Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DREDIOCK on October 24, 2007, 05:29:15 PM
-
"BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Violence in Iraq has dropped by 70 percent since the end of June, when U.S. forces completed their build-up of 30,000 extra troops to stabilize the war-torn country, the Interior Ministry said on Monday."
Source
REUTERS (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSCOL24813120071022?rpc=92)
-
odd that happens shortly after Muqtada al-Sadr calls for his troops/followers to stand down for six months...
I bet it's back up after the six months....
-
nice try soda, still trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
-
Originally posted by john9001
nice try soda, still trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Only a moron would call what has happened over there victory in any sense of the word. Sad.
-
Originally posted by soda72
odd that happens shortly after Muqtada al-Sadr calls for his troops/followers to stand down for six months...
I bet it's back up after the six months....
If Muqtada al-Sadr is reasonable for a 70% drop then we will know exactly whom to go after should it pick up again then wont we.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Only a moron would call what has happened over there victory in any sense of the word. Sad.
Have you ever been there? Have you talked to troops every day that have been there?
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Only a moron would call what has happened over there victory in any sense of the word. Sad.
you really want al qaeda to win don't you? It would break your heart to see a free Iraq. Well i have bad news for you , al qaeda is losing, ask bin laden.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Only a moron would call what has happened over there victory in any sense of the word. Sad.
I am always amazed at the number of people, including those on this board, who I consider intelligent that are wishing for a failure of our military in Iraq.
It seems as though anything that makes the evil Bush look bad is worth it.
The Terrorist have won many hearts and minds here in this country, it's evident everywhere.
I am not wishing to single you out SkyRock, you are only one of many, but your attitude and Soda's is typical of the instant gratification generation in this country.
Mark
-
Originally posted by john9001
nice try soda, still trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I wouldn't be declaring 'mission accomplished #2' just yet John. Muqtada al-Sadr was 'forced' to re-think things after the surge. But as long as he still breathes he'll be back with a new game plan. Maybe Gen petraeus will keep him pinned down, time will tell.....
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Only a moron would call what has happened over there victory in any sense of the word. Sad.
Well said.
-
Just one more not so bright comment from the King of Self Promotion.
-
We have/will/must fail in Iraq. Mantra of the democrat/liberal/socialist/progressive.
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
I am always amazed at the number of people, including those on this board, who I consider intelligent that are wishing for a failure of our military in Iraq.
It seems as though anything that makes the evil Bush look bad is worth it.
The Terrorist have won many hearts and minds here in this country, it's evident everywhere.
I am not wishing to single you out SkyRock, you are only one of many, but your attitude and Soda's is typical of the instant gratification generation in this country.
Mark
<> Mark
I don't want to speak for SkyRock, but I will say that I take his comment a little different than you may have. To me what he is saying is that we have not achieved victory. That's it. He hasn't labeled it impossible nor has he labeled it inevitable. We're just not there yet.
I for one hope for victory every day... I'm just not ready to hang a "Mission Accomplished" banner up yet and call it good because we've recently seen a drop in violence over the past few months.
With respect-
Dyna
-
Originally posted by AKIron
We have/will/must fail in Iraq. Mantra of the democrat/liberal/socialist/progressive.
Iron... you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
-
Originally posted by DYNAMITE
<> Mark
I don't want to speak for SkyRock, but I will say that I take his comment a little different than you may have. To me what he is saying is that we have not achieved victory. That's it. He hasn't labeled it impossible nor has he labeled it inevitable. We're just not there yet.
I for one hope for victory every day... I'm just not ready to hang a "Mission Accomplished" banner up yet and call it good because we've recently seen a drop in violence over the past few months.
With respect-
Dyna
That is, in my opinion, a reasonable assumtion. I would not hang a Mission Accomplished banner either. This is going to last for quite a while longer. We have won a victory. The dessimination of the Iraque Imperial Army was a total victory. We havn't put everything back in order though. That's the part that will take a while.
I suppose what bothers me as much as anything is the defeatist and negative attitudes that have become so chic in many circles.
Mark
P.S. Edited to clarify my position.
-
Originally posted by DYNAMITE
Iron... you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm willing to learn. Can you provide examples of democrats/liberals/socialists who are claiming we are winning in Iraq?
-
To think our actions in the middle east are not going to have ugly repercussions is foolish. And to think we won't retaliate is just as misguided. We went and made our beds in the late 19th and 20th centuries and now we're ****ing ourselves in them.
-
562,130 American lives lost on both sides of the Civil War
116,708 American lives lost in WW1
408,306 American lives lost in WW2
54,246 American lives lost in the Korean War
58,219 American lives lost in the Vietnam War
Nearly 3,900 American lives lost in the Iraq War.
3,000 lives lost when We Were Attacked, and we have made some radical adjustments to the concept of terrorism across the globe. It won't simply be dismissed, and these soldiers Went there to make a stand and say enough.
"IF" you are going to have a war, and War means people die, then This war is successful.
Everyone dies, these soldiers died believing in something. Personally, I'd prefer that route than dying of ignorance, or dying perfectly healthy but still going.
They are also over there, and at home, putting their lives on the line every day so that some of you maintain the Right to insult them and their cause. You should be proud, but They understand that They are willing to Fight and Die so you don't Have to be proud.
Things like this cannot be explained, not everyone wants or needs you to understand, it won't change what they are made of.
-
ROC wHy do You capitalize Some random letTers but not Others?
-
Originally posted by ROC
3,000 lives lost when We Were Attacked, and we have made some radical adjustments to the concept of terrorism across the globe. It won't simply be dismissed, and these soldiers Went there to make a stand and say enough.
You missed the target in that case - The correct geological point for a retaliation strike would been somewhere around Saudi-Arabia.
Afganistan was on the mark, but only a small part of the lives have been lost over there.
Iraq didn't have terrorist - now it has.
Iraq didn't have WMD - now it has (chlorine attacks).
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Iraq didn't have WMD - now it has (chlorine attacks).
lol. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Fishu
You missed the target in that case - The correct geological point for a retaliation strike would been somewhere around Saudi-Arabia.
Afganistan was on the mark, but only a small part of the lives have been lost over there.
Iraq didn't have terrorist - now it has.
Iraq didn't have WMD - now it has (chlorine attacks).
Your kidding me right..
We got there and then they developed WMD....
They didnt have terrorists now they do......
WOW...
And what in the heck does where the most casualties have taken place have to do with anything.
About the only thing you have in that post that has any resemblance of reality is the Saudi Arabia line... They are not our "friends" that I will give you.
-
Originally posted by Rino
Just one more not so bright comment from the King of Self Promotion.
Well said.
:p
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Have you ever been there? Have you talked to troops every day that have been there?
I do not need to be there, I understand that many of our soldiers have performed extraordinary goods for the Iraqi people. It goes without saying though, war always has countless innocent victims. Democracy is not for everyone, and I doubt very seriously the integrity of those who brought about this war for the democracy of the Iraqi people. It is never about the soldiers, they do what they're told with great sacrifice and bravery, it is however about the political leaders who put them there. Bad planning and miscalculations, and an overall misled agenda will always cloud the great things that our soldiers have sacrificed so much to accomplish.
Mark
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
I am always amazed at the number of people, including those on this board, who I consider intelligent that are wishing for a failure of our military in Iraq.
It seems as though anything that makes the evil Bush look bad is worth it.
The Terrorist have won many hearts and minds here in this country, it's evident everywhere.
I am not wishing to single you out SkyRock, you are only one of many, but your attitude and Soda's is typical of the instant gratification generation in this country.
Mark
No, you have taken what I typed and twisted it to attack me. I believe that the Iraq war has put us at a disadvantage in our battle against terrorism. It has put us in a bad light on the world stage. It has clouded our stance on what is right! It has turned us into a warring nation. It was not right or just. It is a failure on these levels. Therefore, it has nothing to do with the bravery of our soldiers or their passion for helping the IRAQi people, but has everything to do with the intentions of our politicians that got us there in the first place. It was doomed when the first lie was spun.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
We have/will/must fail in Iraq. Mantra of the democrat/liberal/socialist/progressive.
We must send in more troops and stay in a country that is not ours until our death toll becomes more than even my warhawk, greedy, bible toting baptist party who are fat with war riches, can stomach their constituants cries no longer! :aok
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
No, you have taken what I typed and twisted it to attack me. I believe that the Iraq war has put us at a disadvantage in our battle against terrorism. It has put us in a bad light on the world stage. It has clouded our stance on what is right! It has turned us into a warring nation. It was not right or just. It is a failure on these levels. Therefore, it has nothing to do with the bravery of our soldiers or their passion for helping the IRAQi people, but has everything to do with the intentions of our politicians that got us there in the first place. It was doomed when the first lie was spun.
SkyRock, I don't attack people. I didn't attack you, I commented on what you said and what I thought about it.
The fact that you say it was all a lie prevents me from thinking anything you say on the subject is unbiased. That is pure democratic party line.
He, George Bush, made his decisions with the information he had at hand. He had this information from many sources, not just our own intelligence departments. He didn't have the opportunity to avail himself of the hindsight you posses, he had to act as he saw fit with the information that he had to work with. That's not a lie, poor judgement perhaps, but not an intentional lie.
Mark
-
Originally posted by kamilyun
ROC wHy do You capitalize Some random letTers but not Others?
Yeah, I'm guessing the water in the bong needs to be changed.
What's that sig line say?
-
Originally posted by john9001
you really want al qaeda to win don't you? It would break your heart to see a free Iraq. Well i have bad news for you , al qaeda is losing, ask bin laden.
How is AQ connected with Iraq?
-
Originally posted by Louis XVII
How is AQ connected with Iraq?
They are now ;)
-
but in 2003...
-
None of us really know what is going on over there, even the infantry man that is over there is only getting a 'key-hole' kind of vision on the real picture.
The Press say one thing, the White House says another... I think reality is somewhere in the middle.
-
70% down? Excellent :)
The troops should stay for many many years/decades then and keep it that way. Maybe even add more :aok. Double the effort in troops numbers and see it go down even further :aok
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
70% down? Excellent :)
The troops should stay for many many years/decades then and keep it that way. Maybe even add more :aok. Double the effort in troops numbers and see it go down even further :aok
Like we've done in Germany, Japan, and many other countries?
Keeping the peace is a thankless job. We may just get tired of it one day.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Democracy is not for everyone,
moe, 'hey joe, you want to be free?"
joe , "heck no, moe, i want to be ruled by a insane dictator."
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Like we've done in Germany, Japan, and many other countries?
Keeping the peace is a thankless job. We may just get tired of it one day.
Nah I doubt that. :aok
Keep fighting :)
-
Don't make us come there and bomb you to the stone age, Nilsen
-
forget it mark... like all lefties he just wants to appear clever and snipe at the heels.
skyrock.. I wish you would not be so evasive about how you feel. certainly there were mistakes made... name me one war that none were made. This one had some good ones but they were mostly.... the result of being cautious.. of fearing to make to big an effort out of it and... arrogance as well. both sides, left and right are to blame.
They left, you, can't wait for casualties to mount so you can snipe (while screaming how much you support the brave troops)... why not admit it? you love to see failure and hate to see any victory.
We did it wrong at first.. or.. more accurately ...made more mistakes than we needed to. Now...
A new plan and it is showing success... so how do the left react? 70% less casualties... good stuff right? nope... bad news for democrats who think that cut and run is the way to go.
but back to you skyrock.. you snipe the mistakes and the victories.. the failures and the success... while purporting to "support the troops" have you even talked to any of em?
Still that is not the bad part... the bad part is that you don't even have the guts to be honest about your agenda... if you were you would tell us what you think we should do..
You don't have a plan... not one lefty here does... yet...you can snipe away at the sidelines like some bitter old socialist queen.
Grow a pair and tell us exactly what you would do so we can "critique" it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Don't make us come there and bomb you to the stone age, Nilsen
How are bombs gonna get us into the future?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You don't have a plan... not one lefty here does... yet...you can snipe away at the sidelines like some bitter old socialist queen.
uh oh... Lazs is pulling both the big bad "socialist" AND "leftists" words out of his arsenal. Add a few personal insults and his shock and awe tactic is completed :rofl
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
How are bombs gonna get us into the future?
Not you.. us.... we bomb you into the stone age then steal your women away with big flashy cars while all you have is ummm stones.
-
Lets hope this is a trend that continues...too many good people have died to let this thing go to waste like the political left so dearly hopes.
-
Kamiliyun, probably an old habit from long ago. I've spent more time on a manual typewriter than a computer. Long before bold, colored font, and cute smilies. Probably goes back to that, but it's pretty much a habit as that's how we used to Emphasize a particular point :)
The hard thing for some to understand is how beneficial it is to gather your enemies into a single area of operation.
Imagine fighting a war where the combatants were scattered across the globe, in small mobile cells. Now, they are converging on Iraq, not on our soil by the way, and sticking their heads up like whack-a-mole.
Now, one could argue that there wasn't a reason to go to Iraq, but what better place than the middle of a desert to draw your enemies into. Would you prefer we had a running gun fight through the downtowns of every major city looking for a couple of rouge cells per city bent on blowing things up?
At some point you need to think outside what the mainstream media is feeding you and consider the alternatives.
Not doing something about this is not an alternative. Better now than later, better there than here.
Got a better idea?
-
Originally posted by ROC
Kamiliyun, probably an old habit from long ago. I've spent more time on a manual typewriter than a computer. Long before bold, colored font, and cute smilies. Probably goes back to that, but it's pretty much a habit as that's how we used to Emphasize a particular point :)
I know...was just giving you grief. It was like reading the Delcaration of Independence :D
Originally posted by ROC
Now, one could argue that there wasn't a reason to go to Iraq, but what better place than the middle of a desert to draw your enemies into. Would you prefer we had a running gun fight through the downtowns of every major city looking for a couple of rouge cells per city bent on blowing things up?
I hardly think that AQ is solely focusing on Iraq. To think that is dangerous and complacent. No one should feel more safe post 9/11 at home in the US just b/c we are fighting them "over there".
AQ are misguided a-holes, but not idiots. They've probably figured out that we have an insecure border down South, are incapable of tracking 10-15 million illegals in this country, and are learning Spanish as I type this. Heck, probably getting lessons from Hugo Chavez, or recruiting in the Philipines or North Africa. And don't tell me that Mexico is capable of securing it's borders to prevent AQ from infiltrating and then crossing.
Iraq is a "we broke it, we bought it" situation at this point, but by no means a victory, or even partial success in the War on Terror. That's not bashing b/c I'm a lefty...that's reality. I hope we win there, but that's not the end of anything. We'll be fighting Muslim extremists for the next 1000 years if we last that long. They don't even need leadership. A few Mullah Mullah Mullah Mullah Omar bin Omars could be inspired by a taped OBL message, a bombing in Iraq, a comet, or the thought of 70 hairy legged virgins.
-
Good post, I agree with a vast majority of it (except picking on ROC). :)
I take it you are a Powell fan, Kamilyun?
-
Originally posted by kamilyun
And don't tell me that Mexico is capable of securing it's borders to prevent AQ from infiltrating and then crossing.
i guess you never tried to sneak "into"mexico.
we don need no steekn badges.
-
If I hear ONE more @##%#@% time from Hollywood/ our leftist press about how they 'support the troops'.... They have been ACTING like it for 6 years, but the facade is sliping away--they hate the military as much as they did in 1970, and assume only hicks with 6th grade educations and no future would sign up
(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20071022/ltr071022.gif)
(Ted Rall)
-
Originally posted by Fishu
You missed the target in that case - The correct geological point for a retaliation strike would been somewhere around Saudi-Arabia.
Iraq is somewhere around Saudi Arabia.
Of course I could be wrong, with much of my geographic knowledge coming from USA public eduaction.
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
He, George Bush, made his decisions with the information he had at hand. He had this information from many sources, not just our own intelligence departments. He didn't have the opportunity to avail himself of the hindsight you posses, he had to act as he saw fit with the information that he had to work with. That's not a lie, poor judgement perhaps, but not an intentional lie.
Mark
Mark, you seem intelligent enough to know what the real intentions of going into IRAQ were, and they had nothing to do with WMD's. Now, I'm not saying it was for money, or for oil, but it definitely was not for WMD's. It is this reason why our hopes of having a positive outcome in IRAQ are dim. We made the mistake of not leading by the high ground!
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Lets hope this is a trend that continues...too many good people have died to let this thing go to waste like the political left so dearly hopes.
Thing????? Wow!
-
Ok...so Skyrock is one of those moon-landing-was-really-on-a-soundstage and tin-foil-hat-9/11-was-invented-by-bush types.
Got it. I imagine he's got a Cindy Sheehan poster on his wall?
:)
-
Originally posted by john9001
i guess you never tried to sneak "into"mexico.
we don need no steekn badges.
You go through a metal turnstile at the border, and you go through Tijuana down to La Revelucion, and walk around and drink and buy anything you want.
Not a terribly hard task.
And as to South, coming North? If this is supposed to be a joke, well...not funny. There are ton's of threads' on this board, that reiterate how easy it is for anyone to penetrate the borders of the U.S. A little more difficult, yes. You might have to get your feet wet, or take a long walk through the desert. But the Mexican gov't. sure as hell won't stop you; They even have an organization down there putting out drinking water for you.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
You go through a metal turnstile at the border, and you go through Tijuana down to La Revelucion, and walk around and drink and buy anything you want.
Not a terribly hard task.
How about getting employment w/o a proper work visa?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
How about getting employment w/o a proper work visa?
Hang out with the rest of the undocumented workers, and make sure you're the first one to jump in the landscapers' pickup.
-
Originally posted by john9001
moe, 'hey joe, you want to be free?"
joe , "heck no, moe, i want to be ruled by a insane dictator."
Exactly, some folks do not understand what we call freedom in a capitalist society, to them, they are as free as they want to be. They actually can never be free, because of the religion that they practice!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
forget it mark... like all lefties he just wants to appear clever and snipe at the heels.
skyrock.. I wish you would not be so evasive about how you feel. certainly there were mistakes made... name me one war that none were made. This one had some good ones but they were mostly.... the result of being cautious.. of fearing to make to big an effort out of it and... arrogance as well. both sides, left and right are to blame.
They left, you, can't wait for casualties to mount so you can snipe (while screaming how much you support the brave troops)... why not admit it? you love to see failure and hate to see any victory.
We did it wrong at first.. or.. more accurately ...made more mistakes than we needed to. Now...
A new plan and it is showing success... so how do the left react? 70% less casualties... good stuff right? nope... bad news for democrats who think that cut and run is the way to go.
but back to you skyrock.. you snipe the mistakes and the victories.. the failures and the success... while purporting to "support the troops" have you even talked to any of em?
Still that is not the bad part... the bad part is that you don't even have the guts to be honest about your agenda... if you were you would tell us what you think we should do..
You don't have a plan... not one lefty here does... yet...you can snipe away at the sidelines like some bitter old socialist queen.
Grow a pair and tell us exactly what you would do so we can "critique" it.
lazs
Lazs, I don't have time to edit, but if you are implying that I want a higher death toll for US troops, then you obviously are doing exactly what the lefties are doing, except on the other side. I have always thought IRAQ was a bunk idea and was pushed down our throats with lies and propaganda, and I do not expect you to see it that way. I do not think there will be a positive outcome in that country because of it's history and culture, it has nothing to do with what we do. I hate to see us lose any soldier, it makes me sick to my stomach to watch those videos of young men being blown up by ied's, but I know casualty's are a part of war. So, that leaves the burden to the ones in power that decide when and where we fight, in this case as in all wars, the burden is placed on the soldiers and the families of the soldiers with the rest of us hoping for a positive outcome. Wars are pretty much ineviteble, but when, where, and why we "start" a war is soley up to us.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Lazs, I don't have time to edit, but if you are implying that I want a higher death toll for US troops, then you obviously are doing exactly what the lefties are doing, except on the other side. I have always thought IRAQ was a bunk idea and was pushed down our throats with lies and propaganda, and I do not expect you to see it that way. I do not think there will be a positive outcome in that country because of it's history and culture, it has nothing to do with what we do. I hate to see us lose any soldier, it makes me sick to my stomach to watch those videos of young men being blown up by ied's, but I know casualty's are a part of war. So, that leaves the burden to the ones in power that decide when and where we fight, in this case as in all wars, the burden is placed on the soldiers and the families of the soldiers with the rest of us hoping for a positive outcome. Wars are pretty much ineviteble, but when, where, and why we "start" a war is soley up to us.
Nobody wants to see a higher death toll for troops.
But the time for arguing over if we should have gone in there is long since passed
Arguing about if we should still be there is moot because there are no other options.
We cant just pull out just like that. Its just not that simple.
Success wont be properly measured until 20-30 years from now.
A positive outcome cant and wont be measured by our American standards.
Fact of the matter is we are there and we cant leave until the mission is accomplished.
the mission in my eyes is to have a relatively stable Iraq that can govern themselves and adequately protect themselves from potentially invading countries.
It doesn't have to be a Utopia Or a mirror image of the US. (which can be argued is also only relatively stable)
It just has to meet the criteria outlined above.
Fact of the matter is we cant just pick up and leave until that is accomplished no matter who is in charge.
That being the case. As a people our only option is to support the troops AND their mission.
Because you cant support the troops without supporting the mission.
to tell them, "Your mission is wrong but I support you as a soldier" is nothing more them lip service.
And the troops see it for the simple rhetoric it is. "bovine scat" Otherwise known as BS
You cant support your troops and not support them in accomplishing their mission.
by telling them their mission is wrong. You are also telling them they are wrong for taking part in it.
Some weeks ago there was a discussion about the Nazis and German soldiers just following their orders.
Some made the argument that if it was wrong. then the soldiers were wrong for following those orders.
Same principle applies here. You cant have it both ways. Only seeing one groups as being wrong so long as it isn't your group.
In our case and regardless of anyone's position on going into this endeavor. at this point we can only support the troops and want them to accomplish their mission so that they can come home.
Regardless of reason a 70% drop is good news. It is a measure of success. And something to be applauded and hope we can build on.
Not something to be critical of. That is counter productive.
Look. Regardless of anyone's position of should we have gone/should we be there.
The bottom line is we are there. And are going to be there until the mission is accomplished.
I felt like many feel about Iraq when it came to Bosnia.
We had no business being there. BUT, once we were.
Then lets damn well accomplish the mission then so they can come home.
THAT is how you support the troops.
Now is not the time to argue if we should be there or not. If one wants to argue about it one can argue how its being conducted. What should be done differently to accomplish the mission. That can be both healthy and productive.
But arguing at this point if we should be there is not. and only hurts our troops by sending them a message that they are wrong.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Only a moron would call what has happened over there victory in any sense of the word. Sad.
Your misunderstanding of history is of historical preportions.
-
what would Beavis and Butthead do?
-
there is a rumor going around that no US troops were killed or wounded in anwar province last week.
it can't be true, if it were true CNN and MCNBC would be headlining the story. Wouldn't they?
-
Originally posted by T0J0
Your misunderstanding of history is of historical preportions.
Lolz, why don't you enlighten me? I am very well versed in history by the way, it's one of the reasons I was against this war to begin with.
-
Originally posted by john9001
there is a rumor going around that no US troops were killed or wounded in anwar province last week.
it can't be true, if it were true CNN and MCNBC would be headlining the story. Wouldn't they?
Great news!
Turkey attacked Iraq today. :O
-
skyrock... I guess I am saying that if you are simply telling us "I told you so"
fine.. we get it.. you are sure making a big deal of it tho so... yeah we get it.. you were against the war. You still think that is the right way to think... I still think we would have to do it sooner or latter.
none of that matters now tho. we are there. stop telling us it was a mistake and start telling us what you think we should do.
Unless you can... I would say that you are admitting that we are now doing everything the best that it can be done.
quit acting like a woman and grow a pair.. we know you were against it... we are now in it... tell us the best way to end it or shut up. If you have nothing to add or nothing constructive.. if all you want to do is justify your position of years ago... why bother? we all know it already.
lazs
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
But arguing at this point if we should be there is not. and only hurts our troops by sending them a message that they are wrong.
I am not arguing about whether we should be there or not, I stated my belief that it was bunk from the get go. It is bunk that we are there now. I do not give up my right to criticise what I believe is bad policy and neither should anyone else in this country. Vietnam was bunk, Korea was bunk, Somalia was bunk, and now IRAQ is bunk. It is the hard reality of flawed policy, and should not be candy-coated or not be heard.
I also believe you completely insult our troops by the line quoted above. Anyone who joins the military knows what their job is, and they are not stupid enough to be "hurt" be the process of freedom. One of our greatest freedoms, is the right to voice opinions, and I shall excercise that right. Me and my children send support letters to troops and I have never and will never put down a soldier that is doing his duty, but I also will not give up my right to criticise my government! Our soldiers might not like to hear my opinions about the war, but they are old enough and capable enough to be strong and do their duty as they are told to by their commanders. It is offensive to the soldier for you to treat them like they are person of weak mental fiber that cannot handle criticism of their government without it affecting the way the do their job.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Great news!
Turkey attacked Iraq today. :O
now turkey attacks , where was turkey when we invaded Iraq?
-
Originally posted by john9001
now turkey attacks , where was turkey when we invaded Iraq?
Being smart!:aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
tell us the best way to end it or shut up.
lazs
Well, it's not going to be easy to get out. I think even the greatest minds in the world would be stumped on how to make a departure under the guise of mission successful. I would focus every once of energy to rebuilding the infrastructure, as we make our departure. It doesn't help our legacy there to leave the Iraqi people worse off than before we got there. Other than that, theres not much else you can do to promote democracy. Most humans make their decisions based on results, if the Iraqi's are without power and water, then it does not look like democracy works. :aok
By the way Lazs, I don't read much on these boards about how to get out with a victory from the hard right either. Stay the course just doesn't cut it.
-
Im hoping the surge buys the time necessary for Iraq to stabilize. Getting rid of rumsfeld and putting Gen. Petraeus in charge appears to be working.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Im hoping the surge buys the time necessary for Iraq to stabilize. Getting rid of rumsfeld and putting Gen. Petraeus in charge appears to be working.
Check out the speech from Sheikh Abdulmalik al-Sadi, from the association of Muslim scholars in Iraq: http://heyetnet.org/en/
It's definitely arguable about who in Iraq is "the voice" of the awakening, but this dude is considered a legit leader, not a puppet.
The good news is Sunni & Shia are starting to unite to curb Iraqi Vs Iraqi violence.. and, as the McLean's article pointed out, tribal leaders are once again being paid...just as they were under Saddam, but the bad news is they are also against US occupation.
Some highlights:
"Because the target is the same, to resist the occupation and fight for Allah the Almighty and for the Country"
"Attempt to tie together the numerous ideas, give up all kinds of disagreements and forget all discords that separate the rows between the honored resistance groups. Act to spread the kindness among the groups and solve the disagreements by dialogue not by weapons."
"There are some groups feeling lonely. There should be efforts to gain their friendship by advising them to concentrate themselves on the main target of the continuing struggle, which is to expel the occupier and to hinder innocent Iraqis, women, children and elders to become killed or harmed"
"We would like to have an Islamic State to be constituted but we are not in hurry for that before the occupation forces have left our country. We want your unity to be generated first with the idea of an Islamic State."
-
well, at least its an improvement :rolleyes:
-
well... the surge is the idea of the "right" and... it has resulted in a 70% decrease in casualties.
You can't rebuild infrastructure without security. Who is gonna do it? you need to get their military and police up to par and make areas safe... sorta the Abrams plan...
Read " a better war" to see what I mean. once there is some security (they are graduating 1000 officers a year now) then civilians can rebuild the infrastructure.
even if you managed to do it at first while under fire... it would be a target for insurgents.. with no security you could not keep it up and running... you are putting the cart before the horse.
The "right" has lots of suggestions... they are buiding the police and the military and they are making areas secure and restoring the infrastructure as they can.
Would you then say that we should spend a lot more on infrastructrure and the security to see it done? say... even more troops and more money for civilian contractors? is that your suggestion?
lazs
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
I also believe you completely insult our troops by the line quoted above. Anyone who joins the military knows what their job is, and they are not stupid enough to be "hurt" be the process of freedom. One of our greatest freedoms, is the right to voice opinions, and I shall excercise that right. Me and my children send support letters to troops and I have never and will never put down a soldier that is doing his duty, but I also will not give up my right to criticise my government! Our soldiers might not like to hear my opinions about the war, but they are old enough and capable enough to be strong and do their duty as they are told to by their commanders. It is offensive to the soldier for you to treat them like they are person of weak mental fiber that cannot handle criticism of their government without it affecting the way the do their job.
Not hardly.
One of the things of greatest importance to troops, any troops is knowing they have the support of the people back home.
Not having that support hurts morale which in turn hurts their effectiveness which in turn gets some of them killed.
Tell me. in those support letters, How many times have you told them they shouldn't be there?'
And why they are there and what they are trying to do is wrong.
With friends like you, they don't need enemies.
Nobody is stopping you from being critical of your government.
But its obvious that you have become so blinded by your own hatred.
that you have become almost irresponsible in exercising that right.
And can see nothing positive out of success of any kind.
Reread my previous post and the message I was trying to get across.
You might not like why we are there.
you might not like that we are there.
but inasmuch as we are there. And cant go anywhere until the mission is accomplished
Might as well accomplish what we went there to do.
Because that is the only path for those boys to come home
Its fine that you are critical of your government.
But its also important to recognize and reinforce the positives that happen too.
Any coach worth his whistle will tell you that.
If all you do is preach the negatives. You can only expect negatives to happen.
Troops are influenced by the same type reinforcements both positive and negative that teams do.
that's why officers give the rip roaring Georgie Patton type motivational speeches
You boo the 50 yard pass completion for a first down because you don't like the teams owners
To hear you talk. You don't sound like a patriot just mercerizing his right to be critical.
You sound more like Eore from Winnie the Pooh
"everything's wrong .Nothing can ever go right"
"We just built a fine house but it will probably fall on our heads tomorrow"
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Not hardly.
One of the things of greatest importance to troops, any troops is knowing they have the support of the people back home.
Not having that support hurts morale which in turn hurts their effectiveness which in turn gets some of them killed.
Tell me. in those support letters, How many times have you told them they shouldn't be there?'
And why they are there and what they are trying to do is wrong.
With friends like you, they don't need enemies.
Nobody is stopping you from being critical of your government.
But its obvious that you have become so blinded by your own hatred.
that you have become almost irresponsible in exercising that right.
And can see nothing positive out of success of any kind.
Reread my previous post and the message I was trying to get across.
You might not like why we are there.
you might not like that we are there.
but inasmuch as we are there. And cant go anywhere until the mission is accomplished
Might as well accomplish what we went there to do.
Because that is the only path for those boys to come home
Its fine that you are critical of your government.
But its also important to recognize and reinforce the positives that happen too.
Any coach worth his whistle will tell you that.
If all you do is preach the negatives. You can only expect negatives to happen.
Troops are influenced by the same type reinforcements both positive and negative that teams do.
that's why officers give the rip roaring Georgie Patton type motivational speeches
You boo the 50 yard pass completion for a first down because you don't like the teams owners
To hear you talk. You don't sound like a patriot just mercerizing his right to be critical.
You sound more like Eore from Winnie the Pooh
"everything's wrong .Nothing can ever go right"
"We just built a fine house but it will probably fall on our heads tomorrow"
Drediock, now your just spewing. I have stated my feelings and the reasons, yet you attack my patriotism. I am not a blind follower and never have been. If it is a bunk deal, I will state it the way I see it. I do not believe the true intentions of the adminstration were WMD's and we will pay for that in years to come. We always had the moral high ground before this fiasco. I do not wish to change your mind, just vent my beliefs in a portion of the boards made for these types of comments.
What we write in the letters are words of encouragement and support for their safe return. Just to let them know that we care for their well being. Nothing in the letters is political, as those thoughts and feelings are better left for other venues.
Some of us are so stuck up our political parties arse that they would say that Vietnam was the right thing to do. I never believed Vietnam was right, just as I will never believ IRAQ was the right thing to do. I simply believe that invading IRAQ was a complete moronic thing to do at this point in our history! It is very simple to me that way.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
"BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Violence in Iraq has dropped by 70 percent since the end of June, when U.S. forces completed their build-up of 30,000 extra troops to stabilize the war-torn country, the Interior Ministry said on Monday."
Source
REUTERS (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSCOL24813120071022?rpc=92)
The key words are" the Interior Ministry said"....
the Interior Ministry drops more lies than anyone here can count....all they release is misinformation...the truth lies in number of daily incidents and the intensity of each of these incidents, which has risen due to more powerful techniques....the number of dead Iraqi's hasn't fallen 70%
-
Just my cents, but I belive:
1: Motive for Invasion was crap at the time.
2: Motive would have manifested itself later when Saddam finally had WMD's
3: There were lots of Iraqi casualties under Saddam.
4: There were lots of casualties as a chain reaction of restraining Saddam (UN, - business blockages etc)
5: The world is better without him.
6: The military campaign was a stunning victory to the US/UK
7: The aftermath and lot of the logistics are a screw up.
8: The aftermath was grossly underestimated.
9: If USA leaves tattered Iraq just like that, it is like repeating Vietnam, or worse.
-
Originally posted by chancevought
The key words are" the Interior Ministry said"....
the Interior Ministry drops more lies than anyone here can count....all they release is misinformation...
Funny, if they had said that "violence has increased by 70%", you'd likely have quoted it as the gospel truth.:rolleyes:
-
I laugh at the civilians 'smarter' than the pro's looking at ALL of the intel. Please give me the facts you have that would overide the pro's. I am very open minded and will agree with anyone that has the most compelling arguments. However, you must have the hard core facts....not some bs reported by a network.
-
What do the 'pros' think?
-
Originally posted by FBBone
Funny, if they had said that "violence has increased by 70%", you'd likely have quoted it as the gospel truth.:rolleyes:
This is called "projection." Just sayin'. :cool:
-
Iraq= shooting yourself in the foot, jumping on bike with no seat, Asking a woman "why" she's mad, jumping off a bridge, beating your head into a wall and hoping one day it will feel good.
I knew that in the begining
Wanting to continue doing such things i just don't understand.
-
Originally posted by Coach
I laugh at the civilians 'smarter' than the pro's looking at ALL of the intel. Please give me the facts you have that would overide the pro's. I am very open minded and will agree with anyone that has the most compelling arguments. However, you must have the hard core facts....not some bs reported by a network.
Just because your a "pro" doesn't nessecarily mean anything.
-
angus said...
Just my cents, but I belive:
1: Motive for Invasion was crap at the time.
2: Motive would have manifested itself later when Saddam finally had WMD's
3: There were lots of Iraqi casualties under Saddam.
4: There were lots of casualties as a chain reaction of restraining Saddam (UN, - business blockages etc)
5: The world is better without him.
6: The military campaign was a stunning victory to the US/UK
7: The aftermath and lot of the logistics are a screw up.
8: The aftermath was grossly underestimated.
9: If USA leaves tattered Iraq just like that, it is like repeating Vietnam, or worse."
I find that I agree with angus on this but would add..
10: we had to do it sooner or later somewhere and this is as good a time and place as any.
perhaps angus is saying that anyway tho in number 2
anyway.. good post and to the point.
lazs
-
Originally posted by DYNAMITE
Iron... you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
I think he was dead-on.
-
Originally posted by Dago
I think he was dead-on.
Curly thought Moe was. ;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
angus said...
Just my cents, but I belive:
1: Motive for Invasion was crap at the time.
2: Motive would have manifested itself later when Saddam finally had WMD's
3: There were lots of Iraqi casualties under Saddam.
4: There were lots of casualties as a chain reaction of restraining Saddam (UN, - business blockages etc)
5: The world is better without him.
6: The military campaign was a stunning victory to the US/UK
7: The aftermath and lot of the logistics are a screw up.
8: The aftermath was grossly underestimated.
9: If USA leaves tattered Iraq just like that, it is like repeating Vietnam, or worse."
I find that I agree with angus on this but would add..
10: we had to do it sooner or later somewhere and this is as good a time and place as any.
perhaps angus is saying that anyway tho in number 2
anyway.. good post and to the point.
lazs
LOL, I don't belive we finally (mostly) agree on anything :)
I should have added that IMHO the victors should linger on a little longer, or rather meet any agression with more force. While the press is so full about the horrible things in Iraq, it seems to be forgotten that the deal is a fight with old bullies and nutheads of the Saddam regime as well as outside supporters that pour petrol on the fire. When civilians are dead in the market place it's mostly because of another Iraqi. The majority of civilian casualties in Iraq after the victory is because of other Iraqis.
And here is a little bit of a refining to the list:
3b. Saddam had the ropes on the money when the UN was putting the thumscrew on, and chose to channel those on his funds, his palaces, and his WMD projects.
3c The result which was largely starvation and death of infants as well as the sick was systematically used as an anti-West propoganda.
-
angus... so far.. I am not seeing where we disagree at all on this.
The lefties here talk about the three stooges and bikes without seats but I really fail to see that as being useful.. the best is the "I told you so" like.. if we had done nothing everything would have been fine.
It is sorta like saying "I told you so" when the germans kicked our butt in north africa or when the japs were taking every island in the pacific.
It is like telling us "I told you so" when the soviets were taking everything in sight and we were forced to fight em in places that were not of our choosing and not that good.. when we were pouring money down a seemingly endless rathole to defeat an evil empire... right up to the point of the colapse of the evil empire.
lazs
-
Hehe, you just have to look at another thread where I am jostling with Boroda on his empire. But in the case of Iraq (IMHO) there is this failiure of intelligence and then follow up. If I'd go into a "I told you so" mode, I'd say it was just a wee bit too early. There wasn't enough intelligence as well as evidence to start the deal. There was gambling involved from the US side, - faith in that you would find something there.
Then there is the screw-up of logistics as to follow up the "Blitzkrieg". Not securing depots (if finding them all), electricity, food, etc etc. This provokes resistance, and also provides the thugs with guns & ammo.
"I said so" would say that a heavier backup in the beginning would have paid up quickly. But of course you could not have known that! So while I am a tad frustrated with the USA starting off this mess, I feel sorry for the USA being stuck there and being spanked for it. And many frigging lefties don't even see the real thugs at all!!!!
There are news that the violence is dropping, and that the bandits are running lower on artillery and ammo, - that's good news. Had to happen some day. So, wondering if you agree on my opinion, which is that the USA should just stick around with growing force and confidence for a while. Some years. Make the buggers think that with every bomb they plant, therewill be more troops for a longer time.
-
angus.. yes.. I would say that it is fair to say that I agree with you that we should stay a while... I don't really see that we have much choice.. it is both the benificial (to everyone) and the moral thing to do.
I do believe that so far as superpowers are.. and have been... The USA is probly the most moral one us bipeds have ever come up with. I think we need to see it through even if it is difficult for us.
And yes... looking back... we should have had a bigger effort.. it would have helped too if we had gotten more world backing for what is still.. a good cause.
I am dissapointed but not surprised in what is, most of the rest of the world in this.
With more backing.. this thing would be a lot better by now.
lazs
-
Moral, yes, and :aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
angus... so far.. I am not seeing where we disagree at all on this.
The lefties here talk about the three stooges and bikes without seats but I really fail to see that as being useful.. the best is the "I told you so" like.. if we had done nothing everything would have been fine.
It is sorta like saying "I told you so" when the germans kicked our butt in north africa or when the japs were taking every island in the pacific.
It is like telling us "I told you so" when the soviets were taking everything in sight and we were forced to fight em in places that were not of our choosing and not that good.. when we were pouring money down a seemingly endless rathole to defeat an evil empire... right up to the point of the colapse of the evil empire.
lazs
No it's like quit going down the same damn path and pick a new one. If you like seeing soldiers drive over bombs two days after some idiots set it, if you like people shooting soldiers while they are not aware and have the perpatrator dissapear, if you like seeing the governtment set goals for the troops and have them constantly change it in the middle of action, if like seeing troops fighting... i don't who the hell there supposed to be fighting when the terrorist wear no uniform, look the same as everone else in the region, and don't really reveal themselves untill after they start shooting, or run off afterwards into a crowd of, see no evils, hear no evils, and speak no evils.
By all means continue. I would think you're a masochist if you want to. It's not an effective use of army resources or army lives. The army needs a specific target in order to kill it, and a specific goal that doesn't change every five minutes when the people that employ them find out they don't know what they are doing. If you think that policy needs to be continued go ahead.
:aok
-
Quoted from john9001: you really want al qaeda to win don't you? It would break your heart to see a free Iraq. Well i have bad news for you , al qaeda is losing, ask bin laden.
There is the problem with all of this. John9001 is the proud owner of a shiny new penny given to him by his government. It doesn't matter what the truth is...only that he gets a new penny.
Iraq ain't al'queda, it never was.
Saddam was a lunatic and had to go, granted. But....that's not why we all jumped on Iraq (Canada included). figure it out ..yer all big boys.
RTR
-
Originally posted by Angus
There are news that the violence is dropping, and that the bandits are running lower on artillery and ammo, - that's good news. Had to happen some day.
Which I'm afraid is not going to last. A war never goes on endlessly at full tempo and there can be longer periods of lesser activity, but then the activity can all the suddenly go up again. I wouldn't have any high hopes just yet, maybe then if the activity doesn't increase for a year.
-
Violence in Iraq is down 70%, now it's up only 1000% compared to pre-campaign levels anymore. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Violence in Iraq is down 70%, now it's up only 1000% compared to pre-campaign levels anymore. :rolleyes:
Hardly, unless you're only counting violence against Americans. Saddam's daily average of slaughter was higher than it has been since he was dethroned.
-
ledpig.. how dramatic! and useless. You have already proven time and time again that since you have no solution that your whining is not much use. if your only solution is "run away run away" then I will be glad to show that the current strategy is far and away a better one..
In the end.. the current strategy is better than yours.
oh... and... it appears that violence was even lower in october... sorry lefties I know how that must hurt.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Hardly, unless you're only counting violence against Americans. Saddam's daily average of slaughter was higher than it has been since he was dethroned.
Now THAT is something that needs to be promoted a bit more :aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ledpig.. how dramatic! and useless. You have already proven time and time again that since you have no solution that your whining is not much use. if your only solution is "run away run away" then I will be glad to show that the current strategy is far and away a better one..
In the end.. the current strategy is better than yours.
oh... and... it appears that violence was even lower in october... sorry lefties I know how that must hurt.
lazs
Lasz i've already said what i would propose to do many times... So that empty rhetoric that you and all the other folks try to repeat is hollow. Not agreeing with something is not called whining. Get some new bougeois cliched phrases.
The current strategy is something only a retrded person would go for. To keep getting soldiers killed over nothing is useless. Let me lay it out for you since you apparently can't see 5 minutes into the future.
1.You can stay in Iraq for the next 20 years and it will not bring an end to terrorism.
2.You cannot truly identify who is a terrorist, that puts the army at a great disadvantage, making the effort truly useless.
3. The army is easily recognizable and attacked, thus the terrorists will always have the upper hand with the element of surprise.
4.The presence of the army is and will continue feeding terrorists.
5. We are breeding more future terrorists than we are killing.
And Lasz if you think the violence will stay low you must be kidding me right? You are just the same as the lefties that cling on to the nearest report of an increase in violence and use that to say how feeble the effort is. So your report of a decrease in violence does as little for me as hearing there is an increase in violence, it's the ebb and flow, the point is it will not stay the same.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Hardly, unless you're only counting violence against Americans. Saddam's daily average of slaughter was higher than it has been since he was dethroned.
Source? That's interesting.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Source? That's interesting.
My estimates have come from many sources over the years. Here's one for ya: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=1008
-
Its almost amazing the lack of reporting coming out of Iraq by the manstream news outlets these past few weeks. whats going on in Iraq these days anyway?
Sure hope we dont let the demcorats in congress surrender us in Iraq just as we are about to get a grip on it.
-
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/iraqi-islamic-party-says-al-qaeda-is-defeated.htm
Very interesting. Just another tidbit of the puzzle to try and figure out.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
No it's like quit going down the same damn path and pick a new one. If you like seeing soldiers drive over bombs two days after some idiots set it, if you like people shooting soldiers while they are not aware and have the perpatrator dissapear, if you like seeing the governtment set goals for the troops and have them constantly change it in the middle of action, if like seeing troops fighting... i don't who the hell there supposed to be fighting when the terrorist wear no uniform, look the same as everone else in the region, and don't really reveal themselves untill after they start shooting, or run off afterwards into a crowd of, see no evils, hear no evils, and speak no evils.
By all means continue. I would think you're a masochist if you want to. It's not an effective use of army resources or army lives. The army needs a specific target in order to kill it, and a specific goal that doesn't change every five minutes when the people that employ them find out they don't know what they are doing. If you think that policy needs to be continued go ahead.
:aok
On top of that, many of these "terrorists" in Iraq are normal everyday people like You and I that are really pissed at how they've been treated, and at the devolution of their once modern country into a cesspool of cholera, be headings and anarchy. All the gun toting internet badasses on this BBS would be doing the same thing if they were subjected to this type of treatment... I'd say that any American who didn't take up arms against a foreign occupier on US soil is a sopping wet vagina.
What makes anyone here think Iraqis are any less proud of their soil? or want to be told what to do by culturally ignorant leaders 1/2 a world away? WOULD ANYONE HERE enjoy that? on top of having your door kicked in at will & being subject to arrest zero evidence needed and no real system of justice to complain to after being tortured.
The internet makes getting to know the enemy easy, besides that it's all very simple and easy to figure out, no expertise needed.
You dont have to be a "pro" to read ME polls about the reasons for US hate, it takes no special training to watch "insurgent" videos at terroristmedia.com.
Try getting to know and understand the "enemy"..take a look the people our .gov calls "terrorist". Most of them are average every day people.. many of them fight wearing ill fitting dress slacks, cheap dress shoes and soiled button down shirts.. their message is always the same about resisting the occupation and keeping Iraqs resources for the Iraqi people.
http://www.terroristmedia.com/nukem/index.php
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
On top of that, many of these "terrorists" in Iraq are normal everyday people like You and I that are really pissed at how they've been treated, and at the devolution of their once modern country into a cesspool of cholera, be headings and anarchy.
modern country?
If 26 marble palaces with gold toilets is your idea of a modern country.
You have no idea what Iraq was like under saddam.
-
xmarine.. you are a strange guy... you do know that you can go to deathrow.com and hear interviews with the inmates and see that they are just regular guys like you and well.. not me but.. you get the point?
how frigging "just like us" is a guy who blows up his own civilian neighbors in a mall cause he is mad at someone they had nothing to do with? what are you on?
You say that if someone invaded us we would all fight.. depends. We asked for french help in the revolution. the confederates asked for french help. If the confederates would have won they would have welcomed the french staying and helping against northern terrorists after their army and government and infrastructure had been all but wiped out. At least till the government got a grip on it.
You miss the biggest point.. the government in power was elected by the biggest majority a free election has ever seen... you miss the point that everyone knows that... far from being invaders.. we will leave when the government (freely elected) tells us we should or can.
you miss the point that these sweet and wonderful "just like us" terrorists blowing up women and kids in the mall are just pissed cause they lost a free election.... nooo.. they are pissed because the country is even able to have a free election.
Now if you can't see the difference then you are even farther off in la la land than even I had thought.
lazs
-
don't hold xmarine accountable for what his wife makes him post ..
if you had Iranian wife ack screaming in your ears, you'd post paranoid, conspiracy, hate bush crap just as he does
LOL LOL LOL
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Lasz i've already said what i would propose to do many times... So that empty rhetoric that you and all the other folks try to repeat is hollow. Not agreeing with something is not called whining. Get some new bougeois cliched phrases.
The current strategy is something only a retrded person would go for. To keep getting soldiers killed over nothing is useless. Let me lay it out for you since you apparently can't see 5 minutes into the future.
1.You can stay in Iraq for the next 20 years and it will not bring an end to terrorism.
2.You cannot truly identify who is a terrorist, that puts the army at a great disadvantage, making the effort truly useless.
3. The army is easily recognizable and attacked, thus the terrorists will always have the upper hand with the element of surprise.
4.The presence of the army is and will continue feeding terrorists.
5. We are breeding more future terrorists than we are killing.
And Lasz if you think the violence will stay low you must be kidding me right? You are just the same as the lefties that cling on to the nearest report of an increase in violence and use that to say how feeble the effort is. So your report of a decrease in violence does as little for me as hearing there is an increase in violence, it's the ebb and flow, the point is it will not stay the same.
Who is killing ladies in the Marketplace in an unnamed Iraqui city with a hidden bomb under the vegetables???
Who was the force behind executions as well as some purgings in Iraq before getting knocked over?
What was a typical death toll, as far as known (growing number) ??
(same questions for Afganistan)
Who was in charge of the state funds, in particular when funds were low so people were starving and children dyings in hospitals etc...
What were the available resources being routed for?
(oh, funds, WMD projects, and palaces maybe?)
I think you are missing the big picture. There was a wannabee Saladdin. He would go to any length for his goal. The USA lead the lance and knocked him out before he had a chance to step into the saddle.
And now everybody is blaming the USA for not leading a "fair play".
IMHO those arsehats that blow up ladies in marketplaces as well as launcing rockets at civilian suburbs from school playgrounds (recent case from Gaza), while whining about their conditions, deserve no handling with soft gloves. Those are the real thugs.
-
Hmm so from 700 in -78 to 650 000 in 1998 (by coalition). I can see a positive trend there.. :rolleyes:
Did you know that Turkey is currently striking the same Kurds Saddam gassed earlyer, in the mountains of Iraq? You gonna overthrow a Nato country next?
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Hmm so from 700 in -78 to 650 000 in 1998 (by coalition). I can see a positive trend there.. :rolleyes:
Did you know that Turkey is currently striking the same Kurds Saddam gassed earlyer, in the mountains of Iraq? You gonna overthrow a Nato country next?
I guess you missed the 1.7 million Iraq/Iran war Saddam started along with the other hundreds of thousands of his own? That article didn't even mention the Kuwaitis he murdered.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
xmarine.. you are a strange guy... you do know that you can go to deathrow.com and hear interviews with the inmates and see that they are just regular guys like you and well.. not me but.. you get the point?
how frigging "just like us" is a guy who blows up his own civilian neighbors in a mall cause he is mad at someone they had nothing to do with? what are you on?
You say that if someone invaded us we would all fight.. depends. We asked for french help in the revolution. the confederates asked for french help. If the confederates would have won they would have welcomed the french staying and helping against northern terrorists after their army and government and infrastructure had been all but wiped out. At least till the government got a grip on it.
You miss the biggest point.. the government in power was elected by the biggest majority a free election has ever seen... you miss the point that everyone knows that... far from being invaders.. we will leave when the government (freely elected) tells us we should or can.
you miss the point that these sweet and wonderful "just like us" terrorists blowing up women and kids in the mall are just pissed cause they lost a free election.... nooo.. they are pissed because the country is even able to have a free election.
Now if you can't see the difference then you are even farther off in la la land than even I had thought.
lazs
I might agree with you on the deathrow.com thing if I hadn't sat watching dozens of those videos, these are not convicted criminals in a prison. Some of them allege they took up the fight for reasons as simple as a US troop allegedly killed the families beloved 12 year old dog "for no reason"... one 1 hand I trust the troop killed the dog to protect himself / his pals... I'm fine with that, but on the other hand I can understand how an "occupation" infidel making the kids cry by blowing up scruffy would pissoff the average Akmed.
Another set of brothers said they were tortured in Abu Ghraib and watned some payback for being disrespected & humiliated; cuffed naked together in the bufu position. There are stories of Blackwater killing tailgaters, sanctions killed my kid, they bombed my aunts house, I have no flush toilet or electricity, millions have been displaced (homeless), my uncle died in the Iraq / Iran war with US made weapons... and so on.
Its entirely possible some of these videos are fake propaganda, concocted stories intended to cause an emotional reaction.... but I have a hard time believing every last one of them is lying.. and the few that are telling the truth have stories that any one of us can look at and say "yeah, I'd get some payback for that"
And I really don't think it "depends" weather or not the average US Joe would fight back against, say, Chinese troops for US soil. I cant think of any scenario where gun owning Americans et al would stand for being occupied, door kicked in, family pet shot dead, detained with zero rights... seems you expecting the Iraqi people to put up with a lot of grief many Americans would violently reject with patriotic pride.
-
"yeah, I'd get some payback for that"
I can understand some poor soul taking up arms against us because he lost his wife or family member as a result of this war. I really do.
I would take up arms too probably. I wouldn't plant roadside bombs that are as likely to kill innocent countrymen as they are my enemy.
I wouldn't go down to the local watering hole and blow myself up along with a hundred or so non-combatants.
Herein lies the difference
-
Originally posted by Angus
Who is killing ladies in the Marketplace in an unnamed Iraqui city with a hidden bomb under the vegetables???
Who was the force behind executions as well as some purgings in Iraq before getting knocked over?
What was a typical death toll, as far as known (growing number) ??
(same questions for Afganistan)
Who was in charge of the state funds, in particular when funds were low so people were starving and children dyings in hospitals etc...
What were the available resources being routed for?
(oh, funds, WMD projects, and palaces maybe?)
I think you are missing the big picture. There was a wannabee Saladdin. He would go to any length for his goal. The USA lead the lance and knocked him out before he had a chance to step into the saddle.
And now everybody is blaming the USA for not leading a "fair play".
IMHO those arsehats that blow up ladies in marketplaces as well as launcing rockets at civilian suburbs from school playgrounds (recent case from Gaza), while whining about their conditions, deserve no handling with soft gloves. Those are the real thugs.
Man do you think i'm siding with those idiots...? Nope, i'm saying the current way we are fighting them is a war of attrition that will dwindle our side not theirs. A catch 22. How many times must America try to fight a guerilla war with conventional tactics and get their arse handed to them by a bunch of people with no technology or special equipment. Thats not very cost effective in lives or achievements. The terrorists have the all important element of surprise and anonymity and that will always win over a conventional technological army in the end.
A tank, a missile, smart weapons, airplanes, half that equipment is useless against these people. What the hell do you drop a bomb on over there, shoot a tank at, launch an artillery assault? Some Arab wearing streetclothes? How do you take out there weapons stashes? They could be hiding stuff in the basement of an innocent grandmothers house. Or a terrorists leaders house. If you try to go after them they can deny it, then you'll look like your harrassing the population of a country your trying to establish good relations with in the first place. Guess what, you've just created more terrorists, when little kids watch them harrassing what they don't know is a bad guy or their father who might not even be a terrorist at all.
Where does all this ill planning put the soldier, the guy at the sharp end of all this. In the middle of the *****, trying to figure out who the enemy is before the enemy finds him. America better start fighting fire with fire before they have nothing left to fight with at all.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I guess you missed the 1.7 million Iraq/Iran war Saddam started along with the other hundreds of thousands of his own? That article didn't even mention the Kuwaitis he murdered.
Saddam can kill his own people, or whoever. It is not worth American lives to die for something that has nothing to with the lives of Americans. The U.S. military is designed to be used as the protector of this country it's resources and the American people, not to be going around saving the world like Robbin Hood or Mother Teresa. When there is a New World Order and America becomes the world's government, then America can dabble in other peoples affairs and who they're killing.
-
Leadpig, I'd say we HAVE figured out how to fight this war, and it's becoming pretty damn obvious to everyone but the die-hard left
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Saddam can kill his own people, or whoever. It is not worth American lives to die for something that has nothing to with the lives of Americans. The U.S. military is designed to be used as the protector of this country it's resources and the American people, not to be going around saving the world like Robbin Hood or Mother Teresa. When there is a New World Order and America becomes the world's government, then America can dabble in other peoples affairs and who they're killing.
If we were a remote island or China of ~2000 years ago I would agree. Since the world has gotten much smaller someone has to try to keep the peace. I trust us more than anyone else.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
I can understand some poor soul taking up arms against us because he lost his wife or family member as a result of this war. I really do.
I would take up arms too probably. I wouldn't plant roadside bombs that are as likely to kill innocent countrymen as they are my enemy.
I wouldn't go down to the local watering hole and blow myself up along with a hundred or so non-combatants.
Herein lies the difference
Well the roadside bombs these guys use are pretty exact, there are literally 100's of IED videos on terroristmedia.com and unfortunately they rarely miss.. these arent always crude explosives, they use infa-red and fairly sophisticated triggers.
I get the point that innocents could die. But I don't see why the difference between what you personally would do, and what they do matters in the overall scheme of things. Its ok to stay in Iraq because some of them are more creatively violent that you?
If China invaded the US, I'd be out there causing hate & discontent with whatever I could get my hands on; collateral damage to my fellow Joe would suck, but as they say "war is hell"...
I still don't get how people expect the Iraqis to put up with crap most of us would violently reject, contrary to popular belief they're not all uncultured raised by wolves sand simps who cant spell their own name, or religious wack-jobs who used to wake up in the morning and hate on people 1/2 a world away because we can vote... to the average Iraqi the Saddam administration was as distant as DC is to most every one of us... when he killed his own peeps, he had spin control too, labeling them terrorists or criminals in the press, accusing the foreign media of dessiminating western sponsored lies... sometimes blaming Iran. Saddam was a politician who could lie, deny and spin bullcrap just like ours.
All universities in Iraq were free, a dirt poor Iraqi could attend the Harvard of Iraq for nothing... they're, were, a-lot of well educated folks there who used to enjoy a civilized life.
-
And now they run around and blow each other up,,,
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I guess you missed the 1.7 million Iraq/Iran war Saddam started along with the other hundreds of thousands of his own? That article didn't even mention the Kuwaitis he murdered.
Rofl! Are you serious? This war was sponsored by US full time. You can't hold something that you financed against him.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Rofl! Are you serious? This war was sponsored by US full time. You can't hold something that you financed against him.
You have evidence that the US sponsored that war? Link?
-
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You have evidence that the US sponsored that war? Link?
Huh? You don't know the US supported Iraq directly in the war?
Instead of falling back to the "show me the proof!" stance, go study the US support yourself. It's not a secret and never was, there was no attempt to really cover it.
Google it.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Huh? You don't know the US supported Iraq directly in the war?
Instead of falling back to the "show me the proof!" stance, go study the US support yourself. It's not a secret and never was, there was no attempt to really cover it.
Google it.
I'll argue that supported and sponsored are not the same. Sponsorship in this case implies the US encouraged Saddam to attack and provided arms. I believe this isn't the case. The US was attacked by Iran without warning and therefore had no love for Iranians but I don't believe you have any evidence to prove the US motivated Saddam to attack them. I will agree that once the war was underway the US did provide some non-warfare specific materials to Iraq.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
If China invaded the US, I'd be out there causing hate & discontent with whatever I could get my hands on; collateral damage to my fellow Joe would suck, but as they say "war is hell"...
but what if china invaded to overthrow that corrupt US govt you keep complaining about, and set up a govt based on the US constitution instead of Big Oil?
and the chinese were favoring ron paul for president?
-
LOL.. an iranian wife? no chit? that explains a lot. he will sure be bitter once she leaves his butt.
xmarine.. you are a tool... you hear some guy on a video saying he got shot for "no reason" because he was tailgating... course.. there was a 8' square sign in his language that said... "get within 500' and we will shoot" they were guarding diplomats.
What excuse do you have for car bombs that kill nothing but civilians in a shopping area?
lazs
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
All universities in Iraq were free, a dirt poor Iraqi could attend the Harvard of Iraq for nothing... they're, were, a-lot of well educated folks there who used to enjoy a civilized life.
and when their soccer team lost the players were beaten and tortured.
-
"What excuse do you have for car bombs that kill nothing but civilians in a shopping area?"
:aok
-
Originally posted by john9001
but what if china invaded to overthrow that corrupt US govt you keep complaining about, and set up a govt based on the US constitution instead of Big Oil?
and the chinese were favoring ron paul for president?
Then Ron Paul was obviously in bed with the Chinese all along, He's most likely a commie, and you guys' all fell in love with him! :lol
-
Back to the original topic of violence being down.......
I was back at Brooke Army Medical Center this past week. My son had to have another surgery. The number of wounded in the hospital was way down from when I was there last February and March. Earlier in the year every room on the ortho ward was full or near full. This past week many were empty or only had one occupant.
I know this isn't proof of anything, but it was a relief to not see rooms full of chewed up young men.
-
Originally posted by DYNAMITE
<> Mark
I for one hope for victory every day... I'm just not ready to hang a "Mission Accomplished" banner up yet and call it good because we've recently seen a drop in violence over the past few months.
With respect-
Dyna
I guess you don't count banners hung on aircraft carriers.
(http://http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/)
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Well the roadside bombs these guys use are pretty exact, there are literally 100's of IED videos on terroristmedia.com and unfortunately they rarely miss.. these arent always crude explosives, they use infa-red and fairly sophisticated triggers.
be sure to thank your wifes friends and relatives for that ...
-
Originally posted by Shifty
Back to the original topic of violence being down.......
I was back at Brooke Army Medical Center this past week. My son had to have another surgery. The number of wounded in the hospital was way down from when I was there last February and March. Earlier in the year every room on the ortho ward was full or near full. This past week many were empty or only had one occupant.
I know this isn't proof of anything, but it was a relief to not see rooms full of chewed up young men.
that is great news .. odd how it hasn't made the evening news but then any good news from Iraq isn't news as it doesn't follow their agenda of getting their lefty buds elected in 08
Shifty
say howdy to Thomas for my family and I
-
Originally posted by Eagler
that is great news .. odd how it hasn't made the evening news but then any good news from Iraq isn't news as it doesn't follow their agenda of getting their lefty buds elected in 08
Shifty
say howdy to Thomas for my family and I
You saw it on the news then still felt obligated to villify the news over a paranoid suspicion.
I see. :D
-
Originally posted by Eagler
that is great news .. odd how it hasn't made the evening news but then any good news from Iraq isn't news as it doesn't follow their agenda of getting their lefty buds elected in 08
Shifty
say howdy to Thomas for my family and I
I will Eagler, thanks.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
be sure to thank your wifes friends and relatives for that ...
Wow.... out of the closet on that one..:huh
-
Originally posted by Shifty
Back to the original topic of violence being down.......
I was back at Brooke Army Medical Center this past week. My son had to have another surgery. The number of wounded in the hospital was way down from when I was there last February and March. Earlier in the year every room on the ortho ward was full or near full. This past week many were empty or only had one occupant.
I know this isn't proof of anything, but it was a relief to not see rooms full of chewed up young men.
What do you think Shifty, how do you and your son feel about this whole thing. Do you feel like the current political leadership has been doing a good job about your son and what they've asked him to do? You think we oughta keep staying this path for another 5 years, 10 years?
I personally feel like the current political and military leadership's decisions and actions have left your son out in the dark, and it saddens and angers me to see the constant volley'ing around of there mission and their lives.
I've advised a few people who were my friends not to get involved in this untill there is a redirection of and refocus of the military it's resources and it's mission by the people who are supposed to be protecting them. I'm shocked by the some of the stuff i've seen our own country do to the soldiers and their actions. That makes me question.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
You saw it on the news then still felt obligated to villify the news over a paranoid suspicion.
I see. :D
ONLY ABC reported ANYthing on this
link (http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20071102.asp#1) The CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly skipped the positive trend, but CBS had time for a story on the investigation of the September shooting of civilians by Blackwater and NBC aired a piece on Hillary Clinton "playing the gender card." The Washington Post and New York Times on Friday also made very different news judgments on the importance of the positive direction as the Post put the news on its front page while the Times hid it in a story, on an inside page, about Iran's role in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
ONLY ABC reported ANYthing on this
link (http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20071102.asp#1)
And that's not broadcast news how? :D
-
Thomas, has had the best of care. Far better than I could have afforded to give him had he suffered an injury like this in say a car wreck. The Army has had a fantastic support system for him and the whole family. The people both military and civilian at BAMC and the facilities, are fantastic. There's always room for improvement however. I wake up everyday though grateful that this system was in place when my son needed it most.
Thomas doesn't consider himself a victim, in his mind he's a soldier. I won't try and speak for him. I can say he believed it what he was doing. I can say he has strong feelings, but the feelings he's expressed to me are not anti Bush, or anti Army, or anti American. He's always been the most optimistic of my children so you hear very little from him that's negative.
His older brother Travis goes back over right after Christmas for his second tour. So I have strong emotions about all of this, that I'd just as soon keep to myself.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
And that's not broadcast news how? :D
You conveniently miss the obvious point....if the deaths had, say, DOUBLED, would ABC be the only outfit to think it news? HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: The news from Iraq has been consistently depressing for several years now, a continuous tableau of death and destruction. But when the administration released more positive casualty figures this week, the media paid little attention. A couple of sentences on the "CBS EVENING NEWS" and NBC "NIGHTLY NEWS," The New York Times ran it on page 10, The Washington Post," page 14, USA Today page 16. The L.A. Times, a couple of paragraphs at the bottom of a page 4 story.
One exception was Charlie Gibson, who made it the lead story on ABC's "WORLD NEWS."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLES GIBSON, ABC ANCHOR: The U.S. military reports the fourth straight month of decline in troop deaths, 66 American troops died in September, each a terrible tragedy for a family, but the number far less than those who died in August. And the Iraqi government says civilian deaths across Iraq fell by half last month.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Joining us now to put this into perspective, Robin Wright, who covers national security for The Washington Post. And CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr.
Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?
ROBIN WRIGHT, THE WASHINGTON POST: Not necessarily. The fact is we're at the beginning of a trend -- and it's not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers. There are different kinds of deaths in Iraq.
There are combat deaths. There are sectarian deaths. And there are the deaths of criminal -- from criminal acts. There are also a lot of numbers that the U.S. frankly is not counting. For example, in southern Iraq, there is *****e upon *****e violence, which is not sectarian in the *****e versus Sunni. And the U.S. also doesn't have much of a capability in the south.
So the numbers themselves are tricky. Long-term, General Odierno, who was in town this week, said he is looking for irreversible momentum, and that, after two months, has not yet been reached.
KURTZ: Barbara Starr, CNN did mostly quick reads by anchors of these numbers. There was a taped report on "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT." Do you think this story deserved more attention? We don't know whether it is a trend or not but those are intriguing numbers.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.
KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.
STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress?
We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.
link (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/07/journalists-tell-howard-kurtz-why-good-news-iraq-shouldn-t-get-report)
-
Originally posted by Shifty
Thomas, has had the best of care. Far better than I could have afforded to give him had he suffered an injury like this in say a car wreck. The Army has had a fantastic support system for him and the whole family. The people both military and civilian at BAMC and the facilities, are fantastic. There's always room for improvement however. I wake up everyday though grateful that this system was in place when my son needed it most.
Thomas doesn't consider himself a victim, in his mind he's a soldier. I won't try and speak for him. I can say he believed it what he was doing. I can say he has strong feelings, but the feelings he's expressed to me are not anti Bush, or anti Army, or anti American. He's always been the most optimistic of my children so you hear very little from him that's negative.
His older brother Travis goes back over right after Christmas for his second tour. So I have strong emotions about all of this, that I'd just as soon keep to myself.
Rgr that to you and your son.
I have strong feelings about this whole thing and how it went down and how the war is being run. But not about your son, your son is a hero, to take the oath he took is a selfless act and speaks of his bravery and convictions.
I wonder about the people commanding him sometimes though. And it saddens me to see.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
You conveniently miss the obvious point....
I'm not conveniently missing anything. There is no media conspiracy. There's just media. Period. ABC is part of the media. It thought it news worthy. The other news agencies apparently didn't or thought something else moreso. Or they're waiting for a more conclusive trend. Same as it's ever been. Same as it ever will be. :aok
"Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias. "
It's a mission. Whether it really exists or not. ;)
-
""KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.
STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. ""
that says it all.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I'm not conveniently missing anything. There is no media conspiracy. There's just media. Period. ABC is part of the media. It thought it news worthy. The other news agencies apparently didn't or thought something else moreso. Or they're waiting for a more conclusive trend. Same as it's ever been. Same as it ever will be. :aok
"Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias. "
It's a mission. Whether it really exists or not. ;)
Hit the nail on the head , news is news, it's not some conspiracy. Look at all the right wing media on everyday. All you gotta do is turn on AM radio anytime and hear conservative right wing talk shows on all day.
-
what ever happened to franken, al franken?
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Hit the nail on the head , news is news, it's not some conspiracy. Look at all the right wing media on everyday. All you gotta do is turn on AM radio anytime and hear conservative right wing talk shows on all day.
I would, however, differentiate between a political talk show (any flavor) and media news.
It'll take a longer trend of casualty reduction than the trend of increased casualties for it to become more universal news. It only takes a short term of the trend going the other way (better to worse) to make news. This isn't anything different from any war our media has covered to date. They only have quicker access to statistics.
-
Originally posted by john9001
what ever happened to franken, al franken?
That's sure non sequiter. What ever happened to valid, topical contribution?
:D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I would, however, differentiate between a political talk show (any flavor) and media news.
True Arlo your right about that.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Rgr that to you and your son.
I have strong feelings about this whole thing and how it went down and how the war is being run. But not about your son, your son is a hero, to take the oath he took is a selfless act and speaks of his bravery and convictions.
I wonder about the people commanding him sometimes though. And it saddens me to see.
Thank you.
-
leadpig mentioned right wing talk radio, i was inquiring about the health of george soros left wing radio station and it's star.
============================
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by john9001
what ever happened to franken, al franken?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by arlo
That's sure non sequiter. What ever happened to valid, topical contribution?
=========================================
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Hit the nail on the head , news is news, it's not some conspiracy. Look at all the right wing media on everyday. All you gotta do is turn on AM radio anytime and hear conservative right wing talk shows on all day.
Or not...no one makes anyone listen to any show. Those shows exist because there is demand for them...in other words they are market driven.
Left wing talk shows on the other hand are either not in demand or those that demand them do not support them.
-
well... this is getting a little confusing.. ledpig.. are you saying that you admire the troops and support a free iraq but simply hate bush and some of the generals? You would be happy if others were running the country and the war?
You don't want to cut and run? you, or your guys, have a better plan?
I did hear about the reduction in casualties on NPR left wing radio.. the first time they mentioned it was when they had a lefty on to give us his take on what "really" was happening.. I am not sure if it backfired.. they got all gushy and breathless when he said it was an exaggeration but... acted like he was a traitor when he said that... even if it was exaggerated... the reduction was real.. That it could be seen and was probly more like a 50% reduction than a 70% one.
I don't believe any news source... I believe all media hacks and their bosses have an agenda... 76% of em are left of center sooo... the agenda is almost always bent to the left.
journalists have the soul of a personal injury lawyer. Lots of croc tears and passion but a hard black lump for a heart. I find that if the lefties even bother to admit something is going right these days... there is probly a lot to it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well... this is getting a little confusing.. ledpig.. are you saying that you admire the troops and support a free iraq but simply hate bush and some of the generals? You would be happy if others were running the country and the war?
You don't want to cut and run? you, or your guys, have a better plan?
I did hear about the reduction in casualties on NPR left wing radio.. the first time they mentioned it was when they had a lefty on to give us his take on what "really" was happening.. I am not sure if it backfired.. they got all gushy and breathless when he said it was an exaggeration but... acted like he was a traitor when he said that... even if it was exaggerated... the reduction was real.. That it could be seen and was probly more like a 50% reduction than a 70% one.
I don't believe any news source... I believe all media hacks and their bosses have an agenda... 76% of em are left of center sooo... the agenda is almost always bent to the left.
journalists have the soul of a personal injury lawyer. Lots of croc tears and passion but a hard black lump for a heart. I find that if the lefties even bother to admit something is going right these days... there is probly a lot to it.
lazs
What's so confusing Lasz? I hate Bush. His punk @%$ isn't worth two cents to me compared to the youngest 19 year old buck private. To me the troops and the leaders commanding them are two different things. The troops follow orders, the leaders give them. If you don't agree with a situation i disagree with their leaders.
I feel some of the stuff they've asked our troops to do, with the equipment they give them and the odds they put them in are pretty ludicrous. The lack of planning and foresight and some the backpedaling and facesaving i've seen our governments leaders do at the expense of our soldiers is absolutely disgusting. Putting them in the middle of all that and not knowing what it was going to turn into also really irks me. I'd like to get my hands around their pompous arrogant little bougeois necks.
Even more so knowing that when they were asked to fight in the same way they were missing in action, flying a barstool more than he was flying in the National guard. Rumsfeld getting constant differments. If thats what you expouse yourself to be about, where were they? All of a sudden they are "Strong Presidents" War leaders"... They seem mighty brave with other peoples lives. There ineptitude sickens me.
Here's the clincher though Lasz.... The troops have nothing to do with all this. They just say yes sir and follow orders. So there is no reason to disagree with the troops. They are brave for even taking the job. To me they are hero's and vip citizens of the highest caliber. I don't agree with how our government is using them and how they are employing them so i fight the leaders that i don't agree with. Untill we can find a better solution and can bring them home and get them out of a bad situation and find a better way to fight "terrorism" that is what they are supposed to be fighting isn't it.
And it will not work over there. I don't care how many reports i see of violence increases or decreases i see, it's noise to me, because the effect this war in Iraq will have on terrorism is nothing.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
I don't care how many reports i see of violence increases or decreases i see, it's noise to me, because the effect this war in Iraq will have on terrorism is nothing.
The original invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. The 2003 invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. World affairs shouldn't be decided by 19 year old soldiers nor 19 year old college students.
-
Lead, you've summarized for the umpteenth time how you hate Bush and Rumsfeld, etal, how they screwed it all up to start with.....we GET IT...NOW things are different, there is a new plan (which is what the left was railing about for some time..."the same old thing"...) and it's WORKING. Alqeada drew a line in the sand, and chose Iraq as the sandbox...and they are (finally) being beaten, and you've just stated that NO amount of good news will dissuade you from your view that it's all a pile of dung, and I'm guessing you're going to keep saying this forever
-
Originally posted by AKIron
World affairs shouldn't be decided by 19 year old soldiers nor 19 year old college students.
Why not? They're old enough to vote in the most powerful country in the world... sounds to me that they are therefore deciding world affairs. :p ;)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The original invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. The 2003 invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. World affairs shouldn't be decided by 19 year old soldiers nor 19 year old college students.
Are you so dense as to think that i'm saying world affairs should be handled by 19 year olds? I said in there that the political leaders make the decisions not the 19 year old privates that your reffering too. It's the leaders that i don't agree with not the soldiers.
Secondly, It had nothing to do with terrorism It had to do with weapons of mass destruction. It had to do with oil. It had to do with Saddam killing his own people. It had to do with Saddam not playing well with others in the region and thus threatening our mass resources.
We know how the first one turned out, i had my questions about that in the beginning. I felt he was jumping the gun a little and should have approached from a smarter reserved opinion and then escalated to war at the last resort. Looks like war was his first resort. Even after all the years of weapons inspector wrangling that went on, i feel he should have tried a little bit more before war.
Saddam killing his own people is not our business so on to point three.
This was also a problem he's threatening our oil, i feel more threats would have worked with him, economic, and world pressure should have been tightened around his neck even tighter. Before war, before anybody was sent to die over this crap. Only then should shooting have erupted. Once again again our pal Bush's hot personality gets us into trouble and alienating America a little more with his "Cowboy mentality" we should have handled that stuff a little smarter and smoother. Once again crap reasons to go to war just yet, as least that quickly.
-
Iraq is finally getting it. Now lets surrender before we succeed so that our favorite beotch can be our next president.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Lead, you've summarized for the umpteenth time how you hate Bush and Rumsfeld, etal, how they screwed it all up to start with.....we GET IT...NOW things are different, there is a new plan (which is what the left was railing about for some time..."the same old thing"...) and it's WORKING. Alqeada drew a line in the sand, and chose Iraq as the sandbox...and they are (finally) being beaten, and you've just stated that NO amount of good news will dissuade you from your view that it's all a pile of dung, and I'm guessing you're going to keep saying this forever
Bj if you think things or different you've got your head up your Kooloo. What is the new plan? More troops to keep doing the same thing? Your just as dumb and blind as the people who thought right after the war ended, the way the Iraqi's were celebrating us being there that that would last. Wrong. They were going to get tired of us and all this would start happening. Did you know that?
Secondly you believe Alqueda drew a line in the sand? No we did by us being there. The Alqueda would have showed up if we attacked and liberated Disney world. Which is exactly why the whole thing isn't going to work in Iraq. The war on terrorism will be fought wherever we decide to show up, they'll be some anoymous guys with bombs plotting in their minds how to blow us up, while we stand around oblivious to the fact untill after it's happened.
Bj if you believe the news about a decrease in violence or an increase in violence for that matter is any evidence of anything with a war against guerillas fighting as sporadic and haphazard as this against an organized Army. Your more disintelligent than i thought.
I guess if you had Herpes and the Doctor told you. "Hey good news, it's gone down, i don't see it in your system anymore your good to go". You'd believe that too. Terrorism is just a virus in remission. Give reports like that, a year, maybe six months, before you start believing it. Whether it says there's an increase in violence or a decrease in violence just hold off on that opinion for a little while.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Bj if you think things or different you've got your head up your Kooloo. What is the new plan? More troops to keep doing the same thing? Your just as dumb and blind as the people who thought right after the war ended, the way the Iraqi's were celebrating us being there that that would last. Wrong. They were going to get tired of us and all this would start happening. Did you know that?
Secondly you believe Alqueda drew a line in the sand? No we did by us being there. The Alqueda would have showed up if we attacked and liberated Disney world. Which is exactly why the whole thing isn't going to work in Iraq. The war on terrorism will be fought wherever we decide to show up, they'll be some anoymous guys with bombs plotting in their minds how to blow us up, while we stand around oblivious to the fact untill after it's happened.
Bj if you believe the news about a decrease in violence or an increase in violence for that matter is any evidence of anything with a war against guerillas fighting as sporadic and haphazard as this against an organized Army. Your more disintelligent than i thought.
I guess if you had Herpes and the Doctor told you. "Hey good news, it's gone down, i don't see it in your system anymore your good to go". You'd believe that too. Terrorism is just a virus in remission. Give reports like that, a year, maybe six months, before you start believing it. Whether it says there's an increase in violence or a decrease in violence just hold off on that opinion for a little while.
I surrender to your superior intellect:huh
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Iraq is finally getting it. Now lets surrender before we succeed so that our favorite beotch can be our next president.
Succed in what, ending terrorism? Do you not realize when we leave, that place will erupt in a religious and cultural civil war almost the likes of which this world has never seen. We have been barely keeping it patched toghether for the las t 5 years. You think that will get better when we leave?
Do you think a culture that different from ours is going to want to, in general, embrace the American way of life or culture. Wrong. Do you know how much tradition that is and how far that goes back in their history. How much a religion quite different from ours, has a pull on the whole population, government, and they're whole civilization?
Us staying for the next twenty years won't hold that toghether, our leaving won't either. What does tell you about the stupidity of the whole situation?
-
Originally posted by bj229r
I surrender to your superior intellect:huh
You got a rebuttle or is it just an empty sarcastic comment you got left? :huh
-
It's squealing pointless to debate with you...if that's what it can be called
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Untill we can find a better solution and can bring them home
leadpig wants a "better solution", he doesn't have one, he doesn't know of one, but he wants a "better solution".
leadpig, you don't want a better solution, you just want to hate boosh/hitler.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
It's squealing pointless to debate with you...if that's what it can be called
Pointless as your thinking Iraq won't denegrate into a mass civil war and your thinking all will be well, and we'll be traipsing through a meadow hand in hand with our now "Americanized" Islamic Iraqi friends. And that terrorism will be neutralized there. Whether we would have started the war or not. Or whether we stay or not. The same thing was going to happen.
Pointless as your thinking that ever was going to happen and ever is going to happen.
-
Why don't you realize arguing with leadpig is useless, it's like banging your head on a brick wall, only the brick wall is brighter.
-
What the whole world needs is to be garrisoned by U.S. forces (without a draft or mobilizing industry for global garrisoning) until it figures out it wants to be just like us. :D
-
dago, come on, leadpig, arlo and others like them make my day, how boring it would be to log on here and only have intelligent people to agree with. :D
-
Originally posted by john9001
dago, come on, leadpig, arlo and others like them make my day, how boring it would be to log on here and just have all intelligent people to agree with. :D
You make ours, too. It's especially funny when the VI's claim superior intelligence (without offering an example thereof). ;)
-
Originally posted by Dago
Why don't you realize arguing with leadpig is useless, it's like banging your head on a brick wall, only the brick wall is brighter.
I'm quite happy to be useless. I'm glad not to be a mindless goat following our leaders into world destruction in whatever they say. You nimwads act like questioning your government makes you un-American which is complete crap. Questioning your government is one of the most American things you can do along with serving it. Kudos to people who do either or both. I bet if your government told you to bend over and didn't give you the common courtesy of a reach around that would be cool with you too. Which alot of our leaders have been doing to our troops for a long time. And it's not something i like to see happening for any lenght of time.
I'm glad to see i've mentally exhausted you to the point that you feel your head must become part of a brick wall. Maybe it means you have nothing to say. Who's mentally dim if i've exhausted your point of view? To the point that you are frustrated.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
I'm quite happy to be useless. I'm glad not to be a mindless goat following our leaders into world destruction
"world destruction"?:O
-
the end is near.
-
ledpig... as was noted.. we all know you hate bush and love the troops... even tho you don't think that they are right in saying they should be there.
I read all that and I agree that we have made mistakes (mistakes in war??? whoda thunk??)... I think some of the lack of proper buildup had to do with arrogance and some... because you lefties woulda had a cow.
All this is fine but... you still really have never given us your plan. Now.. we have a different plan with a different general and.. depending on who you listen to... it is reducing casualties of all kinds by 50-70%.
Yet.. you seem upset. It doesn't make you look exactly impartial and sensible.
I still say that we would/will have to fight these guys sometime, someplace... I would rather it be there with troops who have volunteered. It would be nice if we had made less mistakes but...
I can think of no worse mistake than "run and hide".
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I can think of no worse mistake than "run and hide".
lazs
First worse mistake was to not secure our borders before starting a war in IRAQ! Second worse mistake was not killing/capturing Osama before starting a war in IRAQ. Third worse mistake was not completely winning control in afghanistan before starting a war in IRAQ! Forth worse mistake was starting a war in IRAQ!:aok
-
skyrock.. those were then.... this is now... try to keep up.
the unsecure borders have not really led to a lot of problems.. no blue cities were vaporized yet.. I would venture to say that "run away and hide" might achieve that tho.
It is virtually impossible to "secure our borders" not in any country I would want to live in anyway.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
skyrock.. those were then.... this is now... try to keep up.
the unsecure borders have not really led to a lot of problems.. no blue cities were vaporized yet.. I would venture to say that "run away and hide" might achieve that tho.
It is virtually impossible to "secure our borders" not in any country I would want to live in anyway.
lazs
Lazs, good points, shame you have to point out the obvious.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
skyrock.. those were then.... this is now... try to keep up.
the unsecure borders have not really led to a lot of problems.. no blue cities were vaporized yet.. I would venture to say that "run away and hide" might achieve that tho.
It is virtually impossible to "secure our borders" not in any country I would want to live in anyway.
lazs
Cause fear agenda only works when presented from a "conservative" pov:
J: Mr. President, thank you for taking my call.
W: Glad to, Jacko. Anything for a Skull and Boner. Heh. Heh. Heh. Boner.
J: Sir, you’ve been saying lately that the terrorists would follow us home if we withdraw from Iraq. Do you mean like a stalker or more like a puppy?
W: No, it’s more like DiNiro in that Cape Fear movie. They could strap themselves under some of our tanks on the way home. Then at night they’d crawl out from under the houseboat and try to rape our wives and poison our dog. Well, not on my watch! I won’t let them follow us to Cape Fear because that’s where we live! And we’ll continue to live in Fear as long as I’m in power. I’ll never let the terrorists find us.
J: Mr. President, do you mean that the only thing preventing some sort of terrorist “invasion” is that they simply can’t find the USA?
W: That’s right. See the terrorist are evil. Really evil. And smart. Evil geniuses. You must fear them and give up any semblance of your civil rights or liberties. But the terrorists have a weakness. They have trouble reading maps. That’s their weakness. They’re not great map readers. So one prong in our pronged strategy in The War on Terror is to keep the evildoers from finding us. Bringing our troops home will only guide the terrorists here.
J: I see, sir.
W: Oh, we’ve got other prongs, too. Like when we torture people, we pack ‘em up and fly them to lots of other countries all over the place.
J: That’s Extraordinary Rendition.
W: Thanks, I think it’s pretty extraordinary myself. See, flying them all over the place keeps the terrorists guessing. We keep ‘em moving. “Are they in Syria?” “The Americans took me to Turkey or was it Poland?” “Is this Sri Lanka?” “They waterboarded me in Libya and all I got was this t-shirt.” They’re not really sure where to find us. We confuse them. Keep them confused. Did you ever play Pin the Tail on the Donkey?
J: Excuse me, Mr. President?
W: You blindfold a kid and spin him around and around and around and then he tries to pin a little paper tail on a donkey’s ass. But the kid’s so confused that he never hits the mark! Heh. Heh. It’s like the blindfolded kid is the terrorist and the USA is the donkey. And the terrorists want to pin the tail on me. But we keep the terrorists confused in Guantanamo and we confuse them by flying them all over the place. And we confuse them more with all our troops stationed in Iraq, and they can’t find us. They never pin the tail on the right spot.
J: The prettythang.
W: Exactly!
J: But, sir, the terrorists didn’t seem to have a problem finding our country on 9/11.
W: No, that was al Qaeda. We’re talking about Iraq now. Iraq has nothing to do with al Qaeda, silly.
J: Of course not. Are you concerned that someday some terrorists might, well, find the United States?
W: That’s where the next prong of our strategy kicks in. We’ve awarded a $950 billion no-bid contract to Halliburton to develop the NIS.
J: NIS, Mr. President?
W: The National Invisibility Shield. They can’t hit what they can’t see! It was my idea. Mine and Mr. Cheney’s, of course. See, the NIS will make our entire nation invisible to the terrorists, liberals and other evildoers. They’ll never be able to get to us because they won’t see us!
J: I see.
W: No you don’t!!! Get it? You can’t see the Invisibility Shield! Heh. Heh. It will solve our illegal immigration problems, too. The NIS will make the country invisible to Mexicans! They’ll think they’re going into Arizona to pick our produce and clean our pools, but they’ll end up in British Columbia! “Where’s Arizona?” Sorry, Pedro, it’s invisible!!! Better learn to play hockey!
J: Mr. President?
W: And when the Chinese and Saudis come by in a few years demanding payment on all those loans they’ve given us, I press a button and WOOSH! They can’t see us. They won’t be able to collect any money from an invisible county! Whooooa! “What happened to the U.S.A.? It was here just a minute ago. Where is it now?” They can’t find us. And we just sit back and smile. But we mustn’t laugh. Or make any noise. See we’re invisible, but they can still hear us. We have to be very, very quiet. Shhhhhhhhhh!
J: (whisper) Thank you, Mr. President.
W: Shhhhhhh!
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1379.shtml
Heh. ;) :aok
-
arlo that was entirely too long for my truncated attention span.
what was that gist of that?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
arlo that was entirely too long for my truncated attention span.
what was that gist of that?
Let me give it a try:
"The President talks funny and I disagree with his policies, so he's dumb. Let's all laugh at the tired humor of the situation."
-
Originally posted by Yeager
arlo that was entirely too long for my truncated attention span.
what was that gist of that?
How dare you outside the agenda promote fear! That's the job of those within it!
(Can't get it much shorter. Good luck.) :D :aok
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Let me give it a try:
"The President talks funny and I disagree with his policies, so he's dumb. Let's all laugh at the tired humor of the situation."
Sorry, you failed to make the cut as my spokesman. Step aside. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Sorry, you failed to make the cut as my spokesman. Step aside. :D
I didn't intend to speak for you, it's just when I hear another somebody trying to tell a joke about the president's intelligence, it reminds me of hearing a Jack Benny of Henny Youngman joke... without the timing.
I mean ... it's been done to death.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I didn't intend to speak for you, it's just when I hear another somebody trying to tell a joke about the president's intelligence, it reminds me of hearing a Jack Benny of Henny Youngman joke... without the timing.
I mean ... it's been done to death.
George is doing his best to keep it fresh but it's the only act he's got. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
George is doing his best to keep it fresh but it's the only act he's got. ;)
Their coverage of the Bush / Gore Indecision 2000 was magnificent, but I stopped being a regular viewer of the Daily Show when they forgot that the news media was fodder for their humor and settled on tired old george bashing.
The same joke is only funny a few times. Dress it up as satire and you're only saying, "I'm too lazy to be funny."
-
Look past the satire (or the satirist)*. My point is one can't have it both ways (sarcastically critisize those who do not support their agenda for being "fear motivated" while ignoring everything within their agenda which is just as bad, if not worse). :)
*Both of which/whom I freely admit made me chuckle .... still.
-
Too bad Arlo you have to point out the obvious fact that you can fight terrorist in Iraq all day long and it won't kill them. They'll just follow you to America or Six Flags or wherever the hell you go. They'll pose as the amusement park ride operator, take your ticket, smile in your face, tell you they love America, and shoot you in the back of the head as you try to step on the ride.
It's akin to a story of WW2 where 9 German wermacht were lined up outside a room where a Soviet soldier was with a loaded machine gun. The officer slapped them on the back and told them all to run in. One by one they all piled in only to get shot by the one Soviet soldier. Finally the officer approached the door more cautiously and stuck his head in only to get capped in the skull.
Yea... Iraq is about as smart as that.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Too bad Arlo you have to point out the obvious fact that you can fight terrorist in Iraq all day long and it won't kill them. They'll just follow you to America or Six Flags or wherever the hell you go. They'll pose as the amusement park ride operator, take your ticket, smile in your face, tell you they love America, and shoot you in the back of the head as you try to step on the ride.
And yet, they haven't. Vote for Hillary and you may get your wish.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
And yet, they haven't. Vote for Hillary and you may get your wish.
Do you for one second think the war in Iraq is keeping guys from blowing up airplanes here again? For anyone who doesn't know i've flown at a ton of flight schools and all i see is people from the middle east flying in America because it's cheaper. What's stopping any one of those guys, Iraq? No, none of those guys just happen to be terrorists that's all. And thats just an example.
No, the reason is the excellent job Bush has been doing with his intelligence in other parts of the world such as Afghanistan and here in America. I guess after his prior intelligence snafu's he's not trying to repeat it again. Although i'm a bit worried Bush might be going a little too far if he's not checked.
But Iraq doesn't have much to do with it, other than the fact that it's like "Oh look the Americans or here, lets kill them here". That's great news for the troops now isn't it? (sarcasm)
Oh and by the statement you made i guess you've prejudged me and are assuming i'd be voting for Hillary ....huh?
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Too bad Arlo you have to point out the obvious fact that you can fight terrorist in Iraq all day long and it won't kill them. They'll just follow you to America or Six Flags or wherever the hell you go.
Hmmm .... not quite my point, actually.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
...Korea was bunk
Please sir, do expound on this theory. It was a hidden treasure in your otherwise decent list of examples (you should have substituted Kosovo for Korea).
I'm all ears. Take your time.
-
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/21406.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2414588.ece
There has been a rather amazing transformation in parts of Iraq, "insurgents" that have killed / maimed untold numbers of US troops became "security forces" the instant they touched US currency. There are not elected officials, but Sunni warlords with no affiliation, or affinity, to the central govt.
"The town is run by deals among its anointed leaders, nearly all of them former Sunni Muslim insurgents. None was elected. No one pays any mind to what might be happening in Iraq’s *****e-dominated parliament in Baghdad. In fact, residents assume that the elected central government will never help them.
Instead, the insurgents-turned-leaders depend on an influx of money from the U.S. or from the provincial government to keep Islamic extremists from dominating the town again. So far, the U.S. military has spent $1 million,"
Saddam pacified the locals, with cash, it only took Bush 5 years to learn Saddams tactic worked pretty good, even though it rewards killers / criminals and other assorted crap disturbers responsible for killing / maiming our nations finest.
It's all good as long as nobody minds but US tax dollars going to murderers like Sabah al Janabi who are responsible for untold numbers of dead US troops and would be tried for murder in a non banana republic... but janabi became a concerned citizen after having his pockets stuffed wit cash, so it's ok... the surge of cash is working, good job Mr president... if you can't beat em, buy em.
-
"Moltz looked the second sheikh, Taleb al-Janabi, in the eye. “If you keep to your contract and keep fighting the enemy, we owe you the balance,” he said.
The balance is $189,000 (£93,000), to be paid over three months if the sheikh sticks to his side of the bargain and drives out the largely foreign fighters of Al-Qaeda in Iraq who have set up camp in date palm groves along the banks of the Euphrates in Ruwiya, to the west"
Business is business
And who is it that is supposed to be our main enemy on our war on terror again?
Seems to be alot more fruitfull then paying our own mercenaries (Blackwater)
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
For anyone who doesn't know i've flown at a ton of flight schools
Do you keep flunking necessitating trying to find one that will pass you, or is it your personality to causes you to be tossed out? :D
-
I think arlos point is that he is really funny but you have to be a pot smoker to get the full effect.
Follow us home? like in cape fear? Nooo.. I would say that the whole thing is like a bunch of islamofacist bubbas who, when left alone get to play out in the sand in airliner hulks or fake schools or wheel and deal for suitcase nukes with oil money..
It is like... they can do that and get their passports all ready and all or.. they can make the chioce for allah and the virgins and fight the great satan right in their backyard.. they can gloriously die trying to kill US soldiers and stop an arab/muslim country from opening a bar and letting women run around in miniskirts..
but that effort comes at a cost.. they are shooting their wad on the home front. sure.. they still get to sit around the dining table and curse at the great satan but.. they got more important things to do.
I may be wrong but.. so far, they are staying home and getting their butts kicked thousands of miles from here.. It has been a long time since they have hit us.
Which seems odd given that I hear on this BB that we are creating more of em every day... more than ever.. and... that, as I hear on this BB... they now hate us more than they ever did... that they almost loved us before but now... out of moral indignation at our evil ways... hate us?
Seems the ones wanting to win the war are not the ones who want to have it both ways....
Oh... I just heard that the democrats want to attach a line on the "support the troops" money that says that we have to start pulling out in a couple of months.
Does this seem desperate or what? LOL.. they are desperate for defeat.. the only hope for them is defeat... support the troops indeed.
lazs
-
Now lazs, there you go again, trying to inject logic and honest observation in an arguement with liberals. You know they don't believe in logic, truth or reality, only nonsense made up by pot smokers. :rofl
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Oh and by the statement you made i guess you've prejudged me and are assuming i'd be voting for Hillary ....huh?
To be honest, I didn't think you were old enough to vote. :p
-
Originally posted by Dago
Now lazs, there you go again, trying to inject logic and honest observation in an arguement with liberals. You know they don't believe in logic, truth or reality, only nonsense made up by pot smokers. :rofl
Cant find Bin Ladden so we bring freedom to Iraq so they can kill each other,thats logical allright.
-
Originally posted by KgB
so we bring freedom to Iraq so they can each other,thats logical allright.
Yeah, we want them to can each other.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Yeah, we want them to can each other.
can kill.
sorry
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think arlos point is that he is really funny but you have to be a pot smoker to get the full effect.
Button on your forehead seems stuck. You may wanna see to that. :)
-
arlo.. I just wish someone would quit waking you up from your "nap".
all this talk of the violence going down... it just occured to me that the democrats haven't brought up that "its a civil war" thing for months and months.... almost like they had never said it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
arlo.. I just wish someone would quit waking you up from your "nap".
all this talk of the violence going down... it just occured to me that the democrats haven't brought up that "its a civil war" thing for months and months.... almost like they had never said it.
lazs
Well it's almost as if you never believed it anyway, so why bother. Drive the towncar around the block a few times and yell at the homeless people and you'll feel better. :D
-
Originally posted by KgB
Cant find Bin Ladden so we bring freedom to Iraq so they can kill each other,thats logical allright.
Thats about the most idiotic thing that ever gets said about the Iraq war, and it's telling that it's repeated a lot--he is in PAKISTAN/Waziristan...has been there since 2002...we cant GO INTO PAKISTAN...that would be like....oh....INVADING A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY! (Seems I've heard once or twice we aren't sposed to do that) We asked/paid the Musharraf fellow you peeps hate our support of so much, to go into the mountains after Bin Laden and his ilk, and they lost 1000 good soldiers in doing so, and there Bin Laden remains
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Thats about the most idiotic thing that ever gets said about the Iraq war, and it's telling that it's repeated a lot--he is in PAKISTAN/Waziristan...has been there since 2002...we cant GO INTO PAKISTAN...that would be like....oh....INVADING A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY! (Seems I've heard once or twice we aren't sposed to do that) We asked/paid the Musharraf fellow you peeps hate our support of so much, to go into the mountains after Bin Laden and his ilk, and they lost 1000 good soldiers in doing so, and there Bin Laden remains
If it was the most idiotic post to date I think you managed to one up him.
;) :aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
If it was the most idiotic post to date I think you managed to one up him.
;) :aok
Sooo....now it's ok to invade a foreign country? Pesky rules hard to keep up with
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Sooo....now it's ok to invade a foreign country? Pesky rules hard to keep up with
You're the one that seems undecided. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
You're the one that seems undecided. ;)
Ok Arlo you convinced me! Let's break out the B52's and the cluster bombs and just go back and forth thru those mountains like we're mowing the yard!:aok Damn I feel LOTS better now!
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Ok Arlo you convinced me! Let's break out the B52's and the cluster bombs and just go back and forth thru those mountains like we're mowing the yard!:aok Damn I feel LOTS better now!
While you're busy bouncing off the walls impressing us with dual logic I just wanna know if you got this excited in 2003. :D
-
The 'WMD' approach was stupid---the UN AND the US ought have gone into Iraq in '98. Saddam started a war, got his arse kicked, and signed a paper promising MANY things, in order to keep his country and what was left of his army---when he failed to follow said piece of paper (last straw was kicking out the inspectors, to say nothing of endlessly hindering their work), UN/NATO ought have rolled him......but these organizations ARE what they ARE, after all
-
I'm good. Carry on. :)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I'm good. Carry on. :)
AllRIGHTY! NOW let's go bomb the watermelon outta some brown people! ALways makes me feel better! (George Carlin:D )
-
Originally posted by bj229r
AllRIGHTY! NOW let's go bomb the watermelon outta some brown people! ALways makes me feel better! (George Carlin:D )
As long as it makes you feel good. Many people rationalize everything just that way. :)
(And yeah, I'm a Carlin fan) :D
((And yeah, I know you don't wanna bomb Paki)) :cool: