Future President Sarah Palin Pals Around with Operating Thetan

[Wild Cobra]

Puh-lease. Don't try to weasel your way out of it like that.

It makes you look worse than copping up to the fact that you were talking out your ass and got caught doing it.

I specifically made that distinction in the thread.

You are weaseling your way out!

Just like that other thread where you were not distinguishing between smog and ozone.

[DarkReign]

I don't think W's such a bad guy as much as he is a sucker; the way he was manipulated by Rumsfeld and Cheney was disgusting. No way history remembers him well unless that history is written by Ann Coulter though.

Absolutely agreed. Bush was a far better President after he was forced to clean his Cabinet out in the final year.

Bush could be the smartest man to have ever lived and it will never make up for his lack of spine and vision. He was manipulated, a puppet, the patsy, the fall guy, a figurehead of the real power.

Rove, Rumsfield and ing Cheney had a great 8 years. Bush was just along for the ride.

SAT scores or not, the guy was/is a bag for trusting so many cretins with all his heart and soul. Even worse, he trusted them with his elected powers wholesale.

Un- ing-forgivable.

[Don Quixote]

BTW, what's up with the dig on ES? Do you have these childish names for everyone? Am I baseline ? Or baseless s ? Either way, none of those are as insulting as calling someone Bud Light. That's uncalled for and deeply offensive to anyone who likes beer in the least.

As a matter of fact I do. I happen to think the world of the guy you all know as Extra Stout, but to me is Bud Light.

I happen to like the childish versions of your name personally. You saved me some work.

[Don Quixote]

what's not to laud about invading a country and shoving a political style down their throats telling them it's good for them.

You're right. We should be ashamed of ourselves and our cons utional, democratic, free way of life. An Islamic govt surrounded by Wahhabi Islam to its west (Saudi Arabia) and a radical Shia nation (Iran) to its east couldn't possibly be in any danger whatsoever of falling into any worse tyranny. And Saddam -- what a guy! I know I am ashamed of myself, our affluence, and way of life.

[Don Quixote]

Actually the main problem was that US troops didn't know what to do after the shooting stopped, because they had no orders/training/guidance about it.

It wasn't the fact that there weren't enough troops, it was simply the fact that those that were there essentially stood around waiting for orders.

The Bush administration had A1, absolutely, positively, without a doubt, no clue as to what to do in Iraq after the shooting stopped, and that confusion began on day one after the war, when the ONLY security force in the country, the US military, didn't know what it was supposed to do.

Perhaps true. I am not a military strategist. I need to study up on it. But we can all agree that the American public (and media) would never have stood for the mass casualties that having that many boots on the ground would surely have caused. We chose Air Power, for better or for worse.

But that's over now. The question now is ... will Obama see us through Afghanistan? (Another thread ... this one is about Palin and her close 20-year association in the Church of Scientology, whose local chapter is rabidly anti-American. Right?)

[LockBeard]

Is Obama going to do anything about the United States Military being in over 100 countries?

[Don Quixote]

So Bush had a good first few days? In the best case, the guy had no plan. He didn't listen to a word Colin Powell told him, letting Cheney and Rumsfeld neuter the state department. He made a bet that the people of Iraq would love him for the invasion and he lost bigtime. Yes, there should have been enough troops to keep law and order in Baghdad. No, he shouldn't have just gone to the craps table with a stack of chips thinking it was his lucky day. He left Iraq in a state of chaos and didn't give a damn what his military commanders told him. What does it tell you when every general in the invasion thinks your strategy is stupid and quits?

In the most favorable analysis of the situation (for Bush), he was gullible, easily manipulated, and was in way over his head. You don't go to war on a hunch; you better have a damn good reason why you're putting Americans in the line of fire. There's no way going to war based on the alleged yellowcake was anything more than a hunch, because everyone was telling him that bad intel was bad. Any history that paints him as anything other than an incompetent president is major revisionist propaganda.

Hmm. Again, I don't think you can have revisionism until you have a defininite history to begin with. And we simply don't know the dynamics in the White House all that well. Everyone involved is still living, and working. Give it 20 years.

I have heard this debate from the Left. Was Bush the driving force, the evil malevolent personality behind this whole mess? Or was it Cheney? Rumsfeld? Why is Powell the good guy? That is far from settled itself. What if Bush was not being suckered and made these decisions himself? I know, again, this violates ST Politics Rule #1: Bush is in no way competent, intelligent, or moral.

There's more to say here, but the Iraq argument is tiresome to me.

Lastly, I personally object to the characterization of our casualties (I'm former Air Force, now Army, set to deploy next year) as victims. Not that you do this. 100% of us volunteered. All of us joined because we wanted to be in. Not all of us agree with Iraq or pretty much anything coming out of DC, but we're in because we believe in our way of life, freedom, and defending it. It is worth fighting for. It is worth dying for. So the brave men and women coming back in bags were not helpless victims. We all know full well what going to war possibly involves.

[baseline bum]

You're right. We should be ashamed of ourselves and our cons utional, democratic, free way of life. An Islamic govt surrounded by Wahhabi Islam to its west (Saudi Arabia) and a radical Shia nation (Iran) to its east couldn't possibly be in any danger whatsoever of falling into any worse tyranny. And Saddam -- what a guy! I know I am ashamed of myself, our affluence, and way of life.

You don't really believe this garbage do you? Explain Chile to me if we give a crap about freedom and democratically elected leadership.

[baseline bum]

Hmm. Again, I don't think you can have revisionism until you have a defininite history to begin with. And we simply don't know the dynamics in the White House all that well. Everyone involved is still living, and working. Give it 20 years.

I have heard this debate from the Left. Was Bush the driving force, the evil malevolent personality behind this whole mess? Or was it Cheney? Rumsfeld? Why is Powell the good guy? That is far from settled itself. What if Bush was not being suckered and made these decisions himself? I know, again, this violates ST Politics Rule #1: Bush is in no way competent, intelligent, or moral.

There's more to say here, but the Iraq argument is tiresome to me.

Lastly, I personally object to the characterization of our casualties (I'm former Air Force, now Army, set to deploy next year) as victims. Not that you do this. 100% of us volunteered. All of us joined because we wanted to be in. Not all of us agree with Iraq or pretty much anything coming out of DC, but we're in because we believe in our way of life, freedom, and defending it. It is worth fighting for. It is worth dying for. So the brave men and women coming back in bags were not helpless victims. We all know full well what going to war possibly involves.

There is absolutely no way to argue that the Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney plan was anything but a disaster. Why should we give something 20 years? No matter what happens in the future, the initial execution of the war was either idiocy or criminal, depending on whether our leadership was stupid or malevolent. I don't see how invading Iraq is defending our way of life. They never attacked us. It's wholly equivalent to me seeing a black man running out my house with a TV so I go to the Eastside with an AK and start spraying the neighborhood.

As for Powell, he's the good guy because he was the highest voice of reason telling those morons their plan was stupid, that Chalabi was a massive fraud, that all of the bad "evidence" for WMDs was bad, etc. I mean, why listen to the four star general about war when you can instead follow the guy who served in the Navy for like 3 years?

[ChumpDumper]

Hmm. Again, I don't think you can have revisionism until you have a defininite history to begin with. And we simply don't know the dynamics in the White House all that well.

Those who have chosen not to be ignorant know the dynamics are already well-do ented.

[Blake]

Lastly, I personally object to the characterization of our casualties (I'm former Air Force, now Army, set to deploy next year) as victims. Not that you do this. 100% of us volunteered. All of us joined because we wanted to be in. Not all of us agree with Iraq or pretty much anything coming out of DC, but we're in because we believe in our way of life, freedom, and defending it. It is worth fighting for. It is worth dying for. So the brave men and women coming back in bags were not helpless victims. We all know full well what going to war possibly involves.

100% of enlisted men/women volunteered but not all of the enlisted men/women are in because of a belief system....

There's no way to determine a percentage, but many are in because of the hard core advertising and recruiting done by the armed forces and because many kids coming from poverty stricken areas want a way out.

I know I'm not the only one here that has talked to someone in the military that has talked about how the recruiters lied to them.

IMO, those are the victims.

[Don Quixote]

100% of enlisted men/women volunteered but not all of the enlisted men/women are in because of a belief system....

There's no way to determine a percentage, but many are in because of the hard core advertising and recruiting done by the armed forces and because many kids coming from poverty stricken areas want a way out.

I know I'm not the only one here that has talked to someone in the military that has talked about how the recruiters lied to them.

IMO, those are the victims.

You're right. The country is a soup kitchen. And these poor kids joined to escape.

Sadly, I think there are a few in the military who only joined for the bennies. I know some who were like that. I counsel new recruits that the call to military service is just that, a call to service. If they are not willing or able to be called upon to fight, and quite possibly die, in the name of our freedom and way of life, then the military is not for them.

That said, the overwhelming majority of Army and Air Force people I've been around around are not that way.

[Don Quixote]

You don't really believe this garbage do you? Explain Chile to me if we give a crap about freedom and democratically elected leadership.

I'm not sure what the garbage is. I am not ashamed of, nor will I ever apologize for, our Cons ution, our democracy, our way of life, and our capitalism. If that's garbage, then I'm sorry.

This does not mean I support everything the U.S. gummint has done. That is asinine. Of course not! I'm not up on the Chile situation but I am aware that the U.S. propped up a dictator there. Do I support it? Probably not. But we're not talking about Chile anyway. I was responding to an angry post about us imposing our way of life on Iraq & Afghanistan. Having heard that old argument before, many times, I responded, sarcastically, that of course, a despotic (secular) Islamic govt is light-years better than freedom and cons utional democracy.

So I don't apologize for Western democracy. In fact, I believe the British Mandate was the best thing that ever happened to that region of the world. The Ottoman Empire, which collapsed in 1922, left it without any sort of modern infrastructure. The British came in, built roads, schools, hospitals, developed its natural resources (oil), and put these nations on the road to prosperity. Now left to their own devices, we are seeing how well these Islamic govts function.

[clambake]

you should apologize.

[baseline bum]

I'm not sure what the garbage is. I am not ashamed of, nor will I ever apologize for, our Cons ution, our democracy, our way of life, and our capitalism. If that's garbage, then I'm sorry.

The garbage isn't our way of life; the garbage is thinking we go to wars to give everyone else our standard of living.

[Don Quixote]

I assure you that the Americans of the WW2 generation did not think that way. That, too, was a sloppy war, often poorly planned and executed, particularly the first two years. Japan attacked us, but Germany did not. Really, it took Pearl Harbor to wake up the U.S. to the fact that imperialists in Germany and Japan were busy imposing their way of life (and gummint) on others, except in their case it was fascism.

Up until 1941, America had shown little interest in meddling in world affairs. The point is, the whole American philosophy is a commitment to freedom, that it is worth fighting and dying for. Does this mean war every time? No. Sometimes, however, it is necessary. And I guarantee you that Western Europe is happy that (how many?) American boys died so that they could have "our" standard of living now, rather than the alternative. (Its present situation -- marked by a rising Islamic population and an unsustainable welfare state -- is a different matter.)

What is debatable, of course, is whether Iraq II fit the bill. Was war the last option? I'm agnostic on the matter. Saddam had been misbehaving for many years. But America's specialty is freedom, and we should aim to export that as much as possible.

[ChumpDumper]

So we invaded Iraq just to export freedom via killing 100,000 Iraqis and making 4,700,000 of them refugees, and you are saying we should do this as much as possible.

[Blake]

But America's specialty is freedom, and we should aim to export that as much as possible.

N Korea, get ready to import some freedom from Team America.

[LnGrrrR]

Hmm. Again, I don't think you can have revisionism until you have a defininite history to begin with. And we simply don't know the dynamics in the White House all that well. Everyone involved is still living, and working. Give it 20 years.

I have heard this debate from the Left. Was Bush the driving force, the evil malevolent personality behind this whole mess? Or was it Cheney? Rumsfeld? Why is Powell the good guy? That is far from settled itself. What if Bush was not being suckered and made these decisions himself? I know, again, this violates ST Politics Rule #1: Bush is in no way competent, intelligent, or moral.

There's more to say here, but the Iraq argument is tiresome to me.

Lastly, I personally object to the characterization of our casualties (I'm former Air Force, now Army, set to deploy next year) as victims. Not that you do this. 100% of us volunteered. All of us joined because we wanted to be in. Not all of us agree with Iraq or pretty much anything coming out of DC, but we're in because we believe in our way of life, freedom, and defending it. It is worth fighting for. It is worth dying for. So the brave men and women coming back in bags were not helpless victims. We all know full well what going to war possibly involves.

You went blue to green? Why? Whhhhyyy? lol

[LnGrrrR]

I assure you that the Americans of the WW2 generation did not think that way. That, too, was a sloppy war, often poorly planned and executed, particularly the first two years. Japan attacked us, but Germany did not. Really, it took Pearl Harbor to wake up the U.S. to the fact that imperialists in Germany and Japan were busy imposing their way of life (and gummint) on others, except in their case it was fascism.

Up until 1941, America had shown little interest in meddling in world affairs. The point is, the whole American philosophy is a commitment to freedom, that it is worth fighting and dying for. Does this mean war every time? No. Sometimes, however, it is necessary. And I guarantee you that Western Europe is happy that (how many?) American boys died so that they could have "our" standard of living now, rather than the alternative. (Its present situation -- marked by a rising Islamic population and an unsustainable welfare state -- is a different matter.)

What is debatable, of course, is whether Iraq II fit the bill. Was war the last option? I'm agnostic on the matter. Saddam had been misbehaving for many years. But America's specialty is freedom, and we should aim to export that as much as possible.

You have a good point about freedom. However, the problem I see is determining the line that we should draw. Obviously, it's impossible for us to allow freedom in every country. We don't have the ability. Should we do as we did in Iraq, and start changing countries one at a time? What responsibility do the citizens of that nation have to actively overthrow their government, as we once did?

I don't have any easy answers; I do lean on the side of non-intervention in most cases though.

[Don Quixote]

N Korea, get ready to import some freedom from Team America.

There is a very thoughtful column about the Norks in the new Weekly Standard.

And, no, I am not suggesting going Team America on them. For one, a war would immediately create a huge refugee crisis for China and S. Korea. Second, there are still the nukes to worry about. That said, the starving and deprivation that the people have had to endure for 3 generations is taking its toll. Might we see a revolt against this Stalinist régime sometime in the next 10-20 yrs? We can only hope, and pray for it.

[Don Quixote]

You have a good point about freedom. However, the problem I see is determining the line that we should draw. Obviously, it's impossible for us to allow freedom in every country. We don't have the ability. Should we do as we did in Iraq, and start changing countries one at a time? What responsibility do the citizens of that nation have to actively overthrow their government, as we once did?

I don't have any easy answers; I do lean on the side of non-intervention in most cases though.

Yeah ... and I don't mean to suggest that we should always go to war. Or primarily. But Americans must keep in mind that what makes America America is our freedom, our way of govt, our economic system, and way of life. And it is what every person on the globe wants (except hard-core commies and jihadists). And we should be actively engaged (through diplomacy, economics, and other tools) in spreading freedom.

While I am ashamed of certain aspects of our culture (e.g., porn, rap music, Dancing with the Stars), I do not apologize for our way of life or system of govt. It is worth defending. Now ... was Iraq an appropriate use of force? I go back and forth on it. I don't know. I am pleased that we have a budding democracy in a volatile part of the world. They have a long way to go, but if they succeed, perhaps Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia will be next?

I have friends in those countries. It is not easy to practice Christianity there right now.

[Don Quixote]

You went blue to green? Why? Whhhhyyy? lol

That wasn't my original plan. 10X more go the other way. But I'm a contrarian. I'm cool like that.

Actually, I never had much to do in the Air Force. The Army is much more challenging.

[LnGrrrR]

Yeah ... and I don't mean to suggest that we should always go to war. Or primarily. But Americans must keep in mind that what makes America America is our freedom, our way of govt, our economic system, and way of life. And it is what every person on the globe wants (except hard-core commies and jihadists). And we should be actively engaged (through diplomacy, economics, and other tools) in spreading freedom.

Agreed. However, I think it's much more effective to spread the idea of America CULTURALLY than through military means. I see them as a last resort.

While I am ashamed of certain aspects of our culture (e.g., porn, rap music, Dancing with the Stars), I do not apologize for our way of life or system of govt. It is worth defending. Now ... was Iraq an appropriate use of force? I go back and forth on it. I don't know. I am pleased that we have a budding democracy in a volatile part of the world. They have a long way to go, but if they succeed, perhaps Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia will be next?

Porn? Cmon now... that's not an American culture... that's universal right there. Rap music? Well sure, most of it today is garbage, but there's some good insight there, and have you listened to some of the better stuff? Take a liston to Grandmaster Flash's "The Message", or "Changes" by Tupac or other iconic rap songs. They had strong messages, and while not always uplifting, it wasn't just about gangstas and hos

Edit: Also, rap music can trace its roots back to Blues, which is one definitely American contribution to the world. Along with comic books and basketball heh.

I won't defend Dancing with the Stars lol.

I haven't seen strong enough evidence yet to believe in a "domino diplomacy" effect.

I have friends in those countries. It is not easy to practice Christianity there right now.

True enough that, and certainly it does suck. But again, America can't fix all the world problems. It's the fine line of figuring out how much we can and SHOULD help.

[LnGrrrR]

That wasn't my original plan. 10X more go the other way. But I'm a contrarian. I'm cool like that.

Actually, I never had much to do in the Air Force. The Army is much more challenging.

What base were you at? I'm a 3C2, and I've been stuck at Keesler AFB for the past 5 years. Finally getting to Hickam.

I can understand that the army might be more challenging, but I think my wife would kill me if I applied. I can't imagine how families deal with 15 to 18 month long deployments, a 6 or 12 month turnaround only to do it again.