RkFast

"But because I don't think the Iraq war as justified makes me not support the troops?" Obviously, you didnt read the article in the original post by Jim.

Whats funny is that the same people who look to ban military recruiters from high schools and COLLEGES will whine that the very same military "unfairly targets the poor and minorities". Its truly a shame that those who disagree with the war are now fighting the military itself, 1960's style. Its a shame that the U.S. Military is now "the bad guys" in the eyes of so many. But hey......those on the Left "support the troops", right? They can be "against the war but FOR the troops", right? Right.

But hey.....they "support the troops!"

Agreed. Not only that, if blowhards like Rush and the rest took time to "debate" every group or person they had a word to say about on the radio....they wouldnt have time to be on the radio!!!!! Again......just pick up the phone and call his ass. Not everyone who calls in is a "Dittohead". Havent listed to Rush in a while, but from what I recall, he WILL debate a caller to his show.

Pretty funny, coming from someone whose ideology wont even allow me to string a few Christmas lights across my desk at work. And on the issue at hand...if they want to "Debate" Limbaugh so bad, why dont they just pick up the telephone and call his show?

Thats the LIBERAL way of thinking, silly....that we can bury our head in the sand, sign Koombaya, click our heels and the world will be a better place. Status Quo...no need to take action...hope for the best...thats how YOU guys think. Nice try, though.

Im going back to work.......this is just too much.

Maybe Im just horrible at simple math.. Clinton "ignored" warnings about Osama for eight years. Bush "ignored" warnings about Osama for eight months. But somehow, 9/11 is all BUSH's fault, right?

Good stuff....but I prefer my cousin's interpretation of what went down in the 90s: "Man, did we !@#$ up" He is an FBI agent and was on the Anti-Terrorism task force during those wonderful 90s, in case youre wondering about his credentials to make such a statement.

Does it really take a nimrod like ME to interpret "accomplished? What are they trying to accomplish? All I see is radical self serving legislation." for youz? Come on...... HALLIBURTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Im pretty shocked by the notion that forces will be moved WEST as the need for them on the East coast deteriorates. Excuse me, but the megaolopolis of NY/BOS/PHI doesnt have a single air base equipped with attack aircraft, does it? Id think that having one here wouldnt hurt, especially after 9/11. And they even have a site for it, in Calverton Long Island, where Grumman manufactured the F-14 and A-6 years ago.

What do you THINK would happen? We be strung up by our collective Buster Browns, that's what.

And I thought Tommy picked on ME.

Just read through the entire piece again. Know whats absolutely amazing? Nobody figured out an angle to blame the JEWS for this.

Youre so naive.

Not sure about the ratings, but after hearing Bob Scheafer (sp?) on Imus the other day, he seems to make Dan Rather look OBJECTIVE.

Dont get me wrong, I dont think Al Sadr is now an ally. But the basic reason why he's stopped fighting is clear. BTW...attacks today were aimed at an Iraqi police station and in a small market. According to MSNBC, whom I trust a BIT more than Lefthook.com, the Insurgents are attempting to "block a key goal of U.S. forces: to one day be replaced by newly trained Iraqi soldiers and police." So.... If these Insurgents are fightings to end the U.S. occupation, as you claim, then why would they thwart efforts by the U.S. and Iraq to complete one of the key goals of a handover; i.e. transfer responsibility for security and policing back to the Iraqis? Your'e on the clock again.................

Do good job = get reward. Nice concept. More fun to watch the leftists rip the remaining hairs out of their heads over this, though.

The occupation of a country and the existence of a U.S. military base is not one in the same. The U.S. will most likely have a base or more bases permanently in Iraq. But that is not even close to a full-blown occupation, where the U.S. is the de facto government. Youre second point here is quite disturbing. First of all, youre saying that the majority of attacks is against solely American targets, which is patently untrue. Second, you seem to imply that collateral damage caused by terrorists is permissable, I assume becuase the terrorists have far cruder weaponry than the Coalition forces. There is truth in the second part of that statement. But does not change the fact that in modern warfare, collateral damage is borderline forbidden. And Americans have come under HUGE criticism for it. But for the terrorists, its ok, because "theres no way around it for them?" Bollocks. And youre third point is just plain out insane. The Coalition forces are not "enemy combatants" by any definition. And the insurgency was born, is run and is fed by non-Iraqi fighters, some of whom have been life-long sworn enemies of Iraq. As mentioned above, the Iraqi portion of it has gone home and has joined the rebuilding effort. So how you can give credence to the insurgency, even in part, as an honest to goodness attempt by some to fight for a better Iraq is nuts.

Not only are they NOT, but they have decided to do so under their own volition, taking the stance, get this, that if they ever want to see the U.S. LEAVE Iraqi it would be prudent to get ON BOARD with the joint American/Iraqi efforts to rebuild the country to help achieve the ultimate goal of a U.S. pullout and the formation of a true Iraqi government. Imagine that. Chicot...youre on the clock.......

Have the accusations against delay gone beyond that yet?

bull sh--. Because if that was the case, nobody would have shown up to vote in the Iraqi elections. The fact that the turnout was so big proves without a doubt that the vast majority of Iraqis see the new government as legit.

If so much of this is all about freeing Iraq from the "terrible" grip of the "oppressive" Americans, than why are so many of the attacks targeting IRAQI police stations and military installments? Does it not make sense for those wanting America out to HELP the very same group that will take over? If so, then why are the primary targets of so many of the terrorist attacks against Iraqi targets?

That New York Times is real "Fair and Balanced".

You'd be surprised.