Re: Cheney shoots a guy..

From: slatconsulting - view profile
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 5:09 pm
Email: slatconsulting <o...@xxxxxxxxx>
Groups: alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees



To continue my reply to your aimless babble:



A little background: I'm a 38-yo UW-Madison grad with a Master's in
journalism who's currently holed up at the LOC. Military experience?
Zilch. In the mid-80s, I was active in keeping both the ROTC and CIA
recruiters on campus-a worthwhile struggle that continues to this day via
the Solomon Amendment.

So you graduated in '89 or possibly '90. You say you were angered
by the treatment of ROTC and CIA recruiters by the univ admin (and
presumably was active as freshman and sophomore as you refer the years
to mid-80s) and somehow you didn't see it fit to at least join the
ROTC? You realize active duty isn't part of the requirement unless
you were a scholarship ROTC, right? I mean you could've at least
tried it and opted out senior year. (And given your intelligence trust
me you wouldn't even come close to qualifying for it). How about
after the graduation? Did looking at OCS occur to you? There was
something of a war going on I guess. I realize I said I'll stop
calling you chicken***, but I think I was hasty. You really are a
chicken***.


All of my posts have been unashamedly pro-invasion
and pro-military. So where does the "chicken" part come from?


Ever hear of a saying "talk is cheap" chicken***? You can be very
brave with other people's lives (Remember your words? Casualties are
"miniscule" and the danger is part of the military profession? How
about your opposition to honor the dead?) while you weren't anywhere
close to even signing up even when there actually was a war going on.
I don't have a problem at all with people not serving. It's their
choice even during the wartime. However, when they don't and yet
still think the casualties are light and that anyone who speaks against
the war is a traitor, that's when I see a chicken***. I say this
because chances are in the event chickenshits like you somehow do got a
draft notice, my instinct tells me you'd have been looking at every
angle for a deferment like another U-W poli sci reject *** Cheney (Did
you know that he flunked out of the poli sci graduate program as well
as Yale? I still don't understand how he managed to accrue all those
deferments. That has to be a record for 1960's).

The fact
that I'm not manning a post in Iraq? Are war opponents obligated to serve
as human shields to prove THEIR authenticity? Do you deny that hostility
to the troops is an almost purely Lib-Dem phenomenon? It sure is at the
University of Washington, where left-wing students have rejected a
proposed memorial to one of the school's bravest military heroes:

I don't really give a crap about U Wash of whatever the campus
politics is these days. Nothing that goes on now is ever going to top
what happened in the 60's and early 70's. Those of us who were in
Columbia detachment had to commute to Fordham campus along with NYU
candidates every Saturday while carrying our gear in a separate bag
because we didn't want to deal with spitting or eggs thrown at us on
the streets or in subways in uniform, but you know what? We survived
it as a nation. Guys who were there a few years before I got to the
campus had to deal with tear gas every day back in 1968. I'd like
the younger people to better understand what the military is and how
things are as soldiers and marines, but whatever. It's not life or
death to anyone other than hurt feelings and some inconvenience.


<lots of pointless stuff snipped>

You really are a dumb ***. What is the point of the snipped pieces?
Does Stein speak for everyone who is opposed to the war? Does Ann
Coulter speak for everyone who is for the war? Get this through the
thick skull of yours. Vinnie isn't part of the Left. I'm not part
of the Left. I can think for myself and come to my own political
conclusions and not recite talking points handed to me by some party
hack or a Fox News talkie. I've disagreed with regs who are
Democrats as well as GOP. I have been what used to be known as a
moderate Republican. The war and the aftermath was the final straw
that broke the camel's back. You accused me of assuming that my
service record makes me an expert. First, dumbass you don't know my
professional or educational background so don't think the Army was
the entire work experience. Second, I've supported most of my
contentions with facts (and if prompted I will provide citations as
well as further elaborations), so if you want to rebut them point by
point, I'll gladly engage in an intellectual discussion. (And I
promise I'll refrain from ad homs for these despite my general
disgust with you)





But don't you dare question his "patriotism"! Isn't it refreshing to
finally be dispensing with all the bull***? Finally, no more "faux"
concern for our brave boys and girls sent off to die for a "lie." No more
phony angst about body armor or steel plating for the humvees. The truth
is, they could care less if you died. Guys like Stein don't WANT you to
win, because that would be tantamount to a victory for Bush, the neocons,
and liberty, and Lord knows we can't have that. The Left just can't seem
to decide if the troops are roving death squads (Stein) or infantalized,
hoodwinked dupes who should be brought back immediately in one piece
(Vin). Get back to me when you've made up your minds.



Ok. I'm now convinced. You're just too damn stupid to have
graduated from UW-Madison. I think in your day they must've required
a freshman composition class in order as a core requirement ("Logic
and Rhetoric"). There is just no way you could've passed it given
your thickheadedness. Son, did you have any trouble finding employment
after your supposed MA in journalism? How did you make a living I
mean, any living with rhetorical skills like this? (Uh, you don't
have to answer that... that is if you didn't get it the first time)

<Useless *** about idiots protesting in bad taste snipped>


And you jokers have the nerve to accuse ME of being indifferent to troop
suffering? The hypocrisy is piling up.

Numbnuts, I'm not a member of the radical Left. Even though you
might think like some of them, I'm not going to ask you to explain
the actions of the Aryan Nation or KKK.


Callous Bush never attended a funeral? NO PRESIDENT DOES. It's NOT part
of the protocol. Can't take as many photos as you want of coffins being
offloaded at Andrews? Again, not part of protocol. We know they're dead;
the military isn't lying about casualty figures. So what's your
motivation for photographing the deceased? To drum up support for the
war? Hardly. Again, all cost, no benefits.

You stupid ignorant ***. Who makes the protocol numbnuts? The White
House does. Did you know that there is actually a White House
"Office of Protocols" in the OEB? Having an untrained person
sitting in the co-pilot seat of a S3 while landing on USS Abraham
Lincoln back in 2002 sure wasn't part of the protocol (or to use the
exact term which is regulations) but the word came down from the White
House to make an exception for the commander-in-chief so he can
proclaim to the American people that the mission was accomplished (if
he really thought about the well being of the sailors and marines of
the strike group, he could've let them dock first after having been
at sea for 14 months on extended tours but I guess politics comes
first). One word from the COS at the White House and the protocols
change in five minutes. Finally, it's not Andrews you stupid ***.
It's Dover AFB because the presidential air fleet is at Andrews AFB
and lord knows we can't upset the President or the Vice President.
Are you sure you have a brother who was an AF officer? It's about
honoring the dead. You wouldn't understand it in the least, because
you have no clue what it means to lose a buddy you worthless piece of
***.



"But we could have contained Saddam!" "Sanctions were working!" Holy
***. That's almost on a par with Holocaust revisionism.

This worthless idiocy doesn't deserve a response.

<Useless diatribe snipped>

You know what's really amusing?
The same people who advocate containment (Badger) don't see the irony
when they bash the administration for failing to keep foreign fighters
out of the country.

Ok chicken***. Point out where I did bash the administration for not
keeping the foreign fighters out of the country?

If the US can't keep everybody out post-war, how on
Earth were we supposed to keep everybody IN pre-war? I'm sorry, but in a
day and age where biological and nuclear weapons can be smuggled in a
vile or suitcase, there is no real containment.

Now the clueless chicken*** is an expert on deterrence theory? You
are way the *** out of your league numbnuts. I'd waste a booklength
response to your idiocy, but it's just waste of time so I'll just
skip it as just the usual drivel.



The Soviets respected
MAD, but not this crowd. North Korea and Iran? Well, I've heard you guys
demagogue this issue to death, but you never answered your own
hypothetical. Quid pro quo, gents.

What? Is English your second language? (Given your reading
comprehension difficulties, I'm starting to suspect this.) When did
we demogague North Korea and Iran numbnuts? I've laid out exactly
what the current and past historical situations in the Korean peninsula
had been and why we will not attack the North in a preemptive strike
and why we will likely cut a deal. If you think I was flawed in either
reasoning or factual basis, go right ahead and point them out. As for
Iran, the same thing. Thanks to what is happening in Iraq, we no
longer have the conventional means (we are at the breaking point
militarily) to back up our threats to deal harshly with Iran when they
go nuclear. So we will try sanctions and containment, even though
unlike Iraq, Iran has been behind several terror bombing that killed
Americans (USS Cole, Beirut Embassy bombings, etc.) Now if you had
actually read Bob Baer's book "See No Evil" instead of just
throwing out his title, you'd understand some of what I'm saying.


Now as for your idiocy regarding containment on Iraq being akin to
appeasement, Holocaust revisionism, and other idiocy, now follow very
very carefully as I explain very very very slowly for you dimwit.
Everyone knows that Iran and North Korea are far more dangerous and
capable than Iraq which had been pretty much castrated militarily due
to the sanctions. Now follow closely. Both Iran and North Korea are
much more deadly and capable. Both countries have engaged in terror
activities (Iran) and military action (North Korea) against the United
States and its interests Both will soon have nuclear capability as
Iran will likely go nuclear within a year or two (and NK already has
nuclear capability). Stay with me now. Because our troops are tied
down massively (virtually every general officer in the Army talks about
the breaking point now), there is no bleeping way we are ever going to
threaten military action either in North Korea (was never a possibility
anyway even before the proliferation) or Iran. In other words our
military options are non-existent. Are you still with me dumbass? So
the logical conclusion is that by invading Iraq and grabbing the tar
baby, we are *FORCED* to rely only on containment against Iran and
North Korea who are far more dangerous even if we wanted a military
solution. You see how stupid you've been by claiming that a
castrated Iraq couldn't be contained yet we are forced to use that
option in Iran and North Korea because of our war in Iraq? However,
despite yet another demonstration of your idiocy on my part, fear not
as all will be well. We the US will appease Iran and North Korea and
will likely cut a deal. When that happens, will you castigate GWB as
harshly as you castigated Clinton for not having the "balls" oh
gutless wonder?



<blah blah blah, useless crap on intelligence tampering that has been
addressed repeatedly by others snipped...>


I'm not an "America, right or wrong" kind of guy. Abu Ghraib was a
disgrace that could haunt us in that region for years to come, and the
number of post invasion mistakes by the Pentagon (not enough boots on the
ground, poor security, inadequate armor, pourous borders, collateral
damage) could probably fill a small phone book. Nor am I thrilled about a
plan to outsource the security of our Eastern seaports to a company from
Dubai. But Bush never promised us a rose garden, and we aren't giving the
enemy nearly enough credit for what's transpired since "shock and awe."
The insurgents are smart, technologically sophisticated, well-armed,
mobile, and adaptable. But they're also outnumbered. It's 50,000 holdouts
versus 50 million Iraqis who yearn for a better life free of tyranny.
Democracy in Iraq is in its embryonic stage, and panicky sellouts like
Murtha and Kerry--still traumatized by our failure in Vietnam--want to
kill it in utero.

You explain to me how you're going to create a viable federated
political structure in Iraq among the Shia, Sunni and Kurds and create
an Iraqi national army and I'll explain point by point why you are
completely deluded. By the way, since when did you become an expert on
insurgency? This last paragraph reads like something your heard from
one of the Fox News shows. Time is ticking Slat. You have to sign the
papers before your 39th birthday so drop the lead and get a move on it
now chicken***.

.

Loading