U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer's insult to American fighting forces...

[rykpa]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_090607/content/01125106.guest.html


Is this treasonous?

[LakewayDaze!]

I don't know much about how our government operates but why can't these people be brought up on treason charges. Is the term treason just a word for which there is no actual penalty or what? These people are actually empowering those that we are fighting against.....Unreal!:mad:

[cowpoke]

I don't know much about how our government operates but why can't these people be brought up on treason charges. Is the term treason just a word for which there is no actual penalty or what? These people are actually empowering those that we are fighting against.....Unreal!:mad:

Because Bush is a spineless coward. These Idiots will continue to spew there venom like snakes until you cut of their heads like you do a snake.

They need to be arrested, property seized, jailed and family disgraced.

This is a travesty that they be allowed freedom to bring evil upon our nation by avenue of ignorance and selfish political gain.

[Ialdoboath]

Um... Schumer was correct in what he said... the warlords are the ones that decreased the violence in Anbar, not the US military. Where is the treason if he's correct?


I don't know much about how our government operates but why can't these people be brought up on treason charges. Is the term treason just a word for which there is no actual penalty or what? These people are actually empowering those that we are fighting against.....Unreal!:mad:

[cowpoke]

Um... Schumer was correct in what he said... the warlords are the ones that decreased the violence in Anbar, not the US military. Where is the treason if he's correct?

You may want to rethink your position my friend. It was Petraus that befriended them against Malikis will remember.

[Ialdoboath]

Let me be clear... I like Patreus a lot. I think he's doing an excellent job, and I think this coup with the warlords is a brilliant tact. But I do not think it is attributable to the surge in troops, it is a direct result of (what I believe to be) Patreus' savvy.

I think calling for treason charges is a tad overboard for a senator who says that the surge is not responsible for the warlords creating peace in Anbar.




You may want to rethink your position my friend. It was Petraus that befriended them against Malikis will remember.

[cowpoke]

Let me be clear... I like Patreus a lot. I think he's doing an excellent job, and I think this coup with the warlords is a brilliant tact. But I do not think it is attributable to the surge in troops, it is a direct result of (what I believe to be) Patreus' savvy.

I think calling for treason charges is a tad overboard for a senator who says that the surge is not responsible for the warlords creating peace in Anbar.

Quote fro Schumer:
"Let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al-Qaida said to these tribes: we have to fight al-Qaida ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here; it was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here, and that is because there was no one else there protecting them."

TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offense is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

When you tell the enemy that your troops are unable to do a job you are committing treason by giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
This is just one of many occasions he has said such treasonous things.

[Ialdoboath]

Is what he is saying TRUE? If so, as a US senator, he has a responsibility to point it out.



[/color][/b]
Quote from Schumer:
"Let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al-Qaida said to these tribes: we have to fight al-Qaida ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here; it was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here, and that is because there was no one else there protecting them."

TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offense is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

When you tell the enemy that your troops are unable to do a job you are committing treason by giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
This is just one of many occasions he has said such treasonous things.

[cowpoke]

Is what he is saying TRUE? If so, as a US senator, he has a responsibility to point it out.

NOT TO THE ENEMY...:no:
Besides, how does he know anything? Has he received some special report from General Petraeus? I don't think so.Also who is his responsibility to??

So for him or any other member of Congress to spew support to our enemy based on their own opinion without being substantiated by publicly know facts and to this end gives aid and comfort to the enemy is Treasons.

The oath of office required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, and as provided by section 2 of the act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22), to be administered to Members, Resident Commissioner, and Delegates of the House of Representatives, the text of which is carried in 5 U.S.C. 3331:

I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

[williambedloe]

Is what he is saying TRUE? If so, as a US senator, he has a responsibility to point it out.

Let's interject a bit of realism here Ialdo...his intent is not to speak the truth, but as a dig against the current President and his policies. US troops are not allowed to act with impugnity in this sovereign nation, so to say that US troops are not doing the job (and that the warlords are) is clear evidence of his intent. While there is truth to the point that cooperation from elements within Iraq is key to success, the turning point has come with the change in strategy. His intention all along has been to leave Iraq and call it a failure (as he has many times)...think of it this way - with Schumer now in the business of getting Democrats elected, how would it appear to his party if he attributed one iota of success in Iraq to the administration? Would it not send a clear message to those on the fence that quite possibly the new strategy may be able to give us success where failure was supposedly imminent?

If the answer to this question is that it would hurt his party's chances to admit success, then he is indeed putting personal politics above country, and in doing so, his actions could technically give aid and comfort to the enemy.

The fact is, he leaves much out of the story, further revealing his intent. it was the troops that brought them to this point of a new dawn of hope for a long persecuted people - a force that has been handcuffed almost from the outset, many times from within the US (by the likes of Schumer)...to downplay their role in any success is disengenous at best, and treasonous at worst.

[irons]

Um... Schumer was correct in what he said... the warlords are the ones that decreased the violence in Anbar, not the US military. Where is the treason if he's correct?
canada did not have the sack to have a hand in this fight, even though the outcome will affect her future.

And schumer is a traitor.

[rykpa]

By giving credit to those who do not really deserve it, with obvious defiance toward his country's military. If not treasonous, it is abject stupidity at best.

Sure, the war lords are getting in line. Who encourages this behavior and punishes that behavior that is contrary? Other war lords???

IMO, those toting the load (which France suddenly wants a piece of action in...I wonder why???), get the credit for progress.

It's a work thing, hard for some to understand.

[rykpa]

Because Bush is a spineless coward. These Idiots will continue to spew there venom like snakes until you cut of their heads like you do a snake.

They need to be arrested, property seized, jailed and family disgraced.

This is a travesty that they be allowed freedom to bring evil upon our nation by avenue of ignorance and selfish political gain.


*******
And for that, for what it is worth, I oppose him at times.

If he would roll up the sleeves and meet these pasty-faced people, he could have them quivering in the corner, set aside from further impeding this country.

It's a grow the hard line and become confrontational thing.

[rykpa]

Um... Schumer was correct in what he said... the warlords are the ones that decreased the violence in Anbar, not the US military. Where is the treason if he's correct?

*******

That's a truth thing.

[rykpa]

Let me be clear... I like Patreus a lot. I think he's doing an excellent job, and I think this coup with the warlords is a brilliant tact. But I do not think it is attributable to the surge in troops, it is a direct result of (what I believe to be) Patreus' savvy.

I think calling for treason charges is a tad overboard for a senator who says that the surge is not responsible for the warlords creating peace in Anbar.

*******

It is patently political, a blatant slap in the face of the U.S.

The little man is grandstanding for his own political posturing.

No further explanation is needed, unless one simply wishes to play patty-cake and dodge the truth of the issue.

[rykpa]

Is what he is saying TRUE? If so, as a US senator, he has a responsibility to point it out.

*******


A leftist flies in the face of obvious truth. Ho-hum, just one more of'em.

[rykpa]

Let's interject a bit of realism here Ialdo...his intent is not to speak the truth, but as a dig against the current President and his policies. US troops are not allowed to act with impugnity in this sovereign nation, so to say that US troops are not doing the job (and that the warlords are) is clear evidence of his intent. While there is truth to the point that cooperation from elements within Iraq is key to success, the turning point has come with the change in strategy. His intention all along has been to leave Iraq and call it a failure (as he has many times)...think of it this way - with Schumer now in the business of getting Democrats elected, how would it appear to his party if he attributed one iota of success in Iraq to the administration? Would it not send a clear message to those on the fence that quite possibly the new strategy may be able to give us success where failure was supposedly imminent?

If the answer to this question is that it would hurt his party's chances to admit success, then he is indeed putting personal politics above country, and in doing so, his actions could technically give aid and comfort to the enemy.

The fact is, he leaves much out of the story, further revealing his intent. it was the troops that brought them to this point of a new dawn of hope for a long persecuted people - a force that has been handcuffed almost from the outset, many times from within the US (by the likes of Schumer)...to downplay their role in any success is disengenous at best, and treasonous at worst.

*******

I use it as a lesson to teach my kids.

[rykpa]

canada did not have the sack to have a hand in this fight, even though the outcome will affect her future.

And schumer is a traitor.

*******

Check it out and see if my saying is not true quite often in your daily lives.

[Ialdoboath]

I was gonna let your comment slide, but as folks seem to be supporting your view I have an obligation to defend my country here.


As I Canadian I believed then as I do now that the front on the war against terrorism is BLATANTLY in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. Iraq was the only secular nation in the region. The training camps, Islamic schools, and Bin Laden are all in these other countries.

Canadians are fighting and dying in Afghanistan today to help in this war against terrorism. We are not sitting idly by allowing your nation to "do all the work" as many seem to feel.

We are not in Iraq because it was NOT part of the war on terrorism until the invasion made it so.




canada did not have the sack to have a hand in this fight, even though the outcome will affect her future.

And schumer is a traitor.

[tmorr37]

Um... Schumer was correct in what he said... the warlords are the ones that decreased the violence in Anbar, not the US military. Where is the treason if he's correct?


Well first of all, Warlords is that what your calling the Iraqis now. Just where did you come up with that because the Media is the one that has applied that Label
====================================


"Congressional Democrats are trying to undermine U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus' credibility before he delivers a report on the Iraq war next week, saying the general is a mouthpiece for President Bush and his findings can't be trusted." They unanimously voted to confirm this guy! Every damn Democrat in the Senate voted to confirm this guy, and then they funded the mission. You know, it is said that people are not paying attention to all this stuff right now. I hope to hell that that's not true. What these Democrats are doing, folks, is treasonous! There's no other way to describe this. Look it up in the dictionary. There is no other way to describe this, what you just heard Chuck Schumer say. Now they're trying to discredit the commanding general, who is not political! The report that is going to be issued by Petraeus next week, as written by Congress, the law requiring this report, says that it shall be presented "by the president." There's nothing unusual about the White House presenting the report. The Democrats and the Drive-Bys are trying to make it look like Bush is taking over and writing the report because Petraeus is going to write something Bush doesn't want.

It's all a crock, folks. It's as big a lie as the Democrat Party has ever told. Now, in the midst of battle, in the midst of success, for a major political party in this country to come out and openly admit that they are doing everything they can to discredit the credibility, the character, the honor of the commanding general -- for whom they all voted, and for whose efforts they funded! They voted to fund his efforts. This is worse than shameless. I don't know that there is a word in the dictionary to describe these people other than poltroons. But that doesn't cover it, even, because that doesn't get to their motivations here. The top Democrats -- Dingy Harry of Nevada, Nancy Pelosi of California -- refer the general's briefing as the "Bush report." Dick Durbin, when asked about the upcoming report from General Petraeus, said, "You mean the Bush report?" Pelosi said, "We will see what the Bush report will be at the end of next week," Mrs. Pelosi said. "The facts are self-evident that the progress is not being made. They might want to find one or two places where there has been progress but the plural of anecdote is not data."
Link (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_090607/content/01125106.guest.html)

[tmorr37]

I was gonna let your comment slide, but as folks seem to be supporting your view I have an obligation to defend my country here.


As I Canadian I believed then as I do now that the front on the war against terrorism is BLATANTLY in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. Iraq was teh only secular nation in the region. The training camps, Islamic schools, and Bin Laden are all in these other countries.

Canadians are fighting and dying in Afghanistan today to help in this war against terrorism. We are not sitting idly by allowing your nation to "do all the work" as many seem to feel.

We are not in Iraq because it was NOT part of the war on terrorism until the invasion made it so.


Iran is the head of this snake. Is Canada going to follow us there or is that to much

[cowpoke]

Iran is the head of this snake. Is Canada going to follow us there or is that to much

Eewww, talk about cut throat...:D

[irons]

I was gonna let your comment slide, but as folks seem to be supporting your view I have an obligation to defend my country here.


As I Canadian I believed then as I do now that the front on the war against terrorism is BLATANTLY in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. Iraq was the only secular nation in the region. The training camps, Islamic schools, and Bin Laden are all in these other countries.

Canadians are fighting and dying in Afghanistan today to help in this war against terrorism. We are not sitting idly by allowing your nation to "do all the work" as many seem to feel.

We are not in Iraq because it was NOT part of the war on terrorism until the invasion made it so.
I have to disagree with you again, even though I really do like you.
The insults to humanity who killed 3000 people in New York trained all over the world, even here in the US, and killed 3000 people who only wanted to go to work that day. Those terrorists came into the US from canada into Maine.
Still think its not a global fight?

[crabman]

Whether you agree or not agree with Mr. Schumer or President Bush, one does not throw the military under the bus. Those who have served, made the ultimate sacrifice, or are serving are deserving of everyone's support. I now work on a military installation with troops that deploy all the time and am PROUD of the job they have done and are doing. Whatever the theater, or Country they are serving in and whatever Country they are from, WE MUST GIVE THEM THE THANKS AND ACCOLADES for doing what they do. When is the last time you have thanked a SERVICE PERSON? Maybe it is corny, but I thank them everyday most of the time different ones because they are keeping my family and me free.

[irons]

Whether you agree or not agree with Mr. Schumer or President Bush, one does not throw the military under the bus. Those who have served, made the ultimate sacrifice, or are serving are deserving of everyone's support. I now work on a military installation with troops that deploy all the time and am PROUD of the job they have done and are doing. Whatever the theater, or Country they are serving in and whatever Country they are from, WE MUST GIVE THEM THE THANKS AND ACCOLADES for doing what they do. When is the last time you have thanked a SERVICE PERSON? Maybe it is corny, but I thank them everyday most of the time different ones because they are keeping my family and me free.
I do that every chance I get crabman, my wife unit and I were so happy to grab the tab of a local US Marine in our small town.
Of course he tried to resist saying its thier duty, but We thanked him and his family because the reason we could pay was because he provided our freedom.
God Bless these Men and Women who serve the US!

[paganiniraq]

canada did not have the sack to have a hand in this fight, even though the outcome will affect her future.



Canada is in Afghanistan fighting terrorism....so she's got the balls. You remember Bin Laden...right? Canada has her own oil so she stayed out of Iraq.

[Ialdoboath]

Canada would not "follow you" into Iran. However, we would very likely add our forces to those needed to address the problems of Iran if and when this is needed. Why? Because Iran is becoming a real and very credible threat (unlike Saddam was).

FYI though... I am adamant that despite the rhetoric Pakistan and Jakarta are FAR bigger threats than Iran and should be dealt with ASAP, but they seem not to even be on the USA radar these days. (Note that Pakistan already HAS the nukes you are worried about with Iran).

I disagree, though, that Iran is "the head of the snake". They need to be dealt with, no doubt about it. But the "snake" is centered in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, where the madrases are teaching children how and why to hate the West. The Shia Iranians are an extremely small group compared to the Sunni "teachers" that are infiltrating every nation, planning attacks around the world in the name of Wahabbi (Sunni) Islam. If you hear of terrorists on the news these days they are always Shia Iranians. Most worldwide, however, are Wahabbi Sunnis like the 9/11 attackers and Bin Laden.




Iran is the head of this snake. Is Canada going to follow us there or is that to much

[Ialdoboath]

Ok, couple things:

They did NOT come into the USA via Canada. that is a urban myth that started when a guy was caught at the border in BC. The 9/11 guys, for the most part, had student visas etc.

Second... I never said it was not a global fight. I said that the USA is fighting the wrong battles and diverting huge multi-billion dollar resources from the real battle in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the Sudan. The guys that attacked on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. The ones who attacked the USS Cole were from Yemen. Both places are still safe havens in the war on terror.

I am all for getting rid of the extremist idiots. I just feel that the USA is not fighting this war in the right countries. I do not expect you to agree with me, but I hope to get you to understand the reasoning behind what I am saying. This is the reason why many many countries flinched at invading Iraq. It is seem by many countries as attacking in the wrong direction.





[/size]
I have to disagree with you again, even though I really do like you.
The insults to humanity who killed 3000 people in New York trained all over the world, even here in the US, and killed 3000 people who only wanted to go to work that day. Those terrorists came into the US from canada into Maine.
Still think its not a global fight?

[crabman]

Good point Ialdobath, yes Pakistan is rather treacherous Musharif is on shaky ground and the West cannot intervene but so much, but there could be so much worse. We are trying to support him as much as we can and the Nuclear threat would be inflated if he is gone. Iran, once the Dinar and Iraq becomes stable, will go under because of all the economic conditions and the unsettled population. remember most of the younger generation wants to become more westernized....

[irons]

Canada is in Afghanistan fighting terrorism....so she's got the balls. You remember Bin Laden...right? Canada has her own oil so she stayed out of Iraq.
Any country who cannot stand on thier own and has to be supported by hanging onto another countrys back and taxpayers has no sack.
Do you think europe or canada could afford to provide socoialized medicine if they had to pay for thier own defence?:no:

[cowpoke]

Canada would not "follow you" into Iran. However, we would very likely add our forces to those needed to address the problems of Iran if and when this is needed. Why? Because Iran is becoming a real and very credible threat (unlike Saddam was).

FYI though... I am adamant that despite the rhetoric Pakistan and Jakarta are FAR bigger threats than Iran and should be dealt with ASAP, but they seem not to even be on the USA radar these days. (Note that Pakistan already HAS the nukes you are worried about with Iran).

I disagree, though, that Iran is "the head of the snake". They need to be dealt with, no doubt about it. But the "snake" is centered in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, where the madrases are teaching children how and why to hate the West. The Shia Iranians are an extremely small group compared to the Sunni "teachers" that are infiltrating every nation, planning attacks around the world in the name of Wahabbi (Sunni) Islam. If you hear of terrorists on the news these days they are always Shia Iranians. Most worldwide, however, are Wahabbi Sunnis like the 9/11 attackers and Bin Laden.


MR Boath, the problem here is that Pakistan already has nukes...:crying:

And yes I agree Saudi Arabia needs to be dealt with but they hold the US DOLLAR HOSTAGE thus the Canadian Dollar.

I certainly could live in a tent for a few years as I am sure you could to.
The problem is getting the other 400 million Americans and Canadians to go along.

[Ialdoboath]

Hmmm... never been called Mr. Boath before. Not sure what to think about that...



MR Boath, the problem here is that Pakistan already has nukes...:crying:

And yes I agree Saudi Arabia needs to be dealt with but they hold the US DOLLAR HOSTAGE thus the Canadian Dollar.

I certainly could live in a tent for a few years as I am sure you could to.
The problem is getting the other 400 million Americans and Canadians to go along.

[Ialdoboath]

Socialized medicine costs far, far less than you think. It was invented by a private insurance guy, who figured out mathematically how a central body (the government) could make universal health care available at a PROFIT if everyone paid in a bit LESS than they paid for private health care.

Like any other program, however, it has gotten bloated and abused. But the fundamental theory works financially for everyone to have basic medical care at a profit to the government and a price that is better than the insurers can offer.

Note that the difference in defense spending between our countries is one of population, not percentage. We spend 35 billion a year for a population of 36 million. I don't think we can be faulted for slacking off on our military allotments.


Any country who cannot stand on thier own and has to be supported by hanging onto another countrys back and taxpayers has no sack.
Do you think europe or canada could afford to provide socoialized medicine if they had to pay for thier own defence?:no:

[irons]

Any country who cannot stand on thier own and has to be supported by hanging onto another countrys back and taxpayers has no sack.
Do you think europe or canada could afford to provide socoialized medicine if they had to pay for thier own defence?:no:
I probably pulled the pin with that one.

[paganiniraq]

[/size]
Those terrorists came into the US from canada into Maine.
Still think its not a global fight?

The terrorists did not come from Canada and every one of them were cleared to enter into the US by US Custom officials. The majority of them lived on US soil prior to 9/11 and the hijackers were trained by US flight schools....so what was your point again?

[Crow]

The Canadians are doing their part, good soldiers!

[irons]

Socialized medicine costs far, far less than you think. It was invented by a private insurance guy, who figured out mathematically how a central body (the government) could make universal health care available at a PROFIT if everyone paid in a bit LESS than they paid for private health care.

Like any other program, however, it has gotten bloated and abused. But the fundamental theory works financially for everyone to have basic medical care at a profit to the government and a price that is better than the insurers can offer.
Then why does a woman with a emergency pregnency in soult st. marie canada get sent to Soult St, Marie Michigan on aeromed?
Why it it that if your appendix blows up in canada they try to fly you as fast as possible into the US?
BTW my wife unit is a helicopter nurse, i cannot be fluffed.
The system you are talking about does not work.

[irons]

The terrorists did not come from Canada and every one of them were cleared to enter into the US by US Custom officials. The majority of them lived on US soil prior to 9/11 and the hijackers were trained by US flight schools....so what was your point again?
i noted that, einstein

[Crow]

And, I really feel Labatts Blue is one of the best beers in the world, Oh my fishing trip, great, caught alot of salmon, coho, king, fantastic, then went for pike, holy crap, lived like a king, never forget it! My buddies are leaving, soon I will, give me a beer and lets do it!:happy64:

[paganiniraq]

Any country who cannot stand on thier own and has to be supported by hanging onto another countrys back and taxpayers has no sack.
Do you think europe or canada could afford to provide socoialized medicine if they had to pay for thier own defence?:no:

How to you figure a country isn't standing on its own when they can afford to give every one of their citizens national health coverage? And the only people paying Canada's defence costs are Canadian taxpayers.....a few minutes of research would have told you that.

[Ialdoboath]

While some may get flown other places (I don't know this to be true but readily take your word on this) the BIG difference is that everyone does get medical attention. It is a flawed program (now) but I do like the fact that everyone in Canada is covered even if "covered" sometimes means shipping people to alternate care facilities in the states. No one is ever asked to leave a hospital or mortgage their house because of medical bills.

FYI... it is the inherent greed in the system that is screwing it up, not the premise of it. Doctors are not getting paid well enough, yet administrators still are able to double-bill. It needs fixing, and what you have just posted is evidence of that. However, I defend the notion of no one losing their entire life's savings because of surgery. No deductibles or omissions. If you want to pay extra for extra services you can, but everyone has the basics.




Then why does a woman with a emergency pregnency in soult st. marie canada get sent to Soult St, Marie Michigan on aeromed?
Why it it that if your appendix blows up in canada they try to fly you as fast as possible into the US?
BTW my wife unit is a helicopter nurse, i cannot be fluffed.
The system you are talking about does not work.

[irons]

While some may get flown other places (I don't know this to be true but readily take your word on this) the BIG difference is that everyone does get medical attention. It is a flawed program (now) but I do like the fact that everyone in Canada is covered even if "covered" sometimes means shipping people to alternate care facilities in the states. No one is ever asked to leave a hospital or mortgage their house because of medical bills.

FYI... it is the inherent greed in the system that is screwing it up, not the premise of it. Doctors are not getting paid well enough, yet administrators still are able to double-bill. It needs fixing, and what you have just posted is evidence of that. However, I defend the notion of no one losing their entire life's savings because of surgery. No deductibles or omissions. If you want to pay extra for extra services you can, but everyone has the basics.
that may be why so many of them come here.

[Crow]

Welcome all, the Bosians,Chilians,African nations,Affikaans all are welcome! THE CROW!

[millionairetobe71]

canada did not have the sack to have a hand in this fight, even though the outcome will affect her future.

And schumer is a traitor.


I FOR ONE, RESPECT THE CANADIAN SOLDIER...THEY ARE ONE OF THE FINEST AROUND, AND I WORKED AND WAS SCHOOL INSTRUCTED BY ONE OF THEM IN AIR DEFENSE TACTICS...SO, THEY HAVE MY RESPECTS....

MTB71

[Crow]

Nationality, color, race and religion, I could care less, CROW!

[paganiniraq]

Then why does a woman with a emergency pregnency in soult st. marie canada get sent to Soult St, Marie Michigan on aeromed?
Why it it that if your appendix blows up in canada they try to fly you as fast as possible into the US?
BTW my wife unit is a helicopter nurse, i cannot be fluffed.
The system you are talking about does not work.


The Sault Ste. Marie incident was a woman from Michigan trying to defraud the Canadian health care system by claiming to be a Canadian citizen.
And the Canadian health care system won't pay to fly a Canadian citizen anywhere for an appendectomy when the surgery can be done in Canada.

[Nocturnal]

What is going on in here tonight? This is the second thread that I have read that somebody has started something with someone else simply because they live in a country other than the USA. Hey people, people live where they live. I for one could care less where you come from or what your beliefs are as long as you are not trying to impose on the way I live or on my way of thinking. How about we get back to trying to figure out where the dinar is going and when? seems a much more comfortable topic. Not only that but last I read this is still the IIF FORUM.

[williambedloe]

They need to be dealt with, no doubt about it. But the "snake" is centered in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, where the madrases are teaching children how and why to hate the West. The Shia Iranians are an extremely small group compared to the Sunni "teachers" that are infiltrating every nation, planning attacks around the world in the name of Wahabbi (Sunni) Islam. If you hear of terrorists on the news these days they are always Shia Iranians. Most worldwide, however, are Wahabbi Sunnis like the 9/11 attackers and Bin Laden.

I agree with this about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - the problem there is that we have supposedly Western friendly governments overseeing a Western despising population. How can you deal with these? In time, you may find that the general Iraqi population is more pro west than you may think - and I think the same can be said for the gen pop of Iran. The reverse is the case in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. In terms of religious significance, how can the US justify to the rest of the muslim world an invasion of their holiest places (i.e. Mecca and Medina)? Saudi Arabia needs a different approach. The best is to build up anti-fanatic Muslim nations in the Middle East that are more open to democracy than theocracy. Iran and Iraq are major players - a turn in their fortunes and attitudes would carry alot of weight in the Middle East, and would act to isolate the likes of Saudi Arabia and Syria. Pakistan is a dreadful situation, as Musharraf is practically the only kind of person the US could have in that country that would be of any use to them. But what is the payoff for a US invasion of Pakistan? One cannot say that world security and stability would be achieved if Pakistan was brought to its knees (though India would be happy) - terrorists have shown that they can pack up and move elsewhere. So we just keep hunting them into every unfriendly nation they move into, rebuilding as we go? Not remotely feasible...

Maybe, just maybe, the better idea is to shore up the rest of the middle East (the breeding ground for this virulent hatred) to help stabilize world economies (oil) and form sustainable long term partnerships to help bring some of these nations out from their theocratic ways, while isolating those that persist in this way of life. At the same time, this will naturally undermine those nations like Saudi Arabia who hoard the wealth among the sheiks and leave the poor to strap bombs to themselves.


Chasing terrorists all over the world is a policy that has been tried and has failed every time...need everyone be reminded of John Pershing and the ill fated attempts to invade Mexico to pursue and capture Pancho Villa during the Wilson administration? Some of what Barack Obama proposed with Pakistan is eerily reminiscient of this episode...take a read here:

http://www.hsgng.org/pages/pancho.htm

Schumer again is being a politician above a patriot - he is not unpatriotic because he disagrees with policies - he is unpatriotic because his disagreement with policy is manifesting itself in denigration of the troops efforts.

To me, he is the ultimate traitor...

[Ialdoboath]

I heartilly gree that it is a difficult task, but I would love to see a CIA operative show up every time some idiot stands up in a square and starts spouting anti-Western BS. Not to kill him... just to say "Look, you're an idiot. Educate your self and your people on freedom and liberty and what they mean to you."

So often I bat my head against the wall when I think that we are losing the PR war to idiots in caves.



I agree with this about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - the problem there is that we have supposedly Western friendly governments overseeing a Western despising population. How can you deal with these? In time, you may find that the general Iraqi population is more pro west than you may think - and I think the same can be said for the gen pop of Iran. The reverse is the case in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. In terms of religious significance, how can the US justify to the rest of the muslim world an invasion of their holiest places (i.e. Mecca and Medina)? Saudi Arabia needs a different approach. The best is to build up anti-fanatic Muslim nations in the Middle East that are more open to democracy than theocracy. Iran and Iraq are major players - a turn in their fortunes and attitudes would carry alot of weight in the Middle East, and would act to isolate the likes of Saudi Arabia and Syria. Pakistan is a dreadful situation, as Musharraf is practically the only kind of person the US could have in that country that would be of any use to them. But what is the payoff for a US invasion of Pakistan? One cannot say that world security and stability would be achieved if Pakistan was brought to its knees (though India would be happy) - terrorists have shown that they can pack up and move elsewhere. So we just keep hunting them into every unfriendly nation they move into, rebuilding as we go? Not remotely feasible...

Maybe, just maybe, the better idea is to shore up the rest of the middle East (the breeding ground for this virulent hatred) to help stabilize world economies (oil) and form sustainable long term partnerships to help bring some of these nations out from their theocratic ways, while isolating those that persist in this way of life. At the same time, this will naturally undermine those nations like Saudi Arabia who hoard the wealth among the sheiks and leave the poor to strap bombs to themselves.


Chasing terrorists all over the world is a policy that has been tried and has failed every time...need everyone be reminded of John Pershing and the ill fated attempts to invade Mexico to pursue and capture Pancho Villa during the Wilson administration? Some of what Barack Obama proposed with Pakistan is eerily reminiscient of this episode...take a read here:

http://www.hsgng.org/pages/pancho.htm

Schumer again is being a politician above a patriot - he is not unpatriotic because he disagrees with policies - he is unpatriotic because his disagreement with policy is manifesting itself in denigration of the troops efforts.

To me, he is the ultimate traitor...

[TerryTate]

I heartilly gree that it is a difficult task, but I would love to see a CIA operative show up every time some idiot stands up in a square and starts spouting anti-Western BS. Not to kill him... just to say "Look, you're an idiot. Educate your self and your people on freedom and liberty and what they mean to you."

So often I bat my head against the wall when I think that we are losing the PR war to idiots in caves.

:lmao:

You know already that I disagree with you Ialdoboath in many ways so I won't belabor the point, but that last line had me rolling on the floor....

Just the imagery of those idiots cave broadcasts putting our pr guys to shame. To shame, to shame, to shame.

:no:

[Ialdoboath]

TerryTate, if this ever revals and we get together for a celebration I'd be one of the first to step up and offer to buy you the beverage of your choice. I've never been offended by anything you've said. People disagree on things... that's life. I have no doubt there are many things we would agree on. Lasagna for instance. I am in favor of it.



:lmao:

You know already that I disagree with you Ialdoboath in many ways so I won't belabor the point, but that last line had me rolling on the floor....

Just the imagery of those idiots cave broadcasts putting our pr guys to shame. To shame, to shame, to shame.

:no:

[dinar rising]

[/color][/b]
Quote fro Schumer:
"Let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al-Qaida said to these tribes: we have to fight al-Qaida ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here; it was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here, and that is because there was no one else there protecting them."



Whattttt?????

From what I heard many US soldiers died defending this area from Al-Qaeda. I remember when the surge happened, 1000s of troops were
sent to this area for support. Al-Qaeda was trying to set up an
Islamist state there.

Could the tribes have handled it themselves? Absolutely not IMO.

In the good old days, in times of war there wouldn't even have been a
trial for losers like this guy... BANG! next. ;)

Actually, these kind of remarks from the US Democrats just show they
are very worried that there may be too good a result...

How disgusting is that? :eek:

[williambedloe]

So often I bat my head against the wall when I think that we are losing the PR war to idiots in caves.

Ahhhh - you and me both....now you can understand why so many of us treat the media with such disdain...this terrorist PR war NEVER would have any chance at success without their help...we all know how PR wars are won - media blitz....there is no media blitz concerning any successes in the war on terror, and if there are, it usually comes from military or government sources and is instantly labeled as propaganda. But let's face it - propaganda is used everywhere else in the world - I just think Americans are the only ones who feel guilty about it.

[Artemus]

Um... Schumer was correct in what he said... the warlords are the ones that decreased the violence in Anbar, not the US military. Where is the treason if he's correct?

If you believe that then why don't you run him for President, maybe along with bin Ladin???

As for Chuck the Schmuck, this latest statement stupidity is only one of a long line.

You are keeping good company Ialdoboath, especially if he is not correct.:eek:

[SgtBalla]

I served in Iraq, in Anbar Province, in 2005, in the Marine Crops infantry, on the ground, operating amongest the people there. I tell you this right now, that all of the progress that is being seen right now in that province is due DIRECTLY to the hard work, dedication, intelligent thought, sweat, blood and tears of the Marines and sailors and soldiers there. They have been working with the tribal leaders and sheiks since the beginning to bring about this change in that area. You morons who have NOT been there that think that somehow, suddenly, the sheiks finally decided to take matters into their own hands are betraying your ignorance to the world. The decrease in violence in Anbar and the willingness of the sheiks to finally take part in the security of that whole region is the RESULT of all the U.S. effort there. To call it anything else is absurd and ignorant. Schumer has essentially shown his butt to the American people. I dare you to challenge me on this issue, we can go toe-to-toe,

[Ialdoboath]

Hey, I agree. CNN.com is now down to a single headline on its main page. They are not even pretending to give news anymore. Fox is all about anything that will rile people up and make them scared or angry. (Seems to work well). Drudge gives you more, but with a bias. (still way better than most though).

What gets me are the huge salaries people in the government make who are SUPPOSED to understand this stuff. A senator gets caught with a stash of stolen money or a young boy and they can spin doctor it to smell like roses. But they seem to fail miserably in trying to spin this war.

Take the new Bin Laden tape today. Obviously old footage, yet every station is carrying it like it's a #1 priority. Why is the gov. not coming out and showing these idiots for what they are, explaining how the tape is a lie, old footage, and a way to cover up that the big bad Osama is likely dead as a doornail.

I get that the media run with whatever makes them money. No problem with that. But the gov. is supposed to be aware of it to, and able to use the system to benefit the people.



Ahhhh - you and me both....now you can understand why so many of us treat the media with such disdain...this terrorist PR war NEVER would have any chance at success without their help...we all know how PR wars are won - media blitz....there is no media blitz concerning any successes in the war on terror, and if there are, it usually comes from military or government sources and is instantly labeled as propaganda. But let's face it - propaganda is used everywhere else in the world - I just think Americans are the only ones who feel guilty about it.

[Voyeur]

Isn't freedom of speech something that you are sending your sons and daughters to be slaghtered over in Iraq for...


So why scream treason every time a politician has a differing opinion other than the right wing agenda....

We are free to speak what we will. We are also free to get our arses handed to us if we tell LIES. Voyeur.

[LakewayDaze!]

Isn't freedom of speech something that you are sending your sons and daughters to be slaghtered over in Iraq for...


So why scream treason every time a politician has a differing opinion other than the right wing agenda....

Do you really expect an answer to that??

Spoken like a real weekend warrior......:drunk:

There are some obviously very intelligent guys and girls here and I respect you all. It's a complex situation that can certainly get my had spinning. I learn quite a lot reading the thoughts you so intelligently transcribe here int he forum for us all. Thank you for that. I have learned a few things about Canada as well tonight. Who woulda thunk it......Thanks. :wave:

For the record I like Chicken and rice but Lasagna I wouldn't throw out either. :)

[williambedloe]

Hey, I agree. CNN.com is now down to a single headline on its main page. They are not even pretending to give news anymore. Fox is all about anything that will rile people up and make them scared or angry. (Seems to work well). Drudge gives you more, but with a bias. (still way better than most though).

What gets me are the huge salaries people in the government make who are SUPPOSED to understand this stuff. A senator gets caught with a stash of stolen money or a young boy and they can spin doctor it to smell like roses. But they seem to fail miserably in trying to spin this war.

Take the new Bin Laden tape today. Obviously old footage, yet every station is carrying it like it's a #1 priority. Why is the gov. not coming out and showing these idiots for what they are, explaining how the tape is a lie, old footage, and a way to cover up that the big bad Osama is likely dead as a doornail.

I get that the media run with whatever makes them money. No problem with that. But the gov. is supposed to be aware of it to, and able to use the system to benefit the people.

And yet again, you now understand some of the frustration we on the Con side have had with Bush - as far as propaganda goes, the message of stay the course falls flat if you don't also show the good being done...you can't ask for patience when you don't show folks that patience will be (and is being) rewarded!

[rykpa]

I agree with this about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - the problem there is that we have supposedly Western friendly governments overseeing a Western despising population. How can you deal with these? In time, you may find that the general Iraqi population is more pro west than you may think - and I think the same can be said for the gen pop of Iran. The reverse is the case in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. In terms of religious significance, how can the US justify to the rest of the muslim world an invasion of their holiest places (i.e. Mecca and Medina)? Saudi Arabia needs a different approach. The best is to build up anti-fanatic Muslim nations in the Middle East that are more open to democracy than theocracy. Iran and Iraq are major players - a turn in their fortunes and attitudes would carry alot of weight in the Middle East, and would act to isolate the likes of Saudi Arabia and Syria. Pakistan is a dreadful situation, as Musharraf is practically the only kind of person the US could have in that country that would be of any use to them. But what is the payoff for a US invasion of Pakistan? One cannot say that world security and stability would be achieved if Pakistan was brought to its knees (though India would be happy) - terrorists have shown that they can pack up and move elsewhere. So we just keep hunting them into every unfriendly nation they move into, rebuilding as we go? Not remotely feasible...

Maybe, just maybe, the better idea is to shore up the rest of the middle East (the breeding ground for this virulent hatred) to help stabilize world economies (oil) and form sustainable long term partnerships to help bring some of these nations out from their theocratic ways, while isolating those that persist in this way of life. At the same time, this will naturally undermine those nations like Saudi Arabia who hoard the wealth among the sheiks and leave the poor to strap bombs to themselves.


Chasing terrorists all over the world is a policy that has been tried and has failed every time...need everyone be reminded of John Pershing and the ill fated attempts to invade Mexico to pursue and capture Pancho Villa during the Wilson administration? Some of what Barack Obama proposed with Pakistan is eerily reminiscient of this episode...take a read here:

http://www.hsgng.org/pages/pancho.htm

Schumer again is being a politician above a patriot - he is not unpatriotic because he disagrees with policies - he is unpatriotic because his disagreement with policy is manifesting itself in denigration of the troops efforts.

To me, he is the ultimate traitor...
*******

a type of Villa???

Great read on Villa. Now I'm behind in my duties. CRIKEY!!!

[TerryTate]

Drudge gives you more, but with a bias. (still way better than most though).

You must be referring to Drudge's radio show, as his website simply lists links to other peoples articles....

As the articles of others aren't written by Drudge, then the bias reflected would be from the other journalists and not Drudge eh?

I've seen both liberal and conservative articles linked on Drudges site. As a lot of his links are to British publications it would be hard to miss the liberal slants.

If you are saying that Drudge constructs his website to show a slant, I'd say it would be due to the fault of the liberal media themselves who provide the ammunition in the articles that they write. Difficult to hide their own stupidity once its in print. Drudge is just good at finding articles buried on page 47 and exposing them for what they are.

:no:

;)

[Fireman-Hott]

Isn't freedom of speech something that you are sending your sons and daughters to be slaghtered over in Iraq for...


So why scream treason every time a politician has a differing opinion other than the right wing agenda....

Get it through your thick skull, it's not freedom of speech say anything you want all willynilly.
You can say what you want short of causing mass panic, comforting the enemy in war yelling fire in a theater etc.
If it was freedom of speech you could do that with blatant disregard.

[dinar rising]

Get it through your thick skull, it's not freedom of speech say anything you want all willynilly.
You can say what you want short of causing mass panic, comforting the enemy in war yelling fire in a theater etc.
If it was freedom of speech you could do that with blatant disregard.

Exactly!

And you definitely can't say the word BOMB on an airplane. They don't like
that at all :no:

It is usually unethical morons who spout the most blatant, harmful
garbage and then then cry "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" for protection. News
reporters do it on a daily basis.

Would a bully at your child's school who continuously humiliated your
son and daughter to the point of suicide be ok because of "freedom of
speech?" :no:

Is what this politician said harmful to his own military, his own people in
ANY way? Did it degrade the army to it's enemies even slightly? Did it
make the military seem weak and inefficient at all? OF COURSE IT DID!

Freedom is not an inherent right on this planet. You have to fight for
every ounce of it. :happy26:

Oh No! have I upset anyone? :rolleyes:

Phil

[rykpa]

I served in Iraq, in Anbar Province, in 2005, in the Marine Crops infantry, on the ground, operating amongest the people there. I tell you this right now, that all of the progress that is being seen right now in that province is due DIRECTLY to the hard work, dedication, intelligent thought, sweat, blood and tears of the Marines and sailors and soldiers there. They have been working with the tribal leaders and sheiks since the beginning to bring about this change in that area. You morons who have NOT been there that think that somehow, suddenly, the sheiks finally decided to take matters into their own hands are betraying your ignorance to the world. The decrease in violence in Anbar and the willingness of the sheiks to finally take part in the security of that whole region is the RESULT of all the U.S. effort there. To call it anything else is absurd and ignorant. Schumer has essentially shown his butt to the American people. I dare you to challenge me on this issue, we can go toe-to-toe,

*******

I believe that it is blantantly obvious that Schumer is biased in his expression here. Just how disingenuous can one be??? It is a matter of policy for his people to paint a negative portrait of ANYTHING positive that Mr. Bush has a hand in. It is almost comical how they conduct themselves. One would think that they would at least use a measure of tact in their attacks, rather than their childish and self-serving approach.

Thank you for your service to this cause.

[stinkydinarcrazedidiot]

I think it reflects on the intelligence and depth of knowledge on the issues and founding principles of America the avg New Yorker has, in that Chuckie Schumer and Her Thighness are their senators.

[rykpa]

He's undermining our military during a time of war, for political gain, no less.

He's a traitor, IMO.

[TimP]

William and Ialdo...thank you both for your well thoughout and well spoken posts. The fire storm whirling around you two as you calmly discuss your positions is amusing, heartening and even alittle disappointing.

To Sgt...Thank You Sir for your service to our country. I agree 110% with your post. We owe you and all the men & women of our armed forces a debt of gratitutde we can never repay

As both William and Ialdo posted...it is because of our failure to communicate the successes in Iraq that Chucky the Schmuck is able to get away with sound bites such as this. Alot of people simply do not really know what has and is going on in Iraq. OBL & his PR machine is very effective...unfortunately.
Our MSM is a tool of the left/Lib Dems and is still, to this day, focused on defeating President Bush...at ANY cost