Lock and load!

Regards,
Peter H.

Two reasons — they’re either hypocrites, or they’re lying when they claim to support those. Either way, they lose.

And Dave, you don’t have to wait for an engraved invitation. Go down and volunteer to fight in Afghanistan. In fact, given Barack “Dr. Strangelove” Obama’s exhortation that we should invade and bomb Pakistan, you and your fellow Democrats should be running to your training camps.

V, in one brilliant stroke, you have just spelled out the DNC modus operandi. It is government by the libtards, of the libtards, for the libtards.

Regards,
Peter H.

For libtards to make the argument that conservatives should enlist if they support the war is ludicrous.

It is hard to believe that leftards are clinging to an argument that was debunked years ago. If you follow through on the chickenhawk argument, then you can’t support law enforcement unless you become a cop, you can’t support public education unless you’re a teacher … and so on.

It’s a comment on the idiocy of people making the chickenhawk argument that they can’t see how stupid and flawed their argument is. It’s a dumb slur, used by dumb people.

A military recruiter called into our local talk-radio program to remind listeners that the military is, in fact, an exclusive club. The recruiter estimated that only 1 out of 5 prospective recruits qualify for military service. (For those of you who went to public school, that means only 20%.)

So why are 80% of recruits rejected? Most are either physically-challenged, intellectually-challenged or morally-challenged. Or in the case of most Dhimmicrats, all three.

For libtards to make the argument that conservatives should enlist if they support the war is ludicrous. They demand that every person who supports the war join the military or send their children. If they don’t, according to the libtards, they’re hypocrites.

Is every person that wears an AIDS ribbon, but doesn’t go to Africa (as Laura and Jenna Bush did) to help children with HIV/AIDS a hypocrite? Are vice presidents and celebrities that travel in private jets and SUVs while lecturing the little people on the proper amount of toilet paper also hypocrites?

(Crickets chirping.)

I rest my case.

Regards,
Peter H.

Regards,
Peter H.

At the same time, under the Geneva conventions, if a force moves into a non-military target and commences to attack from that target, it becomes a military target. So under that international law everyone likes citing, if we kill civilians because the Taliban/terrorists are using that village as a base of operations, any civilian deaths are on their heads, not ours.

That may be, Synova. However, no matter how you polish a turd, it’s still a turd.

Sorta ORA: Does anybody else get the sneaking suspicion that Obama’s just the kind of guy who would launch “Wing Attack Plan R”?

We’ll have you…you’re more than welcome. Just agree that something’s more important to you than yourself, play by the rules, and you can come along with me, put on the same uniform I wear (well, you’ll have to start off with a lower rank), and fight alongside me.

That is, if you can consider service to your Country to be more important to you than yourself.

Okay, didn’t think so.

Thanks for the clarification; it definitely does seem, from that link that he was referring to Afghanistan, where it is more often we engage in air-raids.

Nevertheless, he is definitely helping to feed the enemy’s propaganda that a) air-raids are our primary method of attack (not true), and, b) more perniciously, somehow our goal of those tactics is to kill civilians.

…same narrative, different day…

BTW, “Hussein” is a common name in the Arab-speaking world and I take Peter’s (correct) use of it in #19 as a general “dhimmitude” allusion. Not as Iraq.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/011339.php

You may be right about Afghanistan…the article I link is not totally clear. Do you have a better link to more context?

Thanks
Nick

My fantasy: During a presidential debate, a questioner shows pictures of various military aircraft, ships, and weapons and challenges the candidates to identify them. Then, shows pictures of soldiers in uniform and challenges candidates to identify their rank and service.

John McCain and Duncan Hunter would do fine. Everybody else… toast. (The Democrats once put a picture of a Canadian soldier on their website to illustrate their commitment to American veterans.)