alright ambiguous military right wing tuff-guy, why don't you look at the statement by fairweather:
"I think it is our right to kill any Syrian that infiltrates the Iraq border with the intent to kill American soldiers - at least as long as we're there - don't you?"
without getting into a host of other very relevant contingencies, fairweather's post is a wee bit vague regarding what the nature of threat a US soldier (ie illegal invader) might face from a syrian. as far as i'm concerned, the whole fucking invasion was, and continues to be, illegal; hence, any action by a US soldier is illegal (poor fucks). but that's just me, and i'm sure matt's got a different scenario in mind, one that takes into consideration the nature of the threat (ie clear and imminent, potential, etc.).
"right wing tough guy"? WTF? You guys on the left are so fucking dense with your aspersions. DeChristo doesn't strike me as "right wing" in the least. Just because someone disagrees with your left-wing orthodoxy in one case does not make him a "right wing"-er on all positions. Ditto for your last whining barb at me as a "reactionary". It's no wonder nobody takes you ass-clowns seriously.