Commissar

Hmm.

X-Files? The US military has been obssessed with all forms of media since Vietnam. I shouldn't worry particularly. They haven't been able to control even centralised forms like broadcast media. Let alone the net. They have, however, taken to blogging as a means of telling their stories. And when you nuzzle up to the teats of screaming lefty journalists I recommend you have an equal sip from those. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The vast majority of the military bloggers aren't doing so with the approval of the Department of Defense. They could get, and some have gotten, thoroughly ****kicked for doing it, too.

They're horrible. In situations of extreme social pressure, the flavour can be masked by dip. I'm sure Hungary will be seeing them soon - the relentless march of global capitalism and all. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, you're English. You're probably just not used to flavor in your food.

Well played, my friend, well played. Freedom of expression is freedom of expression regardless of what's being expressed. Either we agree on economical limitations under certain circumstances, or we cannot accept one and not the other without discriminating. Would almost everyone agree that it's fine to discriminate against the Klan or the Nazis? Yeah, they would. Trouble is, the US Constitution, at the very least, says that's not alright. Under US law - and any law modeled after it - Judaism, Islam, Christianity, they've all got the exact same right to freedom of expression as the KKK. No more, no less.

What gives you the right to wear your cross while denying, say, Joe Hitler from quietly wearing his swastika lapel pin? He never brings up his penchant for National Socialism, is polite and respectful while at work with all, but he just wears that damned lapel pin. And Fred Redneck's got his Klan Grand Dragon insignia on, too. Quiet, unobtrusive, no more noticeable than a cross. You cool with that?

"Tonight: Newfound Glory guest-starts on a very special Star Wars."

Bush is chastized for every announcement he makes, though. If nothing else, we can always fall back on remarking how he didn't manage to get through the speech without verbal folly despite his writing staff's deliberate use of small words. Or, as Dennis Miller put it, "Bush never said Iraq had nuclear weapons, he said they had nucular weapons." You can't just can't use the US as a yardstick. Too extraordinary a case. That said, something's not at all right about this not drawing any sort of commentary; if any nuke nation made any statement about their nukes, you'd think it'd get noticed. I'm surprised as hell that I first heard about this here, which makes me think something's up.

funny, but i never use any of those words. i also don't EVER call people idiots or any of the above just because their opinion is different. seems the liberal movement would rather assign name tags and insults than work out the issues. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Got me there. You guys are doing bang-up jobs on universal child healthcare, energy alternatives, tax relief for those who need it, deficit reduction, the promotion of the idea that certain rights aren't limited to certain groups, and keeping religion out of politics.

By Jove, Taks, I think you've just figured out politics! Don't forget "heartless" when discussing universal child healthcare, "short-sighted" when discussing energy, "greedy" when discussing taxes, "dumber than an Arkansas stripper" when discussing the deficit, "homophobic" when discussing civil rights, and "fanatical" when discussing church and state. Trouble is, they're all true.

but he's also never said they're a possibility... that's what we're talking about. i don't think anybody is foolish enough to think that a superpower doesn't contain the threat of nuclear force behind it's words... they (uh, we) just have to be tactful enough not to put them in front. the point then, is that when chirac puts such thoughts out on the table, nobody whimpers, but if the US does it, all hell will break loose. you even mildly agree with that assumption. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, come on. Saying, "We're not ruling out their use," is exactly the same as saying they're a possibility.

My actual formal response to the topic in question is this: First of all, you guys are making it sound like Bush has taken the possibility of utilizing nukes in the GWOT off the table. He's never done so. Do I think the world would flip out if he said something along the lines of this? Likely. Do I think it's hypocritical of the world not to flip out over Chirac doing so? Yes and no. I could be wrong, but I don't believe France has significantly utilized its military since Dien Bien Phu, whereas we've gone to war twice in the last five years. There are also enough French surrendermonkey jokes around to make any threat of the use of force, anywhere in the world, absolutely ludicrous, whereas we have no problem intervening when we see a need - and for the record, I think we should do more of it. In other words, it's a bit like the Dutch threatening to use their navy - they could theoretically do it, but no one believes it'll ever happen. Does that justify ignoring it? Not by a long shot. I said in another thread about the negotiations with Iran that the reason Europe's not going to be able to get much done is because it doesn't have the stick part of the compromise equation, only the carrot. They've got nothing to make Iran seriously listen to them, and you can't negotiate without some sort of clout. This could be France pulling the only real club it has from its bag and having a swing.

You and I were on a roll for a while, agreeing and so forth. Then you go and swallow the kool-aid from the Fox News mug like this.

Jesus. I'll pay you to go as Burger King. Not a lot, but cash money all the same.

End of Vietnam to the start of the first Gulf War. End of the first Gulf War to the start of the campaign in Afghanistan.

It's all about who's going, not who could've, should've, would've won. My Seahawks over the Broncos for the big game.

My advice is don't do it. Water's good, but I wouldn't worry too much about looking for one diet over another. Hell, my philosophy has always been to eat whatever the hell you want, just make sure you sweat it out at some point.

And, to tell you the truth, the central issue of this thread isn't so much civilian deaths caused by the US - Battlewookie wouldn't care about those if we were a smaller nation. The British screw up plenty, too, but I have yet to hear him piss and moan about the limeys getting something wrong. Fact of the matter is, I'm in this one to do what I can to dispell his illusions that mistakes that result in whatever - deaths, mishandling of a given situation, whatever - result from policy. If it were official US military policy in Iraq to go wherever the hell we felt like, or do whatever the hell we wanted when we got there, I'd damn sure know about it. But leaving aside personal experience, most of the stuff he's provided thus far as evidence for his case actually works against him, and some of his accusations are so ridiculously ludicrous that I just have to keep coming back. Edit: In other words, he's perfectly allowed to dislike us, but he damn well better start doing so based on fact rather than fiction.

Twenty-three thousand and one.

That's fine. You've made that point no less than twenty-three thousand times in this thread. I'm all for repetition if you're actually addressing the specifics of the issues we're discussing, but...

Please stop talking.

Think what you like. Looks like face-saving to me. Nobody in Pakistan actually likes the fact that the government is playing lapdog to the US. The Pakistanis have fed us all sorts of information before, and I have very little doubt they did so in this particular case. Battlewookiee, as for your Italian thing...let me ask you something. Why would a team of CIA operatives leave behind an easily-followed paper trail, in the form of hotel receipts and the like?

I said I'm not a soldier. Doesn't mean I've never been to the rodeo. Yeah...and Pakistan was very much aware that we were doing it. They're an ally, after all.

I'm not a soldier. Prove it. I hate to break it to you, buddy, but we're not the only ones who don't want Iran or North Korea to have nuclear weapons. In fact, we're not even the ones doing the vast majority of the heavy lifting when it comes to trying to stop them at the moment. Actually, no. We don't drop 2,000 pound bombs in the middle of city blocks. Only time we did that was Fallujah. And what the hell are you talking about, bombing allied countries? Iraqi security forces request airstrikes from us all the time. We don't give them a direct link, of course, but where exactly do you think a lot of our information comes from? God, we're right back where we were a month ago. First of all, I never made any claims about the accuracy of our weapons. They are, indeed, very accurate for the most part, but targeting is only as good as the intelligence we get. It can be wrong, but most often it's not. For every failure you read about in the news, there's a hundred successes. You think we drop bombs, or, speaking more broadly, conduct combat operations of various sorts only once or twice a month? You never read about the successes because it's the usual stuff.

I watched the whole movie. I also have more experience with this sort of thing than you might choose to believe. You just described a prison. You're right, they don't get to wander freely all over Cuba and watch HBO in the afternoons. A movement where? It's US property. People can bitch and moan about its existence all they want, doesn't much matter. You never saw that? Really? Must not be much of a TV person. I've seen plenty of clips of insurgents detonating a small IED, and then another as people gathered around. I also seem to remember a certain attack on a religious procession going over a crowded bridge. But the point you're trying to make is that the US bombs weddings and marketplaces. I think what you're missing is that those aren't the targets. You won't find a strike board marked up for a hit on a wedding at any airbase or on board any carrier. The insurgents, on the other hand? They most certainly do target civilians. They also target Iraqi politicians and policemen. But go on, keep trying to convince me that the insurgency plays by certain rules.

There is nothing from that link that says Al Qaeda only attacks US targets, major attacks or otherwise. Please share what you are smoking. I can't download video, but I can pretty much guarantee that US soldiers don't just wander into random houses to blow stuff up. Hopefully someone who can download video will give a brief explanation of what the film really does show. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Iraqi who apparently works for Western media explains how his home was raided by mistake. Our boys came in behind a flashbang - described as a 'huge explosion' - and detained him. He was taken to a 'military facility' and asked if he knew why he was there. He replied that he was being investigated, officer corrected him, said that he was there 'cause of a mistake. Then some footage of Marines going to the wrong house. CNN narrator calling Marines 'soldiers' several times. Heart-wrenching story of how this guy now fears another US military raid, and then out.