Leave Iraq: THINK

What many do not understand about the Iraqi war situation is that it is impossible to suddenly pick-up and leave there.
There are about 170,000 military in the area, and what most people don't realize there are about 135,000 civilian "contractors there also. They are needed just to support the military troops. This is part of the "new army" created in recent years to reduce the military headcount and allow civilians to do the work previously done by the army, and used as a way of rotating front line soldiers to truck drivers, barbers, cooks, administrative personnel, etc., and then back again. Just think for a moment what it takes to run a town of 170,000 people who aren't on the tax payroll, by people who are.
Same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan since the local people aren't much help.
Now, to evacuate this many people in a short time and do it safely takes a great deal of planning and time---remember the Viet Nam escape?
The Pentagon did know about this problem. It was part of the plan. We have no intention of ever in the near future of abandoning the middle east, never did.
We may move some around to different places, but not all out, ever.
The old arabs know this, especially the religious zealots. This has been done to them for thousands of years, they think. It is not in our interest to allow them to control the price of oil. The British knew that, the Turks knew that, even the Germans knew that.
In my opinion, no matter how long we stay and with how many, there won't ever be peace there, just as in Israel.
We should not have bulled in! If we had started raising the excess corn for gas ten years ago we wouldn't be there!

dollaradayandfound's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Mon, 04/09/2007 - 9:03am.

There are many other reasons why we aren't leaving Iraq soon. The problem with moving about 300,000 people is bad enough, but think of the equipment there. Thousands of heavy tanks, tens of thousands of heavy Humvees, hundreds of helicopters and planes, millions of tons of ammunition, all of the Halliburton stuff: if they leave it, it is GONE! Communications equipment, bedding, supplies storage by the millions of pounds, gold, cash, and oil stored around for someone?
Now, also think about all those people hitting the USA all at once! We are no more ready for that than we were ready to stay there for years, as we have. Many will be sick from the diseases of a foreign nation, many are nuts, many have no jobs, many need hospitalization and treatment, and I could go on, and on. Leaveit, you say? We can't we don't have any here that is servicable!
I know, you don't want to hear it!!!!

Submitted by swmbo on Mon, 04/09/2007 - 7:44pm.

In essence, if I take your meaning correctly, the troops -- and their families -- were abandoned by the Bush Administration on the first day they shipped out.

Still, I keep in mind something that my mother said. There are always options; you may not like the options but there are always options.

The options surrounding how we leave might not be palatable but that doesn't mean that we don't have the option to leave.

If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Mon, 04/09/2007 - 8:09pm.

Troops and families abandoned? No. They weren't even thought about very much. They are military people, signed a contract, and must do as ordered.
They hoped that the terrorists wouldn't dare come into Iraq once they took Baghdad City, but the terrorists just gathered in the rest of Iraq around the Few Sunnis Saddam had represented, and since no occupying forces were there to stop them they organized and were supplied by the Sunnis, who are in charge, in surrounding countries.
We didn't have anyone smart enough about this possibility who would stand up to the administration. The Europeans and the UN knew better and did not come to help us.
If we had stayed in Afghanistan much longer, before the attack on Iraq, and gathered many, many more soldiers from our sources or others, and then took Iraq and occupied it and it's borders, we might have succeeded. It has been a drastic mistake by unthinking people.
This is why so many gasped when George Bush won the election, even the first time.

Submitted by bladderq on Wed, 04/04/2007 - 7:51pm.

Wait until you see what a # o' hamburger is going to cost you next year. I have a friend in Sioux Falls, SD and he tells me you can't throw a stone and not hit a spec gasohol plant.
They are all plantin like crazy and we will see it in the grocery and the PUMP.

Submitted by swmbo on Tue, 04/03/2007 - 11:05pm.

I went to the Westmoron town hall meeting at the Fayette County Government Building this afternoon. In the course of his you-must-give-back-control-to-the-Reps drivel, he said (and I am summarizing) that the problem is that we can't leave because the Iraqi's aren't ready to take over. He pointed to the example of Fallujah where he said our troops cleaned out the insurgents and when we left the Iraqi's weren't up to the task and those 4 men from Blackwater had to go in and help get it back under control and were murdered for their effort. He said that it was like the incident in Mogadishu (sp?) where the Black Hawk Down incident resulted in the death of our marines trying to fight an enemy they couldn't identify.

I was FURIOUS! How dare that idiot suggest that contractors -- no, let's call them what they are -- mercenaries who are getting paid hundreds of dollars a day, violating international law with impunity from the US government and only making things worse for our brave soldiers, are equal in valor to our underpaid, overstressed, used and abused troops. But for the fact that the "town hall meeting" was clearly stacked with a pre-invited crowd of the faithfully hoodwinked, I would have publicly called Westmoron the {{{rhymes with "brass pole"}}} that he is.

If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

trentrivers's picture
Submitted by trentrivers on Tue, 04/03/2007 - 4:10pm.

In both conflicts the politicians took over the war and undermined the military leaders.

I guess the old hippies have their second youth movement now.

They seem so happy to abandon the virtues of America and the warriors who volunteer to fight for them.

My people have no tears for what you have become. Maybe we will get our land back from those who take over your peoples.

Thank you.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 04/03/2007 - 8:28pm.

Let me give you a bit of civics Trent.

1. I am no hippie. I have served this country since 1984, and I am proud of each day of my service.

2. 70% of Americans are not hippies. Chuck Hagel, Charles Rangle, Jack Murtha, Tim Parker are not hippies. One need not be a hippie to want Americans extracted from the middle of what has been called "worse than a civil war." Trent, you may be new to this game, but back in the mid 90s our country, with a Democratic president, was involved in combat in Somalia with troops on the ground. The Republican congress, with troops in contact, cut off funding to this war and we brought our troops home. Keep that in mind when they spin their rhetoric now of how congress doing its job as "funders" somehow undermine troops by fullfilling those responsibilities.

3. Trent, as I told you with my first response to one of your posts, I respect your opinion and I like your unique style, but neither I nor any of my fellow warriors have asked for , will ask for, or desire your tears for what we have "become." We have been, and always will be a representative democracy. When the people represented by that democracy want a war over, it ends. Regardless of what politicians or generals desire. Because it is of, by, and for the people. Not the generals. Not the belt way bandits. And God Bless that reality!

Cheers my friend,

Kevin "Hack" King

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 04/03/2007 - 11:59am.

We have all heard the claim made with certainty, that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow us home. Many reading this have probably parroted the comment, without intellectually dissecting it for validity. Today, after the President confidently repeated that GOP talking point, a reporter asked our CC two simple questions:

1. How do you see that "following us home" taking shape?


2. What does that say about all of the money spent and people trained for Homeland Defense, if a war in Iraq is the only thing stopping terrorist attacks here?

The President's answer? (paraphrasing): I'm not going to get into trying to predict how the'll attack us, but that's what 9/11 was. They said that's what they want to do.

So, after predicting with certainty that Al Qaieda will be able to attack us here when we stop fighting in Iraq, the President had no idea how they would? The crystal ball that tells you the attack WILL happen doesn't tell him HOW? And how has the record on predictions gone to date anyway? Is there a reason I should believe McCain when he says Baghdad is secure, all the while escorted by 100 guards and covered by 3 helicopters?

When will we learn that rhetoric and talking points don't equal reality? Unless we are planning on staying in Iraq for eternity, we are eventually going to have to answer the question of "what happens when we leave?" Instead, we are just kicking the can to the next administration. And that is less than admirable.

Kevin "Hack" King

Submitted by thebeaver on Tue, 04/03/2007 - 12:24pm.

You mean like the Democrat talking points about how their new budget proposal will not raise taxes? Do you mean those kinds of talking points that do not equal reality?

Why are you so beholden to the Democrat party, Hack? Is it because they are the party of limitless entitelments to minorities? Is it because they take the hard earned income of working Americans and hand it on over to minorities who feel like they can't get ahead because of slavery?

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 04/03/2007 - 8:44pm.

Beaver, it is intruiging that you have no problem with limitless commitments to minorities if they are Iraqis in Iraq. No limit to nation-building ehh? Tell me what the GOP has done to earn my trust, respect, or vote. Tell me genius. Nothing. What has Westmorland done? What has Mr. "last throws of the insurgency done?" Not for oil, for us. What straight talk, pork-free legislation did the GOP offer up while they had their chance? Why are you not ticked off that this brave leadership of ours hasn't brought Ossama Bin Laden to justice? Why have 3,000 plus of my brothers and sisters died in a civil war in Iraq? Why did we outsource Afghanistan? What keeps you on the big business and corporate teet? Judging by your writing style, I doubt you are in a demographic position which causes you to benefit from GOPism. It seems to me that when you see a black man, such as myself, with a loving, beautiful wife, and healthy and happy children, you must feel that I somehow took what belonged to you or someone like you. I obviously could not have been blessed with family and a comfortable life by my own hard work and Grace. I guess that is for you to reconcile. In the meantime, I'll stand over here with the 70% of the nation that feels we'll be digging our way out of the damage done by blind faith in your party for quite a while. Now go back to defending Alberto Gonzales, Scooter Libby, and the debunking of global warming reality.

No cheers for you,

Kevin "Hack" King

Submitted by thebeaver on Tue, 04/03/2007 - 11:09pm.

Yes, end funding for the war on POVERTY now. It's not working. It's a friggin' QUAGMIRE for cryin' out loud. The "poor" get their welfare checks every month, and yet they are still poor.

Hack. Iraqi's in Iraq are not minorities.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Wed, 04/04/2007 - 12:12am.

Iraqis are a definite minority. Now I anxiously await for you to suggest endless funding with no exit strategy of the majority of black Africans in Darfour. I might not hold me breath tough mate.

Kevin "Hack" King

bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Wed, 04/04/2007 - 1:03am.

What would you suggest for an "exit strategy"?

Not trying to be a pain, I'd just like your opinion.

My impression is that the Iraq people won't be able to support themselves for at least a decade if not longer.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Wed, 04/04/2007 - 7:40am.

I like the philosophy we were being sold a year and a half ago: As they stand up, we stand down. As we train Iraqis to take over, we actually let them take the defense of their country into their hands. It is not honest to say a date certain gives victory to terrorists (the smallest group of combatants in Iraq). It tells terrorists that come 2008 security will be handled by people who speak your language and actually live in this country you are attempting to infiltrate. Here is another dirty secret. Time lines are how we have always done business in the US military. I knew 5 years out when I would graduate from the AF Academy. I knew a year out when I would graduate from pilot training and get my wings. I knew how much time I had to meet the standards of fighter lead in and A-10 RTU (replacement training unit). And people who do not meet those timelines are not up to the job ahead and thus aren't given the responsibilities. That's how we control the quality of our forces. So if Iraqis are not willing or trainable after 5 years, I do not suggest we permanently adopt them. I suggest we give them their graduation date, and hold them to it. We controlled Saddam very effectively from Kuwait and Turkey from 1994 to 2002. I know that we can do the same for Iraqi militias if the Iraqi govt cannot step up and unify their own people. I agree with the president on the contention that a political solution is needed.


Kevin "Hack" King

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Tue, 04/03/2007 - 3:55pm.

I'm beholding to the Democratic Party because its the party of fiscal responsibility and a commitment to not engage in pre-emptive wars! Remember when the last balanced budget was? Remember a month after Bush was sworn in and Alan Greenspan said the number one problem with the economy was that we were paying off the national debt too fast? Vote Republican --- problem solved!

By the way... do you have a candidate for 2008 yet?

Submitted by thebeaver on Tue, 04/03/2007 - 11:10pm.

From Democrats? Is this some sort of late April Fool Joke.

The Demoncrats just introduced the largest tax increase in history, and you call them fiscally responsible?

You're as dillusional as your father.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Wed, 04/04/2007 - 2:26pm.

Under this Pres. The national debt has risen from $5,727,776,738,304 to $8,713,712,580,137 for a difference of $2,985,935,841,833 (those are trillions!)

At the average interest rate of 4.784% (from the Treasury) that works out to an annual increase of $142,847,170,673 per year.

In other words, just the increase in the interest on the debt under Pres. Bush and the Republicans is $391,362,111 per day, every day.

Of course, since he started with a surplus the rate is accelerating every day as more debt accrues.

This is the mess y’all are leaving for my kids.

Even with the Iraq war figured out the numbers are astonishing. Why don’t Republicans support the war enough to pay for it? Because they are not fiscally responsible!

In 656 days, the Dems will probably take over again and restore fiscal sanity. Hope we make it that long!

ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Wed, 04/04/2007 - 2:34pm.

* $74 million for a peanut storage program that pays storage fees as farmers market their crop.
* $750 million to cover shortfalls in the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
* $400 million to subsidize rural northwest counties who have been suffering from declining timber sales since the mid-1990s.
* $3.7 billion to compensate farmers and ranchers for losses suffered during the last 3 crop years.
* $25 million for spinach growers effected by the e-coli health advisory.
* $60 million for Indian tribes and fisherman affected by declining salmon runs in the Northwest.
* $50 million for asbestos abatement at the Capitol Hill Power Plant.
* $140 million for livestock owners, citrus growers affected by the '05 hurricanes.
* $120 million for the shrimp and menhaden industries.
* $2.5 billion for homeland security projects such as additional cargo screening at ports and airports.
* $283 million for extending the small dairy farm income loss contract program.
* $1.3 billion more for the Army Corps of Engineers to work on the New Orleans levees.
* $910 million to waive local matching requirements for the FEMA disaster aid program.
* $1 billion for pandemic flu preparedness.
* $16 million for maintenance and security improvements to the Capitol Hill office buildings.
* $25 million for the Small Business Administration disaster-loan program.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Wed, 04/04/2007 - 12:20am.

gavel anymore. You guys are full of it, bro. The President's tax cuts are law through 2010. So try to spin another one. Here's one for you. Why do liberal democratic presidential candidates seem to walk the walk a bit better when it comes to family values? How do libs keep raising kids that don't have to talk about "when we were young and stupid?" Why aren't we getting reports on the lesbian mothers to be? Why does the bold and brave leader Rudy Guliani not even have the confidence of his son? Why can't McCain tell us the truth about the perils of Iraq? What more do you have? You are becomming quite entertaining. Soon you will be making excuses for your losses in 08.

Kevin "Hack" King

ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Wed, 04/04/2007 - 8:12am.

There are many reasons that Republicans lost power last election. A long and difficult war, DRUMMED home every day by the media. A scandal with Mark Foley, who should have been run out of the party years ago, and the 6th year of a presidency, oh that's right Clinton lost his congress much earlier, my bad.

As far as liberals walking the talk on family values, what are you talking about? Certainly not Barney Frank, William "Cold Cash" Jefferson, Nancy "Tuna Fish" Pelosi, Harry "Land Deal/Boxing tickets" Reid, or John "Big House/Two Americas" Edwards. Don't get me started on Hillary "Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewatergate, Vince Foster, Cattle Futures" Clinton. Barack " I had learned not to care," he wrote. "I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though. ..." Obama (Yeah he make's George Bush's "youthful mistakes look good, but the media will not care.)

What will be entertaining will be seeing what candidate Moveon.org, Code Pink, Howard Dean, Micheal Moore, George Soros serve up as the Democratic champion.

I'm rooting for Barack to get the nomination. America will see the democratic agenda at it's best:

Behind the Obama story is a very liberal left voting record. Here are some key votes and positions from Obama:

· Voted against extending the Bush tax cuts on capital gains and dividends.

· Voted against permanently repealing the Death Tax. (Called the cuts a "Paris Hilton" tax break for "billionaire heirs and heiresses") · Voted against CAFTA.

· Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25.

· Opposed the lifting of $0.54 per gallon tariff on cheaper Brazillian ethanol. Said, "ethanol imports are neither necessary nor a practical response to current gasoline prices."

· Voted against the bankruptcy abuse bill.

· Opposes privatizing Social Security

· Voted against drilling in ANWR.

· Voted against confirmation of Sam Alito AND John Roberts as chief justice.

· Voted against extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision.

· Opposed any bans on partial birth abortions.

Is this the liberal left direction Dems really want to go in 2008?

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Wed, 04/04/2007 - 10:53am.

Because we both know we can heat it up quickly (just read some of my 03/07 posts).

The difference between the current President's drug use and Barack's drug use is Obama admits his. And you know this.

The allegations you made above such as Harry Reid's land deal (similar to Gov Purdue's land deal) mean nothing without indictments and/or convictions. So when the convictions or firings come, we'll talk. If we talk Duke Cunnungham, operative Abramoff, and a host of others, the convictions are actually there.

Now, with the gay Barney Franks and Mary Cheney issues, here's the deal. Our party doesn't use gays as political punching bags like your party does. The GOP brings out Generals that call the VP's daughter immoral, religious leaders who sample drugs while having gay sex outside of their marraiges, and keeps a whole log cabin full of gay votes (not to mention their "ringer" that was in the press corps.) Barney Frank is absolutely welcome in our party, as well as any other law-abiding trans-gender, pre-op, post-op, or trans-vestiged American. We are the new libertarians I guess. We will not use a person's life style choices as political footballs. We don't, as a party, block gay marraige while watching our heterosexual marraiges fail. That is the disconnect I see with the GOP philosophy conflicting with the GOP leadership and candidates. I'm sorry the first 100 days of this congress have dissappointed you. Do you think Republican minority opposition to the democrats has delayed any legislation? If democrats fully fund Iraq but use their oversight to place limits on the duration of that tax-payer's money, is it their fault that the president vetos it? Do the American people and Congress have to just say, "Whatever George Bush wants, we must do?" Or does the Congress and the will of the people who voted them in have an actual voice? Thanks for writing from the heart Army. I promise to do the same.


Kevin "Hack" King

ps: Weapons Hold! Weapons Hold! I think Mahmoud Ahdmadinejad got an offer he could not refuse from Tony Blair.

ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Wed, 04/04/2007 - 12:34pm.

Hack I respect you, but disagree with you opinions. I would share a drink with you and even pick up the tab. That being said, could you cut my good buddy Rudy a little slack about his kid and family situation. Reagan had a few disfunctional kids as well.

Stick to the issues, policies, qualifications, accomplishments.

Your party has enough challenges in picking a candidate, You should be focused there. By the way, who do you support?

The Republicans in congress are just standing up for "minority rights", just like Nancy and Harry did. I'm sure you remember cloture, blocked judges, holding up legislation. It wasn't that long ago.

How come the Dems are being so inflexible and unwilling to compromise(Gee, I like the way that sounds) Can't they be more bipartisan? (Damn this is fun).

If they really want to stop the war, vote to defund it. There is one commander in chief.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Wed, 04/04/2007 - 12:55pm.

On Rudy, I don't find him to be genuine or trustworthy. I side with the majority of New York first responders on that. Remember, a man that will lie to his wife (wives) will lie to you.

I support Edwards first, Bill Richardson second, and Obama third. I'm not sure why you feel Edwards is hypocritical. Should he live in squaller? I am impressed that at least one rich person in this country thinks outside of the "I got mine" box. He's donated more to people in my home state than I will ever make. And he is true to his family.

Lastly, there is 1 CC. There also happens to be a Congress, and national will. I believe that no one man is above the Senate, House, and national will. Call me a family values representative democracy type if you must. That's my view of what sets us apart from say North Korea.

And Army, we'll have to fight over the tab as well, because I respect anyone who cares enough about their views to stand up for them!


Kevin "Hack" King

Submitted by swmbo on Wed, 04/04/2007 - 12:20am.

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." You cannot fix record-setting debt without some record-setting means of raising the revenue to pay it back (i.e. taxes).

So, the blame lies squarely with the Bush Republicans.

If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

Submitted by thebeaver on Wed, 04/04/2007 - 7:16pm.


Have you ever heard of cutting spending in order to reduce the deficit? Now I will admit that President Bush has not done a very good job of holding down spending.

But the Democrats are trying to push through the LARGEST tax increase in history! When President Bush lowered income taxes, the tax revenues that the government brought in increased because businesses were able to make money, grow, and higher more people who, in turn, (drum roll please), pay taxes!

If the liberal democrats are elected into office and take more of our hard-earned money, they will destroy jobs and actually bring in less revenues than if they left the tax rate as it was.

For those of you that do not understand the beauty of supply side economics:

Conservatives Lower Taxes = GOOD
Tax and Spend Liberals = BAD

Submitted by bladderq on Wed, 04/04/2007 - 7:38pm.

So the prosperity and the rise in the stock market under Clinton was = BAD? The last balanced budget = BAD?

The increase in the deficit under Bush (& RAYguns) = GOOD?

I see the architect of RAYgonenomics, David Stockman (I have something else to do other than Vietnam) has also been indicted for some sort of stock fraud. I wondered what had happened to him.

I'll leave out the part about a TRILLION $ WAR that shouldn't have been fought and won't be won but some future generation will pay for.

ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Tue, 04/03/2007 - 1:20pm.

Hack and Jeff give intelligent and reasoned arguments. I just happen to disagree with their OPINIONS. The main problem they have is that Bush can NEVER be right and they can NEVER be wrong. Not much compromise available with that position.

Maybe compromise is overated. Can there be a middle ground between victory and defeat?

Dollar and bas just spew hateful venom and attack your honor if you dare disagree with them, so I have them on permanent IGNORE.

Arguing with a Bush Derangement sufferer is like wrestling with a pig, everyone gets dirty and the pig loves it. Oh, my goodness I need to change that to wrestling with another animal. wouldn't want to upset the islamo fascists.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 04/03/2007 - 9:06pm.

Glad to see you back. Army, you know good and well that if a sloped-foreheaded mouth breather plays the race card with me, I'm going to call his peliolithic tail on it. I'm still waiting to hear how terrorists are prevented from boarding planes and flying here simply because of Iraq and irrespective of Afghanistan. I'm curious as to why we feel our intelligence agencies, Homeland Security, TSA, and military can not protect us without a perpetual war in IRAQ. Win me over, mate. I will listen to reason and logic. But to date, your team's predictions have not inspired confidence. Oh, and Army, we need to strangle Admadinijad and company, like, yesterday! There are things for which I am willing to fight. They are usually in response to actual threats.

Cheers my brother in Arms,

Kevin "Hack" King

trentrivers's picture
Submitted by trentrivers on Tue, 04/03/2007 - 4:05pm.

Those three remind me of the three stooges. Maybe if I move there I will meet them and we can discuss how to scalp the white man.

Thank you.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 04/03/2007 - 9:11pm.

I'm starting to fall out of love with you. But I'll give you a chance to read my above posts and respond a bit more cerebrally. I've done the three beer keyboarding before, so I understand.


Kevin "Hack" King

ps: I'm in the book. I've tried to meet posters before for rational discourse, but they got a little wierded out and split. I am really a very nice guy. Really! But I ain't touchin no white man's scalp!

Road Runner's picture
Submitted by Road Runner on Tue, 04/03/2007 - 6:04pm.

the three stooges, yes they are.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 04/03/2007 - 9:13pm.

and you won't appear to simply be what we call in the military a brown nosing butt licker. Your avatar even throws the courtesy lick out for you. Not a classy comment, I know, but that's what we call it.

Kevin "Hack" King

hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Tue, 04/03/2007 - 5:31pm.

when you compare the stooges with dollar you profane the stooges, Hack, we need a little warthog justice here.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 04/03/2007 - 9:21pm.

1: Attaching anything to a Dollar post.

2: Daring to be critical of the Emperor.

But when the big guy uses the bully pullpit, I can't roll over and play dead. I respect all who step to me like men and women and address my arguments on their merrits. And I'll gladly sink to the levels of those that use the "welfare reaping minority" or the "parrot what others say" cards. I'll admit it. I'm a classless, blue collar, scrappy guy who loves a good fight. That's why I chose my line of work.

Cheers, and someone get Tony Blair a can openner because he's having a hard time openning up a can of whoop tail right now!

Kevin "Hack" King

Enigma's picture
Submitted by Enigma on Tue, 04/03/2007 - 4:50pm.

You have got to be kidding me. I love the three stooges comment but come on dude- you can't be real.

You're welcome.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.