Israel invades Gaza; Update: “A lengthy operation”
posted at 1:38 pm on January 3, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Just a headline so far and no one else is reporting it, but they’ve been shelling northern Gaza since this morning to prepare the way so it’s not unexpected.
Now the JPost is reporting it too. Stand by for updates.
Update: From the JPost, big dividends from good intel:
The IAF also hit the home of senior Hamas commander Abu Zacharia Al-Jamal. A Hamas spokesman announced that al-Jamal was killed in the attack, which would make him the third senior operative in the group to be targeted in the past three days.
More:
Israeli defense officials said some 10,000 troops, including tank, artillery and special operations units, were massed on the Gaza border and prepared to invade. They said top commanders were split over whether to send in ground forces, in part because such an operation could lead to heavy casualties but also because they believed Hamas already had been dealt a heavy blow. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were classified discussions.
Fox News reported earlier that Israeli leaders had okayed a ground assault while the Telegraph claimed that they’d nixed it, so it’s safe to conclude this wasn’t done without serious misgivings. I’m actually surprised they went in: They can’t stop the rockets and they surely don’t want to reoccupy, so the only goal realistically is to bloody Hamas’s nose. But they’ve already done that with the airstrikes. Upping the ante by sending in infantry only leaves them vulnerable to a 2006 scenario where Hamas “wins” by surviving. According to Haaretz, Arab leaders told Olmert, “Go in if you must, but don’t dare fail.” What will “failure” look like? What, specifically, are they after? Hamas leaders or Qassam caches, or something else?
If they’d called a ceasefire unilaterally and said, “Let that be a lesson to you,” Hamas would have fired off a few rockets and declared victory. Some victory, though — Israel’s killed several big jihadi fish and plenty of littler ones, and hit dozens of military targets with virtually no casualties on its own side. Now it’s got men in harm’s way and propaganda opportunities galore for the enemy in the form of the “resistance” chucking rocks at tanks while the media spoons it up. Exit question: Isn’t Hamas going to fire off rockets and declare victory anyway after the ground assault?
Update: The point of the war, eloquently stated by a commenter at Commentary: “The military campaign as a whole to the extent that it is conducted effectively, will greatly reduce the number of people existing right now who wish to and are capable of harming Israel. On its own terms, that’s all it can accomplish, and that’s enough. Whether it makes a few people angry in Pakistan is an incalculable-unless, for reasons of your own, you wish to give those who can rent a mob, buy colorful anti-Israel banners, and get themselves on CNN veto power over Israeli policies.”
Update: The JPost says the goal of the operation is to destroy Hamas infrastructure and seize control of launching pads in the north. For how long, though? Until they pull out in two weeks and the pads are re-seized by Hamas?
Update: I’ve said this before, but however slanted you think American media is against Israel, it really doesn’t even approach British media.
Update: “Tens of thousands” of reservists are on their way up.
Update: An IDF spokesman says there are “many, many targets,” so the world shouldn’t hold its breath waiting for a pullout. Question: Are we to infer from the timing that Obama greenlit the operation? I remember people like John Bolton speculating months ago that the IAF would make a run on Iran sometime between the election and the inauguration, partly to avoid putting the new president on the spot and partly to eliminate the possibility that he’d stop them from acting once in office. This ain’t Iran, but the principle still applies. Did The One sign off on this, or did Israel act now precisely so that he wouldn’t have to?
Update: Bits and pieces of video from the invasion.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Update: Isn’t this operation destined to be finished by Inauguration Day or very shortly thereafter? Obama’s not going to complicate his peace plans by tolerating a long Israeli incursion right out of the chute. They’re on the clock.
Update: A few careless statements from Israeli pols give the NYT all the reason it needs to up the ante further and ask whether anything short of destroying Hamas will do.
Vice Premier Haim Ramon went even further Friday night in an interview on Israeli television, saying Israel must not end this operation with Hamas in charge of Gaza.
“What I think we need to do is to reach a situation in which we do not allow Hamas to govern,” Mr. Ramon said on Channel One. “That is the most important thing.”…
“If the war ends in a draw, as expected, and Israel refrains from reoccupying Gaza, Hamas will gain diplomatic recognition,” wrote Aluf Benn, a political analyst, in the newspaper Haaretz on Friday. “No matter what you call it,” he added, “Hamas will obtain legitimacy.”…
[E]ven if Israel intends to hold back from completely overthrowing Hamas, its choice of assault tactics could head that way anyway. And the Israelis may already be facing a kind of mission creep: after all, if enough of Hamas’s infrastructure is destroyed, the prospect of governing Gaza, a densely populated, refugee-filled area whose weak economy has been devastated by the Israeli-led boycott, will be exceedingly difficult.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
They did hear the news about us electing a black man, right?
Chuck Schick on January 3, 2009 at 6:28 PM
Terrorist are terrorist, regardless of their name. Kill them all.
Johan Klaus on January 3, 2009 at 6:31 PM
I’d really rather lodge stick around to explain how cheering for the continuation of civilization is “warmongering”. As it is, I’m wondering what kind of coward has nothing worth fighting for:
.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
-John Stuart Mill
blankminde on January 3, 2009 at 6:35 PM
Good point. And God does seem to work in mysterious ways. Many things could change. As good people realize not to trust and count on Obama, they may take positive actions on their own.
JiangxiDad on January 3, 2009 at 6:38 PM
They really don’t respect Black Folks. Remember what al zawahri called Obama, house negro- house slave.
http://www.opinionbug.com/?p=1517
This Cartoon is a reaction to when Secretary of State Condi Rice stated, the middle east was going through birth pains. But the Left isn’t going to defend her no way, no how. I don’t know which are viler? Hamas or our coddled socialist.
Dr Evil on January 3, 2009 at 6:44 PM
” I don’t know which are viler? Hamas or our coddled socialist.”
well, our socialists think guns are icky, so that would give hamas a distinct edge …
/jus’ sayin’ …
//and yeah, generally not a good idea to tout a black to an arab …
///now, if we want to tout the fact that barry went to a madrassa, mebbe that’s a better idea …
[!!!!]
Buckaroo on January 3, 2009 at 6:48 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4092665/Hamas-blocks-the-birth-of-a-Palestinian-state.html
Maybe it is the Birth Process, they just don’t want to go into “Labor” oops too late:)
Dr Evil on January 3, 2009 at 6:50 PM
Am I too late to call shenanigans on lodge’s claims to be a conservative and work for the Navy?
Can someone really work for the military and have such a jaundiced anti-military outlook?
Religious_Zealot on January 3, 2009 at 6:52 PM
I know I guy that claimed to be in the marines that has little respect for the military. Of course, I heard from one of his old friends that the farthest the guy got was washing out of basic training.
Count to 10 on January 3, 2009 at 6:56 PM
It actually isn’t all that unusual. I know plenty of people in the military that are liberal about some very unusual things. I’m in the Marine Corps which is about as conservative as it gets I guess and we’ve got plenty of liberals sneaking about. We aren’t tested for cowardice at MEPS so this sort of thing happens from time to time I guess.
blankminde on January 3, 2009 at 6:58 PM
Count to 10 on January 3, 2009 at 6:56 PM
blankminde on January 3, 2009 at 6:58 PM
OK, but it sure doesn’t make sense to be part of an organization or process that you are dead-set against.
Seems to me that would be pretty harsh on the ole self-image and self-esteem.
Religious_Zealot on January 3, 2009 at 7:02 PM
The People’s Cube, Middle East Archive, The Middle East for Dummies.
http://thepeoplescube.com/
Dr Evil on January 3, 2009 at 7:04 PM
FROM THE PEOPLE’S ARCHIVES: The Middle East Conflict For Dummies
http://thepeoplescube.com/
Dr Evil on January 3, 2009 at 7:04 PM
In fact, it makes as much sense as an atheist going to seminary to be a priest.
Religious_Zealot on January 3, 2009 at 7:05 PM
What if those sentiments arise after the rejection?
Count to 10 on January 3, 2009 at 7:05 PM
Well, I also know another guy that claims that Catholic School made him an atheist.
Count to 10 on January 3, 2009 at 7:07 PM
What rejection?
Religious_Zealot on January 3, 2009 at 7:08 PM
I guess deep down I’d like to see Israel just drive them all out and take the Gaza strip. Palestinians can go become Iranians considering their politics. Its either that or Israel can kill them all and be done with it…
blankminde on January 3, 2009 at 7:08 PM
I’ve heard a couple similar stories, although I always questioned how deep the person’s faith was BEFORE seminary.
Also, one would hope they wouldn’t CONTINUE on toward the pulpit.
But back to my previous inquiry…
…if one uses words like ‘warmongers’ to pain the military, why on earth would that person want to join them?
The college money?
They’re masochists?
They intend to infiltrate the military in order to sabotage it (e.g. passing on secrets to the MSM)?
Religious_Zealot on January 3, 2009 at 7:10 PM
As long as there are Muslims who will not stop until Israel and the Jews cease to exist…
…there can be NO peace between them and Israel.
In other words, I agree with you.
The onus is on the Palestinians who have self-created their own living hell and despite ample opportunities to get out of it (their own land, their own country)…
…they have continued on this suicidal mission to kill Jews.
Religious_Zealot on January 3, 2009 at 7:13 PM
In this case, he is exactly the kind of guy who would take washing out personally, as a rejection.
But he still claims he was in the marines.
Count to 10 on January 3, 2009 at 7:13 PM
Sour Grapes?
Keep in mind, we don’t know if the person in question had these views before joining up.
Count to 10 on January 3, 2009 at 7:14 PM
Eek!
That sounds frighteningly similar to people who kill their ex-wives/girlfriends because if they can’t have them, no one can.
Religious_Zealot on January 3, 2009 at 7:16 PM
They have been trained into this by their condition somehow. I have no idea how to deprogram them, but killing off the homicidal ones seems like a good start.
Count to 10 on January 3, 2009 at 7:18 PM
Indochina is devoid of decisive military objectives and the allocation of more than token US armed forces in Indochina would be a serious diversion of limited US capabilities.
- Joint Chiefs of Staff, 26 May 1954
The United States intervened in the Vietnam War on behalf of a weak and incompetent ally, and it pursued a conventional military victory against a wily, elusive, and extraordinarily determined opponent who shifted to ultimately decisive conventional military operations only after inevitable American political exhaustion undermined potentially decisive US military responses. Even had the United States attained a conclusive military decision, its cost would have exceeded any possible benefit. Vietnam was then, and remains today, a strategic backwater. The United States could not have prevented the forcible reunification of Vietnam under communist auspices at a morally, materially, and strategically acceptable price.
- The US Army War College Quarterly, Winter 1996-97
“Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam.”
- H.R. McMaster
MB4 on January 3, 2009 at 7:20 PM
The homicidal teachers and encouragers (the cowards who train the kids to kill themselves) need to be exterminated.
Next, the remaining need to be shown different and better ways of living.
Which, if you think about, is very similar to the tactics of the Iraqi surge.
Religious_Zealot on January 3, 2009 at 7:20 PM
It doesn’t help that he likes to mouth off that he would kill all cops if he could, because they helped protective services remove him from his home.
Count to 10 on January 3, 2009 at 7:20 PM
Point.
Count to 10 on January 3, 2009 at 7:21 PM
Midwives show up.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230733150721&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Dr Evil on January 3, 2009 at 7:22 PM
Reference to last post.
Dr Evil on January 3, 2009 at 7:23 PM
bla.
Where did you fish those stinkers up from?
Count to 10 on January 3, 2009 at 7:24 PM
OK, I was a little young to understand what was going on during the Viet Nam war…
…but I thought that there were a couple of incontrovertible facts that speak against this lovely little paragraph:
1) Despite what the article claims, the Viet Cong’s decision to engage in conventional warfare during the Tet Offensive was a complete and total military defeat for them.
2) By ‘quitting’ Viet Nam, we allowed the genocide that occurred there and in Cambodia that killed over 2 million people. Thus showing that there WAS (or WOULD HAVE been) a very large benefit for a military victory.
Religious_Zealot on January 3, 2009 at 7:31 PM
I agree with you. Although the link below presents only the Israeli view, it’s a great quick history lesson on the historical events that bring us to the present day, and helps explain the Jewish point of view. I especially liked the animations.
http://www.conceptwizard.com/info.html
Red State State of Mind on January 3, 2009 at 7:31 PM
OOohhh…Snap…
That was kinda what I was getting at in my post awhile back…
BigWyo on January 3, 2009 at 7:31 PM
We did lose. You can debate the reasons and allocate the blame but we in plain fact did lose.
If your enemy wins the war, you are defeated.
- Sun Tzu’s nephew
The Viet Cong never surrendered and the 2 million, if it was indeed that many, were Cambodians killed by Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge.
MB4 on January 3, 2009 at 7:38 PM
It wasn’t so much the “quitting” of Vietnam, it was that Congress prevented the US air cover that should have shown up when the north invaded. The south basically folded because of that, demoralized. There is good reason to believe that the north would have been stopped had the south had US air support.
Count to 10 on January 3, 2009 at 7:39 PM
My mother said (may she watch us from Heaven), whenever something like this happened, that Israel is the Army Of God. That of course was her opinion, and I embrace it as well.
I wish we could accommodate them here in the US. I feel for their people. It must suck big time that no one wants you as a neighbor, they want you out and, add to that, most of them don’t even think you even should exist. I don’t know much about this lengthy war, but I hope for the well-being of the people of Israel and their neighbors, that it stops for good.
May the Heavens above care and protect our Israeli comrades in their battle for their freedom. I am always welcome for a good “zap” from the Almighty.
Now if you disagree with me, fire away; I stand by my position.
ProudPalinFan on January 3, 2009 at 7:44 PM
The U.S. Army.
MB4 on January 3, 2009 at 7:51 PM
You might want to read the whole US Army War College article and maybe sometime H.R. McMaster’s “Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam.”
MB4 on January 3, 2009 at 7:57 PM
So what are you saying:
- that saving 2 million lives wouldn’t have been a very large benefit
- or that we couldn’t have saved those 2 million+ lives?
Religious_Zealot on January 3, 2009 at 8:08 PM
Wrong answer, North Vietnam sued the United States for peace, that is known as a conditional surrender. As soon as the United States executed the provisions of that agreement North Vietnam violated every single provision they had agreed to. The Democrat led US congress then refused to uphold their agreements to South Vietnam.
doriangrey on January 3, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Oh and stick this one in your ear.
Were such high costs justified?
Dean Rusk, Walter Rostow, Lee Kwan Yew, and many other geopoliticians across the globe to this day answer yes. They conclude that without US intervention in Vietnam, communist hegemony–both Soviet and Chinese–would have spread farther through South and East Asia to include control of Indonesia, Thailand, and possibly India.
doriangrey on January 3, 2009 at 8:14 PM
Somehow I bet you are selective on what you believe.
Jamson64 on January 3, 2009 at 8:19 PM
Get it done fast and effectively Israel. Obama is on the way.
Yakko77 on January 3, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Anyone remember the horrific images of Israelis being removed from their homes in the Gaza Strip…I think it was 2005 or so. We were told it would bring peace. You can’t have peace with people who want to kill you!
SouthernGent on January 3, 2009 at 8:36 PM
History calls it a tactic. You might want to take a look at a map and you will see that the city that was named Saigon is now named Ho Chi Minh City. That kind of gives you a clue as to who won and who lost.
MB4 on January 3, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Absolutely right!
Hey dorian, how you doing buddy?
conservnut on January 3, 2009 at 8:46 PM
Still arguing with MB4… ;)
doriangrey on January 3, 2009 at 8:51 PM
The point is that it was not a military defeat. We only failed in the political sense, by not fulfilling our commitment to an ally after hostilitys ceased and we pulled out.
Ultimately, yes, the North Vietnamese took over the whole country, that was after our conflict and peace was declared. And Dorian is right, had we not made that stand, communist aggression would have spread much further.
conservnut on January 3, 2009 at 8:53 PM
As I noted above, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, The U.S. Army War Collage and H.R. McMasters all seem to have disagreed.
BTW, Dean Rusk and Walter Rostow were JFK and LBJ lackeys. Never heard of Lee Kwan Yew. Their
global warmingdomino theory was suppose to take place if the U.S. left South Vietnam.MB4 on January 3, 2009 at 8:54 PM
History also calls it breaking a treaty, which if fools like you and lodge hadn’t been in control of congress would have resulted in a completely different outcome. They surrendered, we accepted their surrender we withdrew our troops and they reneged on their agreement. They then over ran South Vietnam and cowards refused to honor our obligations to South Vietnam.
doriangrey on January 3, 2009 at 8:56 PM
Why would I want to be unselective in what I believe?
MB4 on January 3, 2009 at 8:56 PM
Your so fully of shit, you cherry pick certain contrarian articles to support your position while pretending that those articles represent the sole opinion of the The Joint Chiefs of Staff and The U.S. Army War Collage when in fact they represent no such thing. They are in fact nothing more than contrarian articles representing contrarian opinions held by a small minority within those organizations.
doriangrey on January 3, 2009 at 9:02 PM
If the Joint Chiefs of Staff had been listened to it would have resulted in 60,000 less Americans being killed and maybe a lot less others.
Indochina is devoid of decisive military objectives and the allocation of more than token US armed forces in Indochina would be a serious diversion of limited US capabilities.
- Joint Chiefs of Staff, 26 May 1954
You didn’t read that U.S. Army War College report, nor H.R. McMaster’s “Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam.” now did you.
MB4 on January 3, 2009 at 9:03 PM
Do you have any idea of how you sound? Do you act out like this in “real life”?
MB4 on January 3, 2009 at 9:07 PM
conservnut on January 3, 2009 at 8:53 PM
I’m with ya bro, but you’re wasting your time with that creature.
Israel was once feared by every country in that region. Liberals took over and took the spine right out of the nation of Israel. I can only hope that Israel will now reconnect with their spine, and do what ever it takes to protect their people and their way of life. Screw what any other country thinks; screw what any media outlet thinks; screw what the phony messiah thinks…. Wipe out the evil that continues to kill innocent civilians. Wipe out the evil that controls Iran. Turn Syria into a swamp of dust.
Oh, and while you’re at it Israel, go ahead and wipe out any “human shields” that America allows to pollute the battle field with.
Keemo on January 3, 2009 at 9:07 PM
Read H.R. McMaster’s “Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam.”, then get back to me.
MB4 on January 3, 2009 at 9:09 PM
MB4, read this article from the Hoover Institute.
One bit,
To be sure, U.S. withdrawal from and cessation of assistance to South Vietnam, which precipitated the communist victory in 1975, sorely tested the value of the American commitment and accordingly the strength of the Western alliance. Hanoi’s victory in Southeast Asia led the American people and U.S. allies to question the United States’ willingness or institutional political ability to “pay any price, bear any burden” to fight communism. These were uncertain times for those relying on the United States. But those who would look to the outcome of the war to argue that U.S. involvement in Vietnam was unnecessary bear the burden of showing, counterfactually, that a U.S. failure to respond to the situation in Vietnam as early as Kennedy’s administration would have had no impact on the collective alliance against communism. At the time, Charles de Gaulle and other European leaders were openly questioning the value of guarantees from America to act against immediate self-interest by fighting communism in situations that did not pose a direct threat to American security. If 58,000 American lives, billions of dollars, and decades of domestic turmoil still did not erase doubts about the U.S. commitment, imagine how those doubts would have been expressed had the United States blithely ignored a call on its guarantee. And, let us not forget, the policy of appeasement prompted by war-weary malaise of the 1970s did not win the Cold War. Vigilance during the 1980s did, a point relevant to current United States-Vietnam policy to which I will return.
conservnut on January 3, 2009 at 9:09 PM
I dunno, that sounds pretty similar to, “The operation succeeded, but the patient died”.
MB4 on January 3, 2009 at 9:13 PM
Do you have any idea how you sound? Like a god damned liberal/communist, that’s how.
doriangrey on January 3, 2009 at 9:15 PM
How old are you?
Jamson64 on January 3, 2009 at 9:16 PM
Actually it sounds like we screwed millions of Vietnamese. It sounds like you are cool with that. Sleep well child.
Jamson64 on January 3, 2009 at 9:18 PM
Look at it this way. Say you bring your car to an auto mechanic and he says he will fix your car up in a day for $500. Then 5 days later you get your car back and he charges you $1000 and it still doesn’t run right. Then the auto mechanic says he will fix your car up in 5 more days for another $1000. Then 10 days later you get your car back and he charges you $2000 and it still doesn’t run right. How many times are you going to repeat with that?
MB4 on January 3, 2009 at 9:20 PM
And when were you over there again now?
MB4 on January 3, 2009 at 9:21 PM
I disagree, the Vietnam war as well as Korea served a purpose. And all other efforts in places like Nicaragua and countless other nations all around the world served a purpose. They let the communists know that they had to pay a hefty price for each and every county they sought to take over. Not a human price because they did not care about that. But a monetary cost that they could not afford because of the failures of their system.
Ultimately the patient survived my friend.
conservnut on January 3, 2009 at 9:25 PM
Old enough to have actually been there!
MB4 on January 3, 2009 at 9:26 PM
General Bui Tin of North Vietnam- was asked –
Jamson64 on January 3, 2009 at 9:27 PM
Let See,V-1 and V-2’s are raining down on England,
‘the Blitz’,the Home guard is scanning to sky’s!
The spitfires are given priorty to shoot down the
‘buzz bombs’,and Churchill has issued the bombers
the missle and ramp launchers top priority!
And Germany’s rain of death continues!
———————————————————
Would any other country in the world tolerate their
civilians to be slaughtered by incoming rockets,mortars,
etc!!!!!
———————————————-
Hamas has declared WAR ON ISRAEL!
Israel needs to have an all WAR that HAMAS has been
dying for!!
And the poor Palestinians,they voted for Hamas as their
Government!!
canopfor on January 3, 2009 at 9:27 PM
Well now, Al Gore may agree, he certainly should anyway, as there are a lot less carbon emitters around, including 60,000 Americans and however many children and grandchildren they would have had by now.
That would depend on which patient(s) you are referring to, my friend.
MB4 on January 3, 2009 at 9:30 PM
MB grow up. I know people who your type screwed . Sleep well.
Jamson64 on January 3, 2009 at 9:31 PM
We’re really in the weeds now. If you’ve got time in between debating why Vietnam failed (which is extremely important – no intent to diminish it) maybe say a prayer for Israel? If you don’t pray then maybe you could hope. I hope and pray that if any Israeli soldiers die on the ground that it is not in front of a video camera for propaganda purposes.
Gaza doesn’t deserve a ground invasion.
blankminde on January 3, 2009 at 9:33 PM
Well now, that is some coincidence as this little mouse just declared WAR ON ME! Care to predict the outcome?
FeralCat on January 3, 2009 at 9:34 PM
I prefer to go back to your patient scenario.
You go to the Dr because of a pain in your side (we will call it the MB4 pain ;-))
You pay $75 for the office visit, but wait he wants you to have more tests. So you pay another $1500 for an MRI and find that it is a mass. Then you have a biopsy for another $4500 and they determine that it is cancer. Then you spend $35,000 to have it removed and then another $50,000 for chemo to ensure it is gone.
Money well spent huh?
conservnut on January 3, 2009 at 9:34 PM
nut- why do you bother? MB4 is one of the most immature thinkers around.
Jamson64 on January 3, 2009 at 9:35 PM
Textbook case of projection on your part there Jamson, I must say.
Sigmund on January 3, 2009 at 9:37 PM
MB4 pains are further south… ;)
doriangrey on January 3, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Hmmm, I’m guessing mouse burgers for supper… ;)
doriangrey on January 3, 2009 at 9:38 PM
You don’t have a clue as to what “my type” is.
MB4 on January 3, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Ahh, that’s why I love him. I have been away from this site for a few years except for an occasional visit. MB4 was one of my favorite sparring partners way back when.
conservnut on January 3, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Not at all Mr. Freud. I do like your simplistic thinking. MB can keep up with it even if it is without gravitas. sleep well child.
Jamson64 on January 3, 2009 at 9:39 PM
Some of us do. You’re a Gen Wesley Clark give me defeat over victory any day kind of guy.
doriangrey on January 3, 2009 at 9:39 PM
You mean reading your posts for months tells me nothing about you? So you must be lying in your posts.
Jamson64 on January 3, 2009 at 9:40 PM
And my Jewish cousins will apparently be having themselves some Hamas Burgers. Bon Appetit.
FeralCat on January 3, 2009 at 9:41 PM
Ha! Granted!
conservnut on January 3, 2009 at 9:41 PM
Let me posit an alternative theory. Maybe you have dull perceptions.
MB4 on January 3, 2009 at 9:43 PM
And may the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob protect them and make their enemies a dung heap where the worm dies not and the fires never go out.
doriangrey on January 3, 2009 at 9:44 PM
You still haven’t read H.R. McMaster’s book, now have you?
MB4 on January 3, 2009 at 9:44 PM
MB4 do you not comprehend?
Jamson64 on January 3, 2009 at 9:46 PM
Nope, and I have zero intention of doing so either. I don’t need to read a bunch of bullshit excesses for why surrendering to enemies you have defeated is a good idea. Nor do I need to read a bunch of crap which can only be described as how to surrender without scratching your rifle when you drop it.
doriangrey on January 3, 2009 at 9:47 PM
Dorian…the likes of MB much prefer to look back with their version of 20/20 glasses rather than look at the truth. He selects to read only what supports his contentions.
Jamson64 on January 3, 2009 at 9:50 PM
Uno poco problemo senor, not at all well spent with regard to the “patient” called Vietnam (and 60,000 dead Americans) and certainly not with “doctors” Johnson, McNamara and Bundy. We must all endeavor to keep our analogies at least reasonably connected to the subject at had.
MB4 on January 3, 2009 at 9:51 PM
“the likes of MB4″. You sound so
patheticallyridiculous. I’m trying to be polite. You must try to do better.MB4 on January 3, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Vietnam wasn’t the patient, all of Indochina/southeast Asia was. Vietnam was just the site of the cancer.
doriangrey on January 3, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Hey, there is a reason guys like you got fragged in Vietnam.
doriangrey on January 3, 2009 at 9:56 PM
Now dorian, if you don’t read that how are you ever going to get your Jacques Chirac Bozo button?
conservnut on January 3, 2009 at 9:57 PM
You have got that bass ackwards. My reading, and experience, have resulted in my conclusions. Read H.R. McMasters and maybe you can catch up some.
MB4 on January 3, 2009 at 9:57 PM
You are confused. No one ever even tried to frag me.
MB4 on January 3, 2009 at 9:59 PM
Ha, look who’s talking. Your analogies have been all over the board!
conservnut on January 3, 2009 at 9:59 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »