line protecting your ass and you should be thankful for it. Instead you mock them and spit on their graves. What a worthless person you are.

You must have forgotten that we are there because the people who killed 3,000 Americans trained there

Incorrect sir. They trained at flight schools in Florida and Arizona (or was it Nevada?)

But if "they trained there" is your basis for attacking them, well I guess we should expect a lot of attacks from South and Central America as "blow-back" from all the thugs and strongmen churned out by the School of the Americas, amirite?

I am not convinced that deploying our military in Afghanistan ultimately will result in much more than continued loss of blood and treasure (our tax dollars); but, what is a viable alternative?
#35 | Posted by MACV1972

.....just leave and let it sort itself out.......

.....the same question kept us in Viet Nam for ten years too long, the Viet sorted it out, and today American soldiers return as tourists and sit down to meals with old enemies.......

.....we are not responsible for the world.......

have the type of security that most people in the world don't have.

Shawn has universal health insurance?

Oh you meant some other type of security, like a government who listens to our phone calls and reads our emails. Yeah I'm sure he sleeps cozy at night knowing that.

if we were to simply drop money it might be more effective getting the results we want, and cost less too.
#41 | Posted by snoofy

......we are already paying both sides.......

...we give money to the Taliban through funding for 'regional militias' and for 'tribal protection' on supply routes.........

.....and we give even more money to Karzai to fight the same people........

......we are funding both sides in this war......

Tosser, you're a piece of shit and if we were ever face to face I would beat you. This isn't coming from some pussy either. I wrestled in HS and college and my brother and I fought every day when we were kids for the fun of it. You would wake up bloody and lookging for your wallet. Except I would have it running up your credit cards.

Ooooooo! Well, I'll make sure I stay out of your way... Champ. LOL

You must have forgotten that we are there because the people who killed 3,000 Americans trained there.

CIA trained the Saudis?

And the redcoats had good reason to be here too. We were trying to break away from their rule, which gives them a very valid reason for attacking.

Typical Republican canned response. The Brits stole it from the Indians fair and square, so they had a right to protect 'their' land.

The one thing the neo-cons will never do is discuss the reasons why the Saudis were willing to do this to us, that is of course assuming anything in the 911 commission report about that incident was even close to the truth.

"Liberals don't understand people serving their country for love of country. They despise them and have historically preferred to spit on servicemen and women than salute them."

LOL.
Well, that's certainly the narrative rtards have spun fer themselves over the years and hardcore morans like yerself apparently still buy into it.
That noted it was a lie the first time it was sed, the last time it was sed and will continue to be a Big Lie for the foreseeable future.
K?
Here's the deal, snowflake.
You think conditional support which is what most liberals have fer the military is in some way inferior or not real when compared to yer rtarded "my country right or wrong" unconditional support of the military. Which, as we've seen all too recently in many rtards, goes up to and including torture.
Good liberals question everything.
Good conservatives, apparently, question nothing.
Supporting the neccessity of the military and appreciating the job they do (which includes facing loss of sanity, limb, or life) while still holding them accountable for any gross violations of human rights or Geneva conventions is a bit of a moral balancing act but it's certainly a more creditable and noteworthy form of patriotism than the kind you seem to believe in.
People like you would make excellent citizens of a totalitarian state in that you would never question, always obey and do anything you are told to do in the name of the state and raw power.
That makes you less a patriot and more of a coward and a sheep.
K?
Glad we had this li'l talk.
Be Well.
#14 | Posted by dethspud at 2009-12-31 12:03 AM

Newsworthy flag. Thank you for clearly expressing what is so often purposefully misunderstood.

You would still get my vote for ombudsman.

I'll second the newsworthy flag.

OOOoooo! You are so strong... you did Greco-Roman wrestling in high school (gay style wrestling, as we call it).

I am so afraid of you! LOL

Tosser, I hope your whore mother dies a terrible death. If she's already dead LOL.... bye, sucker.

Have a blast

Awwwww.... is that best you got?

Champ?

What a piece of scum you are. You must have forgotten that we are there because the people who killed 3,000 Americans trained there. And the redcoats had good reason to be here too. We were trying to break away from their rule, which gives them a very valid reason for attacking. Okay, go ahead and go back to your self loathing and America hating. I'm sure you revel in it.

--------

fuck off blackshirt asshole.

you are human waste product.

Definitely a must re-read for the happy Goat slave. Speaking of goats, perhaps Animal Farm too.

I've read that one, too. I've often quoted excerpts from it here.

#50 | Posted by macherni at 2009-12-31 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag: Jackass has a new name and far too much free time on his hands.

Afganastan is paramount to our strategic interests as well as those of a civilized world.

What I'd like to know from those of you that would never find any confrontation worth confronting is, just whom, if not the United States, would you prefer to secure world oil supplies, food supplies, and all the plethora of other resources necessary to sustain modern life?

In case you haven't noticed.... No one else stands up and we, after ww2 didn't want them to....

Anyone?

please explain how you are securing the world oil supply in afganistan. or food or the plethora of other shit you want to control. cant even eliminate the drugs.? the cia is in fact just another terrorist organization seeking to do the dirt of their sponsor.

Afganastan is paramount to our strategic interests

More than Pakistan, the home and banker of the taliban, or Yemen or Somolia? Giving al queda 7 years to rebuild and relocate while the west inserted itself into a family feud between pashtun fundies and drug dealers was the worst security decision of the 20th century.

"The soldiers were conducting a community security patrol in order to gather information on the pattern of life and maintain security in the area," Brig. Gen. Daniel Menard, the commander of the 2,800-member Canadian contingent, told reporters. "The journalist was traveling with them to tell the story of what Canada's soldiers are doing in Afghanistan."

What I'd like to know from those of you that would never find any confrontation worth confronting is, just whom, if not the United States, would you prefer to secure world oil supplies, food supplies, and all the plethora of other resources necessary to sustain modern life?

Why do oil supplies need to be "secured" at all? Why can't the free market deliver us oil at a fair price?

Therein lies the answer to your question.

Why do oil supplies need to be "secured" at all? Why can't the free market deliver us oil at a fair price?

I agree with you as a general principle, but unfortunately without a military presence (not necessarily American) a rogue regime like Iran could easily block the Straits of Hormuz and throw the entire world into a financial crisis and literally bring industry and transportation to a standstill, or at least severely cripple them

I agree with you as a general principle, but unfortunately without a military presence (not necessarily American) a rogue regime like Iran could easily block the Straits of Hormuz and throw the entire world into a financial crisis and literally bring industry and transportation to a standstill, or at least severely cripple them

So you're saying you don't really believe in the free market after all? Iran has to sell the world their oil, even if they don't want to?

That doesn't sound like freedom to me. That sounds like the opposite.

So you're saying you don't really believe in the free market after all? Iran has to sell the world their oil, even if they don't want to?

???

I didn't say that at all. Of course Iran has the right to sell their oil. But they don't have the right to block the Straits of Hormuz and prevent Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, et alia from selling theirs.

I thought my previous post was clear. Sorry. I hope you understand my point now.

Goatman, you're saying the market has to be regulated, by force if necessary, in order to keep it "free." Is that it? (I would posit such regulation is the essential purpose of government, but then we'd really be getting off track.)

I'm not sure if we're still on script here. You're talking about securing a shipping lane. Washboard asks "who if not us should secure the world's oil?" and I'm wondering "why do we need to secure it in the first place?"

I probably need clarification on what Washboard means by "secure world oil supplies, food supplies..."

Goatman, you're saying the market has to be regulated...

Honestly, snoofy, how can you so grossly misinterpret my words? Just read what I write. That is exactly what I mean. No interpretation is necessary.

No, I don't believe the market should be regulated. I'll try one more time. If you can't get it the third time, maybe someone with more patience than I can explain it to you.

I believe in the free market. I also believe there are rogue regimes who if unchallenged would disrupt those markets. Therefore a military presence is necessary to prevent that from happening.

If the Persian Gulf were completely demilitarized, do you honestly think Iran wouldn't attempt to control the Straits of Hormuz? If you are naive enough to think they wouldn't, please don't run for president. A pollyanna is the last thing we need in the White House.

If the Persian Gulf were completely demilitarized, do you honestly think Iran wouldn't attempt to control the Straits of Hormuz?

Iran's capabilities are all "hit and run". They can't do "secure and hold".

To do that, you need infrastructure and indigenous defense production industry far greater than they have right now.

Of course, having a nuke will give them unlimited "secure and hold" power. LOL

But really, there is no credible evidence whatsoever that Iran wants a nuke.

Iran's capabilities are all "hit and run". They can't do "secure and hold".

Of course they can't with other military powers present. But without other military powers to stop them, of course they could. That is my point.

Liberals don't understand people serving their country for love of country. They despise them and have historically preferred to spit on servicemen and women than salute them.
LOL.
Well, that's certainly the narrative rtards have spun fer themselves over the years and hardcore morans like yerself apparently still buy into it.
That noted it was a lie the first time it was sed, the last time it was sed and will continue to be a Big Lie for the foreseeable future.
K?
#14 | POSTED BY DETHSPUD AT 2009-12-31 12:03 AM

Well put and very true. The propaganda narrative about war vets being spat upon by lefty war protestors was part of the same nixon regime campaign that attempted to discredit any war vets who returned to speak truth to power in order to help get their brother and sister vets back home from that clusterfk. The spitting myth was started in an attempt to stem the flow of returned vets who were joining the anti war protestor ranks.

One "writer", Bob Greene wrote a book attempting to "document" instances of this spitting "myth". It was easily debunked. Greene, a weekender writer for the Chicago Tribune later was disgraced for messing around with an underage girl who was part of one of his "fluff" stories for the Trib weekender.

First, think about it on the face of it. Which hippie/war protestor would risk life and limb by spitting on a vet in uniform?

Secondly:

Debunking A Myth

By John Zutz (Reviewer)

The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam, by Jerry Lembcke (New York University Press, 1998)

Sounds like a number of trusting souls here would be content for the U.S. to disband the military, dismantle all defense systems, and let everything sort itself out. If we just let everyone do their own thing, certainly they will exert an acceptable measure of self control and do their thing in their own part of the world and leave us alone.

After all, Al Quaeda, et al, don't hate us because we stand in the way of their envisioned Grand Caliphate and despise the things we believe in and the way we live.

Good luck with that.

Why doesn't Goatman read a book?
I usually read at least one a week. Did you have one to suggest?

#22 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2009-12-31 04:17 AM

You have to admit the "My Pet Goat" comment was pretty funny.

I would suggest anything by Mitch Albom. I have read most of his and just received another for my xmas present:

'have a little faith'....Mitch Albom

Enjoy!

Barring that, perhaps you would benefit from:

"Heart of a Patriot" by Max Cleland,

but I know you only honor war vets who share your right wing views.

Here's one for the goat. A must read.