PDA

View Full Version : Christians in D.C. for war protest



LiberalNation
03-17-2007, 10:45 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070317/ap_on_go_ot/war_protest_christians;_ylt=AvN0v5cQOyMrQrpCvloHqG MDW7oF

WASHINGTON - Thousands of people gathered for a Christian anti-war worship service Friday night at the Washington National Cathedral, kicking off a weekend of protests around the country to mark the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq.

The service was to be followed by a candlelight march to Lafayette Park, across from the White House. Organizers of the event said more than 700 people have volunteered to risk arrest by crossing the street and demonstrating on the sidewalk in front of the White House.

"Millions of people around the world sadly believe this is a Christian war," said the Rev. Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners/Call to Renewal, one of the groups sponsoring the event. "We have to clear up the confusion."

Civil rights historian Taylor Branch, who planned to participate, said it is important for churches to be leaders in the anti-war movement.

"It seems to me sad that Christians so easily have put aside our core beliefs, that we love our enemies and we do not believe in violence," said Branch, a Presbyterian elder.

Other organizations behind the event include the American Friends Service Committee, Lutheran Peace Fellowship, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas and two dozen Protestant and Catholic groups.

The Friday night events mark the beginning of what is planned as a weekend of protests ahead of Tuesday's anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion, which began on March 20, 2003.

On Saturday morning, a coalition of protest groups has a permit for up to 30,000 people to march from the Vietnam War Memorial across the Potomac River to the Pentagon. Smaller demonstrations are planned in cities across the country.

Roomy
03-17-2007, 10:46 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070317/ap_on_go_ot/war_protest_christians;_ylt=AvN0v5cQOyMrQrpCvloHqG MDW7oF

WASHINGTON - Thousands of people gathered for a Christian anti-war worship service Friday night at the Washington National Cathedral, kicking off a weekend of protests around the country to mark the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq.

The service was to be followed by a candlelight march to Lafayette Park, across from the White House. Organizers of the event said more than 700 people have volunteered to risk arrest by crossing the street and demonstrating on the sidewalk in front of the White House.

"Millions of people around the world sadly believe this is a Christian war," said the Rev. Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners/Call to Renewal, one of the groups sponsoring the event. "We have to clear up the confusion."

Civil rights historian Taylor Branch, who planned to participate, said it is important for churches to be leaders in the anti-war movement.

"It seems to me sad that Christians so easily have put aside our core beliefs, that we love our enemies and we do not believe in violence," said Branch, a Presbyterian elder.

Other organizations behind the event include the American Friends Service Committee, Lutheran Peace Fellowship, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas and two dozen Protestant and Catholic groups.

The Friday night events mark the beginning of what is planned as a weekend of protests ahead of Tuesday's anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion, which began on March 20, 2003.

On Saturday morning, a coalition of protest groups has a permit for up to 30,000 people to march from the Vietnam War Memorial across the Potomac River to the Pentagon. Smaller demonstrations are planned in cities across the country.

It's a free country.

manu1959
03-17-2007, 11:04 AM
hey .... when saddam was in charge i seem to recall he gassed his protesters.....if bush is worse than saddam as these protesters claim they better be careful....

5stringJeff
03-17-2007, 02:04 PM
There are several Christian denominations that are pacifist in nature. That doesn't mean all Christians are/must be pacifist.

lily
03-17-2007, 07:27 PM
What I liked about this demonstration is both sides demonstrated. It's nice to see the pro-war voice heard, instead of just slapping a magnet on their car and calling it a day.

stephanie
03-17-2007, 07:38 PM
What I liked about this demonstration is both sides demonstrated. It's nice to see the pro-war voice heard, instead of just slapping a magnet on their car and calling it a day.

For one thing they are not the PRO WAR voice...
They are SUPPORT OUR TROOPS voice..
Most of them there today ARE VETERANS. So for you to say they don't do anything..
It's just they never felt the need before to show up at these moonbats, communists rallies sponsored by the Communist group ANSWER..
Today they did..
So your snide little remark, is just that...
Stupid.

LiberalNation
03-17-2007, 08:04 PM
No I think they were pro-Iraq war & pro-troops. If not they wouldn't had a counter protest. Just two sides against war but for the troops.

Gaffer
03-17-2007, 08:11 PM
Something to note. There were 4 to 5 thousand anti-American protesters at their rally. There were twice that in pro-American groups protecting the monuments and memorials. I noticed even fox only covered the anti-American demonstrators and ignored the pro-Americans. If you watched cspan you only saw the anti-American speakers. Not the pro-American speakers. Says a lot for the media coverage in this country and where they ALL stand.

LiberalNation
03-17-2007, 08:16 PM
Not pro or anti American, pro-government/war or anti-government/war.

Just because someone disagrees with a war in a country that did not attack the US and wasn't even a great threat to us doesn't make them anti-American.

stephanie
03-17-2007, 08:21 PM
No I think they were pro-Iraq war & pro-troops. If not they wouldn't had a counter protest. Just two sides against war but for the troops.

Nobody I know is Pro war..
What we are is Pro defending our Nation so people like you and the anti war demonstrators you so admire..can spit on it.



:lame2:

stephanie
03-17-2007, 08:27 PM
Not pro or anti American, pro-government/war or anti-government/war.

Just because someone disagrees with a war in a country that did not attack the US and wasn't even a great threat to us doesn't make them anti-American.


Maybe you and Lilly should educate yourself instead of just parroting the liberal mantra..:poke:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

LiberalNation
03-17-2007, 08:29 PM
Nobody I know is Pro war..
What we are is Pro defending our Nation so people like you and the anti war demonstrators you so admire..can spit on it.
If you weren't pro-war you wouldn't be supporting a war.

stephanie
03-17-2007, 08:33 PM
If you weren't pro-war you wouldn't be supporting a war.


Keep living in your little dream world deary..
Your hopeless at this time..
Hopefully when you get out into the Real World you'll grow up..

:coffee:

LiberalNation
03-17-2007, 08:34 PM
You're the one in the dream wolrd. You support the iraq war but you're not pro-Iraq war that doesn't make sense. You are pro/for the war.

stephanie
03-17-2007, 08:41 PM
You're the one in the dream wolrd. You support the iraq war but you're not pro-Iraq war that doesn't make sense. You are pro/for the war.

HUH??????:uhoh:

lily
03-17-2007, 08:42 PM
Maybe you and Lilly should educate yourself instead of just parroting the liberal mantra..:poke:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Stephanie........you don't see the irony in what you just posted?

lily
03-17-2007, 08:45 PM
For one thing they are not the PRO WAR voice...
They are SUPPORT OUR TROOPS voice..
Most of them there today ARE VETERANS. So for you to say they don't do anything..
It's just they never felt the need before to show up at these moonbats, communists rallies sponsored by the Communist group ANSWER..
Today they did..
So your snide little remark, is just that...
Stupid.

Yes, most of them there today ARE VETERANS......on both sides.

I also thank you for showing me I was wrong. I guess the pro-war don't just stick magnets on their car and call it a day. They post insulting replies on message boards to faceless people.......further dividing this county.

stephanie
03-17-2007, 08:48 PM
Stephanie........you don't see the irony in what you just posted?

OH..I have an idea what your talking about...

But don't you and Ln see your hypocrisy??

Peace, love, and rock and roll..:laugh2:

stephanie
03-17-2007, 08:51 PM
Yes, most of them there today ARE VETERANS......on both sides.

I also thank you for showing me I was wrong. I guess the pro-war don't just stick magnets on their car and call it a day. The post insulting replies on message boards to faceless people.......further dividing this county.

Awaaa, did I urt yur wittle feelings?
You know that saying........
If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch..:laugh2:

SassyLady
03-17-2007, 08:52 PM
You're the one in the dream wolrd. You support the iraq war but you're not pro-Iraq war that doesn't make sense. You are pro/for the war.

I support my country, and if my country is at war with Iraq, I am pro-Iraq war. I may not agree with all the ways the war is being conducted, but I also know that we are making progress in Iraq.

https://www.rebuilding-iraq.net/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PCO_CONTENT/HOME/DOWNLOADS/RECONSTRUCTION_UPDATE.PDF

But I don't think you are interested in the good things we are accomplishing over there. You are more interested in seeing if the liberal dems can gain power in Congress and the only way you can do that is by bashing the current administration.

Grow up LN - even if the dems gain control in 2008 they will continue what has already been started in Iraq. They will understand that we can only gain a foothold in that region of the world by helping the people have an infrastructure to help them be economically successful and not have to fight for every single step forward.

LiberalNation
03-17-2007, 08:58 PM
We aren't making them economically successful. They have their oil, they could be but not in the anarchy we caused, with a weak government we support. We are the only thing keeping the Iraqi current government in power. We can't stay for ever or stabilize the region when half the people see us as the enemy/an occupying force.

Bush’s reverse domino theory, if one country has democracy the rest will follow is also bullshit. Not gona happen and the people in the ME are going to peck and peck at us until we leave. Better to get it done sooner rather than later. Some time you have to fold and cut your losses.

LiberalNation
03-17-2007, 08:59 PM
Grow up LN - even if the dems gain control in 2008 they will continue what has already been started in Iraq.
No I think the dems will win in 08 on a get us out of Iraq platform. The people are tired of this war even if yoy can't seem to grasp that yet.

manu1959
03-17-2007, 09:04 PM
No I think the dems will win in 08 on a get us out of Iraq platform. The people are tired of this war even if yoy can't seem to grasp that yet.

so when the dems win in 08 and don't pull all the troops out what will you do then?

LiberalNation
03-17-2007, 09:06 PM
They will pull the troops out, might take say a year but they will. It wont be the open ended commitment we see with Bush right now which has got everyone so frustrated. Kinda like Nixon, he accelerated the war for a bit but also ended it. That's what I think will happen if they don't just flat out end it.

stephanie
03-17-2007, 09:10 PM
We aren't making them economically successful. They have their oil, they could be but not in the anarchy we caused, with a weak government we support. We are the only thing keeping the Iraqi current government in power. We can't stay for ever or stabilize the region when half the people see us as the enemy/an occupying force.

Bush’s reverse domino theory, if one country has democracy the rest will follow is also bullshit. Not gonna happen and the people in the ME are going to peck and peck at us until we leave. Better to get it done sooner rather than later. Some time you have to fold and cut your losses.

Ok, oh so wise one.
Tell that to all the other countries we help liberate, who today are peaceful, thriving and most not all appreciate the United States..

Look Ln, nobody likes war....But we have been involved in war for 100 of yrs..
Quite a few not of our making, but to help out an Allies..
Your just going to have to grow up, and understand that..
We all wish there isn't War.
But you can't just sit here and bury your head and believe that others don't want to destroy us...
And this crap about Us the United States made it that way, is crap..
You saw 9/11 with your own eyes..

Sorry if I was a little harsh earlier..
But....:salute:

manu1959
03-17-2007, 09:11 PM
They will pull the troops out, might take say a year but they will. It wont be the open ended commitment we see with Bush right now which has got everyone so frustrated. Kinda like Nixon, he accelerated the war for a bit but also ended it. That's what I think will happen if they don't just flat out end it.

and when the dems pull ot all the troops and desert the 1/2 of the iraqi people that want us there and they are then exterminated...same as when clinton yanked all our troops out of rawanda....

iraq will then become a terrorist state with nothing to keep it in check.....same as somalia....another clinton creation....should work out just fine

LiberalNation
03-17-2007, 09:16 PM
Except Iraq didn't attack us and couldn't have hurt us if it tried. Them not liking us isn't a good reason for attacking them. The whole world hates can't go around attacking all the haters.

Those countries you mentioned we fought in traditional all out war-fare. Not in a limited war setting with an insurgency picking away at us with no victory in site. It’s a bad type of war to try and fight. We proved that with ourselves own revolution kicking the British empires ass. You can't force a forighn will on a people that aren't having it. Sure we have some allies with the Iraqis but not enough for a victory in this type war and not with Irainians and ME radicals streaming across the boarder.

LiberalNation
03-17-2007, 09:17 PM
and when the dems pull ot all the troops and desert the 1/2 of the iraqi people that want us there and they are then exterminated...same as when clinton yanked all our troops out of rawanda....

iraq will then become a terrorist state with nothing to keep it in check.....same as somalia....another clinton creation....should work out just fine
and no one cares about somalia and somalia isn't really hurting us any. I don't think so tho, Iraq is not Africa and the reagional powers surrounding it have an interest in it not decending into total anarchy.

stephanie
03-17-2007, 09:19 PM
Except Iraq didn't attack us and couldn't have hurt us if it tried. Them not liking us isn't a good reason for attacking them. The whole world hates can't go around attacking all the haters.

Those countries you mentioned we fought in traditional all out war-fare. Not in a limited war setting with an insurgency picking away at us with no victory in site. It’s a bad type of war to try and fight. We proved that with ourselves own revolution kicking the British empires ass. You can't force a forighn will on a people that aren't having it. Sure we have some allies with the Iraqis but not enough for a victory in this type war and not with Irainians and ME radicals streaming across the boarder.

Ok, whatever you say...I give up..:poke:


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

LiberalNation
03-17-2007, 09:23 PM
I see the old quotes but they were not applicable to the current situation and the intelligence was really wrong. They (the government) should have been way more sure before getting us into a war. That's kinda of a big deal ya know, not something to be rushed into when there is no immediate threat. Even if Saddam had weapons an attack from him was not imminent.

lily
03-17-2007, 09:23 PM
Awaaa, did I urt yur wittle feelings?
You know that saying........
If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch..:laugh2:

Hurt my feeling?!?! Dear, if that's what you got out of my post, I don't know what to say, except you have one hell of an ego.

lily
03-17-2007, 09:29 PM
No I think the dems will win in 08 on a get us out of Iraq platform. The people are tired of this war even if yoy can't seem to grasp that yet.

Well, as Bush has already stated, it's going to be the next president who decides when to pull out the troops, so I imagine when the Democrats do take over the White House in 2008 we'll have to clean up his mess. What I hope they do first is go back to Afghainstan, finish and that war. What should have been done in the first place, instead of starting a war...just because...

Look, we did everything we promised in Iraq. We gave them elections, we got rid of Sadaam and we threw in Zarchari for free (since we more or less gave him his "power" anyway). It's time that the Iraqis um......what's that slogan again........oh yeah STAND UP.

You know, we should have had a clue, when they couldn't even pull down the statue of Sadaam by themselves.

stephanie
03-17-2007, 09:29 PM
Hurt my feeling?!?! Dear, if that's what you got out of my post, I don't know what to say, except you have one hell of an ego.

Maybe so..

Or probably just a lot of more yrs. living...
In the Real World..........:wink2:

Sitarro
03-17-2007, 09:30 PM
Here is a little inconvenient article for you polly........ooops......


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece

From The Sunday Times
March 18, 2007
Iraqis: life is getting better
Marie Colvin
MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.

Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.

Related Links
Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?
Violence slashed as troop surge hits Baghdad
By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.

LiberalNation
03-17-2007, 09:31 PM
Good news, except there still attacking us and each other which kinda overshadows that point. Glad that they are at least better off then under Saddam, course it wouldn't take much to beat his record.

Gaffer
03-17-2007, 09:35 PM
As far as the march in DC goes there were two groups there. The American supporters and the anti-American nutcases. The libs there are not anti-war, they are anti-American. It shows in everything they do and say.

As for iraq. We are winning there. There's going to be more fighting and killing. More so as the al queda types get more desperate, which they are now. There's a new iraqi parlament now which is getting rid of the iranian control and kicking the iranians out. If you look at something besides the MSM reporting you would find out about such things.

manu1959
03-17-2007, 09:38 PM
Good news, except there still attacking us and each other which kinda overshadows that point. Glad that they are at least better off then under Saddam, course it wouldn't take much to beat his record.

do you know which cites in iraq are safe?

LiberalNation
03-17-2007, 09:38 PM
You're an anti-American Gaffer. I can clearly see that because you disagree with some of my views. Not really, but that's the same standard you're using to tar the people you disagree with. They're no more anti-American then ya tho in reality.

LiberalNation
03-17-2007, 09:39 PM
do you know which cites in iraq are safe?

Kurdish cities and most places outside of the Anbar province normally. Which still doesn't mean much, it only takes a few to cause chaos.

manu1959
03-17-2007, 09:46 PM
Kurdish cities and most places outside of the Anbar province normally. Which still doesn't mean much, it only takes a few to cause chaos.

so that would mean that 2/3 of the country is safe....if you watch cnn 99% of the shit is going on in baghdad.....on dangerous city out of a whole country....hell they are in better shape than the US

stephanie
03-17-2007, 09:58 PM
I see the old quotes but they were not applicable to the current situation and the intelligence was really wrong. They (the government) should have been way more sure before getting us into a war. That's kinda of a big deal ya know, not something to be rushed into when there is no immediate threat. Even if Saddam had weapons an attack from him was not imminent.

I guess you'll be saying that when one of these bombs go off in one of our cities..
The airplanes into our buildings weren't enough for you all..
You do realize they tried this the first time under Billy Clinton right, the first would trade center bombing????



Such a small way of thinking...(sighs)

LiberalNation
03-17-2007, 10:03 PM
so that would mean that 2/3 of the country is safe....if you watch cnn 99% of the shit is going on in baghdad.....on dangerous city out of a whole country....hell they are in better shape than the US
When chlorine car bombs start exploding on American streets killing hundreds at a time then maybe you can talk to me about that.

You also have to take into account size and pop differences. Iraq is a lot smaller than the US. No bigger than Texas so you can't directly compare crime/violent death numbers.

stephanie
03-17-2007, 10:10 PM
[QUOTE=LiberalNation;28780]When chlorine car bombs start exploding on American streets killing hundreds at a time then maybe you can talk to me about that.QUOTE]

Dear God help save us....
If a liberal Democrat is put in power to protect us...

lily
03-17-2007, 10:22 PM
Maybe so..

Or probably just a lot of more yrs. living...
In the Real World..........:wink2:

I doubt it.


stephanie wrote:
Dear God help save us....
If a liberal Democrat is put in power to protect us...
What was that again about parroting mantras?

stephanie
03-17-2007, 10:26 PM
I doubt it.


:tinfoil:

lily
03-17-2007, 10:28 PM
so that would mean that 2/3 of the country is safe....if you watch cnn 99% of the shit is going on in baghdad.....on dangerous city out of a whole country....hell they are in better shape than the US

Well......then that means we should be pulling out, instead of sending more troops.

stephanie
03-17-2007, 10:36 PM
I doubt it.


What was that again about parroting mantras?

No..I really really mean it..

If the libs. take over this country, we're screwed..

We will have the administration of Peace, Love and rock and roll.. Kinda like Clinton was...

And no security for our nation......scary..:eek:

Dilloduck
03-18-2007, 11:44 AM
Well......then that means we should be pulling out, instead of sending more troops.

We pulled some troops from Afghanistan and now what are the libs saying? "WHY DIDN'T WE STAY AND FINISH THE JOB !! ". But at the same time it makes "sense" to them to leave an unfinished job in Iraq where there is now definitive proof of Al quaeda trying to organize there ? You can't plan war stategy around how the situation was YEARS ago.

LiberalNation
03-18-2007, 11:48 AM
No..I really really mean it..

If the libs. take over this country, we're screwed..

We will have the administration of Peace, Love and rock and roll.. Kinda like Clinton was...

And no security for our nation......scary..:eek:
and to think the worst terrorist attacks in American history occured under a republican president and congress. :cuckoo:

Hobbit
03-18-2007, 12:37 PM
and to think the worst terrorist attacks in American history occured under a republican president and congress. :cuckoo:

Yeah, 8 months into his term (before he had time to really get much done) after 8 years of military and intelligence cutbacks from his predecessor.

SassyLady
03-18-2007, 06:56 PM
We aren't making them economically successful. Yes we are.


They have their oil, they could be but not in the anarchy we caused, with a weak government we support. We did not cause the anarchy.


We are the only thing keeping the Iraqi current government in power. Yes you are correct. America certainly wasn't able to stablize in the first four years of our existence; why do you expect Iraq to be on a faster timeline. We are training them to be soldiers -- it took us hundreds of years to get to the level we are currently operating at. Don't expect Iraq to magically know how to serve and protect just because they have guns and ammo.


We can't stay for ever or stabilize the region when half the people see us as the enemy/an occupying force. They are fighting amongst themselves and killing each other due to ideological differences. If we don't stay there to stabilize and we withdraw, it will backfire and end up here in our own backyard.


Bush’s reverse domino theory, if one country has democracy the rest will follow is also bullshit. Not so.


Not gona happen and the people in the ME are going to peck and peck at us until we leave. The only people "pecking" are the liberal leftwing nutcases like yourself.


Better to get it done sooner rather than later. Some time you have to fold and cut your losses.

Oh, that's right, I forgot..........you are part of the instant gratification era that has no clue what delayed gratification means.:eek:

lily
03-18-2007, 07:03 PM
We pulled some troops from Afghanistan and now what are the libs saying? "WHY DIDN'T WE STAY AND FINISH THE JOB !! ". But at the same time it makes "sense" to them to leave an unfinished job in Iraq where there is now definitive proof of Al quaeda trying to organize there ? You can't plan war stategy around how the situation was YEARS ago.


WHOA there what is this we pulled some troops from Afghainistan bull. If Bush didn't feel this urgency to go into Iraq, before the army was ready, and if this war of folly he choose to fight wasn't going as badly as it was, and if our troops weren't already over streched, there would be no pulling of troops from Afghanistan........so don't even try and pin that one on Liberals. Those were all Rumsfailed's decisions, approved by Bush and last I looked those two were far from Liberals.

If they would have kept their eye on the ball, we could have a shining example of Democracy right there in Afghainstan.

Dilloduck
03-18-2007, 07:11 PM
WHOA there what is this we pulled some troops from Afghainistan bull. If Bush didn't feel this urgency to go into Iraq, before the army was ready, and if this war of folly he choose to fight wasn't going as badly as it was, and if our troops weren't already over streched, there would be no pulling of troops from Afghanistan........so don't even try and pin that one on Liberals. Those were all Rumsfailed's decisions, approved by Bush and last I looked those two were far from Liberals.

If they would have kept their eye on the ball, we could have a shining example of Democracy right there in Afghainstan.

That's right--I forget that you disavow your citizenship when i doesn't suit you.

stephanie
03-18-2007, 07:12 PM
WHOA there what is this we pulled some troops from Afghanistan bull. If Bush didn't feel this urgency to go into Iraq, before the army was ready, and if this war of folly he choose to fight wasn't going as badly as it was, and if our troops weren't already overstretched, there would be no pulling of troops from Afghanistan........so don't even try and pin that one on Liberals. Those were all Rumsfeld's decisions, approved by Bush and last I looked those two were far from Liberals.

If they would have kept their eye on the ball, we could have a shining example of Democracy right there in Afghanistan.

Maybe you ought to stick to things you know about..

It certainly isn't the military...:slap:

Good grief..

lily
03-18-2007, 07:13 PM
Dilloduck........You got that from my reply to your post? Amazing!!!!

lily
03-18-2007, 07:13 PM
Maybe you ought to stick to things you know about..

It certainly isn't the military...:slap:

Good grief..

Enlighten me then, exactly what did I say that was in error?

SassyLady
03-18-2007, 07:14 PM
WHOA there what is this we pulled some troops from Afghainistan bull. If Bush didn't feel this urgency to go into Iraq, before the army was ready, and if this war of folly he choose to fight wasn't going as badly as it was, and if our troops weren't already over streched, there would be no pulling of troops from Afghanistan........so don't even try and pin that one on Liberals. Those were all Rumsfailed's decisions, approved by Bush and last I looked those two were far from Liberals.

If they would have kept their eye on the ball, we could have a shining example of Democracy right there in Afghainstan.

No one said that Liberals pulled troops from Afghanistan. :lame2:

Just that when we pulled them out the Libs said "we should have stayed and finished the job". Well, now the libs want to pull troops out of Iraq.......which I'm sure when that turns into a fiasco the libs will say "we should have stayed and finished the job".

Point is ............. libs cannot be satisfied. Their entire makeup is all about dissecting what others do without offering alternative solutions themselves.

stephanie
03-18-2007, 07:19 PM
Enlighten me then, exactly what did I say that was in error?

No point...You believe you know it all about everything..

All I ever hear though, is one liberal talking point after the other...

Always the same....Bla bla bla..


:lame2:

Dilloduck
03-18-2007, 07:23 PM
Enlighten me then, exactly what did I say that was in error?

Where were the people saying that we should not have used troops that had previously been in Afghanistan for operations in Iraq ?

lily
03-18-2007, 07:25 PM
No one said that Liberals pulled troops from Afghanistan. :lame2:

[QUOTE]Dilloduck wrote:
Just that when we pulled them out the Libs said "we should have stayed and finished the job". Well, now the libs want to pull troops out of Iraq.......which I'm sure when that turns into a fiasco the libs will say "we should have stayed and finished the job".
Same thing.




Point is ............. libs cannot be satisfied.

Sure we can, but it's easier I guess to sterotype.


Their entire makeup is all about dissecting what others do without offering alternative solutions themselves

We have offered many solutions, including agreeing with the Iraq Study Group. We can offer until the cows come home, but it your talking to deaf ears, then it's easier to point fingers.

lily
03-18-2007, 07:27 PM
No point...You believe you know it all about everything..

All I ever hear though, is one liberal talking point after the other...

Always the same....Bla bla bla..


:lame2:

Great answer! Nice talking to you. Enjoy that dance you're doing.

stephanie
03-18-2007, 07:29 PM
The best solution I've heard from the Democrats...
Was Murtha's.......redeploy them to Okinawa...


:laugh2:

lily
03-18-2007, 07:43 PM
Where were the people saying that we should not have used troops that had previously been in Afghanistan for operations in Iraq ?


May I ask you what good you think it would have done?

Dilloduck
03-18-2007, 07:45 PM
Great answer! Nice talking to you. Enjoy that dance you're doing.


Finally, the claim that Bush didn't adequately prepare the nation for war, and that he, in the author's words, "kept on droning on about how easy this war would be," is just plain false.

In his State of the Union in January 2002, Bush said, "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror ... whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay."

In October, he warned that, "... military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures."

January 2003 State of the Union: "For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly because we know the cost..."

March 6: "No doubt there's risks in any military operation; I know that."

March 19: "(This) campaign... could be longer and more difficult than some predict."

It's been a recurring theme in dozens of his televised speeches over the last year, as anyone who has been paying attention can attest.

The actual blame for any public feelings of impatience with the war lay not with the president, but with the media who continually highlight every minor setback and second-guess our military commanders.

http://media.www.thelantern.com/media/storage/paper333/news/2003/04/02/Opinion/Bush-Warned.Of.Long.War.All.Along-405699.shtml

The entire liberal defense for thier opposition to the war is that they were duped and now they want to take back everything that they didn't say then. We're not fighting the war "then". Let's hear a solution that will work NOW. If you were indeed "duped" by Bush get over it. Denying you once backed him certainly isn't worth giving up an entire war effort. Heck--win the war, rewrite history and say it was the liberals who defeated the terrorists.
You're good at that.

lily
03-18-2007, 07:54 PM
Dilloduck............I have no idea what you are saying. You use my quote to stephanie about her avoiding my question and giving a pat "you liberals" reply with a C&P from the Lanters?


Oh well......I tried discussing.........you all have a nice night.

Dilloduck
03-18-2007, 08:01 PM
Dilloduck............I have no idea what you are saying. You use my quote to stephanie about her avoiding my question and giving a pat "you liberals" reply with a C&P from the Lanters?


Oh well......I tried discussing.........you all have a nice night.

Ya---you tried---about as hard as you tried to support the WOT.

We were told to be ready for a long go of it as the C&P pointed out. Unfortunately you libs bailed at the first opportunity. WHY? Because you were"duped" ? Tell that to the troops

lily
03-18-2007, 08:37 PM
Let me ask you liberal hating people a couple of questions.

Why do you still listen to a policy that has failed for five years now?

Why are you so against a slow withdrawl that will force the Iraiq's to finally stand up on their own? We see that benchmarks actually work (not to be confused with timetables, of course). They worked in every election that the Iraqis had. We know they can do it.

Just when are the Iraqi soldiers going to be trained? It's been 5 years now, the American soldiers don't get to sit around and get trained for 5 years, what's the hold up?

If Bush insists on sending our finest over to Iraq, instead of guarding our own country, then have him pick a side in this civil war, any side and stop fooling around. We've got the finest trained men in the world. Tell them what to do and they will do it. They will do it proudly, to the best of their ability and better than any soldier in the world. Who and what sect does he want in power? Tell them and they will do the job, get it done and be home.

Dilloduck
03-18-2007, 08:48 PM
Let me ask you liberal hating people a couple of questions.

Why do you still listen to a policy that has failed for five years now?

Why are you so against a slow withdrawl that will force the Iraiq's to finally stand up on their own? We see that benchmarks actually work (not to be confused with timetables, of course). They worked in every election that the Iraqis had. We know they can do it.

Just when are the Iraqi soldiers going to be trained? It's been 5 years now, the American soldiers don't get to sit around and get trained for 5 years, what's the hold up?

If Bush insists on sending our finest over to Iraq, instead of guarding our own country, then have him pick a side in this civil war, any side and stop fooling around. We've got the finest trained men in the world. Tell them what to do and they will do it. They will do it proudly, to the best of their ability and better than any soldier in the world. Who and what sect does he want in power? Tell them and they will do the job, get it done and be home.

I don't hate libs. I just haven't heard one with solid sensible and honest convictions that they are willing to stand by. You will call the current policy in the WOT a failed policy until a liberal is the one spouting it. Iraq is only one battle in a the larger WOT.
Benchmarks are artificial methods judging success and any failure to meet them would no doubtedly be used as a cry to retreat instead of reason to continue the WOT which I hope we fight forever. WHY? Because our enemies intend to !

Psychoblues
03-18-2007, 08:57 PM
Whatever you think about it, whatever your side on the arguments, the protests against the war have been largely ignored by the corporate media. Millions of Americans, pro and con, marched today concerning their interests in the war machinery in Washington, DC. The pros were outnumbered by the cons about 10 to 1 but that's not a statistic that will be shown by the corporate media.

Another day in America. It is up to US, YOU and ME, to change that heavily leveraged advantage of the corporate media.

stephanie
03-18-2007, 09:02 PM
Wow........3000 moonbats.....turned into MILLIONS...amazing..:poke:

I've seen it estimated there were 30,000 support the troops supporters...

:cheers2:

Dilloduck
03-18-2007, 09:02 PM
Whatever you think about it, whatever your side on the arguments, the protests against the war have been largely ignored by the corporate media. Millions of Americans, pro and con, marched today concerning their interests in the war machinery in Washington, DC. The pros were outnumbered by the cons about 10 to 1 but that's not a statistic that will be shown by the corporate media.

Another day in America. It is up to US, YOU and ME, to change that heavily leveraged advantage of the corporate media.

That would take a coalition of liberals and conservatives--fat chance.

lily
03-18-2007, 09:05 PM
I don't hate libs. I just haven't heard one with solid sensible and honest convictions that they are willing to stand by.

We are calling for a slow withdrawl, it's not as drastic as some of you think. It's going to have to happen sooner or later. Bush himself said his patience isn't endless.


You will call the current policy in the WOT a failed policy until a liberal is the one spouting it.

Well, we won't know that until 208 will we?


Iraq is only one battle in a the larger WOT.

Exactly, so why are we mired down in Iraq? As I said in my previous post, pick a side and stop tying our soldiers hands behind their backs. Sunis and Shia have been fighting for thousands of years. Pick one and let our soldiers do their job. Then we can concentrate on the other countries that ARE supporting terrorists and wish to do us harm.





Benchmarks are artificial methods judging success and any failure to meet them would no doubtedly be used as acry to retreat instead of reason to continue the WOT which I hope we fight forever. WHY? Because our enemies intend to !

Benchmarks is Bush's word, not mine. We told them when to have their elections, seemed to work then. Come on, Dill...it's been 5 years and we've seen barely any progress. It's time to take the training wheels off.

Dilloduck
03-18-2007, 09:24 PM
[
QUOTE=lily;29036]We are calling for a slow withdrawl, it's not as drastic as some of you think. It's going to have to happen sooner or later. Bush himself said his patience isn't endless.

"You" are not speaking with one voice which may be part of the problem. "You" are fighting amongst each other to get elected.


Well, we won't know that until 2008 will we?

You mean congress will do nothing until then ?

Exactly, so why are we mired down in Iraq? As I said in my previous post, pick a side and stop tying our soldiers hands behind their backs. Sunis and Shia have been fighting for thousands of years. Pick one and let our soldiers do their job. Then we can concentrate on the other countries that ARE supporting terrorists and wish to do us harm.

In addition to sectarian turf wars, we are "mired" down with Al-quaeda. It would be foolish to fight them where they do not exist.




Benchmarks is Bush's word, not mine. We told them when to have their elections, seemed to work then. Come on, Dill...it's been 5 years and we've seen barely any progress. It's time to take the training wheels off.

The current offensive in Baghdad is successful so far and to deny other success in Iraq is to ignore the truth. What do you suggest we do with Iran entering the fray ?

Gaffer
03-18-2007, 10:37 PM
Whatever you think about it, whatever your side on the arguments, the protests against the war have been largely ignored by the corporate media. Millions of Americans, pro and con, marched today concerning their interests in the war machinery in Washington, DC. The pros were outnumbered by the cons about 10 to 1 but that's not a statistic that will be shown by the corporate media.

Another day in America. It is up to US, YOU and ME, to change that heavily leveraged advantage of the corporate media.

That is an outright lie and you know it. The media has done nothing but cover the anti-American shits running around Washington. While ignoring the 30,000 pro-American groups gathered there. You got your numbers reversed The pro's outnumbered the anti's by 10 - 1.

If you consider the MSM rightwing then I would hate to see leftwing media.

gabosaurus
03-19-2007, 09:27 AM
Most of us support the troops. We just dislike the idiot terrorist commander in chief who is sending them off to die in a war of aggression.
There actually is a difference between supporting the troops and supporting the war. The troops are doing what they have been instructed to do. The war was started for egotistical and militarist reason, and it being continued so the Bush apologists don't have to admit that they made a giant f*ck up in starting the thing. It's all numbers to Dubya. He doesn't see the blood and pain. The man is truly an selfish ass.

GW in Ohio
03-19-2007, 10:18 AM
For one thing they are not the PRO WAR voice...
They are SUPPORT OUR TROOPS voice..
Most of them there today ARE VETERANS. So for you to say they don't do anything..
It's just they never felt the need before to show up at these moonbats, communists rallies sponsored by the Communist group ANSWER..
Today they did..
So your snide little remark, is just that...
Stupid.

Stephanie: Everybody supports our troops. Even the most rabid anti-war, get-out-now liberals support our troops.

It's the mission they don't support.

And to those who maintain you have to support the mission if you support the troops, I say Bullshit. :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: That's the way they did things in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

The mission was fucked from the start. The CinC is a fucking idiot. I support our troops so much I want them out of that civil war that we've precipitated because our CinC and Cheney and Rummy and the rest of that gang of idiots had no idea what they were getting us into.

I support our troops and I don't want to lose any more of them. Please don't give me that horsecrap about "We've got to finish the job." There is no good end to this mess we've created. Get our people out of there......NOW.

Birdzeye
03-19-2007, 11:04 AM
Stephanie: Everybody supports our troops. Even the most rabid anti-war, get-out-now liberals support our troops.

It's the mission they don't support.

And to those who maintain you have to support the mission if you support the troops, I say Bullshit. :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: That's the way they did things in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

The mission was fucked from the start. The CinC is a fucking idiot. I support our troops so much I want them out of that civil war that we've precipitated because our CinC and Cheney and Rummy and the rest of that gang of idiots had no idea what they were getting us into.

I support our troops and I don't want to lose any more of them. Please don't give me that horsecrap about "We've got to finish the job." There is no good end to this mess we've created. Get our people out of there......NOW.

:clap:

-Cp
03-19-2007, 12:00 PM
Not pro or anti American, pro-government/war or anti-government/war.

Just because someone disagrees with a war in a country that did not attack the US and wasn't even a great threat to us doesn't make them anti-American.

Did Hitler ever do a direct attack on America?

-Cp
03-19-2007, 12:04 PM
Stephanie: Get our people out of there......NOW.

Get them out and then what? total choas over there?

Folks like you always have these moronic ideas of "Pull out Now' because it feels good to feel bad about troops dying who you've never given a damn about. You support the troops eh? And just how have you "supported" them? I'd love to hear examples of how you or any other lib have ever once supported any Soldier...

You say "pull out now" but give no ideas on what would happen in Iraq if that were to happen.... .3000 dead soldiers sucks for sure... but as far as wars and battles go that's a really low number - especially when one considers how many more people would die if we "pulled out now"...

GW in Ohio
03-19-2007, 12:49 PM
Get them out and then what? total choas over there?

Folks like you always have these moronic ideas of "Pull out Now' because it feels good to feel bad about troops dying who you've never given a damn about. You support the troops eh? And just how have you "supported" them? I'd love to hear examples of how you or any other lib have ever once supported any Soldier...

You say "pull out now" but give no ideas on what would happen in Iraq if that were to happen.... .3000 dead soldiers sucks for sure... but as far as wars and battles go that's a really low number - especially when one considers how many more people would die if we "pulled out now"...

First of all.......News flash.......There is chaos over there now. Assholes are constructing bombs and blowing men, women and children they never met to bits. Sunnis and Shiits are torturing one another before they put a bullet in the other guy's head.

As for our 3,000 dead, George Bush and his team of fuck-ups are responsible for every one of them. The first responsibility of the CinC is to deploy our people in the right situation, for the right reasons. Iraq met neither of those criteria. "Because Saddam Hussein is a bad person and terrorizes his people" was not a valid reason for invading Iraq. At any given time, there are a dozen or more assholes in charge of countries throughout the world, running those countries for their own benefit, rather than the benefit of the people. If we follow the Bush principle in Iraq, we should invade every one of those countries.

I don't see us doing it. Why? Bush may be stupid, but he isn't crazy.

Secondly, don't tell me I don't give a damn about our troops, you asshole. I care about our troops more than I care about trying to save George Bush's failed Iraq policy.

GW in Ohio
03-19-2007, 12:59 PM
"3000 dead soldiers sucks for sure... but as far as wars and battles go that's a really low number - especially when one considers how many more people would die if we "pulled out now"... --cP

3,000 a low number? I'm sorry, but I disagree. It's 3,000 too many.

Whether we stay in Iraq or leave, people are going to die there. Now that we've precipitated a civil war in Iraq (thank you very much, American friends!), we're going to have to let them hash it out.

If we had a CinC who really gave a shit about our troops, he would pull them out of there now. But George Bush cares only about rescuing his Iraq policy (which, by the way, is beyond rescuing).

So you tell me I don't care about our troops because I want to get them out of harm's way?

Fuck you.

-Cp
03-19-2007, 01:00 PM
First of all.......News flash.......There is chaos over there now. Assholes are constructing bombs and blowing men, women and children they never met to bits. Sunnis and Shiits are torturing one another before they put a bullet in the other guy's head.

So that's your standard of when to pull out? When things are a bit rough? I guess by that way of thinking we had no business in WWII after the Omaha Beach Landing...



As for our 3,000 dead, George Bush and his team of fuck-ups are responsible for every one of them.

So it's Bush's fault they died and not the fault of the enemy who killed them? Wow...



The first responsibility of the CinC is to deploy our people in the right situation, for the right reasons. Iraq met neither of those criteria. "Because Saddam Hussein is a bad person and terrorizes his people" was not a valid reason for invading Iraq.

Bush never said that was the reason why we went into Iraq...


At any given time, there are a dozen or more assholes in charge of countries throughout the world, running those countries for their own benefit, rather than the benefit of the people. If we follow the Bush principle in Iraq, we should invade every one of those countries.

Those other countries and leaders don't have 12 years of 17 or so failed-U.N Resolutions which lend support of us going in and disarming them...


Secondly, don't tell me I don't give a damn about our troops, you asshole. I care about our troops more than I care about trying to save George Bush's failed Iraq policy.

I didn't say "you don't give a damn" did I?

And you still have yet to provide us examples of how you have ever supported the troops before the war or otherwise...

Birdzeye
03-19-2007, 01:01 PM
I'd love to hear examples of how you or any other lib have ever once supported any Soldier...


I'm not going down that road again. The last time I said what I did, a small gesture to be sure, I got a lotta insults.

You righties won't accept anything except unconditional support for this war as genuine "supporting the troops."

:bsflag:

Birdzeye
03-19-2007, 01:03 PM
And you still have yet to provide us examples of how you have ever supported the troops before the war or otherwise...


GW's a Vietnam vet. Doesn't that count for something?

-Cp
03-19-2007, 01:06 PM
Whether we stay in Iraq or leave, people are going to die there. Now that we've precipitated a civil war in Iraq (thank you very much, American friends!), we're going to have to let them hash it out.

A Civil War eh? Too bad most Iraqi's disagree with you...

Poll: Only 27 Percent of Iraqis Say Country Is in Civil War

Despite sectarian slaughter, ethnic cleansing and homicide bombs, an opinion poll conducted on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants.

The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein 's regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services.

The survey, published today, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war .

Officials in Washington and London are likely to be buoyed by the poll conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB), a respected British market research company that funded its own survey of 5,019 Iraqis over the age of 18.

The poll highlights the impact the sectarian violence has had. Some 26 percent of Iraqis — 15 percent of Sunnis and 34 percent of Shiites — have suffered the murder of a family member. Kidnapping has also played a terrifying role: 14 percent have had a relative, friend or colleague abducted, rising to 33 percent in Baghdad.

Yet 49 percent of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26 percent said things had been better in Saddam's era, while 16 percent said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer.

Not surprisingly, the divisions in Iraqi society were reflected in statistics — Sunnis were more likely to back the previous Baathist regime (51 percent) while the Shiites (66 percent) preferred the Maliki government.

Maliki, who derives a significant element of his support from Muqtada al-Sadr, the hardline Shiite militant, and his Mahdi army, has begun trying to overcome criticism that his government favors the Shiites, going out of his way to be seen with Sunni tribal leaders. He is also under pressure from the U.S. to include more Sunnis in an expected government reshuffle.

The poll suggests a significant increase in support for Maliki. A survey conducted by ORB in September last year found that only 29 percent of Iraqis had a favorable opinion of the prime minister.

Another surprise was that only 27 percent believed they were caught up in a civil war. Again, that number divided along religious lines, with 41 percent of Sunnis believing Iraq was in a civil war, compared with only 15 percent of Shiites.

The survey is a rare snapshot of Iraqi opinion because of the difficulty of working in the country, with the exception of Kurdish areas which are run as an essentially autonomous province.

Most international organizations have pulled out of Iraq and diplomats are mostly holed-up in the Green Zone. The unexpected degree of optimism may signal a groundswell of hope at signs the American "surge" is starting to take effect.

This weekend comments from Baghdad residents reflected the poll's findings. Many said they were starting to feel more secure on the streets, although horrific bombings have continued.

"The Americans have checkpoints and the most important thing is they don't ask for ID, whether you are Sunni or Shiite," said one resident. "There are no more fake checkpoints so you don't need to be scared."

The inhabitants of a northern Baghdad district were heartened to see on the concrete blocks protecting an Iraqi army checkpoint the lettering: "Down, down with the militias, we are fighting for the sake of Iraq."

It would have been unthinkable just a few weeks ago. Residents said they noted that armed militias were off the streets.

One question showed the sharp divide in attitudes towards the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq. Some 53 percent of Iraqis nationwide agree that the security situation will improve in the weeks after a withdrawal by international forces, while only 26 percent think it will get worse.

"We've been polling in Iraq since 2005 and the finding that most surprised U.S. was how many Iraqis expressed support for the present government," said Johnny Heald, managing director of ORB. "Given the level of violence in Iraq, it shows an unexpected level of optimism."

Despite the sectarian divide, 64 percent of Iraqis still want to see a united Iraq under a central national government.

One statistic that bodes ill for Iraq's future is the number who have fled the country, many of them middle-class professionals. Baghdad has been hard hit by the brain drain — 35 percent said a family member had left the country.

ORB interviewed a nationally representative sample of 5,019 Iraqi adults between February 10-22. The margin of error was +/- 1.4 percent




http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259405,00.html

Read the original report in the London Times.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece

stephanie
03-19-2007, 01:18 PM
I'm not going down that road again. The last time I said what I did, a small gesture to be sure, I got a Lotta insults.

You righties won't accept anything except unconditional support for this war as genuine "supporting the troops."

:bzflag:

If I remember, it was you who was making quilts?

I posted an article on that, did you see it?

It was an awesome article and I mentioned you with it..:cheers2:

Birdzeye
03-19-2007, 01:28 PM
Sorry, Stephanie, I must have missed it. I'll go look for it.

My quilting guild is discussing what kind of community service project we'd like to take on. There are a couple of members, including myself, who are lobbying to make quilts for the injured soldiers at Bethesda Naval Hospital (Walter Reed gets more quilts than they can use).

If I can't stop the war, at least I can give a little comfort to some wounded soldier. I'm not into protests and I figure this is more constructive.

EDIT: Stephanie - I couldn't find your post, but I know there are organizations that make quilts for the wounded soldiers (as well as the families of those who are killed in combat). I'm fortunate to live within an hour's drive of Bethesda Naval. One of my quilting buddies, who is retired, does a lot of volunteer work at Bethesda Naval.

GW in Ohio
03-19-2007, 03:03 PM
Cp: In case you can't tell, I am angry about Iraq.

I'm angry that Bush and his crew got us into this because of a combination of stupidity and arrogance.

Stupidity because they had no idea what they were getting into. They thought they would knock over Saddam Hussein and Iraq would embrace democracy. And then other nations over there would follow.

Arrogance, because they disregarded the advice of other countries and their own generals, who told them they'd need twice as many troops as they had to deal with a post-war Iraq.

I'm angry because we had the war on terror going in the right direction with the campaign in Afghanistan. And then Bush diverted troops and materiel and attention away from Afghanistan to Iraq. As a result, both campaigns were done in a half-assed manner.

I'm angry because over 3,000 of our best people have lost their lives, and thousands more are disabled.

I'm angry because our CinC had to extend the tours of duty of our people in Iraq because they didn't have enough manpower. By putting our people under severe stress for longer than they should have been subjected to it, some of our people did things (i.e., they killed innocent civilians) they shouldn't have. But that's what happens when people are put under too much stress for too long.

I'm angry because that idiot Bush will wind up spending over $500 billion on this Iraq debacle. That money could have been put to better use at home.

Bush is an embarrassment to me as an American. He can go piss up a rope. Thank goodness we only have to put up with this moron for another year.

LiberalNation
03-19-2007, 03:05 PM
Did Hitler ever do a direct attack on America?
Hitler declared war on us when his ally Japan attacked us and we declared war of them I do believe.

-Cp
03-19-2007, 03:41 PM
Cp: In case you can't tell, I am angry about Iraq.


Yeah.. I see that you "appear" upset.... but you really should investigate your reasoning further rather than allow your emotion to dictate here.


I'm angry that Bush and his crew got us into this because of a combination of stupidity and arrogance.

Stupidity because they had no idea what they were getting into. They thought they would knock over Saddam Hussein and Iraq would embrace democracy. And then other nations over there would follow.

Arrogance, because they disregarded the advice of other countries and their own generals, who told them they'd need twice as many troops as they had to deal with a post-war Iraq.

Was it really Stupidity and Arrogance? Let's see - could be it be based on a post-9/11 era and over a decade of failed U.N. Policy and World Intelligence that said Saddam had WMD's?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Were you equally as upset about our boys who died under Clinton's watch? Ever see the movie "Blackhawk down"?

For some odd reason, past Presidents can send our boys into harm's way and that's okay w/ you libs.... even if they die... But Pres. Bush does it (with the vote of Congress mind you) and somehow now it's wrong?

Do you KNOW how many Al-Queda are in Iraq now? Isn't it better we fight them there than over here? Is that SO hard to understand?

Comon.... use your brain and logic and not raw emotion here dude....


I'm angry because we had the war on terror going in the right direction with the campaign in Afghanistan. And then Bush diverted troops and materiel and attention away from Afghanistan to Iraq. As a result, both campaigns were done in a half-assed manner.

Really? Are you saying that our soliders who are STILL there in Afghanistan aren't doing a good job? Do you really believe they're somehow incapable just because we're in two Theater's of war at the same time? Can the USA not walk and chew bubble-gum at the same time? How many theater's of war were we in during WWII?

Sounds to me like you're dissing the Military's capabilities here even though in previous posts you were saying how much you "support them"...

Hmm.... so... .you say our Military is doing a "half-assed" job....

Many Of Al Qaeda's Most Important Leaders Have Been Captured Or Killed, Including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Believed To Be The Mastermind Behind The 9/11 Attacks. For the past three years, KSM has been in the custody of the CIA. He has provided valuable intelligence that has helped us kill or capture al Qaeda terrorists and stop attacks on our Nation. Our officials report that he is now of little or no intelligence value. So he has been transferred to Guantanamo Bay – and the sooner Congress authorizes military commissions, the sooner he will receive the justice he deserves.

Read this for further info:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/text/20060907-4.html

Was our Military doing a "half-assed" job when it found Saddam hiding in a spider hole, or killed his two sons?

Personally, I think you owe or heroes' an apology for the statements you made..


I'm angry because over 3,000 of our best people
have lost their lives, and thousands more are disabled.

Does it have to be 3000 for you to be "mad or upset"? What about the brave folks who are killed every year in simple training exercises or by "friendly fire" etc... Or are the few that do die like that no important enough to be upset about? Should our military pull out of itself because those folks die?

Again, please use your BRAIN and not your Heart (emotion) to look at this.. i know you can do it..

Hagbard Celine
03-19-2007, 04:53 PM
hey .... when saddam was in charge i seem to recall he gassed his protesters.....if bush is worse than saddam as these protesters claim they better be careful....

Wrong, he gassed Kurdish militants who were fighting against him with the Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war. Ignorance is a foul perfume my friend.

stephanie
03-19-2007, 05:05 PM
OH MY GOODNESS.......

Those gassed women and babies didn't look too militant to me....

Talk about foul perfume....:slap:

Gaffer
03-19-2007, 05:20 PM
Most of us support the troops. We just dislike the idiot terrorist commander in chief who is sending them off to die in a war of aggression.
There actually is a difference between supporting the troops and supporting the war. The troops are doing what they have been instructed to do. The war was started for egotistical and militarist reason, and it being continued so the Bush apologists don't have to admit that they made a giant f*ck up in starting the thing. It's all numbers to Dubya. He doesn't see the blood and pain. The man is truly an selfish ass.

You don't even know what the war is about. All you do is hate Bush.

Gaffer
03-19-2007, 05:22 PM
Stephanie: Everybody supports our troops. Even the most rabid anti-war, get-out-now liberals support our troops.

It's the mission they don't support.

And to those who maintain you have to support the mission if you support the troops, I say Bullshit. :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: That's the way they did things in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

The mission was fucked from the start. The CinC is a fucking idiot. I support our troops so much I want them out of that civil war that we've precipitated because our CinC and Cheney and Rummy and the rest of that gang of idiots had no idea what they were getting us into.

I support our troops and I don't want to lose any more of them. Please don't give me that horsecrap about "We've got to finish the job." There is no good end to this mess we've created. Get our people out of there......NOW.

Yeah we're winning. So lets cut and run now.

Gaffer
03-19-2007, 05:46 PM
First of all.......News flash.......There is chaos over there now. Assholes are constructing bombs and blowing men, women and children they never met to bits. Sunnis and Shiits are torturing one another before they put a bullet in the other guy's head.

As for our 3,000 dead, George Bush and his team of fuck-ups are responsible for every one of them. The first responsibility of the CinC is to deploy our people in the right situation, for the right reasons. Iraq met neither of those criteria. "Because Saddam Hussein is a bad person and terrorizes his people" was not a valid reason for invading Iraq. At any given time, there are a dozen or more assholes in charge of countries throughout the world, running those countries for their own benefit, rather than the benefit of the people. If we follow the Bush principle in Iraq, we should invade every one of those countries.

I don't see us doing it. Why? Bush may be stupid, but he isn't crazy.

Secondly, don't tell me I don't give a damn about our troops, you asshole. I care about our troops more than I care about trying to save George Bush's failed Iraq policy.

So you would prefer saddam to have remained in power? wow your a real rocket scientist.

As for taking down other countries, it would be great if we had enough troops to go around.

You don't give a rats ass about our troops its all about hating Bush with you. The troops are just another excuse.

Gaffer
03-19-2007, 05:54 PM
"3000 dead soldiers sucks for sure... but as far as wars and battles go that's a really low number - especially when one considers how many more people would die if we "pulled out now"... --cP

3,000 a low number? I'm sorry, but I disagree. It's 3,000 too many.

Whether we stay in Iraq or leave, people are going to die there. Now that we've precipitated a civil war in Iraq (thank you very much, American friends!), we're going to have to let them hash it out.

If we had a CinC who really gave a shit about our troops, he would pull them out of there now. But George Bush cares only about rescuing his Iraq policy (which, by the way, is beyond rescuing).

So you tell me I don't care about our troops because I want to get them out of harm's way?

Fuck you.

You don't care about our troops, you only care about your hatred for Bush.

The war is changing since the surge began and the main fighting is now going on between the iraqi's and al queda. Try reading something beside MSM news reports and you will learn a lot about what's going on. The iraqi government has made some serious parlimentary changes and the radicals are out. That's why sadr ran off to iran. There is NO civil war. There is a war on the al queda in iraq groups.

Gaffer
03-19-2007, 06:01 PM
I'm not going down that road again. The last time I said what I did, a small gesture to be sure, I got a lotta insults.

You righties won't accept anything except unconditional support for this war as genuine "supporting the troops."

:bsflag:

You got that right.

If an infantry unit is going up against an enamy position they call for support. I nearby artillary unit will be part of that support. Now that artillary unit doesn't believe the infantry unit should take on the enemy in that fortified position. They hope the infantry wins without a lot of casualties, but they refuse to support that infantry with their guns. That is what your saying when you say we support the troops but not the mission.

Gaffer
03-19-2007, 06:10 PM
Cp: In case you can't tell, I am angry about Iraq.

I'm angry that Bush and his crew got us into this because of a combination of stupidity and arrogance.

Stupidity because they had no idea what they were getting into. They thought they would knock over Saddam Hussein and Iraq would embrace democracy. And then other nations over there would follow.

Arrogance, because they disregarded the advice of other countries and their own generals, who told them they'd need twice as many troops as they had to deal with a post-war Iraq.

I'm angry because we had the war on terror going in the right direction with the campaign in Afghanistan. And then Bush diverted troops and materiel and attention away from Afghanistan to Iraq. As a result, both campaigns were done in a half-assed manner.

I'm angry because over 3,000 of our best people have lost their lives, and thousands more are disabled.

I'm angry because our CinC had to extend the tours of duty of our people in Iraq because they didn't have enough manpower. By putting our people under severe stress for longer than they should have been subjected to it, some of our people did things (i.e., they killed innocent civilians) they shouldn't have. But that's what happens when people are put under too much stress for too long.

I'm angry because that idiot Bush will wind up spending over $500 billion on this Iraq debacle. That money could have been put to better use at home.

Bush is an embarrassment to me as an American. He can go piss up a rope. Thank goodness we only have to put up with this moron for another year.

Bush was wrong about figuring in the islamic faction after the war. He expected the iraqi's to be greatful, not counting on the islamist to stir up even more shit that saddam could. we are now fighting the islamist there, saddam's bunch is less then 10%. It's all part of the GWOT now and has nothing to do with saddam. If you would look beyond your blind hatred of Bush you see a lot bigger picture.

GW in Ohio
03-20-2007, 07:47 AM
So you would prefer saddam to have remained in power? wow your a real rocket scientist.

As for taking down other countries, it would be great if we had enough troops to go around.

You don't give a rats ass about our troops its all about hating Bush with you. The troops are just another excuse.

Gaffer: You try to do the same thing the Bush team tries to do. They say if you don't support their war you're unpatriotic. You say if I don't support Bush's fucked up mission, I don't give a damn about the troops.

Well, up yours. Your definition of patriotism is the same definition the Germans used during the Hitler years, i.e., you follow the Fuhrer, you don't ask questions and you don't criticize policy. The Fuhrer knows best.

Fuck that.

Birdzeye
03-20-2007, 08:02 AM
Gaffer: You try to do the same thing the Bush team tries to do. They say if you don't support their war you're unpatriotic. You say if I don't support Bush's fucked up mission, I don't give a damn about the troops.

Well, up yours. Your definition of patriotism is the same definition the Germans used during the Hitler years, i.e., you follow the Fuhrer, you don't ask questions and you don't criticize policy. The Fuhrer knows best.

Fuck that.


:clap: