Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: Politix

The Generals' Revolt --- or Generally Revolting?

2006-09-27

From Blackfive.

I've been reading the blogs, the transcript and some comments from some well-meaning and some irrational folks about the Generals' Revolt and their comments in front of a panel of Dhimmicrats in Congress. Many comments, and all the Dhimmicrats miss the point.

These Generals have gone to a partisan group and demanded action to remove the leadership of the Dept of Defense. Fine. Your points are noted with interest. If you read their transcripts they demand a dramatic increase in the commitment of troops, resources and money to the fight, and commitment to the conflict for the long haul. Again, fine.

There is nothing 145,000 American troops in Iraq and 20,000 American troops in Afghanistan couldn't do and do better with twice or three times the on ground manpower, resources, and money than is already committed. So let's see the Dhimmicrats insist on that. When they insist on raising the size of America's military from 1.4 Million on active duty to 2.5 Million on active duty, add the required armor, intelligence, air, and naval assets required to meet that task, including raising the Defense budget from $400 Billion to $1.2 Trillion annually, THEN and ONLY THEN, will I believe they are serious about defense and intend to actually fight the Long War.

Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#4 HHHHHHHMMMMMMMM Part Tres > the Dems, or many of them, may be inclined to support a Manpower-intensive, Govt-intensive, MIC/Costs-intensive NATIONAL MILITARY DRAFT which they promise can be done without raising taxes + will only be used for Afghanistan, AND ONLY IN AFGHANISTAN becuz Amer will withdraw from Dubya's alleged
"quagmire" in Iraq + leave Iran alone to dev its peaceful domestic nuke energy programs. Plus, the USA will go on feeding NORTH KOREA + leave Cuba's CASTRO alone to eat his imported black hams while the rest of Cuba starves due to insufficient US funding of UNO Intern Dev Progs. KIMMIE WILL STOP THREATENING ASIA IFF ONLY AMERICA WOULD ONLY WITHDRAW FROM ASIA-PACIFIC BACK TO CONUS WHILE INCREASING ITS $$$ PAYOUT TO THE UNO WITHOUT ASKING THE UNO OR ANY NATION TO ENSURE THAT US $$$ IS USED FOR ITS INTENDED OR ALLOCATED PURPOSES. America needs a massive Draft so that US troops can be used to destroy = protect the drug fields of Afghanistan and Asia. JUst waiting for the day when the MSM will officially substitute CONSERVATIVE in PALEOCONSERVATIVE + NEOCONSERVATIVE, etc, wid STALINIST/SOVIET/
MARXISTS/COMMUNIST/GOVERNMENTIST, which in reality is how the Left interpretes these labels, directly or indirectly, anyways. America can war for global empire as long as it doesn't rule or control its own said empire, i.e. AMERICA = FASCIST AMERIKA CAN WAR FOR EMPIRE AS LONG AS IT WAGES WAR TO LOSE.

Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-09-27 23:38

#3 . . . the Republicans deserve to lose - but the democrats don't deserve to win . . .

That's life in the two-party system, kids. There is usually no candidate on the ballot named "Your Theoretical Ideal." You vote for the best available on Election Day.

If you want to see Theo Rheticalideal on the ballot someday, you've got to play the long game of persuasion in the op-eds and the blogs and the primaries--always realizing and accepting that you'll never get everything you want.

Posted by: Mike 2006-09-27 13:47

#2 Better said that the Republicans do not deserve to win but that the Democrats certainly deserve to lose.

/Canadian comment... though we have the same problem up here

Posted by: Flea 2006-09-27 13:36

#1 well said.

Someone said - the Republicans deserve to lose - but the democrats don't deserve to win.

That pretty much says it for me. The Republicans disgust me - just not as much as the out-of-reality democrats do.

Posted by: Crurt Sneth8456 2006-09-27 13:26

00:00