Re: Murtha is just wrong!
First, My appolgies for the following rebuttal being so wordy. However,I have a lot to heart-felt things to say about this, and will NOT be a silent key regarding the vital issue.<br /><br />
Originally posted by David L. Moore:<br /> It's about time the true story is told. The redumblican sheople, or more accurately the anti-democrat wants to paint the picture to the redumblican party's benefit and ignore the true words Murtha spoke. He is not for an immediate withdrawl as you said, but he is in favor of a reduction and eventual withdrawl of our troops. The right should actually read his quotes and then address the real issue, what he really said!
<br />I am a neocon, which automatically classifies me as "anti-democ rat". So let's go to the true source that you base this myth upon, shall we?<br />As neo cons, we are NOT wanting "
to paint the picture to the redumblican party's benefit and ignore the true words Murtha spoke.". Quite the contrary, we strive to shed light on
EXACTLY what he said!!<br /><br />We do not want to take him out of context, nor put words in his mouth that he did not speak. We want lefties to know what their champion-o-the-day is saying PRECISELY, and what those words mean -- (words mean things, you know).<br /><br />When murtha says, "
We got real problems. The Army is broken. The equipment is worn out. We got a $50 billion backlog of equipment which needs to be repaired"-- he is either lying, or telling the truth. Regardless tho, he is speaking
about the American military (to us neo cons, "American military" would read:"the
good guys"} in this global war;<br /><br />So take your pick, David. Are you claiming The man speaks for you? It would appear that you defend him, while telling me that i
paint pictures to my own benifit. Support him if you like, but Not me. He speaks for alqeuda militarily. He doesn't speak for America militarily. His efforts benefit only one side.<br />You are either disenfranchised, or you are defending murtha's words here. If you are defending him, you obviously side with him (a moron who is heavily invested in American defeat right now)-- and you have that blood-purchased right, do not mistake me.<br /><br />
Originally posted by David L. Moore:<br />And since when does the enemy need dissent in America to take up arms against American military forces?
<br />Since their declaration of "gihaad" against us,David.<br /><br />
Originally posted by David L. Moore:<br /> The insurgents certainly do not need our constitutionally guaranteed right of governmental protest in order to attack our forces. So please stop insulting our intelligence by telling us such lies. And stop the assault on the rights these valiant troops are fighting to preserve. That is no more appropriate than those vilifying the troops.
<br />I strongly dissagree. The so-called "
constitutionally guaranteed right of governmental protest" Is an extremely
VITAL weapon in their exstensive arsenal. They have an will use this more often than IED's. There have been captives beheaded, and captives released by them. Why the Differences in their disposition of hostages, David? <br /><br />"
Four Christian peace activists held hostage in Iraq were kidnapped at the same place where an Italian journalist was abducted, raising the possibility one group carried out both attacks", police said Thursday. <br />David, i am not a betting man, but would put the farm on this one: They WILL get released, just as the "italian Journalist" was, as opposed to being beheaded.<br />Why would i think this? Are not Christians the sworn enemy to these towel-headed mutants?<br />Aren't they slitting the throats of the "infidels"? We will have to wait and see, but i predict these "hostages" will be released, go on the talking heads shows on the insurgent networks, and tell the "story of their capture". And how they reasoned with their captors, and got to know them as "merely martyrs for their cause" (amoung other drivval). Then the book deals follow. Let's just see what happens, shall we? after all, the "italian journalist" is doing that now. And what a fine job she has done for "the insurgency" since!!!!<br /><br />
Originally posted by David L. Moore:<br /> if what you write,"We got real problems. The Army is broken. The equipment is worn out. We got a $50 billion backlog of equipment which needs to be repaired" is true,
Murtha said this. I just quoted him --- VERBATUM, by the way)!
<br />
Originally posted by David L. Moore:<br /> do you suppose that maybe that is some of Murtha's reason for wanting to withdraw?
I could
care less what that moron's reasons to cut-and-run are! They are not mine, nor my country's official "reasons to withdrawl". You, him, and the rest of your band of brothers have every right to "dissent". So do i. But the main difference between my "armchair generalship" and you guys, is the side we champion in this global war. And being pro-American, any "dissent", or criticism (and there is some) i hold for the American effort will be held to myself until our total victory has been achieved, and not before.<br /><br />
Originally posted by David L. Moore:<br /> If our equipment is in such bad shape it makes our brave soldiers' work and safety that much harder. After all you can't do the right job, the right way without the right tools. If our troops don't have the right tools, then we need to do one of two things. Either get them the right tools, proper equipment, safety gear and such, or (and not necessarily preferrable) GET OUT!
<br /><br />Well, of course, David! If it were merely the true subject of murtha's vendetta, then of course, he would be trying to fix it. But he is TOTALLY innacurate, for one important thing!<br />He projects an EXPRESSED (not implied) vision of "hand to mouth" operations! Simply BS! We have the best equipped, most mobile military machine on this planet BAR NONE!<br />Sure, there are the shortages of equipment that have plagued every single modern army ever emassed (and
every ancient one we have record of)! Hannibal had to feed a million troops and logistics personel AND a bunch of elephants... He lost half of his force BEFORE any vontact with the enemy --
But he never turned-back! He never "withdrew"! And he won!<br /><br />In warfare, there are
fundimental laws of insuring victory, or sealing your own defeat.<br />John F'in Kerry spoke about "the safety of our troops" last Wednesday, in rebuttal to the president's speech. He stated his concern for "safety of our troops"..... Another obvious MORON! The entire purpose of having troops is to place them into harm's way, to kill more of the enemy than they kill of you, and to break more of their equipment than their own in the process.<br />In general, this is to achieve what is called a "MISSION", David. Victory?<br />A liberal victory is invested primarily in a
defeat of that mission.<br />I pray that you loose.<br /><br /><br />
Originally posted by David L. Moore:<br /><br />I don't agree with this occupation. I do not like or respect baby bush, and I think that we are in Iraq to massage an ego trip for junior. However, since we are there our troops need our total support, get them the equipment necessary to do this job we have demanded of them, and let the military run the show, not the idiot-in-chief. Get them the right stuff, and let them get the job done. I think they would be home relatively quickly if this were the case.
So how about supporting them as opposed to those who criticise the very mission they were assigned to complete (must be victorious, btw)? Or do you want to cut "our overwhelming losses" and run too? Or do you just want a literal defeat? To us patriots (or "redumblicans" if you really prefer), the two scenarios are one in the same! I say, "NO THANKS!"<br /><br />Murtha fought and was even wounded serving in the military he now criticises from the comfort of his podium. Whereas he remains one of my heroes, he is still a moron. And i would hurl a loogie at him in a second, if i got within "firing range". Samey same goes for that other traitorous moron, John F'in Kerry...If only a loogie would awake them!!<br /><br />And that's my opinion. Thank you for asking, and wishing to debate it.
