Those of you old enough to remember will see ARVN written written all over this.
BAGHDAD — A company of Iraqi soldiers abandoned their positions on Tuesday night in Sadr City, defying American soldiers who implored them to hold the line against Shiite militias.
The retreat left a crucial stretch of road on the front lines undefended for hours and led to a tense series of exchanges between American soldiers and about 50 Iraqi troops who were fleeing.
Capt. Logan Veath, a company commander in the 25th Infantry Division, pleaded with the Iraqi major who was leading his troops away from the Sadr City fight, urging him to return to the front.
…
Captain Veath’s pleas failed, and senior American and Iraqi commanders mounted an urgent effort to regain the lost ground. An elite Iraqi unit was rushed in and with the support of the Americans began to fight its way north.
Shitty puppet armies never work out so well. Especially when you pit them against their own countrymen at the service of a government they don’t support.Just wondering too: Why is the word “elite” a good thing when talking about military units, or anything else for that matter, but not for presidential candidates?
17 comments:
First, I think the word "elite" is overused. But in general "elite" forces are those that go through additional training or have specialized skills. I would consider the SEALS, Delta Force, or even the Rangers as "elite" fighting units for they are suppose to be the best of the best and thus better than the other soldiers.
When a presidential candidate thinks that they are better than the rest of us or talks down to us because they have somehow found a way to navigate the political system then they believe that they are "elite". This is what happened with the Obama speech about guns and religion. I go to Church and I own guns, to somehow equate that as some type of crutch that I grasp towards because I have no where else to turn is considered an elitist statement by many and frankly wrong. So he can take his second rate Harvard degree (it is still not Yale) and either apologize to small town America or he is going to be in big trouble.
Obama had run a pretty good campaign until a few months ago. Now he is starting to play the same old devisive politics and I think is squandering his credibility. He had better get his act together or McCain might sneak in and win this thing.
Face it Rick, everybody is better then you.
And for the record, it was the gun-loving church-goers (such as yourself) that voted for Bu$h twice and look at the country now. Case closed.
Geek,
Ok, good one on your first post. I can take a hit. :).
And, I cannot disagree with your 2nd post either. But what does that say about the people who believe in the 2nd amendment? Gore would have easily beat Bush if he promoted his gun grabbing campaign. Even Clinton admitted that the gun issue was a loser for the dems. I expect the NRA to come out swinging once the democratic nominee is selected. The far left gun grabbers had better steer clear of the gun issue. Just my word of advice.
Well, from what I see, most dems believe in the 2nd amendment. Last time I checked, the second amendment didn't say you have a unrestricted right to bear arms. When the 2nd amendment was written, there were only single shot muskets and pistols that took a minute to reload. Now, thanks to technology, you can (after swapping small pistols with large easy reload clips) you can go into a school/mall/work and shoot 50-200 rounds very quickly. With a single shot pistol/musket, you will be easily overpowered. There is no mention of speed limits in the constitution, yet ("unconstitutional") laws were created for public safety that restricted speed. All the dems are asking for are reasonable restrictions for public safety. Why do you need to buy more then one hand gun a month?!? Plan to shoot up a school?
Of course the gun-loving church-goers solution to school shootings (and the oil problem) is to put more guns out there (and acquire more oil).
Now please don't go into the tired old rant of guns being banned in Chicago not helping. I just want you to remember that any local ban is ineffective, just as the springfield smoking ban. People went to the 'burbs, until it went statewide.
I dont have a dispute with your latest post. Just like you cant yell fire in a movie theater based on free speech, of course there should be some restrictions on guns.
Now regarding limiting the ban to 1 per month doesnt make sense. What about the legal gun collector? Or what if you are new to hunting and want to go pheasant hunting and duck hunting in the same month? You need 2 different types of guns. Of course the legislation is suppose to stop gangbangers and others from buying multiple guns at once and then selling them illegally. So why not just police those people better? No need to punish the legal law abiding folks.
And I even agree that probably most democrats believe in the 2nd amendment. But, I would argue that a large majority of the democratic elitist leadership wants to put severe restrictions on gun ownership. Just shows how out of touch their leadership is with the people.
What about the legal gun collector?
Get a license, google it, they exists.
Or what if you are new to hunting and want to go pheasant hunting and duck hunting in the same month? You need 2 different types of guns.
You hunt those with hand guns?!?
No need to punish the legal law abiding folks.
How would this law punish the legal law abiding folks? Please provide a better fantasy scenario.
I would argue that a large majority of the democratic elitist leadership wants to put severe restrictions on gun ownership.
Feel free to argue, but please provide examples. Elitists?!? Grow a couple brain cells and stop watch fox news.
One more point:
So why not just police those people better?
To "police" people better you need more police. Maybe another tax cut for the rich would pay for it. The law will help prevent crimes. You propose the police work harder after a crime.
Geek,
On your last comment, you should read More Guns Less Crime by John Lott jr.....former U of C and Yale statitistician who clearly shows that well, more guns equals less crime....
Rick,
You should respond with better reasons why the gun bill mentioned above should be passed instead of changing the subject. Shall I mark this down as yet another "discussion" I won?!?
Hmm, 5 seconds to find a link that Rick should read..
Geek,
1. What are you talking about Gun Collectors getting a license? Are you suggesting that a gun collector could be allowed to buy more than one gun per month?
2. You are correct about hunting with handguns.
3. Elitists: A. Mayor Daley of Chicago who is behind most gun bans in Illinois. He has an army of armed body guards. I dont know about you, but I cannot afford armed body guards. It seems that Mayor Daley has no problem using guns to protect himself but will not allow us commoners to use our own guns to protect ourselves. B. Anti-gunner Rosie Odonnel...same argurment. She has armed ccw body guards..C. The list goes on and on.
4. Police cannot be everywhere, no matter how many more we put on the street. The only person that can protect your family is you. Say what you want but the fact is that More Guns Do equal Less Crime. It has been proven time and time again. I trust John Lott more than I do the Brady Campaign.
Finally, what if I just want to have more guns period. I dont think my 2nd Amendment rights should be violated. But in the long run arguing wont matter because I believe the supreme court will soon decide on the 2nd amendment.
1) there is a gun collectors license, I have not seen the bill, but I assume they can buy more then one gun.
2)Of course
3) elitist: Nope, look up the word hypocrite. While you are at it look up large majority and tell me how 1 mayor and 1 (large) TV host are "large majority of the democratic elitist leadership wants to put severe restrictions on gun ownership."
4) And since the police can't be everywhere at once, this bill will make their job easier. Thank you for proving my point. You can trust John Lott and feel free to trust Mary Rosh.
Go ahead and have all the guns as long as the guns have reasonable restrictions, like being licensed, small clips, no automatic weapons, properly secured and you take responsibility if the guns are used in a crime.
Hey, while I got your attention, what "noble cause" did 4,000 of my fellow soldiers die for?
Regarding point 4.
I agree with "reasonable restrictions"..but who gets to decide what "reasonable" means? Just between you and me we disagree:
A) I think licensing of guns is unreasonable. Part of my reasoning is based on the founding fathers intent to have the population armed to keep the government in check. If the govt, knows who has the guns and where they live, it weakens the populace.
B)Small clips. I dont have a problem with small clips. But what is small? I think 20-30 would be reasonable. Some think 1 would be reasonable.
c) We agree on No Automatic weapons. I wish the media would stop portraying "semi-automatic" guns as "automatic".
d) Properly secured and take responsibility. If someone steals your car and runs over another person, do you go to jail? If yes, then I will back punishing the gun owner who finds himself in the same situation.
Regarding Noble Cause: freeing a country from a murderous tyrant is noble. Dont you think it would have been nice if someone had taken out Hitler?
Point 4 was about your trust of a guy who was caught using a sock puppet.
a)Keep the government in check? First ask the Branch Dividians and Ruby Ridge people kept the government in check. Secondly, why keep the government in check, when the government keeps you in check by controlling the media.
B) 20-30 round clips is reasonable? Which bank or school you going to shoot up? Maybe you can use it for duck hunting....
c)As a former solder I know the difference. But you can easily by conversion kits legally at gun shows.
d) The main purpose of a car is for transportation, the main purpose of a gun is to kill someone!. Please don't you use the bullshit line of "a gun is for defense", because the only way you can do that is by killing someone.
Noble Cause: Thank you for reminding me how much an idiot you are. The "freeing a country from a murderous tyrant" crap was excuse 4-5 for attacking. Remember all those WMDs?!? Hitler was being in the process of being taken out, remember WWII?!?
Do you remember the U.S.(Reagan) put the former CIA employee into power in Iraq?!? We provided him "dual purpose" chemical factories. Sent him money (and Rumsfield) after he gassed the Kurds.
We closed down the rape and torture and opened our own. We stopped him from abducting people, and started doing it ourself. They are worse now then when he was in charge. They are not "free" either, they have been asking us to leave for years nows, and we are still their putting another puppet government in charge.
As for tyrants, there are plenty of other countries with tyrants worse then he was. Plenty without oil. We can't afford to remove anymore tyrants, even with more tax cuts for the rich.
You are an idiot.
Obviously with your personal attacks it shows how frustrated you are with your arguments.(And the wisdom of mine) I will bet you anything that the Supreme Courts upcoming decision will back many more of my arguments than yours. Why? Because I read the constitution and the federalist papers. They completely back my arguments.
Thank you for proving how much of a coward and an idiot you are by refusing to respond to my slamming your little fantasy world. And the only reason the Supreme Court will agree with your delusional view of the constitution is because the torturer-in-chief replaced many seats .
Dream on and ignore the facts.
Post a Comment