May be lunacy to Mr. Brown but not to me. Has anyone gotten whiff of these claims?
To: blogblogginaway
2 posted on
10/19/2005 9:25:24 PM PDT by
bnelson44
(Proud parent of a tanker!)
To: blogblogginaway
War in Toledo first. They seem to have plenty of insurgents needing cleaned up.
To: blogblogginaway
lobbing some missiles at sonnyboy would take the puff out of his chest
4 posted on
10/19/2005 9:27:52 PM PDT by
InvisibleChurch
(The search for someone to blame is always successful. - Robert Half)
To: blogblogginaway
Mr Brown, screeching " Cambodia"
humbug
Next we'll hear, Senator Kerry spent last Christmas in Syria.
5 posted on
10/19/2005 9:28:21 PM PDT by
A message
( Being a "Progressive" means never having to be truthful to yourself)
To: blogblogginaway
I think the author's last name in Simpson, and, like his namesake, he gets it all wrong. Cambodia was not plunged into dangerous chaos because the US invaded after Vietnam had violated the Cambodian territory for years (I never understand why the Left never seems to hold the NVA responsible for this, they flatly ignore it again and again; it's very much akin to terrorists firing from hotels and hospitals and when we return fire the Left only blames us and says nothing about the first, and much worse violations that instigated the response.) Cambodia was plunged into chaos by a radical Marxist gang of killers whose ideology antedated the US invasion. This whole stupid "explanation" is a big lie and is peddled from people on the far left like Chomsky and Ramsey Clark to hide their unwillingness to admit what was going on in Cambodia in the first place. When the left finally had to face the mass murder of the Khmer Rouge, they blamed American bombing for driving them insane: complete BS and Simpson is still peddling it. This guy still can't get Vietnam right and it's been 30 years.
7 posted on
10/19/2005 9:36:30 PM PDT by
giobruno
To: blogblogginaway
He proffers no evidence that this is in fact happening. There are no claims of any specific sources for his information. I could, with equal support, claim we have iunvaded the moon, and are already in a quagmire. What he means is that he is afraid of upsetting the enemy.
The sky on his planet is definitely pink.
To: blogblogginaway
"I see the wife still picks your ties."
To: blogblogginaway
Who exactly is acknowledging that a number of Syrians are dead?
To: blogblogginaway
To repeat what I said on another thread, a general was asked how long it would take to take Syria. He said fifteen days, one day to take it and two weeks to stop laughing.
I hope this guy is right. Syria has to stop aiding the insurgency. An incursion or two into their territory would underline this fact.
11 posted on
10/19/2005 9:41:29 PM PDT by
PianoMan
(and now back to practicing)
To: blogblogginaway
This guy's all over the map. First he cites an operation so secret it hasn't been announced yet even in the
NY Times, then he says it's being done to distract our attention. It might be one or the other or neither, but it cannot be both.
Personally I wouldn't shed a tear if we laid waste to everything withing 25 miles of the border. But what is really happening at least to date is that the U.S. is following the diplomatic dance with France and the UN, and there isn't likely to be any invasion until the investigation of the Syrian assassination program in Lebanon is finished. One would hope that given his antecedents Mr. Simpson would be supportive of that approach.
To: blogblogginaway
Since when did we invade Syria? First I have heard of it and I am sure that if we had it would be all over the MSM. Russia would be screaming to high heaven for us killing their cash cow.
As for Cambodia, he don't know squat. Nixon finally did what we, who were fighting the war, wanted him to do, invade the communists sanctuaries in Cambodia. He screwed that up. If you invade the country you do not announce to the world your only going in 25 kilometers or so and the operation will only last 30 days. The enemy will, and did, just pull back 30 kilometers and wait until you leave, then come back and take their sanctuaries again.
20 posted on
10/19/2005 10:42:57 PM PDT by
Americanexpat
(A strong democracy through citizen oversight.)
To: blogblogginaway
The guy is way ahead of events on the ground. That's something really new and good about the bed-wetting Liberals and Lefties. Now, they're worrying about the tyrants and aiders and abettors of anti-American terrorists way before we strike them. It refeals to an open-minded world that if you can find a dictator who works against America and freedom there will be a Liberal worried that we're going to defend ourselves.
26 posted on
10/19/2005 11:55:13 PM PDT by
elhombrelibre
(MSM: de facto allies of America's enemies.)
To: blogblogginaway
'Nameless faceless sources'? This guy must be a Scientologist getting his info from the mother ship via microwave radiation. He should hurry up and put his tin-foil cap on before the (R)aliens make a fool of him. Okay, it may be too late. If this were true, and I have my doubts, I would consider it a positive development. Iraq is pretty much under control, no sense waiting for the next attack on our soil before branching out.
28 posted on
10/20/2005 8:14:19 AM PDT by
KarinG1
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson