General William Odom redefines "supporting the troops"

[Care4all]

<h1>YOU...UNDERSTAND...NOTHING!!!</h1>

I served honorably...My cousin served in an artillery battalion in Iraq...my brother-in-law just got back from Iraq. My family has served in the military since WW I, <b><i>SO DON'T PRATE TO ME ABOUT RESPECTING THE MILITARY YOU GUTLESS LITTLE PIECE OF EXCREMENT!</i></b>

It is people like you, and your fellow travelers, who show your contempt for the military and our troops by seeking to turn honest, forthright dissent about how they are being misused into some perverse, sick parody if not labeling it as outright treason. Since when is dissent treason in this country?

So, once again, just shove your Potemkin village patriotism up your ass, sideways, and crawl back under the rock you slithered from beneath. Mind the slime-trail though, the stench is enough to gag a plumber.

Are you a Sailor?

Lol, the only person I have ever known to be able to put together......let's say.... such a..... clever combination of words, to make their point, is Maineman, a Sailor, only on another board?

So, are ya one?

And I am not necessarily disagreeing with the bottom line deciphered message in your statement, I was just wondering if they give "lessons" on how to 'properly' express oneself in "Sailor" language, in the Navy, and if you are a Sailor, is this why you were just sooo good at it?

j/k u

Care

 

[red states rule]

He is your typical angry liberal - like Mainman

 

[Gunny]

Are you a Sailor?

Lol, the only person I have ever known to be able to put together......let's say.... such a..... clever combination of words, to make their point, is Maineman, a Sailor, only on another board?

So, are ya one?

And I am not necessarily disagreeing with the bottom line deciphered message in your statement, I was just wondering if they give "lessons" on how to 'properly' express oneself in "Sailor" language, in the Navy, and if you are a Sailor, is this why you were just sooo good at it?

j/k u

Care

Nah, you can tell he was a squid by the smell.

 

[Gunny]

He is your typical angry liberal - like Mainman

Who? Bully? Try debating him on an issue instead of tossing around ad hominems and see.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Are you a Sailor?

Lol, the only person I have ever known to be able to put together......let's say.... such a..... clever combination of words, to make their point, is Maineman, a Sailor, only on another board?

So, are ya one?

And I am not necessarily disagreeing with the bottom line deciphered message in your statement, I was just wondering if they give "lessons" on how to 'properly' express oneself in "Sailor" language, in the Navy, and if you are a Sailor, is this why you were just sooo good at it?

j/k u

Care

I was a squid, many moons ago.

 

[Gunny]

I was a squid, many moons ago.

HA! Once an anchor-clanker, ALWAYS an anchor-clanker!

 

[Bullypulpit]

Then you are all for rebuilding that military structure, particularly adding back the 40% Clinton cut? Perhaps if we had that 40% we would have the troops you libs said are needed over there.

Also, your quote about the soldiers not having lobby groups is just plain wrong. There are many many lobby groups for the military. The soldiers and their families are not victims...they vote. Of course, most Dems and libs don't like the WAY they vote.

As for Rumsfeld, he may have tried to change the structure but he didn't really try to cut it. Yes, he was and advocate of lighter leaner forces, but he also advocated going to a brigade based Army as oppossed to a division based architecture. More soldiers in more diverse units (diversity is good right?) to allow more flexibility. Truth is, the Clintons caused more casualties for our military than anyone since WW II.

So the consequences of the invasion of Iraq is all Clinton's fault? This, when it was George W. Bush, the man we call "Mr. President" who ordered the invasion of Iraq...Who, along with the rest of his cabinet, tried to wage war on the cheap, sending in too few troops to secure the peace once the war was over...Who failed to have a plan for a draw down of the troops once Saddam was worm food...Under whose watchful eye the Iraqi infrastructure was allowed to crumble as unbid contracts to US companies went unfulfilled...And you blame Clinton?

Do you even begin to realize how assinine you sound?

 

[Gunny]

So the consequences of the invasion of Iraq is all Clinton's fault? This, when it was George W. Bush, the man we call "Mr. President" who ordered the invasion of Iraq...Who, along with the rest of his cabinet, tried to wage war on the cheap, sending in too few troops to secure the peace once the war was over...Who failed to have a plan for a draw down of the troops once Saddam was worm food...Under whose watchful eye the Iraqi infrastructure was allowed to crumble as unbid contracts to US companies went unfulfilled...And you blame Clinton?

Do you even begin to realize how assinine you sound?

If any one individual or group can be blamed for Saddam Hussein, besides Saddam Hussein himself, I point my finger squarely at the UN. If that organization functioned as it should, the invasion of Kuwait would never have been a mostly-US problem to begin with.

 

[CSM]

So the consequences of the invasion of Iraq is all Clinton's fault? This, when it was George W. Bush, the man we call "Mr. President" who ordered the invasion of Iraq...Who, along with the rest of his cabinet, tried to wage war on the cheap, sending in too few troops to secure the peace once the war was over...Who failed to have a plan for a draw down of the troops once Saddam was worm food...Under whose watchful eye the Iraqi infrastructure was allowed to crumble as unbid contracts to US companies went unfulfilled...And you blame Clinton?

Do you even begin to realize how assinine you sound?

Yeah, that's me...assinine.

I blame Clinton for making the military a less than effective force, for the sorry state of Walter Reed, for a lot of other things too (like too few troops).

I blame the terrorists and Iran for the situation in Iraq. Unlike you, I am not blinded by hatred for Bush. You seem to think (like many others) that Bush is responsible for all the ills in the world. Unfortunately, the world is not quite that simple.

 

[red states rule]

Yesterday, the NYT op ed called for the US to surrender and leave Iarq

Much like the left in the country - the NY Times would rather have genocide in Iraq, then victory for the US

 

[Gunny]

Yesterday, the NYT op ed called for the US to surrender and leave Iarq

Much like the left in the country - the NY Times would rather have genocide in Iraq, then victory for the US

Profound. Hope you didn't stay up all night coming to this conclusion.

 

[red states rule]

Profound. Hope you didn't stay up all night coming to this conclusion.

Snippy this morning Gunny - perhaos you did not sleep well last night

Libs deny this is what they want - I am calling them on it

 

[Gunny]

Snippy this morning Gunny - perhaos you did not sleep well last night

Libs deny this is what they want - I am calling them on it

Yeah, I stayed up all night anticipating your post and thinking up a response to it.

 

[red states rule]

Yeah, I stayed up all night anticipating your post and thinking up a response to it.

Whatever floats your boat

 

[Gunny]

Whatever floats your boat

And you called ME snippy?

 

[red states rule]

And you called ME snippy?

You do seem to be a tad bit snippy this morning

 

[Gunny]

You do seem to be a tad bit snippy this morning

Not you. You appear to be more brilliant than ever.

 

[red states rule]

Not you. You appear to be more brilliant than ever.

Now the mod is taking the thread off topic

Back to the topic at hand - this is what the left wants to surrender to

Muslims declare sovereignty over U.S., UK
Hear Islamic leaders in London: 'Queen Elizabeth, go to hell!'

Posted: July 9, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Across town from the site of the recent attempted car-bomb attacks, several thousand Muslims gathered in front of the London Central Mosque to applaud fiery preachers prophesying the overthrow of the British government – a future vision that encompasses an Islamic takeover of the White House and the rule of the Quran over America.

"One day my dear Muslims," shouted Anjem Choudary, "Islam will govern Britain!"

Choudary was a co-founder of Al Muhajiroun, the now-banned group tied to suspects in the July 7, 2005, London transport bombings and a cheerleader of the 9/11 attacks.

"Democracy, hypocrisy," Choudary chanted as the crowd echoed him. "Tony Blair, terrorist! Tony Blair, murderer! Queen Elizabeth, go to hell!"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56503

 

[Bullypulpit]

Yeah, that's me...assinine.

I blame Clinton for making the military a less than effective force, for the sorry state of Walter Reed, for a lot of other things too (like too few troops).

I blame the terrorists and Iran for the situation in Iraq. Unlike you, I am not blinded by hatred for Bush. You seem to think (like many others) that Bush is responsible for all the ills in the world. Unfortunately, the world is not quite that simple.

Look, none of what has occurred has done so in a vacuum, and we could go back to the Truman administration and beyond in tracing its roots. To do so, however, distracts form what is occurring now...on the ground...in Iraq. That can all be laid, foursquare, on the doorstep of the Bush administration. It wasn't Clinton that had a chubby for Saddam...he was neither young enough nor the right gender...It was Bush. Clinton didn't make the decision to leave the job in Afghanistan incomplete, or the decision to allow Taliban and al Qaeda forces slip into Pakistan. It wasn't Clinton who cooked a the intel to justify the invasion of Iraq. It wasn't Clinton who failed to plan for securing the peace in Iraq after the war was won...It's ALL on George W. Bush and his administration. Deal with it.

As for George Bush being responsible for all of the world's ills, we both know that that is not so.

 

[red states rule]

Look, none of this has occurred in a vacuum, and we could go back to the Truman administration in tracing its roots. To do so, however, distracts form what is occurring now...on the ground...in Iraq. That can all be laid, foursquare, on the doorstep of the Bush administration. It wasn't Clinton that had a chubby for Saddam...he wasn't young enough nor the right gender...It was Bush. Clinton didn't make the decision to leave the job in Afghanistan incomplete, or the decision to allow Taliban and al Qaeda forces slip into Pakistan. It wasn't Clinton who cooked a the intel to justify the invasion of Iraq. It wasn't Clinton who failed to plan for securing the peace in Iraq after the war was won...It's ALL on George W. Bush and his administration. Deal with it.

Clinton's appeasement gave us 9-11

Now libs want to repeat that mistake