Democrats Want to Lose another war

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Well I hate to say this but it's how I feel and that is casualties have been relativly light compared to almost all past conflicts.  The invasion itself was a smashing success but the occupation has taken it's toll.

Yep.

I'm sure one could look at the statistics and tie the rises with the elections (both theirs and ours)  but statistically speaking you have a greater chance of dieing in a car accident in the US than you do being a US servicman serving in Iraq.  Again I don't want to downplay the casualties and I don't want to use the number for politics but since it was brought up I really don't think things are as bad as the news reflects.  All you have to do is talk to a few that have been there.  Here's a good break down http://icasualties.org/oif/

Yeah, but it's not just the collation casualties that I'm talking.  It's also a question of what they are dying for.  Don't get me wrong I'm sure a good chunck of soldiers over there would like to see a democracy flourish there.  But I really don't think it's going to happen.  

I used to be of the opinion that the coallition forces should stick it out for as long as it takes, because hey, you broke it you bought it.  But I just don't see how it's going to change anything.  The crap that is going on there could go on for generations.  Look at the history, look at the Palistinians.  If the coallition pulls out one of two things will happen, in my opinion.  Either the Iraqis will take a look around and get thier **** together, or one tribe(s) will subjegate the other(s).  I think Iraq is going to end up as a theocracy (a la Iran), unless another dictator shows up.  But I don't think coalltion presence can prevent.  Unless they are there for a few generations...heck even then maybe not.

The US has it's own problems to worry about, specifically the economy.  I mean in all likelyhood, I don't think the US will be able to afford to keep soldiers there.


PS:  Regarding the original topic.  Beautiful political move, but unfortunately like all things political, total bull****.

It's like me saying, "I want to go to the cottage next summer."

Opposing Dude, then calls a vote on going tomorrow.  And saying I'm a dick if I don't agree to it.

He is presenting an option that I orginally didn't advocate for and saying I am a hypocrit for not supporting.  That = teh rediqulous.

[Debonair]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Or say, Theodore Roosevelt...

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."


But what would that bleeding heart know about being President in a time of war.

TR had a big mustache, like the police guy from the village people

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Thrawn
The US has it's own problems to worry about, specifically the economy.  

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 3.8 percent in the third quarter of 2005, according to advance estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the second quarter, real GDP increased 3.3 percent.

OCTOBER 2005
Nonfarm payroll employment was little changed (+56,000) in October, and
the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 5.0 percent, reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor  

The economy is doing rather well...

[bj229r]

Hey, I've been watching the news about Iraq for QUITE some time, and I've come to the conclusion that the average Iraqi spends his/her days standing around and staring at burning vehicles/buildings.

(The first 2 or so years of WW2, we pretty much got our collective a**es handed to us...we even had 3 THOUSAND guys KILLED by the French in North Africa:eek: Would have made a LOT more sense to quit THEN than now)

[Scootter]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Or say, Theodore Roosevelt...

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."


But what would that bleeding heart know about being President in a time of war.

He's your Daddy's Democrat not yours, today he would be ashamed...he would also be a Rep. imho.

[Rolex]

I'm confused about the topic title.

Who was the last Republican to win a war?

[Rino]

Originally posted by Silat
Yo you cant win on this one. The Bush supporters will never ever admit to the mistakes. They are toeing the party line till the bitter end.

    Unlike you altruistic Libs huh?  How about a solution then?  Oh yeah,
forgot that's not your forte.

[Scootter]

Originally posted by Rolex
I'm confused about the topic title.

Regan  1980-1988 --  Cold War,  Grenada

Bush 1 1988-1992 -- Panama, Kuwait (GW1)

Bush 2 2000- Present-- Afghanistan, Iraq (both are free with issues, however you feel the WAR part was won. What is going on now is not against the org. military machine)




Edited for sp.  (Thanks Rip)

[oboe]

Originally posted by Shifty
Okay let me see if I understand this....................... I'm irrational because I believe the Dems are doing everything possible to lose this war for their own political gain? My view of dems, and the media is warped because I don't trust them. Well let me rephrase that part. I trust them to only show what they want you to see, and hear. Truth and accuracy are not important to them. So that makes me dangerous?

Yet you believe that George Bush started the war on a lie. Keeps American troops in harms way, not to protect the interest of the USA, but to help Cheny get rich on Halliburton stock? You also think that Democratic congressmen who constantly attack Bush, and his handling of the war are doing the right thing? Even though this gives aid and comfort to the enemy? You'll believe anything the press tells you.

So your view is not warped, and your perfectly rational?

Funny I see you as the dangerous one.

Not trusting them is one thing, but dehumanizing them to the point you believe they cheer Americans being killed is quite another.   And I didn't say it makes you dangerous - I said I thought it was dangerous for you to be so consumed by your anger and hatred toward them.

Like you, I believe GW should've concentrated on Afghanistan and not let OBL get away.   I suspect the truth about the war is summed up in the Downing Street Memo, which stated the decision for war had already been made and the facts were being fixed around the policy.   And all the press did was report it - a British government official wrote it.   And Bush never denied it's truth.    Cheney profiteering on Halliburton stock would've been a byproduct, not the motive.   I think the motive was a sincere but misguided idea that we could successfully impose a U.S.-friendly Western-style democracy on Iraq, in the interest of American security (oil).   The jury is still out on wether or not it will work, but I have doubts that the end result will be what they had in mind originally.   We might even end up worse off, with a pseudo-democratic theocracy closely allied with Iran.

We have just witnessed the Republican's commitment to truth and accuracy at last night's "Murtha resolution" vote - which was nothing like what Murtha had proposed.   I don't think it was democracy's finest hour.   I think the House was turned into the Jerry Springer Show for all the world to see.    I think that publicity stunt gave aid and comfort to the enemy, and that was Republican-initiated.    What I would've liked to see is a thoughtful, rational discussion of his proposal (which almost immediately was smeared by opponents as "cut and run") over the course a week or so, followed by a vote.   We got a sham instead.

I don't think I demonize those I disagree with or mistrust.   And despite your ridicule of me, my responses to you have been measured and respectful, marked by genuine concern for your well-being.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Scootter
Regan  1980-1988 --  Cold War,  Granada

Bush 1 1988-1992 --  Panama, Kuwait (GW1)

Bush 2 2000- Present-- Iraq (is free with issues, however  you feel the WAR part was won. What is going on now is not against the org. milatary machine)

"Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah, here I am in, Camp Granada...."

I think its Grenada...but I just wanted to post the lyrics to a very funny song.




Hello muddah, hello faddah
Here I am at Camp Granada
Camp is very entertaining
And they say we'll have some fun if it stops raining.

I went hiking with Joe Spivy
He developed poison ivy
You remember Leonard Skinner
He got ptomaine poisoning last night after dinner.

All the counselors hate the waiters
And the lake has alligators
And the head coach wants no sissies
So he reads to us from something called Ulysses.

How I don't want this should scare ya
But my bunkmate has malaria
You remember Jeffrey Hardy
They're about to organize a searching party.

Take me home, oh muddah, faddah
Take me home, I hate Granada
Don't leave me out in the forest where
I might get eaten by a bear.
Take me home I promise I will not make noise
Or mess the house with other boys.
Oh please don't make me stay
I've been here one whole day.

Dearest faddah, darling muddah,
How's my precious little bruddah
Let me come home, if you miss me
I would even let Aunt Bertha hug and kiss me.

Wait a minute, it's stopped hailing.
Guys are swimming, guys are sailing
Playing baseball, gee that's better
Muddah, faddah kindly disregard this letter.

[Casca]

Originally posted by Scootter
He's your Daddy's Democrat not yours, today he would be ashamed...he would also be a Rep. imho.

Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican but your point is well taken.  Given his track record it it unlikely he would support pulling out of Iraq and allowing Al Queda to form their very own state.

[Scootter]

Originally posted by Casca
Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican but your point is well taken.  Given his track record it it unlikely he would support pulling out of Iraq and allowing Al Queda to form their very own state.

Yea you are right, I meant my point in regards to F.D.R. as he is shoved in the Reps/ face as what a great Dem. is as a Pres.

[Dago]

Why did Murtha vote against an immediate withdrawl, wasnt he the one demanding it?

[Gunslinger]

WOW this is a MUST read for anyone that might have forgotten anything over time.  It's too big to rip and paste but it is a nice cronological history of Iraq and Sadam Husain.

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/003840.html

[Shifty]

Originally posted by oboe
 And despite your ridicule of me, my responses to you have been measured and respectful, marked by genuine concern for your well-being.

   I have handled this debate completely wrong . Instead of an arguement I should have just asked simple questions.

Do you think Congressmen who get in front of TV cameras and say we should pull out now helps our troops in Iraq? Or our effort in the Middle East?

Do you think Congressmen who constantly state Bush lied to get us in this war, helps our troops in Iraq or our effort in the Middle East?

Do you think an Ex-President of the United States should go to the Middle East and  make statements about how the current administration is faulty in it's handling of the war? Do you think the welfare of our troops ever entered Mr Clintons mind when he made these statements this week? Do you think this helps our effort?

To dissagree with the war , and be against it is understandable. I have to think are much better ways to work towards getting us out than simply undermining the effort.

Some of Murthas ideas I happen to agree with. However the moment he said we need to pull out immediatly all his good ideas went out the window. Instead of grandstanding in front of the cameras , wailing, and whining. Why couldnt he professionally put his ideas before congress, and the President?

If everything is as bad as the Dems say it is. How about some idea's to fix the problem and doing what we can to win the War On Terror, or at least get as good of result as possible for our country? Right now it's like their throwing gasoline on the effort , and handing matches to the AQ.

It's not just Bush that sent these young people of ours to Iraq. The responsability also rests on Congress, and those of us that voted them into office. We should be concerned about them , before our political aspirations.

 Hate Bush all you want. He'll be gone in a couple of years and you'll never have to worry about him running for anything again. I don't think the Dems will ever find anything thing they can impeach him on, no matter how hard they try or how bad they want it.

Heres your chance to question my sanity again. I think he makes mistakes , and some of his calculations on this war have been way off. The Dems may get some dirt on some lowley staffer somewhere, but I think what keeps screwing their efforts is...........
Bush is just basically honest. He believes in the cause he trying to lead. Some people may view that as more dangerous then if he was just out for himself. In some repects that may be true.

Bottom line.
For better or worse we're at war. Our fellow Americans are fighting it for us. Ask one they'll tell why they fight. Love the war, hate the war, love Bush, hate Bush. Theres got to be a better way of conducting, and concluding, this war. Attacking the president every chance you get instead of attacking AQ is not going to shorten the war. Nor is it going to change the 2004 election. However it  just might have Iraq end up festering in the lap of some Democrat president you do like in 2009. We need to stop the war in Washington DC, before we can stop the war in Iraq.


To dissagree with you is not ridiculeing you. In fact in every post you've replied to me, you have questioned my sanity. Above is what I believe , and questions I have for people who love the congressional war bashing. If that makes me nuts....................Okay I'm  bugeyed nuts.