It’s demeaning to everyone involved.

Honora, my dog said to tell you that you have no business trying to play thought police, or to determine what connected occurrences are acceptable to discuss. She also says you still haven’t explained how any of the equals “F*ck Iraq”, and that you should quit while you’re behind.

She’s a smart bitch, I tell ya. You should try her pumpkin pie. It’s to die for.

Maybe honora didn’t know Jabba=Murtha. That would explain the bizarro response?

Honora, Pablo has me right. Like I said, I think it’s a good idea. I also think Murtha is not just wrong on Iraq policy, but actually nuts. And so the notion of a “good policy” that brings Mad Jack Murtha significant political pain is absolute serendipity.

No honest reader would equate that with “F–k Iraq”, as that is exactly the opposite of my intent. Do you believe that sending in more American troops somehow screws Iraq?

Really?

..is strange. Who is the “them” you refer to? Swedes? Trinidadians? Get a grip.

honora on November 16, 2006 at 1:01 PM

I suppose listing the targets after the initial “nuke ‘em” was just to subtle for your small mind. Sorry Honora.

It’s a good thing I’m not in charge. I’d be dropping nukes left and right just because I was pissed. Pakistan… crater, North Korea… crater, Iran… BIG crater, Hugo Chavez… put him in the same cell in Gitmo as Michael Moore…

See… no Iraq listed…

As for “a grip” which one of us is the troll? Oh that’s right… you are…

You can do better than that. My dog probably could too. You want me to ask her?

Pablo on November 16, 2006 at 2:08 PM

Well of course I do. However be advised that this is how Son of Sam started his life of crime. My point, which you refuse to get, is that the life and death decision to send in more troops does not belong in the same thought as “heh, heh, this will really piss off Murtha.” It’s demeaning to everyone involved.

If they do not listen to the Generals and the people ON THE GROUND in Iraq, then once again, they are doing the exact same thing they “claimed” the president was doing before the elections. Rock meet hard place.
One has to wonder if Hillary has any …

I think it’s a good idea, and when I woke up this morning, I would’ve never believed anyone is suggesting it. On the political front, I can’t imagine anything sharper getting shoved up Jabba’s stinker than another 20,000 American troops in Iraq.

You’re making shit up, honora. Jaibones comment was simply that if the recommendation to send more troops in is followed it will an outright rejection of Murtha and his “plan”. How does his prefacing that with “I think it’s a good idea” equate to “F*ck Iraq”?

You can do better than that. My dog probably could too. You want me to ask her?

Guardian: Bush to send more troops in “last big push” to stabilize IraqAllahpundit Supposedly the Baker Commission’s going to recommend a four-point strategy devised mainly by its Pentagon advisors:· Increase US troop levels by up to 20,000 to s…

What part of “Send in more troops to clean things up” strikes you as “F*ck Iraq”, honora?

Look at the context: the comment was that sending in more troops (you know, those folks who get shot at) is probably a good idea and isn’t it just grand this will piss off the Dems? So context is the key to my response. (I realize telling you to evaluate messages as part of a particular dialogue is akin to asking a dog to bake a pie, but what the hell).

Subject of this post: “..Bush to send more troops…to stabilize Iraq.” Your post begins:

Drop a nuke or two!! That will make them sit up take notice, and pray to Allah we aren’t just getting warmed up.

So your claim:

Didn’t mention Iraq…

..is strange. Who is the “them” you refer to? Swedes? Trinidadians? Get a grip.

I admire someone who doesn’t try to hide their agenda. “F*ck Iraq, let’s make our political opponents look bad.”

What part of “Send in more troops to clean things up” strikes you as “F*ck Iraq”, honora?

Jesus.

…Akbar!

The problem is that these nuclear facilities in Iran are heavily shielded and built underground. It’s going to take something very large to take them out.

Pakistan doesn’t want us to kill Taliban or Al Qaeda in Pakistan. Musharraf has gone back to being a patsy for terror.

Personally, I’m sick of hearing “we missed him” when referring to a Al Qaeda or Taliban commander.

We have to stop playing with kid gloves. We aren’t playing to win. We are playing to make everybody happy, and it just isn’t working.

We are the big kid on the block, but we allow all these pipsqueaks to kick us in the shins. When we don’t do anything about, we encourage it.

Time to start putting them back in there places, and time to start playing to win.

I think this is a little short sited in that there are Sunni insurgants attacking Shia and Shia insurgants attacking Sunni. The Shia aren’t going to turn in their insurgants because as much as they dislike what they are doing to Iraq’s stability, they offer the only real protection against the Sunni and vice-versa. Training and equipping the Iraq army sounds great, but when the majority of recruits are insurgants who sign up to get weapons and training and then abandon the Army in favor of the militias it just doesn’t work out very well. It sounds brutal, but letting them fight out the civil war until they are tired of killing may be the only real solution. If a foriegn power tried to intervene in our civil war it probably wouldn’t have made much difference; some problems just need to be solved internally.

Plan: liberate Iraqis, offering them a better life. If that doesn’t work, blow them all to hell. Next case.

honora on November 16, 2006 at 10:37 AM

Didn’t mention Iraq…

Point of clarification: you are referring to the Iraqis here, right? Not the administration/ (Sorry, couldn’t resist!!)

honora on November 16, 2006 at 10:42 AM

I was talking about the Iraqi’s… but Pelosi and Murtha will suffice in a pinch.

That makes no sense, but then your dealing with people who are kind of backward to start with.

E L Frederick on November 15, 2006 at 11:57 PM

Point of clarification: you are referring to the Iraqis here, right? Not the administration/ (Sorry, couldn’t resist!!)

Info, Allah. That’s how they stand up to them. And, frankly, I think more troops could make that a possibility. I know there’s a limit to the equation, but right now more sounds better.

I think it’s a good idea, and when I woke up this morning, I would’ve never believed anyone is suggesting it. On the political front, I can’t imagine anything sharper getting shoved up Jabba’s stinker than another 20,000 American troops in Iraq.
I am laughing so hard, I threw up a little in my mouth…

Jaibones on November 15, 2006 at 11:57 PM

I admire someone who doesn’t try to hide their agenda. “Fuck Iraq, let’s make our political opponents look bad.” Well it’s an ill wind as they say. Jesus.

Drop a nuke or two!! That will make them sit up take notice, and pray to Allah we aren’t just getting warmed up.

It’s a good thing I’m not in charge. I’d be dropping nukes left and right just because I was pissed. Pakistan… crater, North Korea… crater, Iran… BIG crater, Hugo Chavez… put him in the same cell in Gitmo as Michael Moore…

Now that’s torture.

E L Frederick on November 15, 2006 at 11:44 PM

Plan: liberate Iraqis, offering them a better life. If that doesn’t work, blow them all to hell. Next case.

Brilliant. Don’t you maybe think that we’ve been trying to work on that the entire time? It’s been a failure because the units are divided amongst tribal and religious lines, many of them don’t trust each other or us, and recently there has been suspicions that soldiers and police officers are actually cooperating with the insurgency.

WisCon on November 16, 2006 at 9:36 AM

I know it’s been what we’ve been working on. I’ve been there (Baghdad). The problem is that the Iraqi’s care less about freedom and order than they do about killing each other.

But are those troops going to be allowed to wage WAR without the shackles of political correctness?

NOPE.