A- Fuc*#*^men

Denny, I quit reading that damn rag (Al Jazzera Crap) about 5 years ago. It's just amazing how much happier my life is. Who gives a jolly damn what those #$%**^@+~` have to say.

You know why they call it the AJC? That's 'cause when people read that crap on their editorial pages they say..."Aww Jesus Christ!"

It's hard to belittle 2000 soldiers' deaths, but there has to be some perspective. WHY? The MSM leads everyone to believe we went to Iraq to dismantle/discover WMDs and thus disarm Saddam. What is left in the dust is the bumpteen UN resolutions cast against Iraq. I'm kind of remembering there were 17 of them, which is 16 too many, and possibly even 17 too many. If the UN had balls, 1 would have sufficed. Nonetheless, they let this bastard slaughter millions of his own. Where's the got-dang cartoon/drawing of that fact? Oh yeah, Saddam killed that sucker.

Those 2000 may have been some of our future journalists and editors. I get an occassional newspaper for local news and crossword puzzles. Used to read a paper every day. Now I go days w/o newspaper or tv, just the Internet.

It seems to me Fox News has become a personality show rather than a balanced news program. At least on the Internet we are not overwhelmed with hair styles and whitened teeth.

God Bless those 2000 warriors and their comrades!

How about an answer in the same format, made from the same two thousand names? A few ideas:
FREEDOM
FREEDOM ISN'T FREE
THE PRICE OF FREEDOM
DUTY CALLED, WE ANSWERED
DUTY, HONOUR, COUNTRY

etc., etc. Not really a difficult question. The need to ask it displays a lack of even superficial understanding of recent history, i.e., the last 3 or 4 thousand years. Freedom isn't cheap, but history indicates that it is cheaper than tyranny -- and not just in lives ended early.

Jeez, were there that many killed in WWII, or Korea, or any other war? Prolly not, or the LSM would have surely reported it. I'm so tired of the farking as*holes in the MSM, that I think I could puke.

Denny wrote : I often wonder how these commies live with themselves.

I heard that nearly 60% of you americans believe it was a wrong idea to go there.

Even Mc Carthy didn't believe 60 % of americans where commies !!

This is the price to keep peace in a country of extremists.
But will you, the USA, bring this till full democratie will be achieved?
In this case, you'll need more soldiers, because the terrorists in Irak who seek power, won't let you keep them away from their dream of being the new dictator.

Now some figure, to see what is an expensive war:

WWI : URSS - 9,000,000
France - 6,000,000
British Empire - 3,000,000
Germany - 7,000,000
USA - 365,000

WWII : URSS - 21,300,000
China - 11,324,000
Germany 7,000,000
Poland - 6,850,000
Yugoslavia - 1,700,000
Rumania - 1,000,000
France - 810,000
USA - 295,000

Vietnam : USA - 211,471
Viet - 5,560,720

The total number of Americans killed in action from all major wars combined, is 2,757,196.

It is told over sea that your behavior toward wars is not the same than the EU behavior because you never directly experienced attrocities of war on your territory.(except civil war)

I found this very interesting, indeed, some of your citizens think that 2,000 is a too big price for a war.
While in the same time it was easy to convince people the country needed to go to war.

Here it would be the contrary : in EU countries it would be harder to make EU citizens go to war, but 2,000 death for a war, wouldn't appear to be a lot among 300,000,000 of citizens.

Pierce, Indeed the price has been small compared to other wars, and indeed a high percentage of people no longer support the war. The Media has gone to great lengths to mislead the public, and they have succeeded to some extent. Had the media acted in 1940 the way they act now, Pearl Harbor would have been followed by a demand for reparations, and negotiations in a neutral country.
People forget that we declared war on terrorism.
People forget that Iraq sponsored terrorism against Israel.
People ignore facts especially when the Communist News Network, See BS, and the rst of the media lie to them.

They are all the same to me, the lefties and the terrorists. Neither worth the air they breath.

I am just going to put my favorite quote here as my reply to all the lefties the scum they are.What the left is doing is beyond the pale there are no words horrible enough to fit them.

Freedom! No Word Was Ever Spoken
That Held Out Greater Hope,
Demanded Greater Sacrifice,
Needed More To Be Nurtured,
Blessed More The Giver,
Cursed More Its Destroyer,
Or Came Closer To Being God's Will On Earth.
And I Think That's Worth Fighting For."General Omar Bradley

Prosper - Using you logic, over 60% of the people in this country think France sucks. Does that make it true?

"I heard that nearly 60% of you americans believe it was a wrong idea to go there."

You heard wrong.

But, it's possible that there are lots of Americans who don't understand why we're there.

Which is Denny's point. Approximately 99% of the media *want* to see Americans killed, to embarress Bush. *Want* to see Saddam back in power, slaughtering Kurds (and a few Jews would be fine, too, great tradition there).

When you put it like that, they scream like wounded rabbits and insist that *you* are lying, they want to "protect and honor" the soldiers.

Well, there's your proof. That's *How* the media loves to "honor" the fallen. As a political hit job on Bush.

And as their power wanes - and as more and more people find out exactly HOW bad the media is, and stop watching the news, and start reading the weblogs, and finding out about Michael Yon's (among others) reporting.

Quick, is the US Military having a recruiting crisis?

If you get your information from the media, you'd say yes. If you read "alternative" sources, you'd know the re-enlistment rate for frontline units is at record levels. Gee, seems *somebody* believes in the mission. And funnily enough, it's the guys with their asses on the line.

Hrm. Guys on the front line, versus the NY Media.

I know who *I'm* putting *my* trust in.

The answer to the question "WHY?" is that we have been too nice to Iraq. If we treated them like we did Japan and Germany in World War II then the number of American lives lost would be much smaller.

"Here it would be the contrary : in EU countries it would be harder to make EU citizens go to war, but 2,000 death for a war, wouldn't appear to be a lot among 300,000,000 of citizens."

Pierce:

It's not the total, or the per-capita that's the problem. We've taken butcher's bills before.

But the press isn't on our side in this one. They want to see us lose, and be embarrassed. They see success in the casualties.

Remember, the media, pretty much as a whole, have been predicting that Bush would be leading troops into a slaughter. So we had Afganistian - after 2 weeks being called a "quagmire", with the implication we'd never get out. (3 weeks later, the major fighting was over, and we controlled 95% of the countryside). Bush then spent a year and a half attempting to get the UN to support the sanctions they'd voted on, and it was a "Rush to War!".

As Mark Steyn has noticed about press predictions:
1992 Iraq will be another Vietnam! Hundreds of thousands dead! (War over in weeks, low casualities)
2001 Afganistan won't be another Iraq! Years of hillside slaughter of the troops! (War over in weeks, almost no casualties)
2003 Iraq won't be an Afghanistan! Slaughter! Saddam will gas and nuke us! (organized fighting over in weeks, 2 years later, 2000 dead, now they scream that Bush Lied! about Saddam's weapons (which, by the way, since we haven't found the ones that we knew he had, he admitted he had, leads *me* to believe theres a helluva lot more to the story))

They've been prediciting, with glee, massive body counts - and instead of being wrong, and happy, they're angry. They see this as Bush's failure to meet their predictions - not their failure to predict accurately.

And the biggest problem with your assertation - the only European country who could project any meaningful military might (barring US transport).. is England. So any war they'd join would have to be on their border. Most begged off of planning assistance in Yugoslavia - as they didn't have the capability to support a supply train even INSIDE Europe.

Addison, I agree with you on the main part, except when you say :
And the biggest problem with your assertation - the only European country who could project any meaningful military might (barring US transport).. is England. So any war they'd join would have to be on their border. Most begged off of planning assistance in Yugoslavia - as they didn't have the capability to support a supply train even INSIDE Europe.

Yugoslavia isn't par of what I call EU.
And no country in EU is powerfull, that's a shame, but that's because of medias and politics, as you just said. Afer WWII, millions of people were shocked and reacted by rejecting wars and weapons.
The EU decreased its armies.

So the EU isn't prepared for a WW.

But in another WW, an army would be useless, as we got enough H bomb to destroy the planet ...

We are not prepare for a WW, but we are more ready against terrorists. We stoped several chemical and classic terrorist attacks planed in France this year.
Our politicians begin to increase the money to fight against terrorists.

In USA you 've been talking about real dangerous terrorism since 2001, in France, we've been talking about it since 2005...
Only since this very year, our gummints started to realize there was a real danger. I know, they are quite slow.

They needed the London bombing and the planning of terrorist attacks against France to say :
"Oh, so maybe the USA were not so paranoid, there is a real big danger"

The problem with EU gummint is demagogy and hypocrisis. Since we killed our king, our gummints found another way than strength to control us.

This way is called TV.

Thanks to this, they can continue to lie and make money on our back : I learned that we won't be able to judge Chirac for his robbering and weapon deals, because It's too late, lol, bunch of Mother F*****s, they screwed us.
We know what they did, we even brought them to court, and ... nothing happened.

Be carreful Denny, you practically wrote France doesn't suck...

Pierce wrote In USA you 've been talking about real dangerous terrorism since 2001, in France, we've been talking about it since 2005...
Only since this very year, our gummints started to realize there was a real danger. I know, they are quite slow.

too young to remember 1982 - la rue des rosiers ?
1995 - Khaled Kelkal ?

Pierce:
"Yugoslavia isn't par of what I call EU."

Not the EU, but Europe. The EU (with the exception of the UK) couldn't reliably transport troops and supply them to Yugoslavia - which is inside Europe, even if it's not *in* the EU. EU is political, not geographical.

"Afer WWII, millions of people were shocked and reacted by rejecting wars and weapons.
The EU decreased its armies."

Right. But it wasn't because of the cost of war - it was because the US Army was sitting there. And we strongly encouraged some disarmament, forced others (Germany), but basically, why spend the money? The Americans are here, we'll complain about them, but take their money, why should WE spend our money on the military when they'll spend THEIR money (and their son's lives).

So the Cold War progressed, with the US spending a metric assload on the military, and Europe responded by slashing their expenditures. It wasn't until the end of the Cold War that the net effect of losing those industries, skills, abilities hit home.

Sorry to hear about your revelations about Chirac - care to fill us in on that? I hadn't heard it was too late.

As for TV, well, information is getting around those barriers, and I think you'll see some major shifts soon enough.

One of the things this cartoon typifies is the typical liberal callous indifference to Iraqi lives lost. As Americans we hae become so accustomed to liberals being callous that we barely notice it any more. Its like we just expect it from them as a matter of course and it no longer is an issue.

Good to see you bring this up, Denny.

I've been wanting to kick Mike Puke-o-vich's sorry ass for over 2 years now for his ignorant & worthless pieces of scribbled shit he calls "cartoons". His latest atrocity, which ran here in Houston today, is exactly the type of thing Michael Moore did using the pictures of fallen soldiers in Iraq to make a picture of Bush when he was re-elected... And, to think this asshole has gotten a Pulitzer Prize! Fuck him.

Honestly, why is this pukestain's work shown all over the country? The guy can't even draw worth a shit. He is like Gary Trudeau's retarded kid brother -- the mental ability of a 10-year-old combined with the artistic ability of a 5-year-old. I don't think puberty was too kind to him...

And yes, Cynthia Tucker is also a left-wing Democratic Party stooge who is full of shit. But, unlike most libtards, she at least might be fuckable... >:p

" why should WE spend our money on the military when they'll spend THEIR money"
This part is wrong, you sold EU so many weapons that you made billions during WWII, USA lost less than they earned.
And developping any industry is good for economy anyway.

you said this about EU :
" losing those industries, skills, abilities"
We lost some of course, but we still got our factories ready and we still got the latest technologies. I'm not proud of it, but France is the biggest weapons exportator in the world. So we would be ready anytime we need.

EU politicians always decide it's not necessary ... And our governement need so much money to feed all our lasy leftist ... they take the money from real workers :(, so I'm happy they don't use more, they already take me 41% of what I earn each month !!

The EU need an Euro-army, but this will take time, because some countries still disagree with it.

You didn't hear about Chirac's robbery? He used "secret funds" to go on holidays with his family have dinners, and took even some just for hisself.

Moreover, he gave contracts to compagnies in exchange of 2 or 3% of the price of the contract. This money went to his political party (I think this is legal to fund politicians in USA, but in France, there is a clear border between politic and compagnies).
His friends (as he's president he's untouchable) got punished, but not him.
The French don't like Chirac.

WHY?

How else were we going to make our terrorism problem worse if we hadn’t invaded a Middle Eastern country that had nothing to do with 9/11? Jeez! That idiot cartoonist must be living in the same fantasy world as that commie Brent Scowcroft!

However grimly unfortunate for any of my comrades or myself to pay the ultimate price, it is nothing compared to past conflicts. At the current rate it would take us over 50 years to reach the KIA totals of WW2. And we lost thousands of soldiers fighting the "Wolf Brigades" (insurgents) in Germany AFTER WW 2. We fought them untill the 50's. Those of us who have freedom have no comprehension of it's value. Talk to an Iraqi man, ask him how he feels about us giving them freedom. Sure some Iraqi's disagree about us being there, but look at half the crap we disagree with each other in our own country. I have seen the looks of hope in Iraqi faces, I have even seen them sorrow at our own losses. I know they crave freedom and a future free from tyranny. And I for one, will not let us going there be for nothing. The blood of my brothers lies in the very ground of Iraq. And if we pulled out like the chickenshit's the left wants us to be then I will go back as a contracter and fight for my fellow soldiers sacrifice.

Carlo - Fuck off!

Carlo:
"How else were we going to make our terrorism problem worse if we hadn’t invaded a Middle Eastern country that had nothing to do with 9/11?"

Iraq had everything to do with September 11th.

Osama bin Laden recruited his band, and formed Al Queda as reaction to the "American occupation" of Saudia Arabia (as we held Iraq in sanction, as they violated one cease-fire requirement and requirement after the other).

In other words: the roots of Al Queda were fertilized by our defending Saudia Arabia from Iraq.

After you apologise, I'll be happy to explain the other reasons why it was a requirement.

Pierce:
"You didn't hear about Chirac's robbery?"

I'd heard, but that once he was out of his position, he would be indictable/arrestable. So that he was free and clear was news to me, hadn't checked on him in a while.

"This part is wrong, you sold EU so many weapons that you made billions during WWII, USA lost less than they earned.
And developping any industry is good for economy anyway."

The first part is wrong - in fact, most nations defaulted on their debt during the war. I think Denmark, IIRC, paid theirs off in small monthly payments until 1980? And they were the only country who did.

The developing industry is correct, we did develop an enormous industry, that has helped companies globally.

But the point was we were building fighters, tanks, jeeps, and shipping them to Europe, where they protected the "West" against the Russians. Even France, even after de Gaulle degaulled us and pulled out of Nato. (What, were we going to let the Russians have France, without Germany?)

The Europeans didn't NEED to spend a lot on defense - they had us to defend themselves. And so, more and more money was diverted to the socialist systems, and for a while, that scheme worked.

"We lost some of course, but we still got our factories ready and we still got the latest technologies. I'm not proud of it, but France is the biggest weapons exportator in the world. So we would be ready anytime we need."

Yes, France does have some exports - but a lot of that is also due to how much is paid for by France. It's a prestige thing, to a degree, but basically, if a country will agree to buy Mirages and Exocets, amazingly, they can get a incredible amount of money from French Foreign Aid.

But the problem is it takes time to ramp up production. Currently, it takes almost 10 years before a fighter can be considered operable. Sure, in the heat of crisis, this can be shortcut, but if there was a very serious problem, there's no time to build up the production facilities, or train new workers.

One of the defenses of Chamberlain I've read was that he didn't really _believe_ the "Peace in our Time" crap - he was playing for the cameras, and for time, because the UK had no chance to match arms with Germany in 1939. (Actually, France and the UK outgunned them drastically, but that wouldn't be known til after the war). After the success in France, without the US help, the UK would never have been able to hold off Germany. There wouldn't have been a need to invade, Germany could just have blockaded and starved the island out.

Don't take this as me denigrating the attempts of France to keep a weapons industry - that's fine, but there's also a lot of kickbacks and freebies that's not clearly listed on the "purchase price".

Am I the only one that gets a headache from reading Pierce and Prosper posting back and forth?

The American press is controlled mostly by wealthy Jews. With brothers like that, Isreal has a problem that President Bush can't ever resolve.

TexasAC

I did find this kinda ironic, but I'm not surprised- FRENCH pro golfer Jean Van de Veld (He's a male, at least as much of a male as a male frog can be) wants to play in the British Women's Open.

Denny -

Can you photoshop that (or send it to someone who can) to forms the words "Thank You"?

- Addison : Yep I agree, nothing more to add :)
- Rob Cooper : thx sweety

"The American press is controlled mostly by wealthy Jews. With brothers like that, Isreal has a problem that President Bush can't ever resolve."

Richard Nixon lives! And he's posting on this blog!

Carlo - Not only are you a barking moonbat but it also turns out that you are anti-Semitic. I put that little autorant generator in my left sidebar just for assholes like you so you wouldn't have to strain your brain thinking up stupid things to put in my comments.

Carlo:

Wasn't that supposed to say "Oops, you're right, there was a lot of connection between the situation in Iraq and the terrorist attacks of September 11th?".

Heck of a spell-chucker you've got there.

"Freedom! No Word Was Ever Spoken
That Held Out Greater Hope,
Demanded Greater Sacrifice,
Needed More To Be Nurtured,
Blessed More The Giver,
Cursed More Its Destroyer,
Or Came Closer To Being God's Will On Earth.
And I Think That's Worth Fighting For."General Omar Bradley"

AMEN..AMEN AGAIN.

Omar Bradley was considered the GI's General because he care more for his men than most of the Generals. Although, Patton got a bad rap from the 1940's LSM.

The fight for Freedom is a tough fight, not a popularity contest. This isn't political correct bullshit. This is a cultural war. We can decide to be part of a free society that tolerates all religions and cultures or we can cave into the al Quieta (Missspelled?/Who Fuck'en cares!)MS?WFC. One of the most oppressive, intolerant religions (that's a laugh) on the planet. KILL THEM ALL to the LAST ONE. DO NOT LEAVE ONE ALIVE. Chase then around the world. Hey Prosper, Pierce. Here's a social program for ya. I'd gladly give half my income if I knew it exclusively bought bullets, bombs,napalm,flame throwers etc. to wipe those pieces of shit off the planet. How's that for a social program. If we want to win, we don't need to understand them. We need to HATE them. Period. Until the fight is over.

I'm with you scaryguy to wipe Al Qaida off the planet.
I always supported the war in afghanistan since they attacked you.
If only you didn't put them in Irak, we could have eradicated them... Now they have strong support in the entire middle-east.

Prosper, as you stated earlier that this is more about perceptions from the media both or media and yours. There is a website that I go to called http://www.strategypage.com/ You should check it out. The author of this website has got his stuff together and there is a lot of info you won't hear or see via the LSM both in your country or in mine.

The al Qaida are not doing to well in Iraq. We the coalition forces are actually winning, but you would never guess it from the fucking media.

Also, it is tough to fight against terrorist in the terms that most military understand combat. One Identifiable force against another identifiable force. These asshole don't wear uniforms and usually hide behind women and children for protection while they take shot at our troops. Of course, our guys don't shoot back for the most part and know if they do they are in deep trouble.

This is why they are terrorist and not an opposing army. They do not need to be understood, just destroyed. I don't care if they are the IRA or Chechen Rebels or Bosnian Death Squads. The minute they resort to Deliberately killing innocent people, their mission is lost. They have not goal or any noble cause.
Sorry about all the firey posts and language but this topic really fires my rocket if you know what I mean.

I found this story on Tongue tied. I wonder what Cynthia and the rest of the lefty idiots at ACJ would make of this story. Somehow, I imagine this being a problem in France as well. It is amazing what the free world is willing to accommodate. Women’s rights organizations should be screaming their heads off on this one but NOOOOOO.

"In Australia, the police are actually being urged to treat wife beaters differently based on their religion:

"POLICE are being advised to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits.

Officers are also being urged to work with Muslim leaders, who will try to keep the families together.

Women's groups are concerned the politically correct policing could give comfort to wife bashers and keep their victims in a cycle of violence.

The instructions come in a religious diversity handbook given to Victorian police officers that also recommends special treatment for suspects of Aboriginal, Hindu and Buddhist background."

Some police officers have claimed the directives hinder enforcing the law equally.

Police are told: "In incidents such as domestic violence, police need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways of life and habits of Muslims."

What?!?!?!

"In incidents such as domestic violence, police need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways of life and habits of Muslims"?

That's exactly backwards, Muslims -- and members of every other religion for that matter -- "need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways of life and habits of" the country they're living in.

The obvious concern here is that somebody is going to pound his wife to a pulp and then he'll convince some Muslim cleric -- who thinks beating your wife is just peachy (and such imams are not in short supply)-- to talk the police into letting the wife beater skate.

That's ludicrous, it should never happen, in Australia or here in the United States. Beating your wife is immoral and reprehensible and what Muslim leaders or imams think about it is irrelevant and should be treated as such.

Hat tip to Tongue Tied for the story."

scaryguy-
"This is why they are terrorist and not an opposing army. They do not need to be understood, just destroyed. I don't care if they are the IRA or Chechen Rebels or Bosnian Death Squads. The minute they resort to Deliberately killing innocent people, their mission is lost. They have no goal or any noble cause...."

That is the best put To-The-Point-No-Bullshit explanation I have seen in a long time. That is one of the many things that keeps me coming back here every day.