Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Bodhi on February 16, 2007, 03:29:05 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070216/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
It seems that the democrats have yet again continued with their contempt and hate for everything American in their attempt to wrongly rebuke the President.
They (democrats) are so intent in their blind hatred that in their attempt to rebuke President Bush, that their massive waste of time is only going to ensure that the terrorists see alight at the end of the dark tunnel. They have also rebuked the new Commander in Iraq even after agreeing on his appointment and his plan. Furthermore, their "non-binding" waste of time rebuke will further endanger our troops as the terrorists push to make a rise in death and injury toll so they can manipulate the democrats even further.
Look out, Al Quaida in America has finally opened for business, and it is called the Democratic Party.
-
nice 1:aok
-
(http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/4300/4320/fishing_1_th.gif)
-
It is even worse than it might appear when you realize the handsomehunkocrats have opposed the "surge" after the fact. The surge is already on, and showing results. The handsomehunkocrats, in an almost traitorous action, have basically rendered aid and moral support to the terrorists and the insurgents who are slaughtering innocent women and children, while at the same time moved to demoralize our troops who are everyday doing their duty. Our troops overwhelming believe in their mission, and want the support and tools to do the job. The handsomehunkocrats should be ashamed of their playing politics at the cost of so much, and those who voted for them should be ashamed at such a stupid waste of a vote.
It sickens me.
-
I still say nuke em till they glow, then let allah sort them out
-
Yes, they should all be thrown in jail! If they're all made into felons, then they can't vote anymore and won't be able to crash this great nation of ours into the reefs!
-
The way I see it if, Bush Jr. hadn't gotten us into this stupid, idiotic, meat grinder of a war in the first place...
We go after Saddam, who was no threat to this country but yet we only have a token force in Afghanistan going after the true culprits of 9/11 so they can release videos every other month mocking us.
ack-ack
-
17 Repubs voted for it also, considering their knowledge of the state of the war it seems the the thread starter must heve better intel.
Faux news strikes again!
-
I say the whole Government is F*** upped. All they care about is Polls, Polls, Polls, and who controls office. Its time for a new party that only cares about polls so they can support the good for the people of the United States. Don't you guys notice all all these people that run for different offices support the war for Iraq, then when it gets closer to the elections for the senate they all start anti Bush anti Iraq just so they can get high on the Polls so they can control the government. Its F*** upped. They go for whats good for America, but then when the election seasons come along the Dems and Reps always turn against each other just to get Polls, Polls, Polls, and control, control, control of the Government.
Saddam may have not been a threat to us but he was a threat to our allies, and I personaly don't see anything wrong in defending our allies.
Tell me is it bad to try to give people freedom.
I want to know this question. How many of you knew where Iraq was before the first or second gulf war. How many of you knew how Saddam got his power. I bet only 40% or less of Americans knew that stuff before we went to both of the wars expecially this one.
This is just a funny question I have to ask. Everyday Americans complain about oil prices. They want the government to lower oil/gas prices or drill for more. Now heres the funny part. Alot of people say we went to Iraq for "Oil" when everday there complaining about the oil/gas prices in America. Don't you see that if we did go to Iraq for oil then we would actually have cheaper gas. (I can't explain more words on this one and I hope you people actually understand what I'm talking about.)
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
17 Repubs voted for it also, considering their knowledge of the state of the war it seems the the thread starter must heve better intel.
Faux news strikes again!
I can't help it is there are 246 imbeciles in the House.
-
I think every Iraqi involved in 9-11 should hanged... then shot!
Anybody got a name?
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I can't help it is there are 246 imbeciles in the House.
So, you're saying that you have more knowledge of the war than 246 of our representitives and therefore they are stupid?
< Voice of God from Cosby's Noah >
Yeah, RIGHT!
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
So, you're saying that you have more knowledge of the war than 246 of our representitives and therefore they are stupid?
< Voice of God from Cosby's Noah >
Yeah, RIGHT!
If they know so squealing much, why not just vote to deny funding of the surge?
Why waste time voting on a non-binding resolution that does absolutely nothing?
I'll tell you why, they are too chicken S#$@ to do anything they may be held accountable for.
This vote did nothing productive...nothing.
It's all poltical posturing and sends a bad message to our enemies. Not to mention the negative message it sends to our brave men and women serving in our armed forces.
If these career politicians want to make a difference they would vote on something that would actually do something. They will not becasue they cannot jepordize their position by putting their name on something that might come back to bite them in the ass.
-
Originally posted by VooWho
Saddam may have not been a threat to us but he was a threat to our allies, and I personaly don't see anything wrong in defending our allies.
Tell me is it bad to try to give people freedom.
Who was he threatening? He was not a threat to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria, Jordan or Iran. Militarily, he was incapable of any offensive actions against any of those countries and if he did manage to mass enough forces, they would have been destroyed before they even reached the borders by our planes.
But he along with his cronies felt that Iraq would be a cake walk and deceived the American public into thinking that Iraq was a legitimate threat to this country and a major sponsor of terrorist groups, especially Al-Queda because they thought that Afghanistan would be a meat grinder like it was during the Soviet occupation.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I can't help it is there are 246 imbeciles in the House.
And one major Jackazz in the White House.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
So, you're saying that you have more knowledge of the war than 246 of our representitives and therefore they are stupid?
< Voice of God from Cosby's Noah >
Yeah, RIGHT!
Nope, I just have more common sense.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Who was he threatening? He was not a threat to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria, Jordan or Iran.
saddam started a war with iran and invaded kuwait,
stupid people bore me.
-
We go after Saddam, who was no threat to this country b
Bzzzzzzt wrong
-
Originally posted by john9001
saddam started a war with iran and invaded kuwait,
stupid people bore me.
lol, yeah, and who wants to start a war with Iran now?
*yawn*
-
I have a really stupid idea here, if were not going to support a surge in Iraq , can we at least keep supporting the troops that are already there?
Lets not forget that the college educated morons in DC just might screw up and cut all support by mistake or design and leave half of our Army over there alone with no way out.
-
Originally posted by john9001
saddam started a war with iran and invaded kuwait,
stupid people bore me.
The war with Iran was in 1979 and the invasion of Kuwait was in 1991. Since then, we virtually destroyed his army. He had virtually no air force since 1991, with the exception of helicopters. After the First Gulf War and the subsequent strikes we did against his regime throughtout the '90s, his army could not conduct major offensive operations that would make him a threat outside of Iraq. The only thing his army could do was keep order within the country.
As to your little flip comment, I guess you must be really bored with your life.
ack-ack
-
It's all been about Iran now they are surrounded.........
-
(http://www.ocblog.net/photos/uncategorized/pelosi.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
The war with Iran was in 1979 and the invasion of Kuwait was in 1991.
Get your facts straight. The Iran - Iraq war started in September, 1980 and ended in August, 1988.
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Since then, we virtually destroyed his army. He had virtually no air force since 1991, with the exception of helicopters.
Well, according to your estimates, then the troops that invaded in 2003 should have not had any opposition.
On the contrary, we destroyed more tanks, and personnel than in the first Gulf War. To top that off, we destryed post Gulf War French mobile anti aircraft missile launchers, new T-80's, new Scud Launchers, and new combat aircraft. All arriving while the Iraqi's were under a morotorium from receiving any military aid.
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
After the First Gulf War and the subsequent strikes we did against his regime throughtout the '90s, his army could not conduct major offensive operations that would make him a threat outside of Iraq. The only thing his army could do was keep order within the country.
Again, you are missing the point. The Iranians were concerned enough to keep combat brigades stationed on his border. The Kuwaiti's continually renewed our basing rights as they were concerned, as was Saudi Arabia. During his post Gulf War 1 recuperation period, he built up his armed forces and continually posed a threat to the region.
-
Bodhi is right. When we envaded Iraq in 2003 some of our troops came across Mig-29s that were either barried or half barried in the sand. They had barried alot of there good equimpent from it being destroyed. I bet you Saddam barried his WMD which are not nukes but chemical or biological weapons.
The only thing thats going to win this war is if the people of the United States stop listening to all the dang politicians and come together and support this war. If that happened we would be home by Christmas as the politicians would say.
-
Originally posted by dmf
I have a really stupid idea here, if were not going to support a surge in Iraq , can we at least keep supporting the troops that are already there?
Lets not forget that the college educated morons in DC just might screw up and cut all support by mistake or design and leave half of our Army over there alone with no way out.
DMF,
Extraction is not really an issue. How fast it happens and under what conditions, IE under fire or not, are issues. If funding is cut for continued operations the troops would be extracted before the previously allocated funds were all expended.
The cost for that kind of return before there is any stability at all is another issue but that will likely be a domestic expense responding to attacks here.
-
I read somewhere that there is more support for gay marriage in your country than for your president.(approval ratings)
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070216/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
It seems that the democrats have yet again continued with their contempt and hate for everything American in their attempt to wrongly rebuke the President.
They (democrats) are so intent in their blind hatred that in their attempt to rebuke President Bush, that their massive waste of time is only going to ensure that the terrorists see alight at the end of the dark tunnel. They have also rebuked the new Commander in Iraq even after agreeing on his appointment and his plan. Furthermore, their "non-binding" waste of time rebuke will further endanger our troops as the terrorists push to make a rise in death and injury toll so they can manipulate the democrats even further.
Look out, Al Quaida in America has finally opened for business, and it is called the Democratic Party.
What terrorists?
-
Originally posted by Dago
It is even worse than it might appear when you realize the handsomehunkocrats have opposed the "surge" after the fact. The surge is already on, and showing results. The handsomehunkocrats, in an almost traitorous action, have basically rendered aid and moral support to the terrorists and the insurgents who are slaughtering innocent women and children, while at the same time moved to demoralize our troops who are everyday doing their duty. Our troops overwhelming believe in their mission, and want the support and tools to do the job. The handsomehunkocrats should be ashamed of their playing politics at the cost of so much, and those who voted for them should be ashamed at such a stupid waste of a vote.
It sickens me.
What terrorists?
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
The way I see it if, Bush Jr. hadn't gotten us into this stupid, idiotic, meat grinder of a war in the first place...
We go after Saddam, who was no threat to this country but yet we only have a token force in Afghanistan going after the true culprits of 9/11 so they can release videos every other month mocking us.
ack-ack
You noticed that too hunh?
-
Originally posted by john9001
saddam started a war with iran and invaded kuwait,
stupid people bore me.
You bore yourself. Read up on who supported Iraqs war with Iran.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Get your facts straight. The Iran - Iraq war started in September, 1980 and ended in August, 1988.
Well, according to your estimates, then the troops that invaded in 2003 should have not had any opposition.
On the contrary, we destroyed more tanks, and personnel than in the first Gulf War. To top that off, we destryed post Gulf War French mobile anti aircraft missile launchers, new T-80's, new Scud Launchers, and new combat aircraft. All arriving while the Iraqi's were under a morotorium from receiving any military aid.
Again, you are missing the point. The Iranians were concerned enough to keep combat brigades stationed on his border. The Kuwaiti's continually renewed our basing rights as they were concerned, as was Saudi Arabia. During his post Gulf War 1 recuperation period, he built up his armed forces and continually posed a threat to the region.
Whats this have to do with the democrats supporting terrorists? What terrorists are the democrats supporting?
-
We need to pull all our troops out of Iraq and then test out our newest germ warfare in that region, while banning all flights from there as well. Then in a few years we can send all our illegals there to work the oil fields for two cents a day and mine the border between the U.S. and mexico.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
I read somewhere that there is more support for gay marriage in your country than for your president.(approval ratings)
I read somewhere that there are even more people who don't care what canadians think than support the president (approval ratings). now go have a nice juicy American beefsteak.
-
Hahah, anyone afraid of Iraqs military post-Gulf War knows nothing about military matters.
According to the late Col. David Hackworth, morale and training in the post Gulf War Iraqi army was very low. While on paper the army seemed to have teeth, in reality it was 1/3rd of it original size. He cited the example that the tanks the Iraqis were using were not even bore sighted.
-
When the region falls apart gas will go to 5 or six bucks a gallon.
I know the democrats in power would like that but I doubt that the American people will..
I bet the "polls" would be a lot different if the question were asked... "would you like to see the U.S. pull out of the region even if it meant $6 a gallon gas?"
I am curious as to how passionate people really are about getting out of the war... I mean... it doesn't affect us much and the economy is good and no people are being forced to fight in it that don't want to.. No one is being dragged off the street and sent there to fight. surprisingly few kids who joined before the war to get bennies are upset they have to go even.
so where is the outrage over the war coming from and just how passionate is it?
lazs
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
What terrorists?
insurgents = terrorists
Don't mince words, you look like the imbeciles in the American AlQuaida
-
this seems to be turning into a bash fest
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Hahah, anyone afraid of Iraqs military post-Gulf War knows nothing about military matters.
According to the late Col. David Hackworth, morale and training in the post Gulf War Iraqi army was very low. While on paper the army seemed to have teeth, in reality it was 1/3rd of it original size. He cited the example that the tanks the Iraqis were using were not even bore sighted.
Never seen any quotes by Hackworth saying the Iraqi's had a tootless army. Please provide a link to it.
As for you saying that the Iraqi Army was toothless, how do you explain the large scale battles in the North Part of the country and when the Coalition reached Karbala, Najaf, Nasiriyah, Basra, and many other places?
Is it your intent to say those hard fought battles are less meaningful because the Iraqi Army is toothless? Do you hate our troops over there Aquashrimp? Why are you continually demeaning their accomplishments and hard work?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
When the region falls apart gas will go to 5 or six bucks a gallon.
I know the democrats in power would like that but I doubt that the American people will..
I bet the "polls" would be a lot different if the question were asked... "would you like to see the U.S. pull out of the region even if it meant $6 a gallon gas?"
I am curious as to how passionate people really are about getting out of the war... I mean... it doesn't affect us much and the economy is good and no people are being forced to fight in it that don't want to.. No one is being dragged off the street and sent there to fight. surprisingly few kids who joined before the war to get bennies are upset they have to go even.
so where is the outrage over the war coming from and just how passionate is it?
lazs
It would be a good poll Lazs, but it will never happen.
The liberals in American Al Quaida will never allow their true colors to be seen, or that this whole opposition to our fight in Iraq and their (the liberals) continual erosion of support for our troops is a ploy on their (the liberals) politcal power grab within our government. They have done it before and are trying to do it again.
They (the liberals) should be considered treasonous bastards and hung for aiding an enemy during times of war.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I am curious as to how passionate people really are about getting out of the war... I mean... it doesn't affect us much and the economy is good and no people are being forced to fight in it that don't want to.. No one is being dragged off the street and sent there to fight. surprisingly few kids who joined before the war to get bennies are upset they have to go even.
so where is the outrage over the war coming from and just how passionate is it?
lazs
This is either sad sarcasm or the absolute dumbest assinine POS I have ever read.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
It would be a good poll Lazs, but it will never happen.
The liberals in American Al Quaida will never allow their true colors to be seen, or that this whole opposition to our fight in Iraq and their (the liberals) continual erosion of support for our troops is a ploy on their (the liberals) politcal power grab within our government. They have done it before and are trying to do it again.
They (the liberals) should be considered treasonous bastards and hung for aiding an enemy during times of war.
Good grief man, put the bong down. Can you back up any of this with common sense or you just spew whatever youre spinal chord is misfiring at the moment?
-
Forget if you supported invading Iraq or not, 'cause that really isn't the issue.
What is at issue is how ineptly the war has been handled by the White House. You'd have to be insane to think things are going well there. You'd be even crazier to believe the White House has any real idea of how to end it. So... how long do you (Congress) keep writing blank checks to Bush to sustain a listless effort to conclude the war?
Bush has let us all down. If it has to be the Democrats to point out the obvious, then let it be. The Republicans don't seem interested in holding Bush accountable for the money he's spending, or the lives being wasted. And it's not on a poor cause necessarily, but gross incompetence makes the difference moot.
-
whitehawk... what do you object to?
maybe you are very passionate about getting out of iraq. I don't believe that most people are. I was around for another war that was unpopular by the polls...
People were indeed very passionate over it... not just the news.. the people.. the people rioted and demonstrated... not just some sad crazy lady and a few dozen others but millions. That was passion. I don't see it here.. it is like..."should we quit spending money on this loser of a war or not?" so far as the polls are concerned...
If the region were controled by one or two countries like Iran... say they controlled 80% of the oil... what do you think the price at the pump would do?
If the poll question was now... "are you willing to see a doubling or more of gas prices in order to get out of iraq." What would the polls say?
How passionate would the people who are "against" the war now be? Would the talking heads have the sway over them that their pocketbooks would?
lazs
-
Not only in the Senete and in the rest of the forum world.... how many of them have seen war? How many have been shot at, IED's going off around thier heads, mortars dropping on camp in the middle of the night... or better yet while your in the shower! How many in here, in AH have been deployed during this war? Anyone who has not been 'over there' doesn't know everything about the war... they know what they see on t.v. and read in the papers. And we all know what the news journalist did for wars. :rolleyes: How many have lost a friend over there? How many know what really goes on over there? Who's seen someone die over there? I am fine with some opinions from people, but when were told that "We as America" need to stay there, they should really step back and think about it. In some of the situations over there, what would you do? I as well as a few others in AH have been there, have seen death and realized... this is not for oil, it is to help out another country and for what reason that is I am not too sure. Ask someone that is in charge over there and see what they say for our reason to be there still. How many people need to die that are fighting for a cause unknown? How many people like Shifty's son, Thomas, need be be hurt before we realize it is turning into a lost cause and a blood bath. I am losing faith in the US leaders and losing my ambition to fight for the cause... whatever it is. Makes me want to take up plot next to SirLoin in Canada and get away from the headache of constant war for a lost cause. Just my .02 cents...... :noid
-
kieran... things could have been done better.. we even had a commitee to make suggestions.
Soooo.. what is the democrat solution? How would they proceed... cutting funding doesn't seem like much of a solution to me...
So lay it out. What should we do? The sadman had been working on nukes in the past.. he was invading his neighbors on a regular basis and gassing whole groups of people... he wanted more control of the oil resevoirs and was willing to do anything to get it. He killed 300,000 or more of his people in a reign of terror.
Now... what should we have done about all that?
My point is that Bush was between a rock and a hard place and that he made the best decison.. but like all politicians.. he can't run a war. shoulda done a better job... not sure anyone coulda done a lot better but... he coulda done better.
Now we are stuck where we are. Where do we go from here? It is easy to criticize but I want solutions.
Will the democrats come up with a solution and then take responsibility for what it brings? Hardly.. much easier to sit on the sidelines and criticize the details.
I have no respect for them... they had no plan when it all went down and they have no plan now.
lazs
-
Lazs,
Let me say that I am not necessarily against the war. I am becoming more and more anti-Bush, because he is showing he cannot lead. The choice you are presenting me is to ride the rail car to hell with Bush or side with people with no plan of their own.
Tough choice...
But are those really my only options? What's wrong with pulling the reigns in on Bush and saying "Before we give you another nickel, how 'bout you show us a real, workable plan to conclude this effort?" or "Before the money flows again, show us evidence that you are paying attention to and learning from your generals in the field, and are actually using their input to modify your plans?" Seems like that would be a fair thing to do.
I mean, look at it. How many of our leaders are resigning in disgust over the conduct of this conflict? How many of them have to come out and say we are screwing up before we finally say to ourselves, "Hey, we're screwing up!"
Democrats will serve their purpose one way or another. Either they will come up with a plan of their own, or they will force Bush and Co. to come forward with a realistic and doable plan for Iraq.
So... what's your thought? Think Bush is doing a great job? Think we just need to ride it out?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Tough choice...
Democrats will serve their purpose one way or another. Either they will come up with a plan of their own,
the democrats do have a plan, RUN AWAY RUN AWAY.
and of course TAKE BACK THE WHITE HOUSE.
-
In typical bas Bush fashion, I seem to recall it was the dems that said we needed more troops on the ground early on in the conflict. Using "statements" from military leaders saying Bush was screwing it all up by not having more troops over there.
That was then, this is now.
Now Bush has a plan that he did not come up with alone. Hell, increasing the troop level was even a recomendation in that Iraq Study Group Report.
It comes down to this....no matter was Bush does it will always be wrong in the eyes of the dems.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If the region were controled by one or two countries like Iran... say they controlled 80% of the oil... what do you think the price at the pump would do?
lazs
So you are for sending these kids to die for the price of oil? That's ****ed up
-
kieran... I thought we just had a commitee that investigated the whole thing?
Seems that they recomended that we send more troops to hot spot areas and especially bagdad?
seems like Bush just fired the general and got a new one. Seems Bush is doing something while the democrats.... well... What are they doing?
I don't think a really detailed plan would be more benifet to us than to the enemy do you? Should we have published the D day invasion of normandy before we spent all that money on it? talked it over so to speak?
I like the way the country is going... the war not so much.. we need a good general who can get things done... we need to get the iraqis to get in gear..
in retrospect we should have left some of their military and police in place... we did that with germany's SS scum and it worked but...
Can you imagine the field day the democrats and weepy talking heads woulda had over that one?
lazs
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Hahah, anyone afraid of Iraqs military post-Gulf War knows nothing about military matters.
According to the late Col. David Hackworth, morale and training in the post Gulf War Iraqi army was very low. While on paper the army seemed to have teeth, in reality it was 1/3rd of it original size. He cited the example that the tanks the Iraqis were using were not even bore sighted.
I'd like to see this as well.
Claiming the tanks were not boresighted is kinda hard to swallow. You see that is a routine crew function and does not require much in the way of equipment. The only way for an outsider (non crewmember) to confirm that is to jump in the tank and check it with the equipment in use. I find it very difficult to believe that Hackworth did anything like that. Especially for all the tanks that were taken out during combat.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
whitehawk... what do you object to?
maybe you are very passionate about getting out of iraq. I don't believe that most people are. I was around for another war that was unpopular by the polls...
People were indeed very passionate over it... not just the news.. the people.. the people rioted and demonstrated... not just some sad crazy lady and a few dozen others but millions. That was passion. I don't see it here.. it is like..."should we quit spending money on this loser of a war or not?" so far as the polls are concerned...
If the region were controled by one or two countries like Iran... say they controlled 80% of the oil... what do you think the price at the pump would do?
If the poll question was now... "are you willing to see a doubling or more of gas prices in order to get out of iraq." What would the polls say?
How passionate would the people who are "against" the war now be? Would the talking heads have the sway over them that their pocketbooks would?
lazs
At least you admit that its an oil war and not some 'free the poor iraqi man from the mean ole terrorist' gig. So game over. You talk about democracy and social programs for the poor iraqi man like a good little Bush stooge, and I will talk about the endless Oil war conspiracy theory. I passionatly object to the endless Oil wars that are going to take place and I want the troops out. I dont trust that bush or cheney or any of the other idiots are out for the interest of the american above the interest of the companies that they represent. If I beleived that there was no way that the US could develope and distribute an alternative fuel if they would spend the money and manpower that they spent and are going to spend in the oil wars, then maybe I would feel different.
-
The Imbeciles have spoken.
Actually, I thought this was an accurate assesment of the last election when voters allowed the handsomehunkocrats to take over the Congress.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
In typical bas Bush fashion, I seem to recall it was the dems that said we needed more troops on the ground early on in the conflict. Using "statements" from military leaders saying Bush was screwing it all up by not having more troops over there.
That was then, this is now.
Now Bush has a plan that he did not come up with alone. Hell, increasing the troop level was even a recomendation in that Iraq Study Group Report.
It comes down to this....no matter was Bush does it will always be wrong in the eyes of the dems.
Your so right.
The Dems will do any thing just to get office even if it means bashing Bush when they said "Send more troops Mr.Bush" I done listening to all parties. There all just wanted power and don't care about what the American People have to say.
I truly think the polls about staying or leaving Iraq should be based on the everday soldier over there. The soldiers are the ones that know 100% what goes on. Then the Politions know about 90% what goes on. The media knows about 85% what goes on and the American people only know 10% what goes on. The desicion to stay or leave should be based on the soldiers. If soldiers don't like the war then why don't they have a mass protest. Its not like the government would hang half the army then just start a draft. They would listen to the soldiers.
-
Not to put too fine a point on things, but consider there's a timing issue involved. More troops in the beginning to do the job is smart; throwing more troops into the cauldron now may not be. Shock and awe warfare works best when it is overwhelming from the beginning. We had the intitiative, but lost it. Can we regain it? Almost certainly, but will sending 20,000 more troops do it? I doubt it.
The numbers Bush critics tossed out before the war were roughly double what Bush said was necessary. It turns out the critics were right. Now, because the job wasn't done properly in the first place, it may take far more than that number to get it done. Do we have enough troops to do that? Again, I doubt it.
Toss on top of that Iran. It's becoming clear it's something we may have to deal with inasmuch as Iran is spoiling for a fight. We may not get to choose this fight either, because Iran knows our pants are down. You ready for a draft? 'Cause that's what it's going to take to get our troop strength up enough to have wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran.
Finally, there's Bush himself. If he was a strong leader, say a Bush Sr. or Reagan, I'd have no worries. Bush Jr. just doesn't have the brains to see his way through this mess. He's now totally reactive, rather than proactive. I have to admit reactive is better than isolated and inept, but what is he reacting to? Polls. Dammit.
It's come to the point where everything the man touches is turning to mud. I don't want my daughters fighting for a man that has no idea how he wants to do the job. Maybe the next guy/gal will do better, I don't know, but I have completely lost hope Bush can find his butt, much less realize a stable Middle East.
-
Originally posted by VooWho
Your so right.
If soldiers don't like the war then why don't they have a mass protest.
Because at best they would lose pay and grade, at worst a general court.
shamus
-
""cauldron""?
Shirley you exaggerate.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Because at best they would lose pay and grade, at worst a general court.
shamus
Even if half the army did? Would they even do that cuz if they did then they would have to do a draft? This would be something to think about.
-
Originally posted by john9001
""cauldron""?
Shirley you exaggerate.
You been reading about the number of car bombings and subsequent killings? No, I don't exaggerate.
And stop calling me "Shirley".
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Good grief man, put the bong down. Can you back up any of this with common sense or you just spew whatever youre spinal chord is misfiring at the moment?
Can you come up with something better than personal attacks?
Come on, provide a plan to win the war over in Iraq. You liberals are so fuming mad about the war, and so hard to take over power, but not a one of you has come up with an alternative other than cut and run. I will not accept that.
I'm not sorry that I am not a quitter. I will continue to support our President who I feel has a much longer range goal and vision than the polls for the next election. My view of his tactics and direction are an end to the terrorism in the Iraq and Afganistan areas. I also feel a win there would send a message to the terrorists that says fighting the US is not worth it.
The sad part is that this nation is full of people who lack the vision to see past the end of their own little world and through them, power hungry members of Al Quaida America (aka the Democrats) are struggling to take control of power in the US. My feeling is that they are trying to do so that they can push their liberal agenda of the UN.
That is something I will not accept or tolerate.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Can you come up with something better than personal attacks?
Come on, provide a plan to win the war over in Iraq. You liberals are so fuming mad about the war, and so hard to take over power, but not a one of you has come up with an alternative other than cut and run. I will not accept that.
I'm not sorry that I am not a quitter. I will continue to support our President who I feel has a much longer range goal and vision than the polls for the next election. My view of his tactics and direction are an end to the terrorism in the Iraq and Afganistan areas. I also feel a win there would send a message to the terrorists that says fighting the US is not worth it.
The sad part is that this nation is full of people who lack the vision to see past the end of their own little world and through them, power hungry members of Al Quaida America (aka the Democrats) are struggling to take control of power in the US. My feeling is that they are trying to do so that they can push their liberal agenda of the UN.
That is something I will not accept or tolerate.
Bohdi, the only way to win the war in Iraq is the ethnic cleansing of all that oppose the govt that the US supports. This is not a war, but an attempted occupation. There are no terrorists in iraq other than the Bush boogeymen he uses to manipulate the simple minded. Terrorists do not attack military targets, opposing armies do. You get out your browser and read up on what a rebel army is, what a civil war is, what an occupying force is, and what a terrorist is and tell me what terrorists we are fighting in iraq.
BUsh's long term vision is to capture the oil of the middle east, create mayhem and choas driving the cost of oil and gas through the roof. The politically connected corporations will aquire massive power by the loot of the US treasury to buy thier war machines, finance thier war, and value a gallon of gas with the 25% 'fear factor' premium.
You can see where us dumb liberals get confused as the war in Iraq's goal was to dissarm saddam of WMD's. I am glad you have some deep inside info to give you comfort, I am skeptical. Its time to show some results. Killing saddam was pure and simple murder because he was innocent of the charges. You tell us dumb liberals, before the invasion, was the Iraqi people better off? Was there any significant terrorist threat to the US in Iraq? Did the peopel of Iraq give any indication of wanting a western style govt there? Enough is enough, step back and take a look.
-
By the sound of this the Reps think there right and the Dems think there right and both don't agree on anything so my conclusion is there both wrong.
All the only thing the Iraqi insurgents need to do to get the U.S. out faster is to stop attacking U.S. troops and just let us say, "Oh we got rid of the insurgents now we can leave", then leave and they can do what ever they want after that. I am truly going to go to Iraq and personaly tell them that. If they don't like that, will then they can just capture me and cut my head off.
-
Whitehawk,
I don't think I would ever apply the word "innocent" to SD. Plenty of blood on his hands.
Bodhi,
There has to be an end to blindly following the president. Lock-step mentality is a dangerous thing. As for Bush's "vision", I'd say he's outlined broad points at best, but there is no clear path to get to them. The status quo isn't going to cut it, and this isn't a problem where simply throwing more troops and money at it will solve everything. I want to win, too, but ignoring the evidence before us is foolish.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Bohdi, the only way to win the war in Iraq is the ethnic cleansing of all that oppose the govt that the US supports. This is not a war, but an attempted occupation. There are no terrorists in iraq other than the Bush boogeymen he uses to manipulate the simple minded. Terrorists do not attack military targets, opposing armies do. You get out your browser and read up on what a rebel army is, what a civil war is, what an occupying force is, and what a terrorist is and tell me what terrorists we are fighting in iraq.
BUsh's long term vision is to capture the oil of the middle east, create mayhem and choas driving the cost of oil and gas through the roof. The politically connected corporations will aquire massive power by the loot of the US treasury to buy thier war machines, finance thier war, and value a gallon of gas with the 25% 'fear factor' premium.
You can see where us dumb liberals get confused as the war in Iraq's goal was to dissarm saddam of WMD's. I am glad you have some deep inside info to give you comfort, I am skeptical. Its time to show some results. Killing saddam was pure and simple murder because he was innocent of the charges. You tell us dumb liberals, before the invasion, was the Iraqi people better off? Was there any significant terrorist threat to the US in Iraq? Did the peopel of Iraq give any indication of wanting a western style govt there? Enough is enough, step back and take a look.
I didn't want to get into this thread, but this post is so ridiculous that I just have to refute some of the more silly statements...
1. There are no terrorists in iraq other than the Bush boogeymen he uses to manipulate the simple minded. Terrorists do not attack military targets, opposing armies do.
OK - so when OBL, Zawahiri, and the rest of the Al-Queda in Iraq types tell you in taped messages that Iraq is the central front in the war and call for Jihad against western interests, they are part of the vast global right-wing conspiracy to dupe us into thinking there are terrorists in Iraq when there really aren't any? Oh, and when suicide bombers are blowing up mosques, restaurants, and day-labor centers - those are "military targets" of a rebel army? Yeah, right....
2. You can see where us dumb liberals get confused as the war in Iraq's goal was to dissarm saddam of WMD's.
Hindsight is always 20-20 isn't it? Lets see, Saddam gasses Iranians and Kurdish villages, but you can assume back in 2002 that he doesn't have poison gas anymore. He had 500 TONS of yellow cake uranium being watched over by IAEA inspectors since 1992, some of already highly-enriched, but you can just assume that he's not really wanting to get nuclear weapons. Like Iran, I suppose he was just working on a "peaceful nuclear program". Yeah, right...
3. Killing saddam was pure and simple murder because he was innocent of the charges. You tell us dumb liberals, before the invasion, was the Iraqi people better off?
Innocent? The man gassed Kurdish villages killing women and children, not to mention 300,000 dead Shia, the rape of Kuwait, and a prison-state featuring rape-rooms and children being held as hostages. Innocent? Are you kidding? By your thinking I suppose Hitler would've been innocent too - Gee, he didn't actually gas anyone himself, and I don't think he shot anybody personally, so I guess he would've been found innocent in your court.
Better off? You think you'd be better off living with the threat of some maniacs setting off a car-bomb on the street, or with the threat of the police showing up to kill you and cart your daughter off to a rape-room?
As it is now, most of the violence is confined to just 3 of 18 Iraqi provinces - Baghdad, Al-Anbar, and Salaheddin. 15 of 18 provinces are relatively peaceful and I don't think we're seeing a lot of Iraqis going into mass graves these days. Pull a few internet pics of Saddam's mass graves and then tell me how "innocent" he was, or how the Iraqi people were better off under his regime.
4. Did the peopel of Iraq give any indication of wanting a western style govt there?
Gee, I don't think so - probably because anyone who spoke out against Saddams' regime would end up dead. See #3 above. Of course the Iraqis here in this country seemed to think that we needed to get rid of Saddam, but I guess they were just part of GW Bush's plan to control world oil. Yeah, right....
5. Was there any significant terrorist threat to the US in Iraq?
Was Saddam supporting terrorism? Damn right he was. $25,000 payments to the families of suicide bombers, safe haven for terrorists like Abu Nidal, links to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the plot to assassinate George Bush in 1993 - there was plenty of evidence that Saddam was supporting terrorism, and plenty of provocation for us to step in and remove him.
Wake up and smell what you're shovelin'
:noid
-
Originally posted by VooWho
Even if half the army did? Would they even do that cuz if they did then they would have to do a draft? This would be something to think about.
I really doubt that you would find a large percentage of the guy's in the military that would be willing to risk their pensions or freedom over Iraq, even if they were dead set against it.
Protests in the military are frowned upon.
shamus
-
This thread is incredible ......
Here a BBS member who has been in Iraq and even he doesn't know why he was there ..I as well as a few others in AH have been there, have seen death and realized... this is not for oil, it is to help out another country and for what reason that is I am not too sure. Ask someone that is in charge over there and see what they say for our reason to be there still. How many people need to die that are fighting for a cause unknown? How many people like Shifty's son, Thomas, need be be hurt before we realize it is turning into a lost cause and a blood bath. I am losing faith in the US leaders and losing my ambition to fight for the cause... whatever it is. Makes me want to take up plot next to SirLoin in Canada and get away from the headache of constant war for a lost cause. Just my .02 cents
And his post has been conveniently ignored.
Bodhi - we (the US and UK) aren't fighting Al-Queda in Iraq - we ARE fighting them in Afghnaistan. We ARE in the middle of a civil war between Sunni and Shia of various factions which we kicked off by ousting Saddam. The reality of politics and power in an Islamic region was completely mis-read by the Bush administration. Anyone who still clings on to the belief that the occupation is there to set up a democratically elected government of the people is seriously naive. The Shia majority now has the power and the US government has decided it must align itself with the Shia faction it believes has the best chance of maitaining control and which is pro-west. The "surge" is not targeting Al Queda but is primarily to gain control of Baghdad - which is largely in control of Muqtada Al Sadr - a rival extremist Shia who opposes the moderate Shia government. Bodhi you need to read more .... read about the daily large scale battles between the Taliban and UK / Canadian forces in Helmand province. Read about the power struggle between Sunni and Shia across the middle east; the swing that Al Queda has done to keep support and finance flowing.
Sketch - I'm sorry but this war IS about oil - Lazs points out the reasons. If this was truly about freeing a people from tyranny then why don't we have forces of occupation in Zimbabwe, Sudan, Chad, Chezchnia etc. Oil is the single most valuable resource to control in the world. China is securing it's supplies in Africa and the former Soviet states while we try to control a civil war in the Middle East - who are the smart ones ???
Extremist Islam expansion and Middle East oil - two separate issues that our politicians would like you to believe are one and the same ....... they aren't.
-
Sparks,
I agree with you on many parts in there because it is true on what you say where the war is... But with the life I lived there as well as many others in here, I would rather pay $5 for a gallon of gas than lose any more friends... but like I said, it is just my .02 cents. At least you read my post.... :aok
-
Originally posted by Sparks
Bodhi - we (the US and UK) aren't fighting Al-Queda in Iraq - we ARE fighting them in Afghnaistan.
Well how come we keep shooting Al-Queda leaders in Iraq?
-
well.. to say that we are not there for our own interests would be stupid.. to say that we are only there for the oil is just as stupid.
We are fighting terrorists there.. we have to fight em and kill em someplace.. iraq is a very good place to do it if you don't live there. We are killing some of the most seriously insane islamofacists the world has ever seen.
we are giving a bit of freedom to people there.. and... we are protecting the region and our oil interests. We are doing all those things.. not just one but all of em. We need to do all of em.. if we don't do it now.. we will have to do it latter.
It is too bad we couldn't most of the world to agree that it needs to be done but... let's face it... they have no real power in any case other than to talk talk talk.. most of the countries with the biggest mouth are impotent and useless in the war on terror in any case... their suggestion is to just fold like a cheap card table under a fat lady.... like they do.
They are criticizing us while their cities breed muslims who will not integrate into their societies... at some point.. they will be overwhelmed.. but for now.. appeasment works.. a few more years of uneasy peace is enough for such socialist impotent places.
If we were half as evil as they make out... we would run the region and be selling everyone else oil at 200 bucks a barrel.
lazs
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Bohdi, the only way to win the war in Iraq is the ethnic cleansing of all that oppose the govt that the US supports. This is not a war, but an attempted occupation. There are no terrorists in iraq other than the Bush boogeymen he uses to manipulate the simple minded. Terrorists do not attack military targets, opposing armies do. You get out your browser and read up on what a rebel army is, what a civil war is, what an occupying force is, and what a terrorist is and tell me what terrorists we are fighting in iraq.
BUsh's long term vision is to capture the oil of the middle east, create mayhem and choas driving the cost of oil and gas through the roof. The politically connected corporations will aquire massive power by the loot of the US treasury to buy thier war machines, finance thier war, and value a gallon of gas with the 25% 'fear factor' premium.
You can see where us dumb liberals get confused as the war in Iraq's goal was to dissarm saddam of WMD's. I am glad you have some deep inside info to give you comfort, I am skeptical. Its time to show some results. Killing saddam was pure and simple murder because he was innocent of the charges. You tell us dumb liberals, before the invasion, was the Iraqi people better off? Was there any significant terrorist threat to the US in Iraq? Did the peopel of Iraq give any indication of wanting a western style govt there? Enough is enough, step back and take a look.
If you are ignorant enough to believe there are no terrorists in Iraq and that terrorists will not attack a military target, then there is nothing anyone is going to say that you will understand.
I am done dignifying you with any type of a response.
-
Sparks,
Your very first portion of your response was wrong. We are, and have been daily fighting the terrorist group Al Quaida in Iraq. It was prominent two days ago on all major news networks that the Iraqi's had killed the #2 man, and thought to have wounded the #1 man. I am glad that we are also fighting in Afganistan. It is a major part of the war. Excuse me though if I do not feel the need to use capitalised bold words to express myself.
As for the war being about oil, well, I think it is more about stability and safety. As long as religous extremist nut bags are in power in the middle east, they will use their money (gained through oil) to support the terrorist groups that are hell bent on attacking western civilizations that they believe are wrong and need to destroy.
We are right to have gone into Iraq. I do not believe we are in a "civil war" that the liberal newsies and left wing nut jobs claim we are. I believe that terrorist elements sponsored by Al Quaida, Iran, and Syria are hell bent on creating the illusion of a civil war though. The latest push to eradicate the terrorists in Bagdad has been very succesful with a massive drop in civilian casualties as a result. This is because the terrorists are being pushed back, and captured or killed. If we continue this, we will see a dramatic drop in the violence while a country gets back on it's feet!
BTW, one last thing, I do not need to read more. I think on the contray, I need not read what you have been especially considering your statements regarding Iraq.
-
"The Imbeciles have spoken."
Who new that the title was going to be self-referential?....oh wait, I did.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
"The Imbeciles have spoken."
Who new that the title was going to be self-referential?....oh wait, I did.
Nice personal attack. Not that I would expect different from a person of your caliber. Maybe someday you will actually participate in a conversation instead of spewing insults and hate.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
"The Imbeciles have spoken."
Who new that the title was going to be self-referential?....oh wait, I did.
Nice. Personal attacks and then cut and run, without explaning yourself. makes me wonder if all dems are the same?
You are the reason this country is turning to ****. Do not post something if here if you dont have anything to say. Intsead of being a worthless peice of **** and insulting someone you dont even know, try and find a way to stop the war without it coming to bite us on the bellybutton later.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Nice personal attack. Not that I would expect different from a person of your caliber. Maybe someday you will actually participate in a conversation instead of spewing insults and hate.
Bodhi, you titled a thread "The Imbeciles Have Spoken", call the Democratic Party "Al Quaida in America", and then accuse and complain about a poster "spewing insults and hate".
You honestly don't see anything wrong with that, do you?
To tell the truth, I'm surprised this thread wasn't locked.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Good grief man, put the bong down. Can you back up any of this with common sense or you just spew whatever youre spinal chord is misfiring at the moment?
Thank-you White Hawk.
I was going to say something earlier, but it's all so bizarre that I really didn't know what to say.
Something about some people should never learn to type.
WTG
hap
-
I see some of you are catching on to Thrawn, he is all about personal attacks, and very short on anything intelligent to say.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Bodhi, you titled a thread "The Imbeciles Have Spoken", call the Democratic Party "Al Quaida in America", and then accuse and complain about a poster "spewing insults and hate".
You honestly don't see anything wrong with that, do you?
To tell the truth, I'm surprised this thread wasn't locked.
Oboe,
Common Sense ought to tell you that the Democratic Party is full of imbeciles when they try and pull off something like they did in the House, and almost did in the Senate. That type of activity served no other purpose than to help them in the polls, and (hopefully) inadvertently helped the terrorists that are fighting us.
As for AlQuaida America being the Democratic Party, I honestly feel they have something in common as they both seem hell bent on seeing us fail in Iraq.
So, they are not insults, just observations of something that really is happening, and definitely not personal attacks on people here. ;)
-
Originally posted by Hap
Thank-you White Hawk.
I was going to say something earlier, but it's all so bizarre that I really didn't know what to say.
Something about some people should never learn to type.
WTG
hap
Maybe you should come up with a plan to win in Iraq. You people are all the same. When you have nothing better to say, you launch into personal attacks.
Talking about people learning to type... :rolleyes:
-
Bodhi,
Common sense fails me in trying to understand why the Democrats would put energy into a vote over a non-binding resolution. I really don't see what their strategy is, or how they think this might accomplish anything.
Agreed you weren't resorting to personal attacks, but if you go back and read your posts in this thread, there is no doubt you are spewing your own hate and insults.
Honestly, what is so hard about admitting it?
-
Oboe,
Look at it from a politicians point of view. The demos need to make an impact but are still unsure exactly how far they can push their agenda. They are feeling out who will vote how on the subject of iraq.
If they put all their eggs in a basket and try to shut down the war with a funding resolution they know they will look inefective and weak if they can't push it through smoothly in one shot. As a result they take a non binding resolution and run it up the flag pole to see what their real support base is. If it flies they know they can look powerfull and will have a far better chance at succeeding in a real binding resolution. If they fail, they have lost nothing, not even prestige as it was a "do nothing" situation any how. It saved them from failing at doing something of substance which would weaken their power base. Better to fail at nothing than at something.
If they succeed it tends to push more who are waffling in support to their side for a real vote.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Oboe,
Look at it from a politicians point of view. The demos need to make an impact but are still unsure exactly how far they can push their agenda. They are feeling out who will vote how on the subject of iraq.
If they put all their eggs in a basket and try to shut down the war with a funding resolution they know they will look inefective and weak if they can't push it through smoothly in one shot. As a result they take a non binding resolution and run it up the flag pole to see what their real support base is. If it flies they know they can look powerfull and will have a far better chance at succeeding in a real binding resolution. If they fail, they have lost nothing, not even prestige as it was a "do nothing" situation any how. It saved them from failing at doing something of substance which would weaken their power base. Better to fail at nothing than at something.
If they succeed it tends to push more who are waffling in support to their side for a real vote.
Spot on. :aok
-
You're probably right Mav. I guess I disagree with the philosophy that it is better to fail at nothing than something.
I view it as weak and ineffectual *****footing. 'Course I don't think I'd make a very good political consultant.
-
There are strategies and tactics to politics just like any conflict or battlefield. We have tons of armchair generals who like to say they have a solution but when it comes down to actually doing something they lack the moral conscience to put it on the line and do it. It's far far easier to stand behind somebody else doing the job and simply complain. It's another thing to step up and take responsibility for the situation.
-
There's not really much to add here.
Ad hominem attacks are attacks however that's spun. The thread originates as an ad hominem attack on Democrats. Is it surprising that anyone that identifies as Democrat might take umbrage? And really, isn't that part of the point of posting with an inflammatory header? To get a response you can argue against?
Thrawn is a good guy in my book, not that it means anything. I do believe he is honest in his beliefs whether I agree with him or not.
The trouble here is the division between people that believe we must blindly follow the president vs. those that think we shouldn't do anything he says. Unfortunately I believe there are many of us in the middle that aren't on either extreme viewpoint. We get stuck pigeon-holed by those on both sides who need to label those that oppose their viewpoints.
-
Your very first portion of your response was wrong. We are, and have been daily fighting the terrorist group Al Quaida in Iraq. It was prominent two days ago on all major news networks that the Iraqi's had killed the #2 man, and thought to have wounded the #1 man.
Yes there are Al Queda elements in Iraq - along with tens of other Islamic factions hell bent on gaining the power hold on the country. Here is a link to the type of factional fighting we are caught up in-
Soldiers of Heaven (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16961584/site/newsweek/)
Here .Bahgdad Divisions (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14627075/) more about the target of the "surge" - Sadr City - actually a Shia enclave but a stronghold of the Mahdi Army militia loyal to radical *****e cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Supposedly a political sopporter of the elected government but who is rumoured to be in Iran talking to the Iranians - not something the US government is happy with. The US needs the Shia power base on side but not those cosy with Iran - the US needs west friendly Shia and so needs challenges to the government smacked down.
As for the war being about oil, well, I think it is more about stability and safety. As long as religous extremist nut bags are in power in the middle east, they will use their money (gained through oil) to support the terrorist groups that are hell bent on attacking western civilizations that they believe are wrong and need to destroy.
I would agree with that so why the reluctance to act on Iran ? The insurgents in Iraq have no real capability to lanch a mass destruction attack on the west - Iran however does and, by your own argument, it has the oil to pay for it. so how does pouring resource in to Iraq improve our immediate safety and security ?
Actually If things were to kick off in Iran we definitely need the Iraq government on side to base operations in Iraq - hence the support to consolidate a friendly power base in Iraq.
We are right to have gone into Iraq. I do not believe we are in a "civil war" that the liberal newsies and left wing nut jobs claim we are. I believe that terrorist elements sponsored by Al Quaida, Iran, and Syria are hell bent on creating the illusion of a civil war though.
Hell of an illusion ....... 63 killed in market bomb (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5971930/)
The latest push to eradicate the terrorists in Bagdad has been very succesful with a massive drop in civilian casualties as a result. This is because the terrorists are being pushed back, and captured or killed. If we continue this, we will see a dramatic drop in the violence while a country gets back on it's feet!
This is temporary .... and as far as the country getting back on its feet ?? We won't see that in our lifetime.
We support the monarchy in Saudia Arabia from which the original terrorists came from; we support the military dictatorship in Pakistan because they came on side. At the same time we turned our back on Rwanda; we largely turned our back on Yugoslavia and we turn our backs today on Sudan. This is no great philanthropic cause - this is about strategic postion and power over resource.
The Al Queda link - yes there is a faction of Al Queda but it isn't The Al Queda operating under orders from Bin Laden. Look to Pakistan and Afghanistan for the real deal.
And as far as the Reps and Dems ?? The Reps bungle the original mission and then the Dems concentrate on point scoring at home while leaving their young men and women die on the streets of Iraq for an unknown cause - Sketch's words not mine ....... Quality Government.
Oh and the UK government is no better.
Oh and no bold caps this time ................
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Nice personal attack. Not that I would expect different from a person of your caliber. Maybe someday you will actually participate in a conversation instead of spewing insults and hate.
I have participated in numerous threads on this bbs, and attended them with utmost seriousness and honesty. But the absolute hypocrisy of starting a thread whose sole purpose is to hate-spew, and then to cry about personal attacks deserves neither. It deserves derision.
Originally posted by mentalguy
Nice. Personal attacks and then cut and run, without explaning yourself. makes me wonder if all dems are the same?
You are the reason this country is turning to ****.
Thrawn
Senior Member
Registered: Dec 2000
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 6699
Sorry I don't think your automatic pigeon-hole for anyone that you disagree with isn't quite going to work in this case. :aok
Do not post something if here if you dont have anything to say. Intsead of being a worthless peice of **** and insulting someone you dont even know, try and find a way to stop the war without it coming to bite us on the bellybutton later.
...he said, having nothing to say but instead insulting someone he didn't even know.
-
Just out of curiosity.
1) What do you guys feel would be an acceptable set of conditions for the US to leave Iraq and go home?
2) Is that even a possability or realistically achievable goal, or is the US going to be occupiing Iraq for the forseeable future?
3) Conversely, how untenable does the situation have to be before the US Govt. and people say "enough" and leave the area?
4) Is anything short of outright victory acceptable, or is that the only goal worth shooting for regardless of the time and cost?
Pretty much....
1) Define victory in Iraq
2) Is that definition of victory achievable?
3) Define defeat in Iraq
4) If the conditions of Q3 became a reality, would the US leave, or just escalate the conflict untill it was at a level where they had a far greater chance of victory. ie large middle eastern glass parking lot.
I mean to make no great political statement here, nor to upset or offend anyone, I am genuinely interested in the answers I may get to those questions.
-
Pretty much....
1) Define victory in Iraq
2) Is that definition of victory achievable?
3) Define defeat in Iraq
4) If the conditions of Q3 became a reality, would the US leave, or just escalate the conflict untill it was at a level where they had a far greater chance of victory. ie large middle eastern glass parking lot
answers
1) when the terrorists are dead, captured, or have run away.
2) only if the americans have the will to fight.
3) defeat is a democratic victory in 2008.
4) Walter Cronkite would proclaim the tet offensive a victory for the vietcong and the media would show film clips of helicopters evacuating people off of roof tops.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Thrawn
Senior Member
Registered: Dec 2000
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 6699
Sorry I don't think your automatic pigeon-hole for anyone that you disagree with isn't quite going to work in this case. :aok
LOL:lol Its even worse that you're trying to chang OUR politics, things may look bad at the moment, but you have no reason to complain. I honestly dont care what your government does why do you care about mine?
Anyways it, dont matter where you're from, personal attacks are a low thing to do. I dont mean to call a group *******s or dickwads, im talking about to an individual.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I have participated in numerous threads on this bbs, and attended them with utmost seriousness and honesty. But the absolute hypocrisy of starting a thread whose sole purpose is to hate-spew, and then to cry about personal attacks deserves neither. It deserves derision.
Again, you come to a thread, and offer nothing. I never whine about personal attacks. I find them boring and mundane and a indication that the one making the attack has nothing to offer to the thread so they offer rubbish.
As for spewing hate, I am defending my belief about the political mistakes of my country. Something that you have no right to be involved in anyway.
So run along to your land of 49% income tax and bother us no longer, or better yet, petition the UN to have a vote on rebuking my beliefs. :aok
-
Blaming your own people for your failures is a long-standing but increasingly transparent habit of the US right-wing, so no surprises here...
Link (http://harpers.org/StabbedInTheBack.html)
Every state must have its enemies. Great powers must have especially monstrous foes. Above all, these foes must arise from within, for national pride does not admit that a great nation can be defeated by any outside force. That is why, though its origins are elsewhere, the stab in the back has become the sustaining myth of modern American nationalism. Since the end of World War II it has been the device by which the American right wing has both revitalized itself and repeatedly avoided responsibility for its own worst blunders. Indeed, the right has distilled its tale of betrayal into a formula: Advocate some momentarily popular but reckless policy. Deny culpability when that policy is exposed as disastrous. Blame the disaster on internal enemies who hate America. Repeat, always making sure to increase the number of internal enemies.
Quite a long but readable article if you've got the time. History seemingly repeats itself once more.
-
Originally posted by Dago
I see some of you are catching on to Thrawn, he is all about personal attacks, and very short on anything intelligent to say.
:rofl
"On voit la paille dans l'oeil de son voisin, mais pas la poutre dans le sien"
edit : quid autem vides festucam in oculo fratris tui et trabem in oculo tuo non vides
-
real nice straffo. glad you could add something of substance as opposed to insulting Dago.
-
grompf I should go to bed instead of misreading
btw the post I made apply to me too.