Liars Liars !

[Krusher]

Originally posted by Sakai

You're dishonest Krusher, you only cite what you believe, not what is factually occurring.  A damned liar, like those cowards Cheney and Bush.

Sakai [/B][/QUOTE]

Face it sakai, I posted the "exact" text from the AP.

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
Tue Nov 15, 6:27 PM ET

The GOP-controlled Senate rejected a Democratic call Tuesday for a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq but urged President Bush to outline his plan for "the successful completion of the mission" in a bill reflecting a growing bipartisan unease with his Iraq policies.

The overall measure, adopted 98-0

You can call it a stunt if it suits your POV but it is a FACT.

I also posted the TEXT from the presidents speech last year prior to the first election in January that covers a "plan" that is remarkably similar to the plan being mentioned today. You either missed or ignored it but it is a FACT.

Democrats are losing the American public now



And what a surprise, you call me dishonest and a damned liar when you can not back up your post with FACTS.

I am through with you Sakai, you are wasting my time with your school yard spew, its tiresome and boring.

[Casca]

Originally posted by SirLoin
Everyone knows this cause your country sold him the raw materials to make the chemical weapons...

Which begs the question...Why did u sell that stuff to him?..Can you answer that one?

You illegaly arm the Contras..
You invade Grenada & Panama..
You sell weapons to both Iran & Iraq when they are at war
You deliver the chemical kaka to Sadam with a handshake from Rumsfeld

Then you take the moral high ground when he uses it and use that as the reason to invade Iraq?


Talk about yer ferkin indian giver.

Actually that doesn't beg the question that raises the question.  Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which one assumes what one claims to be proving.  

For instance a statement like "You illegaly (sic) arm the Contras.." begs the question of the legality of arming the contras.  Just for the record, the arming of the contras was perfectly legal prior to the Boland (a Massachusetts Democrat, imagine that) Amendment.  

I presume the purpose of your accusatory Canukistani bill of particulars is to throw enough dung around to vitiate any moral argument for what is occuring in Iraq.

My argument would be this:  Let's stipulate that you are entirely correct and mutually accept that everything you allege is unvarnished gospel with whatever implication you feel should appertain.  If that is the case, then our obligation to rectify the situation is increased.  It is doubly incumbent upon us to atone for our misdeeds.  I am glad to see that we are doing so.

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
  During the cold war the world was a different place and you had to take sides in conflicts such as these.  
 

It is exactly that kind of stupidity that has plaqued this country since the end of WWII.   When you choose the lesser of two evils, you're still choosing evil.  We didnt have to go into Korea, and US citizens turned their back on that conflict.  We didn't have to go into VietNam, and US citizens eventually turned their back on that conflict.  We didn't have to go into IRAQ, and eventually US citizens will turn their back on this conflict as well.  If the purpose of the "Fight" is not pure and one of integrity or in some way directly affects the average Joe, then failure on some level is eminant!  There was never a doubt to fight the Japanese in WWII, because they attacked us first.  The American resolve was unwaivering.  Korea did not attack us first and eventually most americans lost their support for the conflict.  VietNam did not attack us first, and american resolve eventually waivered.  IRAQ did not attack us first, and eventually if the costs drag on, the american people will waiver there as well!  I have yet to hear from anyone that going into Afghanistan was a bad move, why?  Because people inside afghanistan orchestrated the attack on our soil. ie.. attacked us first!
   I sometimes chuckle at some in here and elswhere that blame Media and actors for losing wars.  If US citizens are so easily swayed then I say that their resolve was never as strong as it should be before entering a conflict.

[Yeager]

whatever skyrock.....say and think whatever the freedom to do so inspires you to say.  But lets just this once, complete what we started and have sacrificed so much for before we retreat and surrender, again.

Lets win one for the team.  what you say team mate?  just this once?

[Sakai]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
That vote was what. about 2 weeks ago?
Not that long to forget what brought it about.
I suggest you work on improving your short term memory

Oh and by the way. You spin poorly
The vote was for "immediate" withdrawal.
not a Drawdown



And just for the record.
Im not braindead enough to have a particular party affiliation.
You might find me decidedly liberal or conservative or anywhere in between depending on the subject at hand

Nope, three votes:

Two manipulated ones by the GOP to try and get some ploitical leverage(no one bought into these and they were dutifully reported as jokes), only referenced as meaningful by right wing apologists I might add, and 1 fostered by the GOP senate asking for (drumroll):

The troops being drawn down startig next year (that is a timetable, by the way) with senate oversight because Bush is playing fast and lose with his power.

End of story.

Not only need to read, need to understaand politics in our nation.  It's amazing how you guys spit this tripe out as if it's meaningful.

Hey, there's still three of you who believe it, why not repeat it?

Sakai

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Yeager
whatever skyrock.....say and think whatever the freedom to do so inspires you to say.  But lets just this once, complete what we started and have sacrificed so much for before we retreat and surrender, again.

Lets win one for the team.  what you say team mate?  just this once?

If there can be no completion and the sacrifice is those same men and women you claim to support, why do it?

Sakai

[Yeager]

why do it?
====
I believe in the mission.  I believe this mission in Iraq can succeed.  I also believe that the mission can fail.  I believe people like you and I can have a serious impact on the success or failure of this mission.

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Casca
If that is the case, then our obligation to rectify the situation is increased.  It is doubly incumbent upon us to atone for our misdeeds.  I am glad to see that we are doing so.

Agreed, and getting rid of Hussein was also a noble endeavor.

But castigating anyone who doesn't get on board with your methods and keeping the troops in a war where the enemy chooses all the fights and the outcome wrecks innocents . . . well, it won't be long before the people we're "saving" turn on us more and more.  How many dead innocents will it take to get their relatives seeking retribution against us as well?

All Iraqi political parties are demanding a timetable for withdrawal (not the current govt. officials, all the guys running for offices to be determined in two weeks).  We can't simultaneously say "we want them to be responsible" and "we'll tell them whe they can be responsible."

If they want to take over, let them, that is what self-determination means.

We need a reaction force in the region, our interests demand it.  

We also do not have the forces to sustain the current situation, not according to any objective metric you can identify.  

So list specific victory conditions, meet those and save our military intact.

The untenable portion of the Bush argument is this part"  "Trust me, I can't tell you what will occur but I am sure I can't screw it up."

Trying to portray that argument as reasonable as so many here do is uhhmm . . . problematic for me.

Sakai

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Sakai
If there can be no completion and the sacrifice is those same men and women you claim to support, why do it?

Sakai

where do you get "no completion" from.  The conflict has only gone on for two years wich is in it's relative infancey stage as compared relativly to any other conflict of simulare size and scope.  

If the "people arent behind it" than that's the fault of our elected leaders for not selling it to the people.....why does it have to be sold?  because most people lack foresite.  If the allies had attacked Germany before 1935 They would have rolled over Germany before their war machine could be firmly established.  WWII would have been prevented or delayed at least, millions of lives saved.  No one had the foresite to stand up to a tyrant.  

Islamo fascism is hell bent on world domination.  Scoff all you want at me but it is the honest truth.  This isn't just about Iraq but about the security of the entire world and keeping it from a blanket of mulsim banner.

one could argue that the spread of communism left un-checked could have landed on or doorstep eventually.  FIghting it peacmeal prevented an all out world conflict.  Of course that didn't happen so it really can't be proven.  What you call stupidity I call foresite.

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
where do you get "no completion" from.  The conflict has only gone on for two years wich is in it's relative infancey stage as compared relativly to any other conflict of simulare size and scope.  

Well, it is not possible to achieve a complete victory as Mr. Bush has stated being the only measure, because there will always be some insurgents in the field.  As long as one terrorist stays in Iraq, they will claim victory as well.

It was poorly thought out on his part to say "I will only accept this" because he cannot achieve it, just as it was not possible to achieve total victory in Viet Nam.  He keeps painting himself in absolutist corners.  It makes the flag wavers happy, but it's not possible; that is where he always gets into trouble, stating as fact things which turn out to be not so.

Your statement that "it's only been two years" overlooks the fact that we don't have the manpower to stay in the conflict indefinitely and Congress won't spend for it any longer:  the GOP senate has already said as much.  

Thus, if it is to be such a standoff of claims, best to determine your conditions for victory and meet them, then no matter what they claim we can say "sorry, set concrete objectives, met them on time and left--you lost."

Bush is gambling everything on this policy of his, that's poor behavior for a president because he is saying that our military must endure any cost, even though he has no idea of knowing if that cost will out strip or damage our military.  

It's easy for these guys to pound their chests and spout rhetoric, but so far they aint been right on any of this.  

Sakai

[Gunthr]

I can laugh off the progressive far left liberals in this country (and the whining wannabes to our north) who want us to pull out of Iraq in spite of our continuing progress there.  Hillory Clinton is the one that is scareing me.  Her take on Iraq is one to be admired in spite of her sharp tongue and thick ankles, though I doubt her sincerity.  She will fool some moderates I think.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051130/D8E6QUUOD.html

[Gunthr]

Bush is gambling everything on this policy of his, that's poor behavior for a president because he is saying that our military must endure any cost, even though he has no idea of knowing if that cost will out strip or damage our military.

Bush makes the important decisions based on principles.  That is a higher form, in my opinion, than making decisions based on politics.  Bush has been consistent throughout.  We can and are finishing the job we began - as long as we have our volunteer military.

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by Yeager
sirloin, Im guessing rummie gave saddam the chems so he could kill Iranians, who called us the great satan, so its all cool.  Unfortunately saddie apparently experimeted on friendly kurds, and this upset us so we went in and arrested saddam when the time was right.

Grenada and Panama were justified right on successes last time I checked.  Arming the Contras helped defeat the nasty sandanistas, which was the goal and was a success last time I checked.

also, giving the iranians some old crappy munitions to kill iraqis with so the iranians would let some hostages go was a fair trade.

Actually, it was pretty brilliant, arming Iraqis to kill Iranians, and arming Iranians to kill Iraqis....too bad life aint so simple... never mind

Yeager, Panama was a farce and basically was used as a testing grounds for new weapons systems.  I believe 30,000 citizens were killed and many in one burrough where it mysteriously got torched!  If you want to know what americans didnt learn, then u must do some research, but the horrible truths about that fiasco are out there.  I will try and find you a link.

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by Yeager
whatever skyrock.....say and think whatever the freedom to do so inspires you to say.  But lets just this once, complete what we started and have sacrificed so much for before we retreat and surrender, again.

Lets win one for the team.  what you say team mate?  just this once?

Yeager, I am all for this team, bro!  Checks and balances are the way of the system, which means that people should inquire.  
     On the other hand, I myself feel that this IRAQ Crock of Chit, was basically stuffed down the US citizens throats and down the politicians throats as well.  When the push for this invasion was at it's apex, a person couldn't even get a ? out of there mouths before they were called traitor or unpatriotic.   I am a teacher and I remember at least 5 occasions where I made a statement to educated professionals about why we would even want ot go into IRAQ if they had nothing to do with the attacks here in America, only to hear as a reply, "hey, they attacked us first by hitting the towers!"  Now, that would be understandable for some to mis-connect IRAQ with the towers being hit, but it seems that this invasion was pushed full force at a time when americans were still reeling from the shock of america's greatest tragedy!  I thought it felt underhanded and misleading then and my views haven't changed.  I always want our team to win, but I also want our team to always show class, integrity, and be leaders in the world, not come off as twisting the truth just because we can.  In reality, there were hawks sharpening their teeth when Bush won the presidency and as soon as 3 months in were discussing how we might justify invading IRAQ.  History has taught us that when people have to twist/bend/not be thorough/mold/sculpt the truth to get it by people, then usually it will come back to haunt them.  I would like to see the transfer of power in IRAQ as soon as possible.  I think that we owe the IRAQi's that much.  But there will be a time when you have to call them on their end, which is to stand up for themselves and do it!

[Casca]

Originally posted by Sakai
Agreed, and getting rid of Hussein was also a noble endeavor.

But castigating anyone who doesn't get on board with your methods and keeping the troops in a war where the enemy chooses all the fights and the outcome wrecks innocents . . . well, it won't be long before the people we're "saving" turn on us more and more.  How many dead innocents will it take to get their relatives seeking retribution against us as well?

All Iraqi political parties are demanding a timetable for withdrawal (not the current govt. officials, all the guys running for offices to be determined in two weeks).  We can't simultaneously say "we want them to be responsible" and "we'll tell them whe they can be responsible."

If they want to take over, let them, that is what self-determination means.

We need a reaction force in the region, our interests demand it.  

We also do not have the forces to sustain the current situation, not according to any objective metric you can identify.  

So list specific victory conditions, meet those and save our military intact.

The untenable portion of the Bush argument is this part"  "Trust me, I can't tell you what will occur but I am sure I can't screw it up."

Trying to portray that argument as reasonable as so many here do is uhhmm . . . problematic for me.

Sakai

I can't really disagree with any of your bullet points.  They are sensible to me which puts us substantially in agreement in many ways.  As far as being credulous of the portion of the Bush argument you cite, I am not particularly happy with what seems to frequently be the ad hoc conduct of the war.

I think where we possibly differ can be illuminated by substituting a phrase of yours with a phrase of mine:

You used the phrase "...anyone who doesn't get on board with your methods..." and I would have written it as "...individuals who are actively attempting to undermine your position to the detriment of the outcome, for political gain and with no clearly articulated alternative course of action besides cut and run..."  Yeah, mine is god-awful grammatically but is probably as concise as I can get it.  I find these folks to be worthy of a little deserved and much belated castigation.