Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on June 13, 2007, 11:39:12 PM
-
Geeze, as if their bickering hasn't already provided enough motivation for AQ...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070613203802.7yla5iav&show_article=1
The scary thing for me is that Reid and Pelosi are both going to have Bush looking moderate and reasonable again here in no time. These anti-war democrats really ought to try harder at being relevant and mainstream.
-
Is 31% mainstream?
According to the latest poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm), 67% disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq.
-
what percent of the population voted for failure last Nov. as opposed to a change of course in Iraq, which is what the surge was supposed to do, and in September we are set to get a status report on the surge from Iraq. For Reid and Pelosi to already start claiming failure is a good in your estimation?
-
I t's not current polls that have any relevance..
Only when history starts repeating itself should we be concerned.
-
Oh yeah... Like anything out of "Dingy" Reid and his ilk's mouths is sacred or believable...:rolleyes:
Originally posted by Sandman
Is 31% mainstream?
According to the latest poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm), 67% disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq.
I don't recall the majority of the Nation ever being polled, in any of these *cough* Polls on how the Nation feels.
You really want to know how we're doing over there, then either go there, or talk to the people that are there.
-
If he has to go there to get info on how things are going then may I suggest the Army Public Affairs Media Relations Division is not doing a bangup job. The fact that the US Armed Forces don't brag their butts off how well things are going is in of itself very telling. They don't even seem to try to lie about it like they did in Vietnam.
-
we a mired down in a an unwinnable war. the truth is we are garrissoning a region long known to be troublesome. furthermore this war, like vietnam is being micromanaged by the imbeciles in washington. loss of American life is slight but these insignificant national losses are sometimes monumental personal losses. the softness and me me meness of our society is showing, idiots like pelosi and reid only encourage our opposition. it's time for muadib to release gurney hallek and his atomics. I did not type that, I'm not even here.
-
Now is not the time to go all wobbly on the war. There are signs that the U.S. and Iraqi government are beginning to get a handle on controlling the terrorists. The Kurdish north has been quiet and stable for quite some time, and an experiment in which the incorporation of tribal chieftains' men in the security forces has done much to stabilise another province (Anbar I believe). The U.S. and Iraqi forces have high hopes of expanding that experiment into the other provinces.
Having ridden voter disatisfaction with the war to a political victory in the last congressional election, Pelosi and friends hope to ride the same nag to victory in the 2008 presidential election. To achieve that goal, they must not allow the voting public to see the war as anything but a failure.
Could she and her cohorts have gained control of the government in the absence of the war issue? I serioiusly doubt it. She knows this. Ergo, she bangs the anti-war drum for all its worth, demagoguing one of the least bloody wars in U.S. history into a defeat.
If, as a result, the U.S. begins a precipitate pullout before the job is finished, all the wealth and blood we have expended will have been in vain, and our prestige among our allies will take a hit from which it may never recover.
-
There's a war ?
Heh, we were off to a fine start when rummy was saying that it isn't a war anymore back in may '03.
When an additional "surge" of 20,000 troops is considered a change in strategy you know that the job isn't going to get done. Not with this mentality.
Twenty thousand is rediculous token gesture, we need 15 times that many to secure the populace, which is how to beat an insurgancy. You can't beat an insurgancy with bombs and bullets, you beat the insurgents by making them irrelevant. If you can't secure the towns and thereby secure the confidence of the people then you can't make the insurgency go away.
-
we cannot actually win there unless we are prepared for a millenium of garrissoning that sh i itehole. those folks just don't see the world as you and I do. you need to spend some time speaking with people from that region to get a good understanding of their world view. sadly most of us have no interest in seeing things from another's view.
-
sandie.. what does "dissaprove of the way Bush is handling the war" mean?
Does that mean that 67% think we need more troops or less troops or more gay troops or different uniforms or to bomb the place back to the stone age or...
Does it mean 67% feel we ought to just pack up and leave today and pretend it never happened? What does it mean?
What are some of the solutions that have the support of the majority of the people? is it billarys solution? osamabamas? what exactly are there solutions?
I think things should have been done differently... I don't think we should try to get all the soldiers on the afternoon flight out of there.
lazs
-
Looks like Pelosis' dear friend, the Syrian, is projecting his right to influence politics in Lebanon again....
What a great thing her little trip to Syria was.....
-
Pelosi and Reid told Bush in the letter that they planned to send him new legislation to "limit the US mission in Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of US forces, and bring the war to a responsible end."
I wish that Pelosi and Reid would just die and go away. They are a cancer that is eating at our nation from within. Sadly too damn many sheep continue to vote imbeciles like Pelosi and Reid in.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Is 31% mainstream?
According to the latest poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm), 67% disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq.
The smartest thing in that poll is that 2/3 of those polled think that neither side is winning. Terrorist tactics cannot defeat you militarily, they seek to defeat you by removing your will to fight. Militarily, you can't stomp out the terrorists without stomping out everybody in the area, and we aren't willing to do that because we aren't about to kill the innocents along with the terrorists.
The problem I have with the democrats these days is that their will to fight seems completely linked to the polls, and not in any way linked to the actual situation. In '03, they were all hawks, telling us how we had to do something about Iraq and Saddam, and how dangerous his WMDs were. When we finally captured Saddam, they were all there with their faces in the cameras taking credit for it.
Now that the war is "unpopular", suddenly they are all for getting out, despite the fact that Iran is fomenting instability and civil war all across the region (not just in Iraq). Whether it is fatah and hamas fighting it out in Gaza, or hezbollah fighting in Lebanon, you can trace the weapons and cash right back to Iran. The "Iraqi Civil War" that the democrats are saying we are in the middle of can be traced right to Iran and Al Qaeda, and it certainly isn't going to stop if we leave. Nor would I expect Al Qaeda to suddenly decide to stop attacking Americans around the world should we just up and go home.
If they are there, fight them there. At the same time, we help counter the influence of Iran, and we help protect those that want something more for Iraq than it becoming an Iranian client state. Maybe Iraq does need a different political solution, maybe it needs to be split into 3 states, maybe it needs local elections, etc. I'd submit that the best chance for any of that happening is with our being there to help, and if the Iraqis decide that they don't need us there, then we go home.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Origanally posted by Shuckins
Now is not the time to go all wobbly on the war. There are signs that the U.S. and Iraqi government are beginning to get a handle on controlling the terrorists. The Kurdish north has been quiet and stable for quite some time, and an experiment in which the incorporation of tribal chieftains' men in the security forces has done much to stabilise another province (Anbar I believe). The U.S. and Iraqi forces have high hopes of expanding that experiment into the other provinces.
When you said this Shuckins, It reminded me alot about an old Drag racing tactic that guys' used to use, called "Sandbagging". To get a guy to put up some decent money in an impromptu street race, You'd pick out the wealthiest car that you were sure you could outrun. Then, you would run other cars(with your intended victim watching) and only push your car hard enough to either beat them, or Slightly lose. You might even lose a small wager or two, to get the guy who wanted to put up alot of cash to run you.
Then, You take his bet, and run your car as hard as it will run. The loser is mad because you tricked him into thinking you were slower than he was, but it doesn't matter because you took his moolah.
Now, where this comes in in relation to the war, is that the terrorists' might be backing off some, in an effort to get the U.S. to relax it's Troop strengths, so that terrorist cells will stand a better chance in a fight with security forces. It might also be that they are training they're next generation of fighters. In either case, we are locked down until god-knows-when. The way we are deployed in Iraq, we can't take very much conventional military action against someone like Iran, or N. Korea. Our force levels' are just too depleted. And in addition to that, We have run low on allies that are willing to help us. Diplomatically, we have Israel in the region to help us, But with they're commitments' in Lebanon, I don't know what they could contribute. The Brits' help, of course, but beyond that, It seems' like we are on our own. This is now the time to tread cautiously.
-
Reid is an idiot. His approval rating is 19%. I never understand how he continues to hold that office.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/will/427406,CST-EDT-GEO14.article
-
Originally posted by Yeager These anti-war democrats really ought to try harder at being relevant and mainstream. [/B]
I agree!
-
Yeager, I find it interesting that you don't debate whether or not the Democrats are right or wrong...whether or not the surge has failed. You simply jump to ad hominem, and label them as defeatists.
-
the surge hasn't even reached full strength yet, only 4 of the 5 brigades are in Iraq, to say to has failed before it starts is "defeatist". The democrats need a "failure" in Iraq to win in 2008. If you repeat a lie often enough people will start believe you.
It's like when Cronkite called the Tet offensive a "victory" for the communists when it was a massive defeat for the north Vietnamese and total destruction of the viet cong.
-
Some of you have NO FREAKIN clue as to what is actually going on there. In many former "Hot spots" the tribal leaders are working hand in hand with the US and Iraqi forces to stop the violence.
-
The Democratic Congress is leaping at anything Anti-war or Anti-Bush, their polls show the public like them even less than the Republican Congress they replaced, and they've accomplished nothing this past 6 months.
The publics' opinion in 2002-2003 was in support of going into Iraq. And yep, leadership has failed and screwed up by the numbers in the prosecution of post-war operations in Iraq. Mistakes at every turn, and no way in the world they would ever admit to those mistakes or try to make corrections.
Most of the blame for Iraq lies on America. I know Americans hate to hear that, but Congress, the Administration, and military Leadership from Disneyland on the Potomac are to blame for much of what has happened.
We went in a broke the country. That's what soldiers do. We break things.
We failed to secure the munitions that have been used against US and Iraqi forces these past 4+ years. We failed to used enough troops in the first place (see secure munitions). We fired 400,000 Iraqi soldiers, sailors and airmen when we took over, thus almost guaranteeing the formation of the Insurgency and the organized gangs that have plagued nation building efforts across Iraq (also see secure munition; these guys buried a lot of it pre-invasion).
We pressured the Iraqi transitional government to come up with a Jiffy-Pop Constitution in less than a year that created a weak central government of compromises that...gosh, surprise surprise... has been unable to unite or secure the country.
Idealists in DC somehow thing that with freedom, democratic elections, and a lot of money, something beautiful will grow. A very western and naive view of the Middle East, with no regard of cultures, religions, past hatreds, and different societies found there. We'd have been better off just putting the old King of Iraq back on this throne, or another strong arm leader. Or given them the time to come up with a form of government that would work for them. What we did help create there (trying to mold Iraq in our idealistic image in a short time frame) is not working, and we are stuck with it now. The fault in that is squarely on us as a nation.
Leaving Iraq a mess that we created should not be an option. As a nation we have a responsibility to Iraq and it's people. We attacked them.
Then there is the strategic interests we have in the region..... oil. I don't like that any more than most, but so long as our economy is tied to Middle East oil, we have an interest in keeping the lid on the pressure cooker that is the Middle East. The Palestinian meltdown is going to spill over. Iran and Syria will benefit from that. The region is becoming more unstable. Abandoning Iraq to whatever fates can only be the most nearsighted, self absorbed, unthinking maneuver the leaders of this country could come up with.
If Iraq blows up, the fallout will most likely spill across the region, and that will take down the economies of the western powers with it.
It's a mess. Our dependence on oil ties us to that mess. It sucks, but we can only blame our leadership (such as it is) and ourselves as a nation on getting ourselves into this mess. Getting out of it will take a lot of time, lives, and cost.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Some of you have NO FREAKIN clue as to what is actually going on there.
All that needs to be said right there.....Pefect Gun...thanks
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Some of you have NO FREAKIN clue as to what is actually going on there. In many former "Hot spots" the tribal leaders are working hand in hand with the US and Iraqi forces to stop the violence.
That's GREAT news Gunslinger! ... Why haven't these positive developments been publicized?
-
Originally posted by Viking
That's GREAT news Gunslinger! ... Why haven't these positive developments been publicized?
Working together and handshakes doesn't sell headlines. Besides, reporting "good" for most media outlets would mean being wrong about what they've written into their stories over the last 4 years in OP-ED fashion.
-
The US Armed Forces does have its own press corps, do they not? Have these good news been made public through say the Stars and Stripes?
Stars and Stripes is a daily newspaper published for the U.S. military, DoD civilians, contractors, and their families. Unique among the many military publications, Stars and Stripes operates as a First Amendment newspaper, free of control and censorship. We have published continuously in Europe since 1942, where readers currently number around 80,000. We serve about 60,000 readers in the Pacific, where we have published a daily paper since 1945.*
Stars and Stripes maintains news bureaus in Europe, Pacific and the Middle East to provide first-hand reporting on events in those theaters. In addition to news and sports, our daily paper contains all the elements of the hometown paper our service members left behind, from "Dear Abby" to coupons, comics and crossword puzzles. In all, we publish five editions: Mideast, Europe, Japan, Korea and Okinawa.
How strange then that their headlines are not "Tribal leaders help US forces to stop violence” or anything similar. Instead their headlines are:
Forces in Iraq on alert after bombers destroy minarets of *****e shrine
Gates to press NATO on sending more troops to Afghanistan
Would-be car bomber treated for wounds, interrogated
Iraq report: Attacks against troops down, but casualties up
One pot plant could mean seven years in prison
Security increased on USFJ bases, but no reason is given
While none of them are particularly gloomy they do not exactly convey the spirit of optimism shown by Gunslinger. Why is that?
-
Originally posted by Viking
The US Armed Forces does have its own press corps, do they not? Have these good news been made public through say the Stars and Stripes?
How strange then that their headlines are not "Tribal leaders help US forces to stop violence” or anything similar. Instead their headlines are:
Forces in Iraq on alert after bombers destroy minarets of *****e shrine
Gates to press NATO on sending more troops to Afghanistan
Would-be car bomber treated for wounds, interrogated
Iraq report: Attacks against troops down, but casualties up
One pot plant could mean seven years in prison
Security increased on USFJ bases, but no reason is given
While none of them are particularly gloomy they do not exactly convey the spirit of optimism shown by Gunslinger. Why is that?
Its a weekly publication. I'm quite confident it was one of the headlines at some time.
I'm nephew sends weekly emails as well. He states the same positive message as Gun whether you refuse to believe it or not, Viking.
-
Nobody wants to read the same headlines over and over unless it's about some goofy strung out celebrity. It's an attention span issue and it drives the sale of news...and the products of their sponsors.
Dig around a bit and you'll find the occasional optimistic headline with a small story on page 8.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Is 31% mainstream?
According to the latest poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm), 67% disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq.
Well its went down alittle, according to this poll
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s35/68zoom/nn_russert_poll_070613_300w.jpg)
-
Ouch! This current news story (though not a headline) does not bode well for Gunslingers point of view:
Iraq’s dust can’t hide soldiers’ frustrations
The idea was for residents to see Iraqi forces working for the good of the neighborhood ... Instead, by noon, U.S. soldiers stood alone.
HILLAH, Iraq — It was noon in Askary, a neighborhood in the Babil provincial capital that the U.S. Army has tagged “non-compliant,” and a small group of U.S. troops stood all alone.
The Iraqi army, the Iraqi police and the Babil SWAT unit had all evaporated in Sunday’s scorching sun. Even the scores of kids, who just minutes before had swarmed the American troops begging for treats, were gone.
But the small team’s feelings of vulnerability at being left alone in the dusty street paled in comparison to their frustration at being abandoned slowly throughout the morning by their Iraqi counterparts during a mission called Operation Babylon Sweep.
Instead of coaching the Iraqis on interviewing suspects and collecting illegal weapons, the U.S. team watched Iraqi police let residents walk unimpeded through a cordon, Iraqi soldiers quit their house searches after about two blocks, and an Iraqi company commander take a mid- morning tea break in the shade.
Continued here: http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=46668
Why are the Stars and Stripes reporting these stories if things are really going well in Iraq? Are they traitors that strive to destroy US moral in spite of real events?
-
Let see.... June.... Iraq...... temperatures of 120 to 135 degrees in the shade...... civilians, police, and Iraqi army (many still w/o power for their AC) all head indoors by noon time..... US troops struck outside in the streets and in the sun.......
hmmm.......
Sounds about right to me. That's just how the locals usually deal with summer heat. Operation or no operation.
And yes, that includes Iraqi soldiers and police.... why stand in the sun in June, for a job you might get paid for, and might get killed doing, when the rich Americans are there to do it?
Firing the existing Iraqi semi-professional Army in 2003 was a mistake, possibly one of the two or three greatest military/political blunders of the 21st century (so far, and a contender for a long time).
Star and Stripes and the Various Military Times papers are not cheer leading and propaganda machines for the Armed Forces. Their writers are a bit above board compared to main stream journalism, considering their main market, but they too are often trying to be picked up the wires like AP. So, there is some pandering to the way the news cycles are running. Army Times and the Interceptor/Dragonskin controversy comes to mind.
And most journalist come from schools where they all learn "If It Bleeds It Leads 101."
-
So what you're saying is that things are actually going well in Iraq and all this bad news, even from their own newspaper is just the result of the US Armed Forces’ complete and utter ineptitude at media relations?
-
Originally posted by Viking
So what you're saying is that things are actually going well in Iraq and all this bad news, even from their own newspaper is just the result of the US Armed Forces’ complete and utter ineptitude at media relations?
No, I'm saying there is plenty of good AND bad to go around. That all you will hear in the mainstream media outlets is the bad, because that is what sells newspapers and get's advert dollars for tv.
Also, many in politics want to stress as much bad as they can to play up to American frustration and lost patience while gearing up for the 2008 political farce. The media itself has it's own agenda, both political, and playing up to American perception, even while it forms much of that perception.
The media, politics, and public perception are a negative feedback loop. Which is also why the good news "fluff" piece is at the end of the new programs or buried deep in the paper.
That any headway in that messed up situation will take the commitment of many years, much money, and many lives to try and make the best of a bad situation. A situation that was created in no small part from failed policies on the part of the American Administration, Congress, and Pentagon leadership.
Also, I recognize that Iraq is a "no-win" situation at this point. All we can accomplish for the foreseeable future is the best of the many possible "bad" outcomes. And to bail altogether risks the worse of those bad alternatives.
And finally, yes, the Armed Forces are really really bad at the media stuff in these circumstances..... lot's of great video when the JDAM's are going through the roofs of buildings and breaking stuff..... but nation building is not what they do, and its hard to promote that well.
-
Originally posted by Viking
The US Armed Forces does have its own press corps, do they not? Have these good news been made public through say the Stars and Stripes?
How strange then that their headlines are not "Tribal leaders help US forces to stop violence” or anything similar. Instead their headlines are:
Forces in Iraq on alert after bombers destroy minarets of *****e shrine
Gates to press NATO on sending more troops to Afghanistan
Would-be car bomber treated for wounds, interrogated
Iraq report: Attacks against troops down, but casualties up
One pot plant could mean seven years in prison
Security increased on USFJ bases, but no reason is given
While none of them are particularly gloomy they do not exactly convey the spirit of optimism shown by Gunslinger. Why is that?
The Stars and Stripes gets the majority of it's stories from AP. Why do you think it presents a picture tilted to the gloomy? I think you want to believe the worst about America and Americans. Your prerogative of course but I wouldn't expect too many here to agree with you.
-
Originally posted by 68ZooM
Well its went down alittle, according to this poll
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s35/68zoom/nn_russert_poll_070613_300w.jpg)
lol zomg
Gonna have to start calling them 20-percenters now I guess.
-
so How does the approval rating of Congress compare to the President?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Is 31% mainstream?
According to the latest poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm), 67% disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq.
According to this (http://www.nbc11.com/politics/13502751/detail.html) Bush has an overall 29% approval rating, 6 points better than Congress' 23%...
-
five more soldiers died yesterday in Iraq .. 4 of them in combat ..
and the democrats secretly cheer ...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
five more soldiers died yesterday in Iraq .. 4 of them in combat ..
and the democrats secretly cheer ...
I wonder why you can write this in this place without being at risk to be banned.
But it's how the O'club became...
The republibots can have their free (hate) speech when the others are banned.
-
so lemur... bush's approval rating is based only on the war?
What should we do? should we get all our troops out on the afternoon flight to new york city?
So long as the troops feel that we should be there and that they are doing some good I will support them.
The rest of your opinions are meaningless.
lazs
-
Originally posted by 68ZooM
Well its went down alittle, according to this poll
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s35/68zoom/nn_russert_poll_070613_300w.jpg)
Looks like he's even with Congress, you know, the new congress that was going to save the day? :rofl :rofl
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27589
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
According to this (http://www.nbc11.com/politics/13502751/detail.html) Bush has an overall 29% approval rating, 6 points better than Congress' 23%...
Wow, its dropped 6 points since May for Congress. :eek:
-
Does the low approval rating for congress mean that more than 70% support staying in the war or that more than 70% think a democrat controlled congress is a bad thing?
lazs
-
Originally posted by straffo
I wonder why you can write this in this place without being at risk to be banned.
But it's how the O'club became...
The republibots can have their free (hate) speech when the others are banned.
You assume that what he wrote isn't true. Maybe it is, maybe it is not. It is however undeniable that the Democrats gleefully attack the military at every opportunity, and that they use every setback as a chance to further their political agenda.
As far as it goes, you are as guilty as anyone, with your accusations of hate, and your name calling (republibots?). So perhaps you might want to consider how the other side sees you, before you go too far off on the "hate speech" tangent.
Several facts cannot be disputed.
A war cannot be run by committee.
No war can be successfully prosecuted any where by any nation when half of that nation uses every setback as a chance to trumpet their agenda, proclaim complete failure, and demand surrender.
Actions such as those taken by many Democrats as well as much of the media are an unacceptable attack from home on the morale and well being of the troops, as well as an aid and comfort to the enemy.
The war has not gone as well as anyone would have liked, maybe not as well as it could have, but probably no better than could actually have been expected.
The strategy of the Bush administration has not been perfect, far from it, and could be improved greatly. The strategy of the Democrats, however, once the war didn't go perfect, has been non existent, other than the offer of a timetable for complete surrender.
The Democrats stand to benefit greatly from a failure in the war, and they know it. They appear to be determined to see it through to that end.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I think you want to believe the worst about America and Americans.
He seems to post only in threads where it offers him a chance to show his contempt for both. I wonder why people bother responding to him.
-
Virgil ,I plead guilty of the use of republibot, but I (arrogantly) think the ones I picture this way deserve this description by their repetitive post I've seen during the last years.
I find being zealot of one or the other party is not an excuse to such a behaviour.
I'm certainly biased but I think they have the benefit of a better tolerance than their left counterpart.
I'm sure some democrat family have lost family member during this war and I'm pretty certain they are not "secretly cheering".
Eagler post was yet another attempt at dehumanizing the people not sharing his view
It's a very old trick.
When I can't deny the potential benefit for the democrat ,and before we start ca chicken/egg discussion I shall remember you them democrat didn't start this war as the old adage say : you reap what you saw.
I'll end this later , I've to leave early.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Eagler post was yet another attempt at dehumanizing the people not sharing his view
It's a very old trick learned from those on the left.
Fixed.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
According to this (http://www.nbc11.com/politics/13502751/detail.html) Bush has an overall 29% approval rating, 6 points better than Congress' 23%...
Well if your going to post that, you might want to post the rest of it. Dont just snip out what you want .
In a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, Bush’s approval rating is 29 percent, representing a drop of 6 points since April and his lowest approval mark ever in that poll.
In April, 75 percent of Republicans approved of Bush’s job performance. Now, 62 percent of Republicans approve.
The poll, released June 13, also found that 23 percent approve of the job that Congress is doing, a drop of 8 points since April. Last October, just before the Republicans lost control of Congress to the Democrats, Congress pulled 16 percent approval in the poll.
Looks like the Republican lead congress only had a 16% approval rate.
And Eagler what you said is just plain UN-American, Just spew utter BS with no Facts to back it up.
Keep listening to Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter as they wear the same rose colored glasses as you do.
-
Well if your going to post that, you might want to post the rest of it.
Dont just snip out what you want .
====
Go back and look at your previous post (you know, the one where the only thing you posted was the Presidents approval rating).
Take some of your own advice.
Might do you some good
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so lemur... bush's approval rating is based only on the war?
What should we do? should we get all our troops out on the afternoon flight to new york city?
So long as the troops feel that we should be there and that they are doing some good I will support them.
The rest of your opinions are meaningless.
lazs
Lazs does the poll state " Iraq War Approval" ? It states JOB Approval, To me that would me OVERALL JOB Performance, Which is now 29%.
Have a Good Day
-
I wonder why you can write this in this place without being at risk to be banned.
====
Ban teh PiNk ElepahNte :huh
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Well if your going to post that, you might want to post the rest of it.
Dont just snip out what you want .
====
Go back and look at your previous post (you know, the one where the only thing you posted was the Presidents approval rating).
Take some of your own advice.
Might do you some good
:rolleyes:
What i posted was his Approval Poll and stated that it went down from the 31% someone posted earlier, that was all.
Guess its time to spin what i posted now yeager?
-
What i posted was his Approval Poll and stated that it went down from the 31% someone posted earlier, that was all.
====
Indeed you did, followed by this
Well if your going to post that, you might want to post the rest of it. Dont just snip out what you want .
====
Seems to me that you simply snipped out the ONE point you wanted to share. Someone else snipped out the ONE point THEY wanted to share, and you Squawked about it.
I think the overriding point here is that Bush the republican may suck, but congress the democrat sucks worse.
Or: Your guy sucks worse than my guy. Welcome to my day.
That is all.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Fixed.
not realy ,this trick is older than herode
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanized
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9
-
Originally posted by straffo
Virgil ,I plead guilty of the use of republibot, but I (arrogantly) think the ones I picture this way deserve this description by their repetitive post I've seen during the last years.
I find being zealot of one or the other party is not an excuse to such a behaviour.
I'm certainly biased but I think they have the benefit of a better tolerance than their left counterpart.
I'm sure some democrat family have lost family member during this war and I'm pretty certain they are not "secretly cheering".
Eagler post was yet another attempt at dehumanizing the people not sharing his view
It's a very old trick.
When I can't deny the potential benefit for the democrat ,and before we start ca chicken/egg discussion I shall remember you them democrat didn't start this war as the old adage say : you reap what you saw.
I'll end this later , I've to leave early.
The Democrats voted nearly 100% for this war to start with Straffo. Don't forget that, don't minimize it, or trivialize it. The majority of the front running Democrat candidates voted for it. Kerry voted for it before he voted against it. Clinton, Gore, and the rest of them were convinced Saddam had the weapons, or at the very least was trying to get them and was close. Even during the first Bush administration. It's real easy for them to say Bush is wrong, Bush is evil, and Bush is stupid, now. But back then they voted with him. Now the media gives them a pass on it.
-
oops forgot that ,they have their share of responsibility
-
straffo
on the reverse side, don't you think the dems would be upset if everything was going super well in Iraq? What would they have to beat bush up over? the economy with its record level? LOL
or maybe global warming??
LOL LOL LOL
sorry - I do think/believe there are those that secretly rejoice every time bad news comes out of Iraq
bad news = dead American soldiers
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The Stars and Stripes gets the majority of it's stories from AP.
Not according to them:
Stars and Stripes maintains news bureaus in Europe, Pacific and the Middle East to provide first-hand reporting on events in those theaters.
Originally posted by AKIron
I think you want to believe the worst about America and Americans.
Well … I find your opinion contrary to reality, but I’m used to that from you. The ironic (and perhaps surprising for some) thing is that I want to believe the best about America and Americans, and despite all the attempts to discourage me by most of you guys here, there are a few … very few … of you that confirm my belief.
Originally posted by AKIron
Your prerogative of course but I wouldn't expect too many here to agree with you.
What’s the point of having a discussion if everybody agrees with you? I don’t go for circle jerks.
-
Originally posted by Shifty
He seems to post only in threads where it offers him a chance to show his contempt for both. I wonder why people bother responding to him.
I have conveyed my contempt for some of the opinions expressed here in this forum on very few occasions; perhaps too few since there really are a lot of contemptible opinions being expressed.
That said … I know my opinions are contemptible to some, and like you they don’t shy away from letting me know that … so why should I? If you don’t want to read my posts … well, you know what they say about TV and the “off” button.
-
Viking....do you have access to any women? Get laid bro, calm down. This is NOT the place to get bothered about.
-
It's been a while since I subscribed to the Stars and Stripes but I recall a lot of AP articles, here's one from today: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ?SITE=DCSAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
I'm glad you look for the best Viking, seems like you only see the worst though.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Well … I find your opinion contrary to reality, but I’m used to that from you. The ironic (and perhaps surprising for some) thing is that I want to believe the best about America and Americans, and despite all the attempts to discourage me by most of you guys here, there are a few … very few … of you that confirm my belief.
Don't let the posts here mislead you. You're looking at a very small slice of the pie, the most rabid of the 30% or so who believe everything the government and corporate media tell them. And most of them don't even really feel this way. They are just trolling or expressing opinions they would be embarrased to admit to in person. Real Americans have a much broader range of opinions and express them in a much more civil manner than you see here. The Bushbots do not represent America. To the contrary, they are an increasingly extreme fringe element which is in the midst of being comprehensively discredited.
-
Originally posted by L'EMMERDEUR
Real Americans have a much broader range of opinions and express them in a much more civil manner than you see here. The Bushbots do not represent America. To the contrary, they are an increasingly extreme fringe element which is in the midst of being comprehensively discredited.
I would have to characterize your aspersions as less than civil.
-
"Real Americans "?
-
As in, the Americans he would actually meet if he came over here. Not the anonymous projections of a small sample of vaguely angry middle aged men who never outgrew a childhood fascination with explosions and uniforms and vehicles with phallic frontal protrusions. ;)
-
L'EMMERDEUR, you are very strange.
-
Originally posted by L'EMMERDEUR
Don't let the posts here mislead you. You're looking at a very small slice of the pie, the most rabid of the 30% or so who believe everything the government and corporate media tell them. And most of them don't even really feel this way. They are just trolling or expressing opinions they would be embarrased to admit to in person. Real Americans have a much broader range of opinions and express them in a much more civil manner than you see here. The Bushbots do not represent America. To the contrary, they are an increasingly extreme fringe element which is in the midst of being comprehensively discredited.
Good luck selling that ton of tripe to anyone with brains and or common sense. "Bushbots"? That the best you have? Doesn't surprise me. You don't even have a location in your profile. A real ton of credibility you have, nothing but insults, and a lack of the courage to even say where you're from. Pretty obvious who is being discredited here, and you're doing it to yourself. I'll have to say though, you're doing a GREAT job.
-
thx john9001! :D
-
BBC confirms the troops surge starts now...
Nice that the dem's leadership called it a failure before it even started...
:lol
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6757329.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6757329.stm)
-
Originally posted by 68ZooM
Well if your going to post that, you might want to post the rest of it. Dont just snip out what you want .
That's the point of the link... we don't have to cut and paste things when we provide a link.
Otherwise if I were to quote Shakespeare or the Bible, my post would quite long.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Viking....do you have access to any women? Get laid bro, calm down. This is NOT the place to get bothered about.
Lol, yes I do. However, I am not bothered at all and my previous posts should be read in a calm manner like friends discussing over a beer at the pub. I always try to read other peoples posts in that context too. Makes this forum a lot calmer and nicer, don't you think? I have the kind of stone-faced personality that never really gets worked up about anything.
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm glad you look for the best Viking, seems like you only see the worst though.
I am perhaps guilty of mostly commenting in the bad news threads; I’ll admit to that. However if you look at the O’ Club as it is today, how many “good news” threads are there to comment on? And most of the few happy threads are about American sports or other subjects I have little or no interest in. When you think about it you guys aren’t exactly known for focusing on the bright side either.
Ironically when I’m discussing “world events” with my friends over here (perhaps over a beer at the pub like I mentioned) I find myself more often than not arguing on your behalf.
Originally posted by L'EMMERDEUR
Don't let the posts here mislead you. You're looking at a very small slice of the pie…
I’m well aware that the patrons of this bbs are hardly a representative portion of the American public, or the world for that matter since there are non-US patrons here as well. I can’t say I’m a typical Norwegian either.
-
Viking,
Another popular and montly publication from the US Army. My nephew sends these home monthly.
For your reading pleasure (Acrobat format) but be warned, none of this news will make headlines. ;)
http://home.comcast.net/~ripsnort60/Taji_Times_Edition_15.pdf
-
Thank you for posting that Rip. If you can spare the time and effort, would you mind terribly making a separate thread and posting each issue of the Taji Times when you get them? Would be nice to get a different point of view of what's happening than what the media corporations consider "news worthy". :)
-
This story about US soldiers "rescuing" near dead orphans was on last nights evening news, and was extremley complementary on the actions of the soldiers involved: Iraq orphans found starved and naked (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21933125-1702,00.html)
But one or two "good" stories hardly balance the disaster that is Iraq
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The Democrats voted nearly 100% for this war to start with Straffo. Don't forget that, don't minimize it, or trivialize it. The majority of the front running Democrat candidates voted for it. Kerry voted for it before he voted against it. Clinton, Gore, and the rest of them were convinced Saddam had the weapons, or at the very least was trying to get them and was close. Even during the first Bush administration. It's real easy for them to say Bush is wrong, Bush is evil, and Bush is stupid, now. But back then they voted with him. Now the media gives them a pass on it.
And run the risk of being labelled un-patriotic? The media may just give them a pass because they too are complicit with the rampant pre-invasion hysteria - at most they (Clinton etc) may have lacked the backbone to voice any dissention, but wisely saved being cruicified for it which was quite popular at the time...
Tronsky