Apr 23 2007
No Policing Of Civil Wars…
That is the latest poll-tested spinjob from the liberal democrats. No policing of civil wars….
Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer told Fox news that Reid, in fact, meant only the war “policing a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis” is lost.
Seems Reid now needs an interprator so he can convey his thoughts to America. So why are we still in Kosovo thanks to Bill Clinton and Democrats????? Why are we in Korea???? Why are we supposed to go to Darfur????? What about South Africa??? Why did Bill Clinton turn Somalia from an aide effort into policing a civil war?? ?Someone help the Dems, it seems they have lost their dictionary of military terms and forgot what ‘civil war’ means.
AJ
Forget the dictionary.
Get them a Bible and let them get religion.
It’s a shame having to watch these Democrats “mis-speak” or “mis-communicate” to us; yet, they attack one of the most honest, loyal, and hard-working man, Gonzales.
What I’m wondering is why would the dems want to expand the military by 100,000 soldiers if we are not going to use them. It will cost tons of money to have these people sitting around doing what?
Doesn’t look lost to me, either.
Ask these kids what they think.
Because you take casualties doesn’t mean you are loosing. It might mean you are getting more aggressive and putting yourself in closer proximity to the enemy. You expect to take casualties under those conditions. I take it you were never in the military, Sooth.
I believe the allies in WWI suffered more casualties than the Germans.
Sooth
First they ain’t kids, when you get put into the battle space, you have a very short cycle term of growing up. I for one am getting tired of how you degrade the sacrifices these men and women have given.
Yeah, I know that’s exactly what is your intended target.
Yup you may have got me finally upset at you but don’t think for a second you have touched the metal of my soul.
Like those over there today, they are working in the smelter that will temper their lives for the rest of their days.
You can’t change it.
The worst thing I see now is we have a new trend of pimpswhimps joining our sailors , soldiers and marines, just so they can be a defeat spokesman just because they wear the clothes. They went into the service full well with knowledge and forethought about the message that they wanted to send home to momma 6 months down the line. Yet the MSM sucks it up broadcasts them to the farthest reaches.
Okay, Merlin, who is insulting the troops now?:
So, now you are accusing “pimpswhimps” – whatever the f*** that is, of joining the armed forces and being shipped to Baghdad just so they can complain and cause trouble?
Yeah, right. As if.
Sooth
Again as usual you are wrong.
The ones I am talking about are pimply faced still aint even worn the creases out of their initial issue uniform types 3 blocks down from the TV station they get interviewed by. The haven’t seen Baghdad and they never will. Once they spout their turd words they planned well in advance to use and had their face time on camera, they suddenly declare themselves conscientious objectors or just plain walk off the base and don’t come back.
Sooth
This ain’t just something I chose to dream up.
It’s out there running around the milblogs and even had limited esposure in the military press papers. Now the military is grasping for a way to find some way to screen these people out during the in processing procedure or even better never letting them sign on the bottom line.
It is a real deal and they hope to give unearned cred to their words just because they are wearing cammos during the interview.
If you were at all familiar with all the rules and hoops that a service member has to step through to give an interview to the press if you aren’t an assigned press liaison person you would easily see the line being crossed.