KaskadskyjKozak

God, I love it when you get all up and O'Reilly - it brings out the real you... this is spray

So direct barbs, such as the ones you fling at me, are ok, Mr. magna cum filled laude pastry boy? the only thing filled with cum is your bunghole, you fudge-packing, pseudo-intellectual troll.

Sounds a little hypocritical don’t it? Nope.

1. I never said it logically followed 2. my point, you obtuse dipshit, is that is what is IMPLIED by the simplistic sound-bite rhetoric of the anti-war crowd. "we are less safe now" is quickly followed by "withdrawal timeline" and "get the boys home". The implication is intentional - the demagoguery to deceive through simplistic assertion and innuendo reinforced with repetition. And fuck off with your tangential barbs. Unlike that moron ass clown No. 13 whatever who is clearly a few dozen IQ points lower than Bush, I've never maintained that you fall in that category. The thread you cite with your pathetic barbs was meant to put him in his place - which it did. All you do is drop to the level of a moron, which you clearly aren't, whatever your personal academic credentials may be.

I think you are making too many excuses for some of these situations, and Eric was raising good points, albeit bluntly.

This is fucking rich! The same semantic, parsing bullshit brought to us by Bubba! I'm gonna frame your comment, and whenever I need a good laugh, pull it out.

Remember before the war discussing this subject, and how the argument was made that there was no "terrorist threat" or connection to terrorism with Iraq? And that after an invasion, there surely would develop a connection? I clearly remember you arguing otherwise.... But I digress: What is this terrorist threat "from Iraq"? Can you clearly define it? What specifically does it threaten now, and what would the natural evolution of this threat be, if the US was to leave? Would you see it growing, shrinking, expanding its influence. etc etc.... "By their argument"? Don't be so tendentious here. You are the one filling in the blanks with your magna cum laude deductive reasoning skills here, and frankly, they suck. The position isn't: x makes us unsafe, -x makes us safe; the position is: x makes us unsafe. It's not as if x FORCES a reaction for the sake of logical consistency; no, x maintains its validity (which you seem to agree with) without referencing any necessitated acts beyond its own reference of an accountability to sound evaluation. It's all that is needed. nice attempt at subterfuge and obfuscation. your side has made the claims that I have stated, and now you avoid them, and their concomitant implications. and your logic is the one in need of remedial education, sir. if our presence in Iraq makes us "less safe" as you and your ilk periodically vomit in some anti-war thread, then clearly the effect of our leaving would be to make us more safe.

I like it. Why isn't it supported? Probably because it conflicts with someone's personal or ideological interest in this. I'm not so sure. You give too much faith in how wars are run and priorities set in the modern era.

Surely you jest. "The prevailing opinion"? I guess Limbaugh skews more than I realized. Or is this the propaganda the Russian papers feed you? I've never met a "lefty" who has said there isn't a terrorist threat. no terrorist threat FROM IRAQ. Jesus Christ, that's what we're talking about! The left argues it makes us less safe, so if we leave, then, by their argument we are more safe, right? So, let's leave and we'll just see if that holds up.

That is exactly the kind of "politically correct KK-style support the troops" B.S. that, in the National debate, has prevented rational consideration of anything to do with this war. I don't remember anybody here or anywhere else stating that they want us to LOSE. What is disgusting, despicable, and anti-American is your vile spew directed at those you disagree with, and the statement that you'd be happy to see them twisting in the wind or, as you put it, "fucked over by the terrorists" simply because of their political opinions. Blame yourself, buddy. The prevailing opinion I hear from the left is there is "no terrorist threat", and "our involvement in Iraq makes us less safe". So, let's get out, and drop the charade. But if the threat actually turns out to be real, and we are attacked, let it be you and not me that feels the brunt because you asked for it.

This post hits the nail on the head, kind of. It's easy to criticize without offering pragmatic solutions, and I haven't heard any good proposals from the Left on how to withdraw without conflagrating the chaos that is contemporary Iraq. On the otherhand, the Right has left me unconvinced that the current approach will result in a favorable outcome and avoid the worst-case results KK identifies above. As I see it, the lack of good options from either side of the debate brings one word to mind - quagmire. I thought we were supposed to train the Iraqi police force to keep order in their own country and we could provide support and step in when necessary. As they took over their own defense and stabilized the country, we'd need a smaller force there. Apparently that isn't working, and I'm afraid it will not work. If the Iraqis don't have the will to fight for themselves, then I don't know why we are. We could withdraw to bases and stand by on the sidelines while the factions slaughter eachother. Or we could leave entirely, and let the wolves have their pick of the sheep. Those options would go over real well in the US and world opinion. The UN isn't going to do shit. Even if they moved in, as soon as they suffered a month of casualties at the level we suffer them, they'd be out. No option there. We could encourage Iraq to become a dictatorship. That might work. So much for democratization though. Which leaves us with what we have. A forced semi-stable country, and a slow bleed of lives and a fairly large bleed in terms of deficit spending with no end in sight. One thing I have never understood, BTW, is why we don't look down the damn borders. I know the borders are long with difficult terrain, but... if Iran and Syria are importing weapons and people to help the insurgency, it seems this would be critical.

You don't criticize the war you want us to LOSE, and always have. Because losing means YOUR side (politically) wins. THAT is disgusting, despicable, and anti-American. I would like us out of Iraq. But not if it means Iran gets to move in and the country fall into a civil war. Tell me a solution for getting us OUT without that type of aftermath and I'm all ears.

Why do you hate America? I think this must be the most pathetic post in this entire thread. I have nothing in common with about 30-40% of my fellow Americans. You can thank all the political rancor and bickering of the last 25 years for that. Hate America? That's rich. It's the other way around - I react against those who hate America, and I'm perfectly happy to let those folks twist in the wind. I have no desire to do anything for them and certainly don't need to answer to THEM for anything.

There is a famous saying about that... owning more books than you can read. :-)

i remember the only reason i could finish w&p was my absolute and complete hatred of every single character and my desire to see all of them come to the worst possible end... Wow, pretty harsh. I find most of the characters to be typically bland/aristocracy mold. Nobody I hate yet. I am appreciating some of Tolstoy's insight into human nature - there's a gem or two in almost every few pages.

You've got a short memory. I was jabbing you with a barb that someone else used a few months back. Keep up the bragging, btw, it's real impressive. I told you already: with all the fuckhead assholes who bad mouth this country and our involvement in this conflict (and others), hate on American and everything it stands for, mock the sacrifices made by our soldiers, etc., I honestly don't see how anyone can serve. Personally, I'd rather see you all get fucked over by terrorists and rot in the aftermath, then lift a finger on your behalf. Must I repeat again?

*yawn* How about this - ONLY vets who saw combat can discuss Iraq - period. I'm sure that would exclude a lot of participants of this board. And let's apply this type of standard to other topics. Only home-owners can vote increases on property taxes. Only teachers can discuss education policy in the US. Only policemen can discuss law enforcement. Get my drift, asshole?

as a REMF, right?

I would never risk my life to preserve the freedoms of an ungrateful, anti-american a-hole like you.

Patriotism is not the issue, numb-nuts.

We have a volunteer army, and our government recruits. Nobody holds a gun to your head and forces you to enlist, and everyone knows if you do, you'll likely see combat in Iraq. That about sums up my position. YOU just want to make it into something else.

my son's school is starting a program like that - read one book together every month then meet with all the other participants in the program to discuss it.

I think a lot of viagra is sold to (older) guys who just want to have marathon sex.

You are right here. We need to have Birth control covered before Viagra/Cialis. Who cares if some horny old coot can't get it up, anyways. :-O

I believe this is because with Viagra you are attempting to correct something that doesn't work. With birth control you are trying to stop something that is natural. Similar to the fact that insurance generally doesn't, for instance, cover Rogaine to balding. Less Viagra = less need for Plan B.