Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Sunday, August 19, 2007

Seven soldiers of the 82nd Airborne: To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. We operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are -- an army of occupation -- and force our withdrawal.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

DB_Cooper

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Sounds like the army is turning left also.

Sounds like the regular army NCO's have more common sense than their Commander in Chief.

I'll bet out of the occupying forces there I could find 7 soldiers who believe in global warming and 7 more who don't. I could also find 7 who believe Hillary is the answer to the world's problems and 7 more who think Rudy is. I could also find 7 who think they are doing the right thing in Iraq. But we won't read about them in the NYT.

However, I'm glad they are all free to express their opinions as civilians are able to do.

Goatman

Two polls I read of U.S. military personnel in Iraq showed 70% of the boots on the ground think we should leave as soon as reasonably possible.

I think one thing that could be easily overlooked by you (essentially living on an island) is the fact that right now temperatures are close to 120 degrees in Iraq, with 2 million Iraqis living amid a desperate situation in refugee camps within Iraq short of water and food, and the rest of the Iraqi populous living without electricity or running water and in a state of constant fear. Wouldn't you agree we have to look at Iraq from their perspective to really understand the situation there? It's not about democracy for them - it's about daily survival under conditions worse than under Saddam

America is not winning hearts and minds. Most of the Iraqi hearts are broken, with millions of extended family members having lost a loved one, and most of their minds concerned with living through another day in dire and miserable conditions.

It is, after all, the Iraqi's opinions who matter most. They are THERE.

I wish nothing but a completely peaceful outcome in iraq. How can we afford look at this 'war' as Americans from an entirely American perspective anymore? Dealing with the realities is the only road that will ever lead Americans home and Iraqis to a sense of security and regular daily life.

iraq is desperate situation for any average Iraqi. They'd gladly trade places with you.

I'll bet we can find 7 or more Republicans who are as oblivious to reality as Bush.

"I think one thing that could be easily overlooked by you (essentially living on an island) "

Right now. Under normal operating conditions, I live here three weeks then am home three weeks in San Antonio. I'm not completely out of touch.

But nonetheless, I'm opposed to this war. I've been consistent on that. I am for the war on terror, but not the Iraqi war. People have a had time understanding that this concept is possible.

Also, no matter what issue is raised, I think you've read enough of my posts to know that I seek fairness and truth. My original post in this thread was simply to make people think that "yes, there are 7 people who think this way, but there are 7 more who don't". Even though I agreed with the 7 soldiers in the article, that doesn't keep me from asking questions like ,"What does the other side think?"

"It is, after all, the Iraqi's opinions who matter most. They are THERE."

There you go. That's the crux of the matter, isn't it? It couldn't've been said better.

"I'll bet we can find 7 or more Republicans who are as oblivious to reality as Bush."

"Seven Soldiers: We're an Army of Occupation (6 comments) ...
"Rove: I'm Not Divisive (12 comments) ...
"Maradona: I hate America...

Are we in trouble? herm

"Are we in trouble? herm"

Are you implying the state of things is based on what a couple of people throw on a "yellow dog" blog? If so, the question should be asked in 1st person singular, not plural. Then I would say the answer is "yes"

Goatman

I couldn't agree with you more that we need to all be able to see both sides of an issue, what we need not only over Iraq, but also on pressing issues at home here as well.

The best outcome for all of us on everything is to find the reasonable and fairminded roads, and for America to find it's strength in the middle. The best ideas are the ones that help the most people.

I've been a registered Independent all my life. I'm for helping the less fortunate - the truly Christian thing to do in a land of plenty, and other things like fiscal responsibility. But, I've had a lot of problems with the GOP in years of late.

On the domestic front we're not reducing government when we vacancies with recently resigned or retired personnel coming back to make 4X's as much as 'contractors' (happening in DOD intelligence gathering and other positions). Not when we're paying 48,000 'contractors' i.e. security forces $180,000 a year apiece while Bush is opposed to a 3% pay raise for U.S. military personnel and is not increasing VA funding exponentially to meet the demands of vets from all wars present and past.

Anyway, my handle says exactly what I yearn for again.




PS

Hope that storm doesn't make for a rocky ride for you


-Anyway, my handle says exactly what I yearn for again.



So does Rob the A-hole's.




(Sorry. Sorry, in the name of Unity, that was just wrong!. I take that back. I won't press the butto......)

"Not when we're paying 48,000 'contractors' i.e. security forces $180,000 a year apiece while Bush is opposed to a 3% pay raise for U.S. military personnel and is not increasing VA funding exponentially to meet the demands of vets from all wars present and past"

Being a veteran, that chaps my ass more than anything. And I don't mean that from a selfish standpoint, but from an empathetical one. One of the first things Reagan did when he went into office (two weeks before I got out) was to give the military a huge pay raise. That was great. (I was making only $767/mo as an E5 over 6, plus $100 sea pay) But presidents after him have forgotten about the guys in the trenches. Sad.

Goatman


"I'll bet out of the occupying forces there I could find 7 soldiers who believe in global warming and 7 more who don't."

You have no point. These men weren't "found" they stepped forward to make their point.



"I could also find 7 who believe Hillary is the answer to the world's problems and 7 more who think Rudy is."

You have no point. These men weren't "found" they stepped forward to make their point.



"I could also find 7 who think they are doing the right thing in Iraq. But we won't read about them in the NYT."

Says who--are you the editor? Again, you have no point. These men weren't "found" they stepped forward to make their point.




"However, I'm glad they are all free to express their opinions as civilians are able to do."

If they are in the military they do not have the right to Free Speech.


So do you have the courage today to say whether you consider attacks on the troops to be attacks on us?

You're right, Bob. I have no point. Now go away.

So do you have the courage today to say whether you consider attacks on the troops to be attacks on us?

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-08-19 08:48 PM




You're right, Bob. I have no point. Now go away.

Posted by goatman at 2007-08-19 09:00 PM


I take that as a NO.

Bob -- just type whatever you want me to believe. I'll agree to it all if you promise to go away, OK?

"So do you have the courage today to say whether you consider attacks on the troops to be attacks on us?"

Your are right, Bob. Now go away.


"I take that as a NO. "

Yeah, whatever, Bob. You are right. Now go away

Tweedledee and Tweedledum are back at it? These two guys should start a sitcom. It could be titled, "Idiots On Parade".

'Tweedledee and Tweedledum are back at it? These two guys should start a sitcom. It could be titled, "Idiots On Parade"."

Yes, you've pointed that out before. What can I do to make you go away?

"back at it?"

A battle of wits performed by unarmed opponents.

"A battle of wits performed by unarmed opponents."

Clever. I've never heard that before.

I guess Goatman misses the point of a political blog.

He seems to think asking whether attacks on our troops are attacks on is a nonsense questions.

The only time he can come up with an answer is if you ask about his job. Other than that---no answers available.

Zatoichi

You debate as well as Goatman. It is hard to tell the difference between your posts and his. You should get along well.

A battle of wits performed by unarmed opponents.

Geez Zat!! What is up your ass?

"You debate as well as Goatman"

That's right, Zat. YOu have to use words (?) like:

"uhhump uhhoomm blubber wahhhhhh MOMMY !!! Snorkle sniffle splurp BOO HOO HOO"

to debate at Bob's level. Actuall snippet from a BB post, BTW.

BB: You seem to want people to take you seriously. And yet you never say anything which people can take seriously. What's up with that?

I've never heard that before.

Posted by goatman




NUBE

Do you recognize "anon.petit.fi?"

Do you recognize "anon.petit.fi?"

No, but I'll google it if you want me to. Looks like bastardized latin.

Moder8

I take the question I have been asking Goatman and BL2 for two days very seriously, yet they seem to have trouble coming up with an answer. Maybe you can answer it or explain to me why it shouldn't be considered a serious question.

BL2 was saying that we hadn't been attacked since 911. I pointed out that we had been attacked almost every day and had lost 3500 people to terrorist attacks since 911.

BL2 says that attacks on soldiers don't count as attacks on us. Goatman seems to disagree with my point of view that attacks on our troops are attacks on us, but doesn't seem to have the courage to say it.


So--what to you say moder8? Are attacks on our troops attacks on us? Or isn't the question serious enough for you? Goatman says the question is nonsense---what do you say?

You guys, being tweedledee and tweedledum are engaged in a bickerfest over semantics which would make Lewis Carroll proud.

You guys, being tweedledee and tweedledum are engaged in a bickerfest over semantics which would make Lewis Carroll proud.

"Looks like bastardized latin."

NUBE without a doubt.

BB: You seem to want people to take you seriously. And yet you never say anything which people can take seriously. What's up with that?

Posted by moder8 at 2007-08-19 09:39 PM

Seem M8, he can't answer your question either. I thought it was a great one, but Buffy prefers to deflect by trying to drag you in to another unrealated topic with his Tractor Beam of Ignorance. Sad as it seems, I think in his twisted little mind his pretzel logic deduces there is actually a connection between your question and his deflection.

No, I don't get it either.

"What is up your ass?"

Posted by eberly


Nothing since my last colonoscopy.

". . .my last colonoscopy."

details, please.

Moder8

Do you see my 9:50 post as a deflection from your question as Goatman does?

It's a stupid question based on the semantical definition of what constitutes a terrorist attack.

". . .my last colonoscopy."

details, please.

Posted by goatman


My

How anal.

The drugs were great.
The doc doesn't want to see my ass for 10 years.
The drugs were so good I'm almost sorry.

Almost.
Like in Apocalypto.

"I've never heard that before."

Posted by goatman



NUBE

anon.petit.fi = Johan Helsingius

Notorius re-mailer associated in some kinda scandal involving scientology.

Is Spud close?

Be Well.

NUBE

rhymes with "rube" or "newbie"?

"rhymes with "rube" or "newbie"?"

Posted by goatman



NUBE

Night greenhorn.
I think you'd do to ride the river with.
Keep that rig upright.

"Night greenhorn.
I think you'd do to ride the river with.
Keep that rig upright."

Rhymes with all that?

"It's a stupid question. . ."

That's the only kind Bob knows. Come to think of it that's the only kind of answers he comes up with, too.

Rhymes with all that?

Posted by goatman


Look up Bill Jordan and the River Belt.

Gotta crash.
work ...

"Notorius re-mailer associated in some kinda scandal involving scientology."

Is Spud close?

I have no idea about the L Rod Hoover connection, but it was an anonymous re-mailer.

Wanker.

I miss the old days of usenet outrage.

Especially alt.binaries.bondage.hamsters.
duct_tape.


It's a stupid question based on the semantical definition of what constitutes a terrorist attack.

Posted by moder8 at 2007-08-19 10:09 PM


So---what constitutes a terroist attack?

To me a terrorist attack is when a terrorist attacks someone.

What is it to you?

Using any basis you choose---do you consider attacks on our troops to be attacks on us?

7 out of how many soldiers in Iraq?

Of course the countless numbers of soliders who believe in the mission and who believe the surge is working, judging by many interviews, get ignored by the NY Time once again

Buffy Bob is like a booger on your finger that you can't flick off.

Goatman

What do I have to do to get rid of you?

run along boy

What started out as an interesting debate has again turned into a verbal shoving match.

Entertaining for a while but, alas.....
I must go away.

Good night and may God Bless

The point is this:

If people claim we haven't been attacked since 911, the only way that can be true is if the attacks on our troops are not considered to be attacks on us.

What do I have to do to get rid of you?

Hope larry shows up. Goatman like him some larry.

"Goatman like him some larry."

BA-A-A-A-AH!

Buffy Bob is like a booger on your finger that you can't flick off.

Oh, I'm not going to read his post if he continues in childish name callin!

Huh! What!

You mean GOATMAN can't seem to practice what he preaches. Hah! Like I said, "the real hypocrits just can't stand up to actual to factual debates."

Whining is becoming for those who know so little but yet even the dull and ignorant deserved to be heard.

alt.binaries.bondage.hamsters. duct_tape.

Spud imagines this site has absolutely nothing wotsoever to do with them Homeland Security warnings.

Be Well.

***** But presidents after him have forgotten about the guys in the trenches. Sad.

Posted by goatman *****

........he has'nt forgotten, .....he just does'nt care...

Attacks on an occupying force (our troops) by ANYONE are just that - attacks on an occupying force. They are NOT attacks on the mainland USA. (Notice I don't use the germanic or russian term "homeland" perverted by the current misadministration) The Iraqis live in Iraq. How can they be terrorists when they are trying to get US (the invaders) out of Iraq. If you want them to stop attacking US occupation forces, simple remove the fucking troops. The attacks will stop.

Really dumb straw man type question similar to: "Have you stopped beating your wife?". There is no correct yes/no answer.

The right wing just can't get over the fact that we weren't welcomed with open arms and flowers as "liberators" as their lord and leader and the rest of his unholy trinity promised.

Nuke the sandniggers and be done with it!

Geez Zat!! What is up your ass?

Posted by eberly at 2007-08-19 09:38 PM


Probably his finger. He's reasoning if he keeps trying he can create new life from the same old shit.


***** Nuke the sandniggers and be done with it!

Posted by Secret_Squirrel *****

........I thought we came to bring democracy ??.......

......we call them insurgents...they call themselves freedom fighters.....they did not ask us to enter their country.......they just want us to leave.....

The definitions of "occupation" that apply to the military are these:

"a : the act or process of taking possession of a place or area : SEIZURE b : the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force c : the military force occupying a country or the policies carried out by it"

I don't see how what these soldiers are saying is "news" or in any way controversial. The word means what it means. If you understand the word, then you know our we are occupying Iraq.




Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable