A Democrat with BALLS...

Well said. lol

I don't think it is balls, but brains. And somehow our politicians forget so frequently that the civilians rule the military, not the other way around. Saying that, I wish the military had thought about something besides striking the enemy when it came to Iraq and Afghanistan. Stupid idiots.

You know, back in the 1960s, very few people in the hard right would have agreed with you; they all thought JFK was a weakling. After the Bay of Pigs they accused him of being soft on communism (as if committing troops could have done anything other than bog us down in a Caribbean Vietnam). After the Cuban missile crisis, conservatives in both parties were furious that he'd "missed an opportunity" to go to war, and it never really occurred to them going to war with a nuclear power might not be such a good idea. And when Kennedy moved the nuclear response forces towards ICBMs and away from long-range bombers, he was accused by the right of disarming America.

This wasn't just Kennedy, either. Remember LBJ, the guy under whom the Vietnam War escalated to the point we all remember it for? Well, Reagan made his political debut by accusing him of wanting to "avoid direct confrontation with the enemy" so that he'd "learn to love us." Millions of dead Vietnamese and Americans can attest that Reagan was full of more shyte than a Christmas turkey, but hey, who cares? Reagan got his little "evil liberal elite pansy" soundbite, and what else matters.

What about Truman, remember him? The guy who created the containment doctrine, NATO and the Marshall Plan and presided over the first confrontations with communism in Berlin and Korea? Yeah, well the conservatives didn't think he was a ballsy patriot either; they thought he was a commie who'd deliberately caused Mao's victory in China and they said it out loud. And he and his predecessor Roosevelt - yes, him, the guy who presided over the victory against Germany and Japan - were considered "twenty years of treason" by the right. Clever little soundbites like the OP's have been around forever, and they almost never have anything to do with what the liberals actually did or didn't do.


Keep flying, son. And watch that potty mouth!

Not to get into your specific examples, but, very broadly, that someone is weak does not mean that he is innocent, and that he is incapable of defending himself does not mean that he's incapable of causing damage.

Some might feel that I shouldn't shoot a dog because it's incapable of using a gun, but if it's biting at my legs and injuring me, what am I to do? Decline to defend my position and simply suffer the attack just because it's not a fairly armed fight?

cgcarey73 wrote this:
"Balls"? Does bombing Libya or Yugoslavia show "balls"? How about invading Iraq, Panama, or Grenada? Attacking countries who's militaries are absurdly inferior to yours isn't an act of bravery, it's the act of a bully.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ok, castro invaded grenada and we went there to kick him out. so who's the bully?

as i recall, nato forces were handling yugoslavia, not the US

we attacked libya b/c libyan terrorists bombed a berlin disco wounding 200 & killing about a dozen, including 2 american servicemen

we didn't invade panama. we simply went to remove noriega from power & bring him to justice.

what can i say about iraq? LOVED IT. that SOB Hussein & psycho sons are gone forever. i am extemely proud of our servicemen & servicewomen and support all their endeavours.

i suppose you will also say we invaded kuwait too.

& don't say the british invaded the falkland islands either. argentina invaded & the brits kicked them out because it's their territory. it took 74 days

[deleted]