40 Responses to Bring the Troops Home, Just Bring Them Home

1. DavidByron November 12th, 2009 at 11:58 am «

   I haven’t seen the video but this is the soldiers with dogs one? It seems like a transparent attempt to boost the image of soldiers by pairing them with lovable animals.

   Why buy into state propaganda? This is the flip side of not showing any photos of the dead victims of the war. The aim is to make you think soldiers are people who love little animals instead of people who help to exterminate millions of people.

   Certainly they should be brought home before being arrested. But hardly for their sake, rather to stop the genocide on-going in Iraq and the Afghan occupation.
• dakine01 November 12th, 2009 at 12:07 pm «

  You know, you do talk a good game but I keep waiting for the news article:
  

  Noted Men’s Rights Activist and liberal anti-war activist David Byron was sentenced today to prison for failure to pay income taxes. In a statement before his sentencing, Mr Byron stated that he could not in good conscience continue to pay taxes to support wars and occupations and the military. In his statement he reiterated his views that the military were nothing but “baby killers” and that only by taking the stand and putting his own freedom at risk could he look at himself in the mirror

  Why do I sense I will never see such a news lede?
• Teddy Partridge November 12th, 2009 at 12:30 pm «

  hahahahaha
• Elliott November 12th, 2009 at 12:31 pm «

  it’s not alimony default – or baby daughter support?
• dakine01 November 12th, 2009 at 12:36 pm «

  Well, that’s a possibility but I think if he’s as anti-military and such a righteous supporter of peace, then this is the one that he should push for.
• DavidByron November 12th, 2009 at 1:57 pm «

  Don’t take the troll bait.
• dakine01 November 12th, 2009 at 2:15 pm «

  Ah, so I’m “troll bait” now huh?

  Of course, I notice you aren’t actually attempting to address my comment. So you talk a big game but don’t have the cojones to back your talk with action.

  And I’m not at all surprised by that.
• Elliott November 12th, 2009 at 12:33 pm «

  Watch the video, then comment, please.
2. Jason Rosenbaum November 12th, 2009 at 12:25 pm «

   Bring em home.
3. Teddy Partridge November 12th, 2009 at 12:29 pm «

   TROOPS
   HOME
   NOW
4. Elliott November 12th, 2009 at 12:32 pm «

   Here’s a welcome home video Attaturk featured
5. egregious November 12th, 2009 at 2:25 pm «

   It’s out of bounds to call a fellow commenter a troll. First warning.
• RBG November 12th, 2009 at 3:17 pm «

  But..but…let’s not disregard projection here.
• DavidByron November 12th, 2009 at 3:48 pm «

  That poster is going around every board at FDL calling me a troll and attacking me in other ways yet somehow you approve. You’re not a moderator here and your “first warning” comment is just another form of personal attack.

  I guess I am learning who the trolls are around here. The people who NEVER make a comment worth reading. You seem to be wanting on that list.
• dakine01 November 12th, 2009 at 3:56 pm «

  You really do have a problem with me don’t you? Questioning your logic and your words is not attacking you. Disagreeing with your point of view is not a personal attack.

  Asking you if you’re willing to go to jail for your stated beliefs (since you are OH so much purer than anyone else) is not a personal attack.

  I’m not the person who has condemned even those folks who might agree with on some things for not being as pure as you perceive yourself to be.

  Truly. Look in the mirror David. Look in the mirror.
• RBG November 12th, 2009 at 4:11 pm «

  Actually, you have no idea how much Egregious has done to help make this blog the place it’s become.

  FWIW…when she says “first warning” she means it…and has the power to make it happen.
• DavidByron November 12th, 2009 at 8:22 pm «

  Then she should be ashamed of her comments here. Instead of setting an example, she’s acting like a child. Threatening people and trying to throw what she thinks of as her weight around? Showing obvious partiality to her friends who are blatantly attacking people personally? That’s very poor behaviour for anyone who represents the whole web site. She can hardly ask others to behave better when she refuses to.
• RBG November 12th, 2009 at 8:27 pm «

  I’d think by now that someone who seems to consider it a badge of honor to have been banned at so many other blogs would have a little thicker skin.
• DavidByron November 12th, 2009 at 8:56 pm «

  First of all you just insulted me there. You insulted me by suggesting that I have mo sincerity and that I am not here with the best of intentions. I expect egregious will upbraid you for that and give you a “first warning”.

  No, of course she will not, because she doesn’t care about who flames who. I am simply pointing out her moral inconsistency.

  At any rate you don’t know my mental state or how I react to things. Please don’t comment on it again. I believe it is worthwhile drawing attention to the inconsistencies of people who first set themselves up as some sort of authority figure as this person “egregious” has done. No doubt you believe that authority figures should be bowed and scraped to and never questioned?
• RBG November 12th, 2009 at 9:00 pm «

  Personally, I’d be much more willing to consider your point of view if you’d reply to Dakine’s question above at #2.

  Until then, the diatribes about baby killers and men’s reproductive rights don’t carry much weight with this middle aged guy.
• egregious November 12th, 2009 at 4:36 pm «

  The people who NEVER make a comment worth reading. You seem to be wanting on that list.

  Feel free to pass by my comments, as well as my front page posts at FDL, without wasting your time reading them.

  You are, however, well advised to take note of warnings.
• RBG November 12th, 2009 at 4:46 pm «

  Rut Roh, Egregious is back. Time to mind our P’s and Q’s.

  FWIW, FTFY
• acquarius74 November 12th, 2009 at 7:22 pm «

  Most of us done been listed, ‘gregghus, but we’ll scrunch up and make room for you, hon.
6. selise November 12th, 2009 at 2:27 pm «

   thanks for the vid elliot. bring them home. bring them all home.
7. iremember54 November 12th, 2009 at 2:37 pm «

   They should have been brought home seven years ago or more after Bin Laden got away. Now is better than nothing, but way to late.

   Karsai was our installed guy, and his drug dealing bother is on our payroll. He has been flying all over the world acting as if He was a great world leader on our dime.

   Only now do the retards in our Government have Questions about Him. From our Presidents to our Generals it’s time to face the fact that these guys aren’t working in our interests, but to fullfill political and Military goals. Those goals don’t seem to include getting the terrorists this all started for.
8. Leen November 12th, 2009 at 4:13 pm «

   Sounds like Ambassador Eikenberry agrees
9. Elliott November 12th, 2009 at 4:14 pm «

   Here’s another pupper vid
10. Eureka Springs November 12th, 2009 at 4:20 pm «

    When we bring the troops home… how many ways will David Byron tell us all we are doing it wrong?

    Bring them all home now, Elliott!
• Elliott November 12th, 2009 at 4:30 pm «

  I don’t understand his complaints. Does he want the troops to stay?

  Seeing how happy the puppies are, can you imagine the joy of their kids!?!
11. Elliott November 12th, 2009 at 4:28 pm «

    Oh my! listen to the beagles
12. Elliott November 12th, 2009 at 4:43 pm «

    PLEASE bring the troops home now and for good.

    BushCo, there’s a special circle in Hell just for y’all.
• DavidByron November 12th, 2009 at 8:44 pm «

  There’s a special place in hell for the soldiers.

  I am not sure what you find confusing about what I said. I am not generally a very hard person to understand. Without repeating what I said above I don’t know how to make it more plain. I agree the soldiers should not be killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan. I agree they should be returned home (for trial) but not for their sake, for the sake of their victims who probably also have household pets and children who love them.

  The difference is the soldiers volunteered to go off to work abroad and their victims didn’t volunteer to be brutally murdered. The soldiers are criminals guilty of the most vile crime humanity has, whereas their victims are innocent civilians.
13. RBG November 12th, 2009 at 5:21 pm «

    Couldn’t resist featuring another example of what it must feel like to be a “baby killer”
• Petrocelli November 12th, 2009 at 7:14 pm «

  Amen RBG … we can never repay the debt of these wonderful people !
14. egregious November 12th, 2009 at 5:38 pm «

    I guess not everybody has access to wiki.
• Petrocelli November 12th, 2009 at 7:13 pm «

  Eeep … that has Jane’s D.O.B. … isn’t there some law agin posting a lady’s age ?
15. letsgetitdone November 12th, 2009 at 7:08 pm «

    Thanks Elliot. Just right. Bring ‘em home!
16. egregious November 12th, 2009 at 8:35 pm «

    Humming Linda Ronstadt….
17. Nathan Aschbacher November 12th, 2009 at 10:40 pm «

    I have some trouble understanding why I’m supposed to “support the troops.” I mean, we’re well passed the time when there’s any chance anyone enlisting or re-enlisting can honestly believe they’re protecting Americans or American civil-liberties. For that matter the U.S. military hasn’t arguably performed such a function in over a century, so really anybody joining at any time in recent history should treat as extremely suspect the notion they’ll be sent off to protect American citizens and civil-liberties; with as pathetic a track record as the U.S. military has for such endeavors.

    It’s tragic that they go off and fight and die for the useless political whims of civilian leadership, but largely for the reasons that they sign up to do it in the first place; employer of last resort, misplaced anger, misplaced allegiance, etc.

    What exactly is noble or compelling about what the troops are tasked with, if we strip it of all the rah-rah self-delusion and hyperbole?
• iremember54 November 13th, 2009 at 2:47 pm «

  They all sware to protect and defend the United States of America.

  Name the wars that have been to do that, half of WWII, and that’s about it.

  Like you say most of the troops join because of the security of being employed.