agree with this courageous soldier's sentiment, however, the editors of this clip need to realize that president obama ended the war in iraq and he voted against it in the first place. remember when mccain promised to have US servicemen in iraq in perpetuity on the campaign trail? thats the difference between the republicans and democrats- republicans have an utter disregard for the humanity of others because they believe they have a god given prerogative to do as they wish (i.e manifest destiny), while democrats are sensible enough to realize that empire is an antiquated notion.
Obama didn't end the war in Iraq, the war in Iraq is far from over. Our soldiers are still fighting, people are still dieing, and no amount of political bullshit can hide that fact. McCain did make the statement that he planned to have our soldiers in Iraq for quite some time. Obama promised to have our troops out of Iraq in 16 months. The difference is McCain was being realistic, Obama was telling you what you wanted to hear. As a side note I'd also like to enlighten you to the fact that Nazis, Communists and Socialists are all groups that land Left-of-Center, and are some of the biggest abusers ever of Human Rights and coincidentally also groups who have tried to build empires and take over the world. Food for thought?
For the record, about 50M people died in WW II. At least 50M died in each of the USSR and China under communist rule.
in regards to your first paragraph- the president set a "timeline" for withdrawal and permitted the indigenous (iraqi) forces to take over most, if not all of the major combat fighting. to that end, american forces have been isolated into parts of the country where they are needed most. consequently, many of the career jihadists have gone home or to afghanistan because im assuming its haram (not permitted) to kill other muslims. conversely, mccain wanted to be in iraq in perpetuity kinda like korea or something, thats just foolish. i dont how the your second paragraph is germane to the discussion at all, it just seems like a tangent thats based in complete falsehoods and misunderstandings of history. let me address a few: to suggest that the nazi's were left leaning is laughably absurd. do u know who the nazi's clampdown on before the jews, homosexuals and gypsies in germany? the communists. the thing about history is that its a lot more nuanced than u might think; in other words- there are no fox news absolutes of black and white. lets take mussolini (a fascist) for example: before he invaded ethiopia and irked the west into confrontation- he was universally admired by western europe, america and canada. it was said, "that he made the trains arrive on time" and that was an accomplishment in italy which was backward and lagged behind the rest of europe. another example would be the murderous regimes of pol pot and mao (both communists) who were supported by the americans (thanks to kissinger) to do their bidding in south east asia against the soviets.
stalin was responsible for most of those deaths. i dont know about the china number because its still a very secretive society. the soviets numbers came out in the 80's after perestroika.
So your saying all these Jihadists stopped fighting because they could not engage coalition forces without harming other Muslims? Oh, so what, the thousands upon thousands of Muslims who have been murdered by IED's and Homicide bombers just don't count? It wasn't against their religion to kill all those people, but it is now? McCain recognized the fact that no amount of political grandstanding about bringing our troops home so quickly was going to translate into reality, it is not foolish to be realistic and to allow yourself options in case things don't goes as planned. What I gather from this is that you really don't know much about history. It's pretty clear you know enough to be able to reference it conversationally to create the illusion of intelligence, sadly for anybody who knows what they are talking about you fail miserably. As for your total lack of knowledge regarding systems of governance and where they lie in the political spectrum, I feel this video will go a little farther than my own words:Click
u referred to the nazi's as left leaning- nuff said. stick to quirky facts about palin, your backyard meth lab and your pat boone greatest hits listening cause thats what u do best and stay out of grown up discussions. btw, iraq is engaged in a civil war- sunni, shite, and kurd despise one another and all factions want a seat at the table and are willing to fight for the best seats. nevertheless, the foreign fighters (jihadists) have gone home in large numbers or followed the americans to afghanistan as well as pakistan, thats irrefutable.
I am trying to have a grown up conversation, you apparently are very ill equipped for it and instead just attempt to insult me. It's funny you preach all this garbage about diversity and being open minded, yet apparently that doesn't apply to Rednecks eh? I'd also like to point out for the millionth time that I am not a redneck at all. Iraq has been engaged in civil war ever since Saddam was overthrown, this is nothing new. The Jihadists haven't really gone home in large numbers and there are still IED's going off quite frequently. It is refutable. I'm sorry but your Messiah didn't wave the magic wand and fix all of Iraq's problems.
u were probably looking for "irrefutable" but anyways. fyi- my messiah are girls with no standards. btw, the civil war accounts for the violence. furthermore, one of the reasons why the surge worked is that the americans brokered deals with many of the warring parties like sadr's nutjobs to buy the peace. and i can assure u that many of the jihadists have gone home because killing iraqi's isnt as alluring (or heaven worthy) as killing americans or jews.
You know who the communists cracked down on before they cracked down on jews, homosexuals and gypsies in the Soviet Union? Other communists. Do you know what the communists called themselves? Socialists. Do you know what the nazis called themselves? Socialists.
we can go back and forth about the extremes of facism or communism but its an endless and pointless debate. here are the facts- the nazi's were nationalistic fascists whose rallying cry is eerily similar to the separatists in quebec; pat buchanan's non-sense and the bnp in england as well as other nascent ultra ring wing parties in europe. president obama and the democrats are nothing like these ppl. as for the massacres committed by communists in the ussr- most of them were committed under stalin's personal reign of despotism. the other big communist murderers were pol pot and mao who were both overtly and covertly supported by the americans under the enlightened diplomacy of kissinger.
No, we really can't go back and forth about this. The facts are pretty simple. On the extreme left wing you have total government control (Socialism, communism, Nazis) On the extreme right you have no government control what so ever. That being said, I'm not implying that Democrats in general belong to any of these groups, I'm just pointing out that they reside left of center in the political spectrum. Honestly, why don't you stick to selling crack and drinking forties on the corner, intelligent debate is not your forte.
You need to learn your history. NAZI stands for National SOCIALIST Party. All the big-time mass murderers and committers of genocide in the last 300 years called themselves socialists. The only guys I know of in the USA who supported Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge are the most extreme left wingers.
i hope your kidding. i cant believe u americans on the extreme right are caught up in names, im more interested in actions. here's a political spectrum chart- replete with pictures and names to demonstrate to u that this discussion is non-sense. as for pol pot and the khmer rouge: http://musictravel.free.fr/political/political3.htm let me give u a little background- there was something called the sino/soviet split and the US in response decided to tacitly back mao, pol pot and any other mutherfucker who would undermine soviet interests in places like vietnam. thats why nixon visited china.
Your chart is irrelevant, other than they peg Stalin and Hitler close together. Exactly because they were both socialists. Your 1979-1991 time frame counters your statement about Kissinger. Carter was elected in 1976. I supposed you could make a pathetically weak argument about Nixon opening relations with China (and Mao). On the other hand, you might realize that in cold war terms it would be better for the USA to have a 2-on-1 fight against either Russia or China with the other as an ally. Should the worst have happened. And JFK's brinksmanship in the Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest we ever were to nuclear war and Kissinger's and Nixon's Detente policies may well have saved the planet and the human race.
kissinger opened up relations with dubious figures like mao, suharto- no doubt about it. btw, that 79-91 time frame covers the entire term of your personal hero's presidency. in your slanted opinion- kissinger and nixon saved millions of lives but they also undoubtedly cost the lives of millions of ppl in southeast asia and other cold war battle grounds. ever wonder why kissinger doesnt take his wrinkled arse to europe? well because they would arrest his arse and send him to the hague where he belongs, along with the other war criminals. here christopher hitchens documents the case against kissinger: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/CaseAgainst1_Hitchens.html
stalin and hitler are pegged together because they fall in the same place on the authoritarian side, no argument here. stalin was not a socialist, no, he was a despot, big difference. your mother is a socialist because i would imagine she shared everything she had with your arse.
