. If you want a laugh, I suggest you read these comments on the BBC “Have your Say” page concerning the imminent arrival of US President Bush to the UK tomorrow. I particularly enjoyed Muhammad (sic) Adam’s comment that “Bush is the world’s biggest terrorist and murderer. He should not be allowed into the UK. His presence in this pure land violates its sanctity. Bush has not done anything good for his nation, or for any nation for that matter ever since he took office. He should be arrested for crimes against humanity, for genocide, for international terrorism.” I think Muhammad may be articulating BBC policy on this topic as they prepare for a hurricane of protest at the Bush visit. I’ve been invited on the BBC Northern Ireland Nolan Show tomorrow morning as someone who supports the President’s record on te war on terror. Guantanamo is one area that I suspect will be tackled, with the likes of Shamnesty International’s street burlesque in orange jumpsuits through Belfast city centre being give considerable media time by the BBC. My only problem with Gitmo was that enemy combatants made it that far. A gulag of our times that allows inmates to put on weight is a gulag too far. I know the hard-left will be out in full-on moonbat mode tomorrow, whinging about all the imperfections of the US President without anything substantial to say about the Islamic pathology that brought us 9/11, 7/7, Madrid and Bali to name but a few. Bush derangement syndrome will be evident in BBC new coverage over the next 48hrs and I will report back on my experience tomorrow.
BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME
Bookmark the permalink.
Actually I don’t care anymore. What I’m really looking forward to is the US election. If Obama wins what will the BBC do?
He’s not going to change much in the way of foreign policy and the sight of American troops being driven out of Baghdad like the final days of Vietman will be a real hoot.
Once all the shine has come off the new ball, what will the BBC do?
I’m guessing Bush will become like Thatcher, a hate figure to wheel out for the next 30 years.
I hope Obama looses Martin, i can just image all the beeboids throwing themselves off a cliff just like lemmings in despair
i like the US president, all he’s done is take the fight to the religion of peace, like any soldier would do and the world is a safer place for him. Heaven must be all out of virgins by now
i think i’ll feel ashamed by the welcome the moonbats will give him tho
History will pass judgement on the abilities and actions of many, assuming it is still left to be shared in a professional, agenda-free form from the hands of those who in theory concern themselves with facts and balance in serving us our information.
If so, I rather doubt President Bush will be deemed on his merits one of the best the USA has had, for their own country or others.
However, I do rather find myself warming rather perversely to the man, if for no other reason than having just caught a bit (popping Mum back home after lunch, and she, much to everyone’s misery, watches News 24 dawn ‘to dusk) of the live commentary of his arrival somewhere here by helicopter.
I can only presume the person doing all the talking was an invited American guest as there was a British accent involved too, but all I heard was a stream of rather partisan opinion on Mr. Bush’s legacy. To the extent that as part of the invective there was thrown up the fact that 9/11 took place during his Presidency (yeeees…. but not so sure the whole ‘attack the US’ concept was entirely aimed at him. I am sure Mr. Clinton’s statesmanlike actions might have had a hand in things) and he didn’t cope with the whole being told in front of the kids thing very well (what was he supposed to do? Leap up and scream ‘we’re under attack!!! I’m off to man the nearest ack-ack gun?’).
These are all entirely valid things to opine in a free, democratic system, but they seemed distinctly odd as part of the commentary on the arrival of a world leader to our country. If there was balance before or after I must have missed it, but in the circumstances it was anyway rather extreme and to me beyond the remit of our national broadcaster.
But in the world of reporting helicopter diplomacy, at least in the hands of the BBC, as a bookend to Ms. Plett’s eulogy during Yasser Arafat’s ascension to the heavens it would be perfect.
I agree that I like Bush in that he stuck it to the Moozlums, but his time is up.
Yes in one way it would be nice to get another famous “the Champagne bottles were rattling around the BBC” if “Osama” wins the election.
On the other hand McCain winnig will be quite funny.
I don’t really care either way.
Interesting though that the BBC claimed that the protesters against Boosh in London were opposing the war in Iraq. Actually they oppose the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s quite interesting as quite a few liberals seem to support the war in Afghanistan. Even the vile Yasmin Alabi Brown said so on the BBC the other day. This is the samw woman who poured poision onto the very same British soldiers fighting in Iraq.
“If Obama wins what will the BBC do?”
The BBC will have a nervous breakdown because Obama is never going to pull the troops out of Iraq. He will throw that promise under the now crowded bus.
You see the Iraq war was predicated on Liberal presumptions regarding humanity, this was called “The Bush Doctrine” i.e. That freedom is God’s gift to all and that America has a divinely mandated mission to “regime change” Iraq and socially engineer an American style multi-cultural Iraq. In the world of Universalist Liberalism “Freedom” is to the soul what oxygen is to the human body to paraphrase none other than LEON TROTSKY.
As it happens, Gitmo is the Gulag of our time, and America is the most ideologically driven power since the Soviet Union. The Gulag was designed to transform humanity into something according to ideological presumption. In our time, that ideology is multiculturalism. (Consider the Guantanamo inmates are given Korans, and that American Generals kiss the Koran etc).
I’ve been reading them for the last few days. I would have replied to some of them, but guess what… I’ve been ‘banned’ from posting to ‘Have Your Say’. Same with ‘Comment is Free’. I’m sure I’m not the only one…
Oh yes, and McCain is going to win. 🙂
Couldn’t agree more, David… Had they not taken any prisoners the Afghan break-out wouldn’t have taken place. Or: only a dead Taleban is a good Taleban.
As I keep saying, you shouldn’t take prisoners. They Moozlums don’t (well they do but only to torture and behead)
The Americans gave up taking prisoner against the Japanese in WW2. They just exterminated everything that moved. The same should apply now.
Our lot can’t do that, but the yanks could. That would solve the whole problem.
“…But the Marines pushed on. Over the next agonizing weeks, they took the rest of the island yard by yard, bunker by bunker, cave by cave. They fought through places with names like “Bloody Gorge” and “The Meat Grinder.” They learned to take no prisoners in fighting a skilled and fanatical enemy who gave no quarter and expected none…”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006317
DV — be sure to correctly refer to it as Club Gitmo — as made famous by Rush Limbaugh.
For some of the best legal background from Mark Levin on why the 5-4 SCOTUS decision is so bad, check out
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/06/12/levin-courts-gitmo-ruling-reporters-spewing-enemy-talking-points
Americans should be pleased with Bush. Since 9/11 there has not been one major successful attack on US soil.
Iraq offered AQ a battleground of sorts, well away from the USA. Iraq is a far closer destination for anyone wanting to kill Americans.
Yes a ruthless plan in order to divert attacks away from the US, but it worked.
Never mind the HYS, page. The BBC took a gem from there and featured it on the page of the (very poorly edited) news brief about Bush’s arrival in London:
Bush begins two-day visit to UK
They couldn’t have picked a duller clip to go with it, though. I must admit it’s always slightly amusing to see the Queen strolling along with her handbag. I know she’s always done it, seen it for decades, but it just seems a little off, but in a charming way.
In any event, the HYS quote the BBC chose to feature with the report:
“I do not think Bush’s visit is worthwhile. I am proud to be an American, but I am ashamed of Bush. He hasn’t done any good for anybody.”
Ken Jones, Lincoln, USA
Chose it out of thousands. It wasn’t like the others; they were all too negative.
Where was that balancing quote, BBC? Oh, that’s right not every article needs to be balanced; the goal is to provide balance in the long term. Except when the article is about something that might make Bush (or other BBC enemies) look good, in which case there is invariably a “balancing” negative point.
“I like Bush in that he stuck it to the Moozlums.”
Yeah, right!
Like Kosovo? How, exactly, is installing an Albanian Muslim narco-trafficante, gangster state in Europe sticking it to the R.o.P?
Like lobbying vigorously for Turkish EU membership? That’ll show ’em.
Like the Sharia constitution of Afghanistan? Take that!
Like the never-ending billions paid in jizya to our trustworthy friends and allies like Pakistan? Or Mubarak’s Egypt?
Like his forceful and decisive intervention against genocidal Sudanese jihadists in Darfur?
Like relentlessly pressurising Israel to submit to the Arab-Muslim jihad?
Like removing a secular, albeit cruel, malevolent, corrupt and murderous Iraqi regime? Whatever else he was, Saddam was an implacable bulwark against Islamism, the vile Saudis and Iranian Shia hegemony in the Middle East – and that’s good enough for me.
The Iraqi adventure has been a catstrophe for the west. Iraq now has a stridently Islamist constitution, and Iran pulls all the strings in the region.
Bush’s hands are tied. The US is weak and exposed, mired in a situation beyond it’s control. What exactly is the mission in Iraq? In Afghanistan? Why are we sending our best and bravest young men to die there?
Tragically for the entire western Infidel world, Muslims have played Bush for the chump he is. They’re running rings round him.
A clued-up, ruthlessly determined US admistration would’ve played off the regional and ethnic Muslim factions against each other then sat back and enjoyed the spectacle.
Not Bush. He only wanted to bring freedom and democracy to all those ‘ordinary moms and dads’ in the Middle East, who, after all, have the same hopes and desires as the rest of humanity. They’re just like us you know.
No, this idiot and his entire administration are utterly clueless on Islam. And we’re all gonna pay for it.
Ask yourself this: is the Infidel world in a better, or worse position to resist Islamic subjugation as a result of Bush’s endeavours?
Is the R.o.P stronger – or weaker – than it was when Bush came to power?
In Britain? In Europe? In Africa? In the Middle East. In Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Austalia. In the USA?
Sticking it to the Muslims? I don’t think so.
Like Kosovo? How, exactly, is installing an Albanian Muslim narco-trafficante, gangster state in Europe sticking it to the R.o.P?
That was Clinton.
“That was Clinton.”
True, but Bush and his clueless naifs picked up the baton and ran with it. With gusto. Remember the adulation in Pristina?
Bush thinks dismembering up a sovereign Christian European state and handing bits over to irredeemably venal,corrupt Muslim Albanian gangsters and jihadists is just swell. I don’t.
Bush should’ve let the Serbians deal with their restive fez-wearers in their own way. In doing so, he could’ve wrought big concessions from Russia AND denied the R.o.P a forward operating base deep in the heart of infidel Europe.
Win/win.
The thing which bothers me about the hard left is that when the subject is something like Guantanamo Bay, the Iraq war or capital punishment, they hoot and bray with all their might the notion that every individual is sacred and has inalienable rights – yet when the subject is something dear to the left, like Marxism, and you point out how many tens of millions have been slaughtered, tortured or imprisoned in its name, the reply is invariably “well, you don’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs”.
I once got talking to an oldish woman in a park in Manhattan, it turned out she used to work for the UN. She had ranted and raved about Bush and Guantanamo and torture and given it all of the usual “worlds biggest terrorist” and “murderer” nonsense, before I turned the subject to communism, history and mass slaughter – to which she actually made the omelet comment in reply.
It’s amazing when you think of all of the moral support leftists have given over the years to some of the most brutal and oppressive dictators and regimes in the world, from Stalin to Pol Pot to the Sandinistas to Mao to Castro to Saddam – tyrants who killed over a hundred million innocent people in the 20th century alone and who brutally oppressed their people, denied them rights and imprisoned and tortured individuals simply for disagreeing with them…then, when America detains a few very dangerous people in very dangerous times during an ongoing war against Islamo-fascist brutality – measures which have no purpose but to protect the lives of the innocent and ensure a safe future for future generations – all of a sudden the left is shocked and appalled and thinks that President Bush is the most evil man in history.
Saddam Hussein imprisoned, tortured and killed tens of thousands of innocent people in Abu Ghraib prison during his reign of terror – and not one of them ever received justice, not least until America caught the monster anyway. Not a peep from the left.
But an isolated incident involving a negligible fraction of the US military, and one which was dealt with harshly and severely and quickly by the US government, for all the world to see – and the left thinks this makes America the great Satan, a country of unimaginable evil and oppression.
Leftists are like medieval peasants. They’re ignorant, uneducated, irrational and over-emotional. Reason, common sense and common decency are all barred from their minds. It is just not within them to apply objective thought or rational morality to any situation whatsoever. Dealing with the left really is like dealing with a classroom full of infants. I think there comes a time when you just have to start raising your voice and rapping knuckles.
While the BBC’s Bushophobia continues, with the BBC almost searching out the small demo today of Muslim extremists, SWPers and CNDers to prove its partiality, the BBC seems to be light on covering these controversies involving OBAMA:-
“Fistgate: Was Obama’s gesture really Hizbollah hand jabbing?”
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article3795349.ece
AND:-
” Barack Obama throws a billion Muslims under a bus ”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021406.php
Martin:
I agree that I like Bush in that he stuck it to the Moozlums
I prefer the word “Muskies”. It continues a theme.
Oh and by the way, has anyone seen any mention from the BBC of Bush’s work in Africa? Bob Geldof said that no other president had done more for the people of Africa and that it was a disgrace that the liberal media had completely ignored his achievements.
http://video1.washingtontimes.com/fishwrap/2008/02/bob_geldof_in_rwanda.html
on five live today im pretty sure one of them referred to Bush as “the devil.”
When someone said “im going to stand up for Bush”, they all giggled.
Also they were bemoaning the ‘lack of integration’ seen in euro 2008 fans. One woman said “they all wear different coloured shirts, dont they.”
Surreal.
[i]Leftists are like medieval peasants. They’re ignorant, uneducated, irrational and over-emotional. Reason, common sense and common decency are all barred from their minds. It is just not within them to apply objective thought or rational morality to any situation whatsoever. Dealing with the left really is like dealing with a classroom full of infants. I think there comes a time when you just have to start raising your voice and rapping knuckles.
Jason | 15.06.08 – 6:02 pm | # [/i]
This is a masterpiece of having a laugh at Bush’s dualistic good vs evil world view. Extra class! Thanks Jason.
gunnar | 15.06.08 – 7:37 pm |
Aye Gunnar. Bush is indeed a stupid leftist peasant.
Only on B-BBC do we call out our trolls, only on B-BBC do we call Bush a leftist.
Joel. Hillhunt. Oxfordian. Nick Reynolds.
WE ARE
HARDCORE.
Is this the same Gunnar who flounced out of here less than a week ago?
What is the secret of our magnetic attraction?
More left wing horse shite from the BBC. Check out their news website.
“Protesters greet Bush” claim the BBC on the front page.
Then go to the story and you have to just love this bit.
“…While the protest, which drew several hundred people, was modest in size compared with previous crowds that turned out to demonstrate against Mr Bush, there were a few scuffles…”
Modest!!!! The Police said about 2000 people. Compared to the “hundreds of thousands that were supposed to have protested in the past, modest seems rather a stretch. More like “insignificant”
Funny that the BBC report actually makes no mention of the number of demonstrators at all. You can bet if there had been a huge number they would have.
Poor old Beeboids. The rest were probably off taking their smack or hunting down a new rent boy. Perhaps that’s where Joel is today?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7455206.stm
Hi Woad and GCooper
Seriously, I really enjoyed Jason’s entry. Who said humour is dead? No, it is pretty much alive and kicking.
Mark Twain will be spinning in his grave, since it was his trademark to go over the top to make a humouristic point.
Here the sketch in all its glory again:
Leftists are like medieval peasants. They’re ignorant, uneducated, irrational and over-emotional. Reason, common sense and common decency are all barred from their minds. It is just not within them to apply objective thought or rational morality to any situation whatsoever. Dealing with the left really is like dealing with a classroom full of infants. I think there comes a time when you just have to start raising your voice and rapping knuckles.
Jason | 15.06.08 – 6:02 pm | #
“Leftists are like medieval peasants. They’re ignorant, uneducated, irrational and over-emotional. Reason, common sense and common decency are all barred from their minds. It is just not within them to apply objective thought or rational morality to any situation whatsoever. Dealing with the left really is like dealing with a classroom full of infants. I think there comes a time when you just have to start raising your voice and rapping knuckles.
Jason | 15.06.08 – 6:02 pm | #”
You are so right Gunnar,the left are so amusing,they believe such amazing things.All those droll little camps and sidesplitting mass murders,
Of course being Al-BBC (who like all Leftards hate anyone who stands up to the islamofascists) they had to run, as David Preiser points out, this stupid negative quote about Bush..
“I do not think Bush’s visit is worthwhile. I am proud to be an American, but I am ashamed of Bush. He hasn’t done any good for anybody.”
Ken Jones, Lincoln, USA
But then we switch to Al-Beeb’s glowing report about a new statue of cold-blooded Commie killer Che being unveiled in Argentina, and we don’t get a single negative comment about the murdering egotist.
Al-BBC – never met a Leftist killer they didn’t adore.
“Al-BBC – never met a Leftist killer they didn’t adore.”
But Terry,Che looked so cute with his beret and that adorable beard,I bet he had nipple piercings as well.
I bet Che liked a rent boy or two as well
And therein lies the great Leftist paradox, I understand, Martin. Wasn’t Ernie a psychopathic ‘homophobe’?
It must be hard working for the BBC. So many of the heart-throbs of the Left seem to hold views that make Mary Whitehouse look like Paul Raymond.
Still, being a Leftist was never a properly thought-out logical position, was it?
The reasons for the beebs hatred of President Bush are numerous and all too obvious.The fact is that given the constraints of the world in which we live he has fought a good fight…we owe him much and as such he has my heartfelt thanks.
BBC bias can always be detected from their choice of headings and sub-headings in their articles (let alone the one HYS comment they choose to accompany the story).
Case in point – the story about the protests at George Bush’s visit – they couldn’t resist having the following phrase in bold type:
‘George Bush – terrorist’
disillusioned_german | 15.06.08 – 3:56 pm
Couldn’t agree more, David… Had they not taken any prisoners the Afghan break-out wouldn’t have taken place. Or: only a dead Taleban is a good Taleban.
I would say you and DV are kidding but something says you are serious.
To cause harm to a combatant after he is no longer actively involved in combat, through capture, injury, surrender, etc. is illegal under International Humanitarian Law principles signed and ratified by Britain, the U.S. and just about everyone.
Please produce evidence of a written order at any time in US history for such a policy.
It should not be forgotten that WWII Japanese soldiers were culturally expected to fight to the death and never surrender. Many prisoners were only captured when they were unable to resist due to wounds or incapacitation.
While no one ever expects a soldier to risk his life to take prisoners alive but that is a far step from a policy of killing enemy combatants after they no longer pose an immediate risk. I hope that never becomes US or British policy. War is brutal enough without giving up the moral high ground.
World War II Multimedia database
Correct me if I’m wrong but international laws on the treatment of “combatants” applies only to officially recognized soldiers who wear a uniform with a clearly displayed insignia, to distinguish them from civilians.
Terrorist savages who don’t identify themselves as soldiers and who blend seamlessly with and hide amongst civilians don’t count as enemy combatants under international law, and aren’t therefore entitled to benefit from any such international legislation.
Islamic terrorists will ALWAYS pose a threat, so long as they are living and breathing. These are people who celebrate death over life, who have devoted their entire existences to killing and who are untouchable by any form of reasoning, decency or deterrent. They must simply be eliminated as if they were rabid dogs, since their very existence is a direct abrogation of the rights of the innocents whose lives they threaten.
And might I add, wiping such animals off the face of the earth is taking the moral high ground.
“…has anyone seen any mention from the BBC of Bush’s work in Africa? Bob Geldof said that no other president had done more for the people of Africa…”
Yes, and Mugabe flies in to Rome with hardly a word of protest from those who claim to be so concerned about the welfare of third-worlders.
Jason | 16.06.08 – 6:06 am |
Got it nailed, lack of such attitude is what will get a lot of us killed.
Where are the Politicians / Generals who are prepared as Patten was to make “the other son of a bitch die for his country” (Religion) instead of standing by and then bemoaning the barbarity of the latest murderous attack on civilians.
Why cannot a lot of people get their head’s around the idea that if we don’t stand up for ourselves…..there is NO one else who will do it for us?
Perhaps too many entertainment super heroes, at the back of a lot of mind’s one will arrive to save us at the last minute.
Personally I think that the overall policy of taking the fight to the Islamist vermin was correct and brave. The planning, execution, contingencies & PR have been an absolute shambles so overall I’d say the Bush ‘record’ is in the red – but that’s not to say that someone more competent with a more militarily experienced and less ideologically blinkered team (McCain?) couldn’t make a decent fist of it.
I completely agree that it now seems impossible to have a rational discussion about Bush on the BBC – they start frothing at the mere mention of his name… You can’t talk about the overall wisdom of an interventionalist foreign policy, you can’t talk about his economic record (bad), you can’t talk about his climate change policy (pretty sensible I reckon).
I would LOVE IT if someone just told one of these interviewers to SHUT UP so that they could express a rational, calm analysis in a non sensationalist manner. He’s a 4 out of 10 President, not Satan.
Just watched the tail end of Breakfast News where some kid ‘magazine’ was being profiled/promoted.
Amongst other fun things, it would be seeking to empower our ‘yoof’ by facilitating things like flash mobs, for instance ‘to protest Mr. Bush’s visit’.
I wonder if they get a subsidy from BBC Worldwide, who I am sure can re-juggle their budgets up again to accommodate.
Anyway, as the blonde and bouffant seemed to approve, it’s all merry japes.
Cockney | 16.06.08 – 9:10 am
All true. And perhaps the context for a more rational discussion of Bush’s record should be the news that AQ Khan has been hawking around computer software containing instructions to build a nuke. That makes the hoary old ‘but there was no wmd in Iraq’ complaint somewhat irrelevant.
I’ve not been attentive to the BBC’s coverage of the AQ Khan story….anyone else been keeping an eye on it?
It’s probably the most important story of the hour – all things considered.
He’s a 4 out of 10 President, not Satan.
Cockney | 16.06.08 – 9:10 am | #
I’d give him 6/10.
I think Rumsfeld’s Iraq plan for a minimum invasion force worked well – there’s never been a contested invasion with so few casualties on both sides.
I also think the disbanding of the Iraqi army and the de-bathification prgramme were necessary – otherwise the war phase would have just continued indefinitely.
Bush’s team were just far too naive and idealistic in thinking that world opinion would fall into line and support them.
I don’t think they ever got their head around the fact that, following the collapse of international socialism, anti-Americanism has become the primary uniting force for liberal opininion and its media proponents world wide.
America is the only country in the world which has been willing to sacrfice virtually unlimited amounts of its blood and treasure, ever since WW2, to try and make the world a better place – and most “unsophisticated” (as the liberal media like to portray them) American’s simply can’t understand why their efforts are rewarded with little short of hatred.
The anti-American (and anti-Israeli) bile spewed out by the world’s “thinkers” since 9/11 has been the lifeblood of Islamic extremism and encouraged various middle Eastern regimes to chance their arm in supporting and expanding it.
Fortunately Bush has stuck to his guns, kept his closest allies such as us more or less on side, and it finally looks like the tide is turning in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
I think, like Reagan, once the liberal media have got over their disappointment he will go down in history as a strong president who saved the world from the biggest threat since Soviet communism (the liberal’s last favourite hobby).
The Leftards at the Beeb are sure going to miss President Bush when he steps down. How are they going to justify their easy, unwarranted assumption of moral superiority?
Bit of a mystery to me why the Beeboids are so keen on civil rights in the US but not so keen on civil rights in the UK.
“Minoan:
Americans should be pleased with Bush. Since 9/11 there has not been one major successful attack on US soil.
Iraq offered AQ a battleground of sorts, well away from the USA. Iraq is a far closer destination for anyone wanting to kill Americans.
Yes a ruthless plan in order to divert attacks away from the US, but it worked.”
Have to agree.
It is easier to fight them abroad than on the streets of Manhattan – and at least the Americans in the firing line have the opportunity to shoot back.
Absolutely tragedy for those involved, but the loss of life could have been considerably higher if the “war” was fought on the streets & subways of Manhattan, Washington etc.
A little gem from “The People’s Cube” today:-
Friendly fire: BBC office hit by al-Qaeda rocket
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=110
John Reith spins in his grave:
A little gem from “The People’s Cube” today:-
Friendly fire: BBC office hit by al-Qaeda rocket
Isn’t that known as Crap on Crap incident in Brit-military jargon??
Isn’t that known as Crap on Crap incident in Brit-military jargon??
Jack Bauer | Homepage | 16.06.08 – 11:58 am | #
…………..or possibly “Green on Green”?
“Friendly fire: BBC office hit by al-Qaeda rocket”
It’s nothing folks,just a lover’s tiff.
BDS comments should be taken with a pinch of salt,,many emanate from the nutroots,Democratic Underground,Kos and the like,they are just shy about saying they are Democrats.
John Reith spins in his grave:
You know, Saddam gambled that anti-US opinion would keep him safe…he gambled, and lost!
Mailman
deegee: You really are full of crap. Half term is it?
You simply don’t take the enemy alive. Most of the Taleban are happy to fight to the death anyway.
Soldiers are NOT required to get the enemy to surrender. If someone throws down their gun you still don’t know if they have a grenade or bomb or other weapon about them. Stick a bullet in them and worry about it later. If you don’t want to be killed don’t be on the battlefield (and certainly don’t go to Afghanistan for a holiday or computer course)
I also notice you make no reference to the torture and execution of American and British personnel (and civilians) by the Muslims.
If they don’t want to play by the rules of war, then fine. Neither should we. Perhaps you’d rather our soldiers don’t have real bullets either.
I’m betting you’re a wet liberal who had ot play with dolls as a child?