"The United States is now a legitimate military target in that war. That includes factories making the missiles or any parts or materials that go into them, refineries making aviation fuel, and trucks and railroads and ports and ships and planes being used to transport any of those things, not to mention any of the people involved in those activities. The U.S. hasn’t actually “declared war” for 50 years, but make no mistake about it — it has now declared war against the people of Lebanon every bit as much as it did against the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Palestine, and anyplace else they’ve been “personally” involved in bombing the population into submission."
Can I call them unpatriotic now?
Does this look like war to you?
It kinda does to me. And I've seen a lot of war.
So what's their point? Well, there is none, unless they are making the point that it's okay for the US to be at war with islamic fascism only when the islamic fascists say it's okay to be at war, and only when we are on the receiving end of an attack. Good strategy if all you want to do is lose.
So, again, I ask, can I call them unpatriotic now? How about anti-American? And these people think that they deserve to be in power because they are smarter, better, more honest, and morally superior. I guess we'll see.
Deb Frisch, of "like shooting frisch in a barrel" fame, thinks the soldiers over here are "dupes".
"...given the fact that anyone with a quarter of a brain knows this war was about oil, not "spreddin' freedumb," shouldn't those bumper stickers on the butts of SUV's say "support our dupes?""
This coming from someone who uses threats of violence and sexual predation against a 2-year-old as legitimate debating points.
Okay Deb, I'll accept the "dupe" label. After all, I only have 21 years in the military, I'll accept that your years as an adjunct professor and die-hard anti-military protestor have given you insights into the strategic use of the US military that I can never hope to have. And that your reading Juan Cole's blog daily has given you a better feel for the arab world that cannot compare with my years spent in the Middle East working with, and fighting against, Arabs.
So please, shine your light, and spread your knowledge, so that we dupes can know the truth as only you have divined. With great anticipation, I await.
Reading about the Israeli-Hamas/Hezbollah war on CNN.com, I was sruck by how clearly CNN sympathizes with the Hezbollah. Is it intentional, Leftist, anti-semitism? In one article, these are the links, all the links, to view video related to the article.
Apparently CNN hasn't managed to get any video cameras into Israel. And what's with the editorializing in the headline. Watch what Israeli strikes have wrought? I'll bet you could google all day long and never find a similar statement on CNN about what the murdering suicide bombers have wrought in Israel.
And the one picture they choose to place with the article is some old dude, leaning on a crutch, standing in front of a bombed out Hezbollah building, obviously angry. I guess we are supposed to sympathize with him.
The most trusted name in news? Well, maybe the second most trusted name in news in the arab world, right behind al Jazeera.
I'd refuel my planes here. It's King Khalid Military City, most commonly referred to as KKMC. It's not too easy to see (click on picture to enlarge), but there is a nice airfield off to the upper right. Built by Vinnell Corp, and designed to land, re-arm and refuel F-15s. KKMC is in northern Saudi Arabia, and was designed to help protect the northern Saudi border from Iraq incursions. I've been there occasionally on a training missions. It's in the middle of friggin' nowhere, and the airfield is to the southwest of friggin' nowhere (the picture is inverted, north is to the bottom of the picture, add'l picture with a little more detail here).
If the Israelis were to disguise their airplanes, and fly in there sometime around 2000 hrs, then capture the airfield personnel, it would be several hours before anyone knew something was going on. Even with the Royal Saudi Land Forces barracks just down the road in the main part of KKMC, it would be several hours after that before the Royal Saudi forces could mount an attack. With only one easily defended road from KKMC to KKMC airfield, it wouldn't be that hard for the Israelis to beat off an attack. It would then be at least six or seven hours (and more likely 24 hours) after that before any sort of Saudi reserve ground force could be mustered from outside of KKMC and brought to bear. As with the airfield, there is only one road into KKMC proper (it's the road visible coming into KKMC from the left), and it wouldn't be too tough for a light battalion to control that high-speed avenue of approach for at least another several hours. All total, the Israelis would have anywhere from 12 to 24 hours to use a well stocked, well built airfield from which their F-15s would be able to be refueled, re-armed and launched to strike nearly anywhere in Iran. Israeli F-16s could fly CAPs over the airfield to deter any Royal Saudi Air Force response coming up from PSAB, and even if the RSAF did attack, their training is mostly in air-to-air combat, not air-to-dirt bombing in support of a ground attack. Add in a few SHORAD sites around the airfield, and the RSAF would likely not affect much of the fighting on the ground.
After using it for maybe a day, the Israelis could load up and quickly cross into Iraqi airspace and hotfoot it home at low level.
At least that's what I'd do if I were going to attack Iran.
I'm not really sure why so many Leftists watch Lou Dobbs. He's a financial "expert", and I am pretty sure that most Leftists believe that profit is bad, corporations are bad, and that in a perfect world all pay would be equal; from the brain surgeon on down to the artist who paints with her own excrement. Why people like that would need to watch a financial expert is beyond me, but anyway, they do. And they vote as well. This latest poll being a perfect example of why Leftists can never be expected to act like grownups if handed the reins of power.
Who do you believe is in the best position to bring a peaceful end to the crisis in the Middle East?
The United Nations
The European Union
The Arab League
The United States
Total: 5245 votes
The Arab League, the group most likely to encourage violence against Israel, that has an undeniable history of doing just that, is currently in the lead as the Leftists' pick for the group in the best position to bring a peaceful end to the war! The UN comes in a close second. I guess the UN might have a chance of peacefully ending the war if it could be ended through child prostitution, but I'm going to hold to my reservations on that method. The US, the only one on the list that has the power to do anything at all about the war, is third, and the EU is rightly last.
What this listing shows is how much the Left believes that wars can be stopped with just words. Where on earth that believe comes from is beyond me. I honestly can't imagine how disconnected from reality one would have to be to believe that Hezbollah, Hamas, or Israel will give up their goals in this war through negotiation. The negotiation won't even begin until one of two things happens to each of the parties. Their military goals are met, or their military goals are clearly unachievable. I'm going to make a bet that it will be the Israelis who look to the negotiation table because of the former, and it will be Hezbollah who look to the negotiation table because of the later. The Israelis have spanked the arabs for many years now, and the huge arab embarrassment of "Palestine" is going to get even bigger after this. The arab nations backing away from Hezbollah aren't doing it out of any newfound love of what is good and right, they are backing away from Hezbollah because, in the immortal words of UBL, the arabs always try to back the stronger horse. And Hezbollah is looking like it was rode hard and put up wet.
I'm not sure why the Left chooses to live in a fantasy world, but that's not a concern of mine. What is a concern of mine is that those who become or are our political leaders, come from a reality based community, and not "the reality-based community". I need leaders who understand that the world everyone may want doesn't currently exist, and that we have to work with the world we have.
Remember being in history class and learning about all those pictures and articles published in the NYTs praising the Kaiser in WW I?Or the ones praising the Nazis and Japanese soldiers from WWII?How about the ones from the Korean War?
Me neither.I guess the difference is that during those wars, the NYTs actually wanted the US to win.Or perhaps back then they had the moral fortitude to stand on the side of the soldiers that were protecting their right to a free press.
If that photographer wants to show real courage, he can try walking up to me anytime between now and the day I die, and announce that he's the one who took that picture of the sniper, standing by doing nothing while someone tried to kill my fellow soldiers.