Strong words from Oz PM to weak congress...

[SteelCore]

"The US Congress' vote to push for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq was wrong and will bring comfort to Al-Qaeda insurgents," Australian Prime Minister John Howard said Friday.

US President George W Bush has vowed to veto the law.

Howard, a staunch Bush supporter who has also committed troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, said the vote by the US Congress was "probably not helpful to the general situation in Iraq."

"I think it is wrong, and I don't think it is doing anything other than giving great comfort and encouragement to Al-Qaeda and the insurgency in Iraq," Howard said.

"They are looking at all this, they read newspapers, they see it on television and they say, 'The American domestic resolve is weakening, therefore we should maintain our resolve.'

"If there is a perception of an America defeat in Iraq, that will leave the whole of the Middle East in great turmoil and will be an enormous victory for terrorism."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070427024429.z5eu5xpb&show_article=1

[Patria Povo]

Well, I might agree with him on this issue, but I still think that Little Johnny is a wanker!

[LorDiego]

Funny how America's top allies are entirely anti-gun.

"Tell me how your friends are, and I'll tell you about yourself.."

Hopefully thats not what our rulers (hahaha) have in mind.

[SteelCore]

because i do agree with his criticism of congress.

[Rampager]

I think all this talk of withdrawal does embolden our enemies ...no doubt about it. As a matter of fact they will step up their attacks now that they know our politicians are wavering.

The way I see it, people can debate all the reasons for going into Iraq, but the fact is we are now there with boots on the ground and this isn't the time to be second guessing.

I don't know if some Americans really understand what the long term ramifications of a pullout out of Iraq really means. For one, if the US was perceived to have been defeated in Iraq, what's going to happen in Afghanistan? ...same thing. They step up their attacks, wear down US public opinion and we pullout of there too.

This type of victory by radical Islam would embolden them beyond belief. Not only that, but now Iran is left as the superpower of the middle east and the surrounding (US friendly) countries will be heavily influenced by the new big kid on the block. And yes, oil is a big factor as it should be being that our economy depends on it. Ok..I'm done ranting...:rantmeter:

[jmikey]

Somehow, I keep getting this picture of "Hanoi Jane" on a AAA mount which may have taken out some good friends of mine. I'm sure we will see it but so far I haven't seen anyone ask the troops what they think!

[SteelCore]

+1 to that.

You guys remember when instead of the US military going to war the whole Nation of the US went to war? Do you remember the results? Because there WERE results. Shite got solved, once and for all. Soon this lo-grade WWIII we've been waging since 9/11 is gonna have to kick up a notch...

[Otis61]

I agree. People think that if we pulled out of Iraq that that would be it its over. I guarenty it would not be over, and they sure wouldn't like what happend next.

[Geilt]

If we look back in history we see that starting with Vietnam the public outcry for sanitary warfare has jaded the way we engage in military action.

In Vietnam the public was yelling for a pull out and what happened when we did? The North rolled over Siagon and the rest of the South with little to no resistance. This happened for a number of reasons but it came down to the lack of will on the part of the South Vietnamese gov't and its people. The US does deserve part of the blame because we left a power vaccum that the South didn't step up and fill. If we had properly prepared the South for our pull out things might have ended differently.

We move forward to Beruit. Once again the public started calling for a pull out and when we did there was a similar power vaccum and civil war lasted for several more years.

Now on to the first Gulf War and what happened in southern Iraq. We talked the local tribes in to resisting Saddam and when we didn't ensure they had our open support or even support through back channels (ie. special ops advisors, equipment and training) they were slaughtered in the thousands.

Other examples include Somalia and the former Yugosolvian republics. We were there but due to public perception we couldn't engage in combat as it should have been handled. The US public shouldn't dictate how wars are fought. Every time we pull out of a combat operation due to public sentiment we are emboldening out enemies. They know there is a large segment of the US population which has no stomach for what it takes to win. Hell, bin Laden himself cited our lack of tenacity as one of the reasons he felt he could win against the United States.

So here we are in Afgantistan and Iraq. Same story again. If we pull out of either country their governments will fall inside of 12 months. The Taliban is already showing an increase in the ability to organize and operate where Coalition Forces aren't around in strong numbers. Afghanistan's own military is nearly non-existant. We all know what is going on in Iraq and while there has been some improvement things are not nearly where they would need to be to ensure stability if we were to pull out.

The way I see it, and this is just one mans opinion, If we do pull out of Iraq before it's time we need to do a couple things. First, when our troops are killed in higher numbers because there just aren't enough of them we call out by name those in Congress that yelled the loudest for a reduction. Second, when the ruling government in Iraq falls we openly point the finger at those same people. Finally, when people start asking what good we ultimately did in Iraq for what reason our troops died we VERY publicly respond with the sentiment that IF the military had been allowed to fully engage the enemy, IF the Democrats hadn't turned the war in to a political soapbox issue and IF we stuck it out until the job was really done and not a half-assed rush things might have turned out differently.

War is an expensive, nasty, dirty and sometimes cruel thing. Nobody in their right mind looks forward to it. When the time comes and all other reasonable responses have been tried to no avail, you go to war to WIN. You do everything you can to support your forces. You don't drag them down in politics and second guessing.

[Otis61]

+1

[Rampager]

First let me say I agree with everything said here so far, but let me interject something else to ponder (my opinion only).

This is the way I see it playing out...
Problem is, OK Iraq falls ...some think we will live happily ever after ....I don't think so. Cause you know the same thing will happen in Afghanistan as they will go by the same play book and most of the foreign fighters will rush there next along with the foreign supplied arms (IUD's). So then we will be in the same situation there and eventually pull out due to politics ...fine.

Now like I said this leaves a huge power vacuum. Who is going have the most influence in the region? ...Iran. Next they focus (as we seen last week) on US friendly countries (for lack of better words) like Saudi Arabia. What would a civil war there do to gas prices here? ...wreck our economy.

Can you imagine what impact it will be on us and our children having radical Islam controlling Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and possibly Saudi Arabia to name a few? This is Osama's dream. It's the old domino theory only with radical Islam instead of Communism. The major difference this time being with most of the world's oil at play this will effect us all and future generations to come.

This is a war we cannot afford to loose. :terrorist:

[iocane]

Here is something I got from this webpage
http://www.capmarine.com/cap/statistics.htm

"General Dung's Great Spring Victory was supported by a total of 700 (maneuverable) Soviet tanks, i.e. Soviet armor, burning Soviet gas and firing Soviet ammunition. By comparison, the South Vietnamese had only 352 US supplied tanks and they were committed to guarding the entire country, and because of US Congressional action, were critically short of fuel, ammo and spare parts with which to support those tanks."

Those out to turn Iraq into a defeat will try to arrange for America to pull the troops out, force a bad treaty on Iraq that leaves it a sitting duck for Iran, and have congress ban all arms sales to Iraq. Notice the talk is always of a complete retreat. At the very least America could have a few heavily defended military bases surrounded by vast minefields, and control the airspace over Iraq. Something like that would keep a full scale invasion of Iraq by Iran from happening, plus would make it very hard for to kill any of are troops. Heck, if we pulled out but kept the weapons following in, some part of Iraq would survive. Then eventually take back the rest. What the defeatist really want is for America to pretty much totally backstab are own allies. There not going to settle on anything less.

As for public perception, when the public wants the enemy crushed their ignored. When the public buys into the lies then it gets the headlines.

[Phirebug]

Somehow, I keep getting this picture of "Hanoi Jane" on a AAA mount which may have taken out some good friends of mine. I'm sure we will see it but so far I haven't seen anyone ask the troops what they think!

i can't, nor do i pretend to, speak on behalf of the Army or anybody but myself.

I want to come home. This country sucks. It's hot and things blow up all the time. There's no beer. I miss my family. I miss my guns. There's NO BEER.
But I want to win first. Believe me, I see both sides of the issue, and both sides are kind of right on some points...but it really feels like Congress is giving up on us. Every time I get to see the news it seems like they're saying we're doing a piss-poor job over here and we should just give up, take our ball, and go home. Is that what we really want to say to the people that want to kill us? Believe me, I don't want to be back here 5 years from now on my third deployment, but I don't see where coming home now will fix anything that's wrong here. Take this for what it's worth...but if they're not happy with the way we're fighting this war, instead of making us give up, they could just untie our hands from behind our backs and stop worrying so much about potentially offending the terrorists. It's not like they're handing our asses to us. A lot of the time, it feels like we're just standing here taking it waiting for permission from higher to fight back. Take off the leash and we can be home in a year with or without Congress.

[Norton]

Here is something I got from this webpage
http://www.capmarine.com/cap/statistics.htm

"General Dung's Great Spring Victory was supported by a total of 700 (maneuverable) Soviet tanks, i.e. Soviet armor, burning Soviet gas and firing Soviet ammunition. By comparison, the South Vietnamese had only 352 US supplied tanks and they were committed to guarding the entire country, and because of US Congressional action, were critically short of fuel, ammo and spare parts with which to support those tanks."



As for public perception, when the public wants the enemy crushed their ignored. When the public buys into the lies then it gets the headlines.

Thsi is 100% true I have few older Vietnamese guys who work for me. They said ''we had no gas" The NVA blew up a few of the ARVN's fuel dumps and this durring a gas shortage. They ran out of fuel and ammo, but first fuel. The NVA had a Soviet cannon which out ranged the ARVN field guns, so they could not counter battery. But it was mostly those fully gassed T54 AND T55s that won the war and 28 mech mech divisons. In short the entire NVA. Had Nixon been office those Soviet tanks would have been smoking hulks as were in the 1972 Easter offenece and ARVN troops would have been in Iraq with the ROKs right now. The Democrats sold out South Vietnam to get back at Nixon and in the process. They got 2 to 3 million Cambodians killed..
By the way when Iraq collapes in 2009 we will have millions who will have to flee and come here as refugees.. Just like 1975. They will sell Iraq and Afganistan down the river just to get at Bush.:mad:

[pigpen]

First let me say I agree with everything said here so far, but let me interject something else to ponder (my opinion only).

This is the way I see it playing out...
Problem is, OK Iraq falls ...some think we will live happily ever after ....I don't think so. Cause you know the same thing will happen in Afghanistan as they will go by the same play book and most of the foreign fighters will rush there next along with the foreign supplied arms (IUD's). So then we will be in the same situation there and eventually pull out due to politics ...fine.

Now like I said this leaves a huge power vacuum. Who is going have the most influence in the region? ...Iran. Next they focus (as we seen last week) on US friendly countries (for lack of better words) like Saudi Arabia. What would a civil war there do to gas prices here? ...wreck our economy.

Can you imagine what impact it will be on us and our children having radical Islam controlling Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and possibly Saudi Arabia to name a few? This is Osama's dream. It's the old domino theory only with radical Islam instead of Communism. The major difference this time being with most of the world's oil at play this will effect us all and future generations to come.

This is a war we cannot afford to loose. :terrorist:

That is the same thing I was trying to explain to my wife last night. I would never want to be the one to make the call to send anyone into harms way & I would be the first one to pull them out but would do so ONLY when the job was done. That guy the runs Iran, Abadabbajimdooba, is the last person we want to have a nuclear device. He would give it over to one of his geehawd(thats how southerners say it) buddies then the next thing you know NY, LA or Chicago would be a big parking lot. Wee need to bomb that bastard soon

[Big Steve]

Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda's plan is to break our economy and the rest of the world. The way they are trying to do it is to interupt the flow of oil coming out of the middle east. The Saudi's are the target. They have stopped plots to destroy their oil production in the past and just last week captured 172 Al-Qaeda militants with 5 million bucks and a big stash of weapons planning to attack their oil fields again. If they can even stop 30% of the oil from getting out, it will be big! $4.00 gas, No try $8.00. Stock Market- CRASH! Food and everything else moved by a truck, plane or train X3.
We are going to have to get hammered again before the dumb-ass Demo's get it! They are going to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that everyones going to love us if we pull out of Iraq.
The best way to end the crap in Iraq is to kick the crap out of Iran! Thats where the problem is at. If we bomb the hell out of them, they will forget about funding and helping terrorists in Iraq!
Steve
PS Phirebugs right, the first thing them bastards (The towel heads) need over there is some damm Beer. If they all kicked back and had a few cold beers they wouldn't be so high strung wanting to fight each other all the time! Good to here from you P-Bug!

[Geilt]

I don't necessarily agree with the concept of taking the fight to Iran. Iran is not the direct threat some are making them out to be, they are part of the larger picture though. Yes, Iran is funding some of what is going on. So are factions in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt and other countries through out the Middle East and even southeast Asia. Targeting Iran will only result in fanning the flames throughout the rest of the Islamic world. The ironic thing here is that Iran does not consider themselves as a Muslim country. The Iranian people see themselves as Persians first and foremost. There is a growing resentment amoungst the Iranian population towards the repressive religous leaders. Attacking Iran will unite the population.

On the surface this is a religous war. Those with money are whipping the hardcore relgious segments of Islam in to a frenzy. Nothing is harder to fight than faith. Any attacks (verbal, military, econonmic) are seen as a direct attack on your view of God. Nothing brings people together as an attack on their faith. The top tier of people know this and use it to thier advantage.

They fund the schools, social projects and inject their hatred in the sermons being preached in the mosques. If all you hear is "AMERICA IS EVIL", "DESTROY ISREAL", "KILL ANYONE WHO WE TELL YOU TO" eventually you'll fall in line with that train of thought because it is so prevelant in the society you're living in.

The best, and perhaps only way, to fight this is to alter our collective approach towards the way we're waging this war. We continue to foster the idea that we're the worlds bully and act unilaterally in our own best interests, the rest of the world be damned. We need to try to alter world opinion about what we're trying to do. Essentially we go back to the "win the hearts and minds" campaign.

However when we do get involved militarily we go in with the attitude that we're going to FIGHT TO WIN. We need clear goals when we do engage and have an end plan that's realistic. Open ended operations lead to a second guessing and deviation from the ultimate goal.

[iocane]

The "win the hearts and minds" gets mentioned enough, I don't seem to see much mentions of what exactly is it. Is it the peace corps? Is it foreign aid? Is it building libraries? All of which art fine at nice for helping countries, unfortunately they are rather ineffective at spreading peace. How many wars has the peace corps ended anyway? Here is a silly little thing that just might work to win hearts and minds around the world. Have Hollywood turn out pro-America movies. Movies from Hollywood are watched around the world. Especially thanks to pirated dvd's. If the America they saw in the movies was a nice friendly country they might not hate us so much. Instead we look like terrible people.

[Geilt]

The "win the hearts and minds" gets mentioned enough, I don't seem to see much mentions of what exactly is it. Is it the peace corps? Is it foreign aid? Is it building libraries? All of which art fine at nice for helping countries, unfortunately they are rather ineffective at spreading peace. How many wars has the peace corps ended anyway? Here is a silly little thing that just might work to win hearts and minds around the world. Have Hollywood turn out pro-America movies. Movies from Hollywood are watched around the world. Especially thanks to pirated dvd's. If the America they saw in the movies was a nice friendly country they might not hate us so much. Instead we look like terrible people.


You're right, building libraries, schools, hospitals, and ensuring the low cost of camel meat at the local market aren't going to do a dang thing to keeping the peace. What will do it is avoid the policy pitfalls we've run in to time and time again which alienates the rest of the world and reinforces the view that the US is a bully and only looking out for itself.

[Rampager]

First off I'd like to say I like this discussion amongst friends here and I really respect everyone's opinions that have posted on this subject.

I feel no matter what we build for them the radicals will destroy it (bridges, libraries, clinics). They will never have any stability without an economy and right now that cannot exist when scores of people are being blown up at markets, clinics, power plants, etc ....this is a very planned circumstance brought forth by the radical Islamists, they know exactly what they are doing.

I understand what's being said here about winning the hearts and minds of these people, but I feel it's too late for most of them right now. I'm not so much talking about the general population, but remember even most everyday folks there in some form or another support the radicals by their silence. It's like trying to win the hearts and minds of the Nazi Germany before total victory ....it just ain't gonna happen.

Just like GWB said "this is a different kind of war" ...and it really is. We aren't dealing with states here for the most part. We are dealing with ideology. The Islamic extremists have done such a good job brainwashing their people that I've all but given up on this current generation in that part of the world. This war will last through our lifetimes in one form or another, even if we leave Iraq now.

It's gonna take a change in generations in the middle east IMHO. But in the mean time we need to keep the radical factions at bay, take the war to them.

Considering the current situation, I'm not for the occupation of Iran, but only stopping it's ability to make and fund war no matter how long that takes.

I can list lots of reasons on both sides of this struggle for aggression, but when it all comes down to it, it's us against them.

[Big Steve]

"Win their hearts and minds" Are you kidding me? These people hate our guts. We are the Infidels! Do you really think they would hate us any more if we blew up their nuke plants and the rest of their war making equipment. And if they do, so what!
We tried the liberation thing in Iraq. Learn from our mistakes. None of these countries can take on our military when it does what it was designed for. Kicking their ass. Not Liberating them.
Steve

[Otis61]

You know the sad truth of this whole thing is this. Its a great big friggin vicious circle, and we can't leave. And the democrats are gonna try to make us anyway. If they don't we're screewed. If they do we're screewed worse.

[Rampager]

"Win their hearts and minds" Are you kidding me? These people hate our guts. We are the Infidels! Do you really think they would hate us any more if we blew up their nuke plants and the rest of their war making equipment. And if they do, so what!
We tried the liberation thing in Iraq. Learn from our mistakes. None of these countries can take on our military when it does what it was designed for. Kicking their ass. Not Liberating them.
Steve

That's exactly right. It's not like we are going to piss off the extremists anymore than they already are. They want to kill us...plain and simple, you, me your kids, parents, they want you dead...you are the infidels simply by not being a radical Muslim. Hell they are even killing moderate Muslims everyday for not sharing in their radical beliefs.

At his point I'm beyond trying to win over these people. Did the US worry about pissing off the Germans more by fire bombing their cities? How about pissing of the Japanese by fire bombing and the atomic bombs?...no, we were playing to win...at all costs. It was a life or death struggle and that's what we are in now and will continue to be in for the foreseeable future. We could have just stayed out of WWII in Europe and pretended the Nazi's would never bother us if we just left them alone. But that would have only let to an even worse war (if you could imagine) for a future generation and perhaps the Nazi's would have developed nukes by then.

I say let our military..the best military in the history of the world, do what the were designed for...protect us and our nations interests. We can do this, it just takes the support and determination of the American population....ok I'm done ranting again.

[Geilt]

I understand what's being said here about winning the hearts and minds of these people, but I feel it's too late for most of them right now. I'm not so much talking about the general population, but remember even most everyday folks there in some form or another support the radicals by their silence. It's like trying to win the hearts and minds of the Nazi Germany before total victory ....it just ain't gonna happen.

I totally agree with nearly all of your points. Specific to the "winning the hearts and minds", I also agree. There's no way on God's green earth that we'll be able to change the minds of those that are already swayed over to believing the west is The Great Satan. These people believe what they do and nothing is going to change that. The people we need to target are those either on the fence or neutral at this point. Essentially we take away the rhetoric ammunition that the radicals are using against us.

Sure, nobody really worried too much about non-combatant deaths in WWII. Cities were leveled. Populations were killed en masse. That was then, this is now. The simple reality is that that "civilized nations" don't fight that way. I frankly don't care if we turned most of the Middle East in to a glass parking lot other than the fact that it would irradiate all the oil thus rendering it useless. But let's just say we do go back to the way we fought wars in the past. We send wave after wave of incindiary bombs and burn down cities. We run ramshot over anything in our way. We are not in this alone and we do need the support of other nations. If we go the route of Total War who do we target? In some cases we can start targeting specific nations. Perfect example is Afghanistan. The same argument could be made in some ways for Iran. Taking them out isn't going to suddenly make the radicals say "Damn, they bombed _____ in to the stone age. We give up."

Storming in and blowing the crap out cities and infrastructure will only bring more people to the side we're fighting against. Our first reaction can't be "kill em' all let God sort them out". By doing so we are giving them more and more reasons to hate us. This is not just the US and our allies against radical Islam. This is radical Islam against anyone that doesn't agree with them across the board. This is a religious war.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we need to bust out "Operation Moonbeams, Butterflies and Unicorns". What I am saying is that we need to do more than strike at them with the military option. You can't KILL FAITH. The Romans tried with the Christians. The Nazis tried it with the Jews. The Soviets tried it with all religion. You simply cannot win this with fighting alone. The more you oppress someone because of their faith you'll drive them deeper in to it. In this case you'd be driving them in to open arms of radical Islam. Not exactly what we need at this point.

Lets say we do go full tilt and start fighting this anywhere and everywhere. Our military just isn't large enough currently to support wide spread occupation. How could we put enough boots in theater to really bring results? Airpower and cruise missles aren't going to do much more than make for cool footage for the evening news. As soon as we reach a sufficient threshold of ground troops the opposition would transition to another part of the world. They don't have to worry about moving heavy armor, mechanized infantry, logisitical support, and everything else we bring to the fight. They pick up their copies of the Koran and they're off. Our best way to really bring the fight to their front door is through the use of Special Operations. They are capable of lightning fast deployment, pretty much self sustaining and trained to fight unconventional warfare for prolonged periods of time. Once deployed they also aren't going to have to worry about imbedded reporters or the open scrutiny the full military has to worry about.

When we do need to go in militarily, we go in to WIN. Go back read the first response I put in on this thread. I was pretty clear about that. The last thing the military needs is to be hamstrung by political infighting. They need our full support day in and day out. All I am adding to my first point is that the military alone isn't going to end this.

[Rampager]

I agree with most of what you are saying too...it's a complicated issue to say the least. I especially agree with this part:



When we do need to go in militarily, we go in to WIN. Go back read the first response I put in on this thread. I was pretty clear about that. The last thing the military needs is to be hamstrung by political infighting. They need our full support day in and day out.

I'd just like to take a moment to comment too on how nice it is we can have this sort of friendly discussion here about such a complicated issue. This is one of the very few boards where this can happen. Shows a lot about our members that's for sure.

[Big Steve]

I do not believe we need to put one boot on the ground to put Iran out of the war business. Nuke or conventional. Nor do we need to ruin their infrastructure. We are the best there is at pin-point bombing. Sure some civilians are going to get in the way and be killed but war ain't pretty.
How many ground troops did it take to shut Omar Kadaffy up?
Steve

[Geilt]

I do not believe we need to put one boot on the ground to put Iran out of the war business. Nuke or conventional. Nor do we need to ruin their infrastructure. We are the best there is at pin-point bombing. Sure some civilians are going to get in the way and be killed but war ain't pretty.
How many ground troops did it take to shut Omar Kadaffy up?
Steve

How would that stop the flow of money, theology, arms and other support?

[SteelCore]

"I want to come home. This country sucks. It's hot and things blow up all the time. There's no beer. I miss my family. I miss my guns. There's NO BEER."

NO BEER!!!?!?!? AAAAAH! I knew there was more than one thing fundamentally wrong with Islam.

PB< thanks for your input, and your service. We want you home too! If I could send beer, I would. My bro is a brewer...a damn good one.

"Iran is not the direct threat some are making them out to be, they are part of the larger picture though."
-->I think they are. Why else would we have armed Iraq with VX and other toys when they were opposing Iran in the 70s-80s? Because we were banking on another Iran-Iraq war. Hel, we even had pro-west leaders in the mideast, remember Sadat in Egypt? Also they are fighting a proxy-war in Iraq (like we did against russia in Afghanistan). When the Ayatolla took US hostages for 444 days, I'd call that a direct threat. When they start building nuke refineries like Iraq used to have (Israel took care of that in the 80s) while spouting the "Kill the US" rhetoric , I'd call that a very direct threat.

Before 9/11 noone really considered airplanes as bombs, either.

But that's just my read on the situation.

[Cavalryman]

i can't, nor do i pretend to, speak on behalf of the Army or anybody but myself.

I want to come home. This country sucks. It's hot and things blow up all the time. There's no beer. I miss my family. I miss my guns. There's NO BEER.
But I want to win first. Believe me, I see both sides of the issue, and both sides are kind of right on some points...but it really feels like Congress is giving up on us. Every time I get to see the news it seems like they're saying we're doing a piss-poor job over here and we should just give up, take our ball, and go home. Is that what we really want to say to the people that want to kill us? Believe me, I don't want to be back here 5 years from now on my third deployment, but I don't see where coming home now will fix anything that's wrong here. Take this for what it's worth...but if they're not happy with the way we're fighting this war, instead of making us give up, they could just untie our hands from behind our backs and stop worrying so much about potentially offending the terrorists. It's not like they're handing our asses to us. A lot of the time, it feels like we're just standing here taking it waiting for permission from higher to fight back. Take off the leash and we can be home in a year with or without Congress.

If you ever make it to Anchorage, the Alaskan Amber is on me! (Plus, I have LOTS of guns! We'll go shooting.)