Author Topic: The Dixie Chicks should be President (Read 7114 times)

Torque · « **Reply #120 on:** September 04, 2007, 02:06:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by LEADPIG
Boy, you guys look at things from some narssicistic, arrogant, close minded, self centered, all knowing, tell everybody else, non compassionate, judgemental, holier than thou, i know better so i won't listen, i know better so i'm gonna tell you what to do, i'm the judge of right and wrong, kind of view.

welcome to the o'club...

three female country singers... had more nads than the rest, go figure.

john9001 · « **Reply #121 on:** September 04, 2007, 02:22:20 PM »

the enemy is the ones that is shooting at you, anybody knows that.

LEADPIG · « **Reply #122 on:** September 04, 2007, 02:34:08 PM »

Yea, my purpose with the title was in a sarcastic sense. Yet i get people who still think i literally believe it. I think somehow in some ways they do have more common sense. I think it pretty foretelling in the fact that they knew this was a bad idea, enough so they made that comment. Before the President seemed to know it. I still don't know if he know's it or is in complete denial. Maybe he thinks the wanton killing of soldiers who have no ability to tell or seek out their enemy is a good idea. They're at the mercy of fate over there, not their own fighting ability. When i saw the President land on that aircraft carrier and anounce "The war was over" pretty much in it's main form, i realized how little he got it. A President should have more ability to understand the dynamics and possible future of a situation. I knew after he made that statement that in a matter of months the soldiers would be getting involved in a worthless situation. A catch 22. If there is a sniper shooting into a courtyard, you don't keep sending people in one by one to die in the hopes you'll somehow get him. It's wastefull of lives with little return. It hurts me to see. I really don't have much problem with what the dixie chicks said or how they said it. I believe if a man is responsible enough to stand by a certain policy he ought to be responsible enough to take the critizism however it may be. I think when comments like that are made a smart person is able to seperate the garbage, from the valid points and let such comments reflect only the person who said them. If the person is not intelligent enough to realize that, i don't care what they think. It's not worth it to "Stay the Course" if the course is getting you knowhere, with little returns. A course must be cost effective in it's efficiency to stay on it. I bring this info up to say this is what happened in the past let's not do this again, of course you can't change any of this Yeager, but it's always worth it to view the facts and cull from it the truth to realize where your going in the future.

Respectfully Ledpig..

Btw, i'm enjoying this discussion and am enjoying hearing your different points of view...

Eagler · « **Reply #123 on:** September 04, 2007, 03:10:54 PM »

lpig
just admit it ..
you have a crush on the fat one

LEADPIG · « **Reply #124 on:** September 04, 2007, 03:29:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
lpig
just admit it ..
you have a crush on the fat one

Okay....Okay...i admit it....i want her bear my little piglets.

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #125 on:** September 04, 2007, 03:31:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bj229r
We're not fighting Iraqis, we're fighting Iran---have been for 3+ years, and if we leave, we cede the country to them, making things FAR worse than they were with Saddam in place---Can obviously be argued that Bush and company didn't see that coming--Iran was planning what we see now before the war ever started

Wait...we're fighting Iran in Iraq? I thought our less than intelligent President (perfect example of a functioning retard) told us the war was to eliminate WMDs and Al-Queda. He lied to us again?

ack-ack

Tango · « **Reply #126 on:** September 04, 2007, 03:50:27 PM »

So LP, you think it would have been better to leave Saddam in power? You really think he was not working on WMDs [chemical and bio weapons]? I'm sorry but he should have been taken out during the first war and he had the chance to stay in power but continously kept shooting at out planes in the no-fly zones [which is an act of war].

If anything the Kurds in Northern Iraq are happy that we saved them from him and have allies there. I'm all for dividing up the country and pulling our troops back into northern Iraq, but the Iranians [who we are in a cold war with] would like us to pull out so they can get more control around the Persian gulf.

bj229r · « **Reply #127 on:** September 04, 2007, 09:55:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Wait...we're fighting Iran in Iraq? I thought our less than intelligent President (perfect example of a functioning retard) told us the war was to eliminate WMDs and Al-Queda. He lied to us again?

ack-ack

Call it whatever the F ya want--The govt of Iran is behind the vast majority of funding/insurgency in Iraq, hoping that killing getting enough GI's kilt will convince folks like you to convince Congress to bail, thus handing them Iraq and its oil with having to fight Saddam for it---brilliant strategy, if ya think about it. Letting Iran have Lebanon wasn't a big deal, because Lebanon is a useless chithole, but Iraq is quite different, and if you haven't noticed, it's too late to whine that we shouldn't have gone in....rather like arguing with wife about who was responsible for the wrong turn that got the car stuck in the sand (it's always the husband's fault:D )
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/28/iraq.iran/index.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/wiran13.xml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/12/world/main2919294.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082301390.html

LEADPIG · « **Reply #128 on:** September 04, 2007, 11:26:56 PM »

Originally posted by bj229r
Call it whatever the F ya want--The govt of Iran is behind the vast majority of funding/insurgency in Iraq, hoping that killing getting enough GI's kilt will convince folks like you to convince Congress to bail, thus handing them Iraq and its oil with having to fight Saddam for it---brilliant strategy, if ya think about it. Letting Iran have Lebanon wasn't a big deal, because Lebanon is a useless chithole, but Iraq is quite different, and if you haven't noticed, it's too late to whine that we shouldn't have gone in....rather like arguing with wife about who was responsible for the wrong turn that got the car stuck in the sand (it's always the husband's fault:D )

I agree with BJ229R 100%, can't get out now, we've already started the mess. But a new strategy should be adapted asap, before we keep beating our head into the wall over there till it's a bloody pulp. We should patch it up as much as possible, without taking too much responsibility for their country and get out of dodge. Maybe if we do that we can save an additional 4,000 lives from dieing in this crap.

lazs2 · « **Reply #129 on:** September 05, 2007, 09:30:27 AM »

leadpig... I think you are not looking at the big picture... we need someone besides israel in the region who is not harboring islamofacists.

It is no more a hamster wheel than is trying to stop crime... Imagine if there were no rapes in the US... that we could stop all rapes by picking a place in the world and all the rapists would go there to fight us. meanwhile.. they couldn't even afford airfare to get to L.A.

Islamofacists exist... they don't like civilization or us.. it has very little to do with oil or money and all to do with the way we feel about freedom of religion and not letting them violate human rights of their fellows. The biggest groups were formed by muslims who were educated here and were disgusted by our sexual freedom and our not bowing to their god.

The ideas that liberals here hold dear are the things the islamofacists hate the most... liberals would be the first to be executed... right along with gays and drug or alcohol users... hands and heads and gawd knows what else cut off..

The idea is to make the world smaller for them.

It is not a complex thing but seems very difficult for some to grasp... if we let them be... they have the whole world to play in.. if they are forced into ever smaller countries that will put up with their bs and... as a bonus.. the worst/nuttiest of em are dying like flies in (insert name of some craphole here)... well.. that is even better.

I know that sounds cynical and cold but all the surrender monkeys sound insipid and emotional and weak to me.

lazs

LEADPIG · « **Reply #130 on:** September 05, 2007, 01:58:17 PM »

Comment by Lazs2

It is no more a hamster wheel than is trying to stop crime... Imagine if there were no rapes in the US... that we could stop all rapes by picking a place in the world and all the rapists would go there to fight us. meanwhile.. they couldn't even afford airfare to get to L.A.

Lasz all the terrorists are not in Iraq, heck they are not anywhere in particular. Terrorism isn't a country we can fight like Germany was. In WW2 you could count how many enemy were killed by counting the number of soldiers who were dead on the ground wearing German outfits. How do we know for sure if were getting them Lasz? How do we know who were're shooting at other than by having them shoot at us first. By then our soldiers are dead by then Lasz. That's a bad situation to be working from. I have no problem with what you said and that would be great if we could identify them all to kill them, but we can't. The way i see it we could be fighting terrorists in the middle east, declare we've got them all, come back home thinking, were safe, prop down to sit on the toilet and some terrorists will blow that up. We need intelligence and a focused attack on these terrorist to effect them, something like a combat roach bait for terrorists approach to fighting them if you will. A large scale approach to fighting them ain't gonna work. It'll end up with more of our soldiers dead than theirs. That's not efficient, it should be. Other than that one point Lasz i wish it was as simple as what your saying, it's not.

Respectfully
Leadpig.

Speed55 · « **Reply #131 on:** September 05, 2007, 02:26:48 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_insurgents_killed_in_Iraq

Ok Ok it's wikipedia.

But as of right now we seem to have around a 3-1 kill ratio, with that ratio improving.

Tango · « **Reply #132 on:** September 05, 2007, 08:37:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by LEADPIG
Lasz all the terrorists are not in Iraq, heck they are not anywhere in particular. Terrorism isn't a country we can fight like Germany was. In WW2 you could count how many enemy were killed by counting the number of soldiers who were dead on the ground wearing German outfits. How do we know for sure if were getting them Lasz? How do we know who were're shooting at other than by having them shoot at us first. By then our soldiers are dead by then Lasz. That's a bad situation to be working from. I have no problem with what you said and that would be great if we could identify them all to kill them, but we can't. The way i see it we could be fighting terrorists in the middle east, declare we've got them all, come back home thinking, were safe, prop down to sit on the toilet and some terrorists will blow that up. We need intelligence and a focused attack on these terrorist to effect them, something like a combat roach bait for terrorists approach to fighting them if you will. A large scale approach to fighting them ain't gonna work. It'll end up with more of our soldiers dead than theirs. That's not efficient, it should be. Other than that one point Lasz i wish it was as simple as what your saying, it's not.

Respectfully
Leadpig.

So instead of fighting them in thier backyard you would rather pull back and wait for them to make a move and eventually make another large attack like 911 or bigger [nuke] then hunt them down?

Our men and women in the military would tell you "No way". They would much rather be fighting them over there than over here.

As for the number of sioldiers lost, do you know that we are losing more than they are? I would like to see your source.

Neubob · « **Reply #133 on:** September 05, 2007, 09:07:44 PM »

We just need to turn all arab/muslim countries into vast fields of smoking glass. Then we need to break through that glass, pump out the oil, piss on their bleached bones, and go home to watch the Superbowl.

They'd do it to us in a heartbeat if they could, only instead of watching the Superbowl, they'd be kneeling somewhere, giving Allah a handjob 5 times a day.

There.

lazs2 · « **Reply #134 on:** September 06, 2007, 08:40:21 AM »

leadpig.. I don't think we are communicating. I will try again. We are killing them and we are bankrupting them in a place of our choosing and the sadman is not working on nukes again.

The best scenario in my opinion is that we divide the country into 2 or three chunks with one constitution and we stay long enough for the government to build their security forces and then let them use their methods for taking out the terrorists.

To run away is not really a tactic or plan. I can't help but think that the plan of "run away run away" will do much for making us more secure in the world.

We already have plenty of would be rulers saying to their people that the vietcong kicked the USA's butt and that we are just a bunch of soft, womanly socialist democrats with no real will to fight.

They may even be right. I don't think so tho. Running away and then saying that you only ran away because you didn't like the way the whole thing started is still..... running away... it will be seen as nothing more nor less than that... than what it is.... running away.

lazs