God bless our military, and God bless our veterans.

*slap!*

Julia Grey said,
Worse, that comment won’t phase you.

The word you’re looking for is “faze” in that context.

You’re welcome.

Hah! I had no idea ‘faze’ was a word. Thanks Julia! Never thought I would learn anything on the Sadly site. You’ve proven me wrong. Belated thanks.

“It is a common misconception … that conservatives are in favor of battle. I’m just a libertarian, but I think I speak for them when I say ‘we do not advocate war’.”

That’s interesting, because I’m pretty sure you said this also:

“Even if we were fighting Tibetan monks, or homeless mothers, I’d support our troops winning the thing.”

Is that where we lose congruity? Maybe our differences are smaller than I’d imagined! As I said, I was not pro-war with Iraq, but then it started. That’s when things changed. I’m also not for a war with Tibetan monks or homeless mothers, but if such wars ever came to be, you can be damned sure I’d want our troops to win, laying utter waste to the monks and moms.

After the war was over, I’d want some answers, like ‘how were those homeless moms jeopardizing us?’ And I’d want someone to pay dearly if the answers were no good. But until we’d won, I’d be totally and completely for snuffing out the homeless moms and Tibetan monks.

Is that clear? I could repeat it…

I would LOVE to Dan, and thank you for the opportunity. Initially, when Bush slapped Sadam with a 48 hour ‘cease and desist’ order, winning merely meant taking Sadam out of power. We of course did that, being that we have the coolest military machine in the whole damned world.

Sadly, since we necessarily broke the system that the tyrant Sadam had set up to oppress his people, we had to create a new one from scratch to give these mostly good people freedom. Even more sadly, we found out in the hardest way possible, the voting booth, that these people were still slaves, but only at that point did we find out who they were slaves too. It turned out to be their imams. You, being the omniscient liberal, probably knew that all along, but us poor stupid conservatives didn’t and actually thought we were giving these people a good turn.

So you might ask (actually, you DID ask), ‘what defines winning’? The answer is simple. If we leave that country in a position to defend itself from terrorists (that we, by being there, brought upon them), having created a place in the muslim world where women actually have a voice, then we’ve won.

If on the other hand we leave Iraq a country on the verge of civil war, where women are raped or tortured because of their clothing (as they are in most islamic countries), we lost.

If we lose, we lose in a huge way. Male supremacy will continue to sweep the world, no doubt engulfing Europe before it’s beaten. But if we win, wow. A new era will begin, where women throughout the world will be treated as equals. I know that means nothing to most of you, having lived in the West where they already are treated that way, but you have to realize that in most of the world, they aren’t.

Women piss me off as much as the next guy (mostly because I’m ugly as heck), but can’t you agree that they deserve an equal voice? I think they do, and we (our military at least) are facilitating this idea. I’m saddened by Iraqi deaths, and HORRIFIED when an American dies, but it’s for the greater good. I know this. Our troops know this. Can’t you know it too?

Kobie, learn to speak civilly! It’s not rocket science. Also, if you remove one letter from your name, I totally dig your beef. Very ‘spensive though :(.

I’m a fucking douchebag.

That’s interesting, because I’m pretty sure you said this also:

“Even if we were fighting Tibetan monks, or homeless mothers, I’d support our troops winning the thing.”

I wonder where anyone would get the idea that you are a drooling war-puppy (without actually serving in any of course), where as long as U.S. troops are doing the killing, in defense of “Freedom” or other wise, you’ll happily bark along (again, as long as you don’t have to do any of the fighting).

The word you’re looking for is “faze” in that context.

You’re welcome.

Liberty uber alles, Gavin aka Jillian!

It is a common misconception, John, that conservatives are in favor of battle. I’m just a libertarian, but I think I speak for them when I say ‘we do not advocate war’. What we do advocate is freedom. Freedom over all. See, I made it sound kind of nazi so you could have something to gripe about :).

All of your example countries suffer from a lack of freedom. But they’re not directly harming us, so going to war with them would be a mistake. Sudan and Somalia should be included in that list, btw. But there are other countries that ARE directly harming us. Syria and Iran are prime examples. And yes, I do think we should attack them, but only to destroy them, not to stick around and rebuild them like we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Before the Iraq war, I was wholeheartedly against it. It seemed like a bad idea, and there was not much to be gained by it. Once it started, I became completely in favor of our troops winning. Still am, and always will be. Why? Because I’m American, and I support our troops and their missions, whatever they may be.

Possibly! If you are uninterested in your soldiers winning wars at least… My philosophy is quite different though. Even if we were fighting Tibetan monks, or homeless mothers, I’d support our troops winning the thing.

6 of one, 4 dozen of the other, divided by eight, huh?

I support a Justin Timberlake nomination. We need an Attorney General who can bring teh sexy back…

What the…? Johnny, that thing you’re looking in is not a window, it’s a mirror.

Nice party, Jillian.