We scoff at honor and are shocked to find traitors among us

When I think about what concerns most in the world, terrorism is first. These jokers, and their effect on the country, are a close second.

I currently work in an "academia" setting.

The belief here is that the Iraq war was lost from the start. Nothing we are doing is winning anything, and there is nothing we could do in the future to change this. And anything anyone says positive about Iraq is just a bunch of nonsense.

Simply put, the solution from the intelligencia here is that there is no point continuing a lost cause, so just bring the troops home. Let the Iraqis take care or their own buisness their own way.

However, If we did this and Iraq was to turn into the quagmire we know it will, these same "intelligent" people would scream that we aren't doing enough to stop the violence.

So, all you intelligent people at my univeristy, tell me know to stop this kind of violence without force of arms? With talk? Yeah, riigght! Iraqis are going to listen to your words when the have a gun pointed at your head. Uh huh!

such is the hypocrisy we have to endure Lawrence. Detractors will smugly tell supporters that the war was poorly conceived, planned, and executed, and had no bearing on our strategic interests whatsoever.

Yet they have no qualms with pushing a poorly conceived, planned, and (presumably) executed withdrawal plan that would have enormously negatively implications for our strategic interests abroad and at home.

The kicker is this, they feel they can blame whatever happens to the Iraq people on President Bush, so they've already washed the their hands of the impending bloodshed that will most certainly stem from a "strategic withdrawal." It's stomach churning, such a complete disregard for personal integrity and responsibility.

Oh and we should all be thanking Lt Col P's brave defense of our cattle at the Department of Agriculture. So others may live, Sir....

We should all speak out against these ungrateful Americans. They are actually hurting the war effort.

I call them American insurgents, for they are dedicated to the removal of our current government leaders - at any cost.

Can somebody here please tell me what is patriotic about referring to roughly half of your FELLOW CITIZENS as "terrorists", "insurgents", "enemies", etc., simply because you disagree with their political opinions?

At least the left learned a lesson or two from their very wrong mistakes during the Vietnam era. You guys aren't getting spit on and called "baby-killers" on your return home this time around, are you? So why the extreme animosity from your side?

'Can somebody here please tell me what is patriotic about referring to roughly half of your FELLOW CITIZENS as "terrorists", "insurgents", "enemies", etc., simply because you disagree with their political opinions?

At least the left learned a lesson or two from their very wrong mistakes during the Vietnam era. You guys aren't getting spit on and called "baby-killers" on your return home this time around, are you? So why the extreme animosity from your side?'

It's not because they disagree with thier political opinions. It's because they've subverted the war effort in this country through the media. It's because they lie and exaggerate in the media about the situation in Iraq. It's because they are short sighted about the consequences of your decisions in the future, and they will wash your hands of responsibility and get away with it. It's because you they ideology above country and your polictical gains are tied to us losing the war against radical islam.

They haven't learned any lessons from Vietnam, you just hide it better. Wasn't a vet spit on at the 'peace' rally last weekend in DC? I think he was in a WHEELCHAIR also. If it was politically acceptable to spit and call people baby killers, you all would be the first to do it.
These incorrigibles just need to be defeated in this country and not debated.

'Catastrophe' in Iraq from that dimwit Pelosi? It says it all.

Seg:
"It's not because they disagree with thier political opinions. It's because they've subverted the war effort in this country through the media. It's because they lie and exaggerate in the media about the situation in Iraq."

This is like saying "They subvert the law-enforcement effort in this country through the media. They lie and exaggerate about the crimes committed in this country rather than report the good news and progress". I've said it before - bad news sells, and it's hardly isolated to news about our wars. Just turn on your evening news (especially local news) and count the ratio of crimes reported to "good news" stories. This isn't willful subversion, it's human nature.

"It's because they are short sighted about the consequences of your decisions in the future, and they will wash your hands of responsibility and get away with it. It's because you they ideology above country and your polictical gains are tied to us losing the war against radical islam."

First of all, you're talking about peoples' political opinion (ideology), while denying that's what you're doing. Second, I fail to see how anyone's political gains could be tied to their country losing any war. It doesn't make any sense to me, from my admittedly limited perspective. Here's my opinion: conflicts of ideology are best won through the demonstration of the superiority of one's ideology (e.g. Capitalism vs. Communism), not the superiority of one's capability for violence. The use of violent force (e.g. terrorism or military action) in an attempt to advance one's ideology only serves to further polarize both sides and escalate the conflict, rather than resolve it.

"They haven't learned any lessons from Vietnam, you just hide it better. Wasn't a vet spit on at the 'peace' rally last weekend in DC? I think he was in a WHEELCHAIR also. If it was politically acceptable to spit and call people baby killers, you all would be the first to do it."

I hadn't heard about this, so I looked it up.
From all accounts I read, Cpl. Sparling was not spat upon, but on the ground near him, and had been shouting provocative, name-calling statements through a bullhorn before the incident took place. Does that excuse it? No, of course not - hateful disrespect for the opinions of others is not an American value, and I don't condone it from any side of any issue. I strongly disagree with and resent your comment which attempts to associate me with those I have no association with in order to assign negative ulterior motives that I do not possess. How would you like it if I said "If baby-killing were politically acceptable, you all would be the first to do it". But it seems to me that you've once again done what you accuse others of, by "exaggerating the situation" and failing to report both sides of the story in this media, and you seem to be attempting to take one isolated incident and use it to paint your opponents with a broad brush. I stand by my earlier statement. Our soldiers are not being mistreated by war protesters like they were in the Vietnam era, not to anywhere near the same extent, exceptions notwithstanding.

"These incorrigibles just need to be defeated in this country and not debated."

What do you mean by this? It sounds to me like you're advocating violence against your fellow Americans who disagree with your point of view, rather than rational debate. That's not patriotism, that's totalitarianism. Are you advocating for democracy or for authoritarian dictatorship? If it's the former, I believe you're going about it all wrong.

You never did address my question about how this name-calling behavior is patriotic. Rather, you seem to be trying to justify it by pointing out non-patriotic behavior on the part of others, as if you believe that two wrongs can make a right.

I mentioned earlier my "admittedly limited perspective". We all have limited perspectives. I visit here to broaden mine by reading about the successes that aren't being well reported in the mainstream media (thanks again to Lt Col. P and even John for passing along these stories of successes - I especially appreciate John's links to Mike Yon's fine, fact-filled reporting as well as Lt Col. P's perspective with regards to military history), and by attempting to engage my ideological opponents in rational debate so that I can learn something from their perspective while offering them mine as best I can in return. But I have nothing to learn from blatant hate-speech, and I don't waste my time on it from either side of an issue - there are plenty of bloggers out there whose ideologies I share, but have quit reading because of the vitriolic ways they express themselves. I have been praising this blog in the comment sections where I felt it appropriate, as well as recommending the blog to others, because I thought that this was a good place to do these things that I visit here for. I've gone back over my previous conversations, and "Nicholas" was really the only one to engage me in a rational manner here, so perhaps I was mistaken, but I sincerely hope not. Hopefully you or somebody else can address my question in a more rational manner.

'What do you mean by this? It sounds to me like you're advocating violence against your fellow Americans who disagree with your point of view, rather than rational debate. That's not patriotism, that's totalitarianism. Are you advocating for democracy or for authoritarian dictatorship? If it's the former, I believe you're going about it all wrong.'

No, maybe in your thick skull I might advocating violence. I'm advocating defeating your ideology in the ballot box and in the realm of public opinion before it does any further. That is all I will say because I don't debate incorrigibles.

whoops

'before it does any further damage to this country.'

The Corporal was spat upon. He was not in wheel chair, but I think he lost an appendage in Iraq. It was probably right after they vandalized news vans and spray painted the capitol building.

Seg:

Thanks for (somewhat) clearing that up - that's why I asked.

"I'm advocating defeating your ideology in the ballot box" makes sense, and I commend that attitude. In the "realm of public opinion", that would be debate, would it not? So my thick skull was confused because you said "and not debated".

I still haven't found any news report that backs up your statement that "The Corporal was spat upon", not that it makes any difference. The act of spitting on or toward someone is reprehensible in any case (and most reports I read said that the Cpl spat back, though he later denied it).

[url="http://hometown.aol.com/hard726554141/stories-by-women-watching-porn.htm"]stories by women watching porn[/url]

The Corporal was spat upon. He was not in wheel chair, but I think he lost an appendage in Iraq. It was probably right after they vandalized news vans and spray painted the capitol building.

Seg · February 2, 2007 07:33 AM

Liar!

Bugs...

Asshat!

excerpt from H&C interview with JOSHUA SPARLING, disabled Iraq war veteran.

COLMES:Sparling, let me begin with you. There was a controversy, as you know, about whether you were spit upon. Can you tell us what happened?

JOSHUA SPARLING, IRAQ WAR VETERAN: Yes. Nice to talk to you, by the way. What we are doing, actually, is doing the anti-protest protest. And we were there with our flags. And all that happened I was — a fellow saw me wear my 82nd Airborne sweater, and I noticed he also had an 82nd patch on his own sleeve.

And he said I was a disgrace, basically, and that I was — that I had blood on my hands and that I had no right wearing the uniform. And he spit at me.

COLMES: And you spit back?

SPARLING: Of course I did not.

COLMES: That's what was reported. So that did not happen?

SPARLING: No, sir, it did not.

HANNITY: OK. And you at the time, for those who don't know, you were injured in Ramadi and you were struggling to save your leg and you since have had it am amputated from the knee down, correct?

SPARLING: That's right.

HANNITY: And I remember, because I spent a lot of time talking to you and talking about you and put you on my radio show. And you were dying to get back. You just put yourself in a position where, hey, you wanted to give a different point of view and then we could see the hostility. And I went in the middle of an antiwar protest in New York, and I was called every name in the book.

You know, so you gave your leg for this battle, and you still believe in it. And this is how you were treated?

SPARLING: Yes. Well, it's unfortunate that that happens. But, well, the Americans that do appreciate us and do support us and not just say they support us, are the ones that I actually fight for. These people right here.

That was a sad day. It was one of the saddest days I've witnessed. And I was actually glad that my unit was deployed recently, so they wouldn't have to see the spectacle they were making of themselves.

Yes, I've read that one - it's the one I was referring to when I said I had read that Cpl Sparling denied spitting back (which I have no reason to refute).

From your comment, quoting Cpl Sparling: "And he spit *at* me."

But I'm nit-picking. Like I said it doesn't matter to me if the spitter missed, I'm still repulsed by the act. But I couldn't help but notice you and "Bugs" exchanging a bit of virtual saliva at each other here.

One wonders if you were equally outraged when a veteran spit a large amount of tobacco juice directly in Jane Fonda's face a few years back? Or is it only wrong when somebody spits on a vet?