US Troops Are Winning in Iraq - When Will Dems Admit It?

[retiredman]

I see that you're on the bottle again. That didn't take long.

Its not on their archive: "Every day, the case mounts against Saddam" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?view=ARCHIVEDAY&grid=A1NoGoogle&day=28&month=10&year=2001

no glock... you are the one who suggested google. I offered up just one of the footnotes that supposedly make your case....

I assumed you were a googlestud who could find that link.

I guess I was wrong.

I do not intend to keep listing footnoted quote after footnoted quote only to have you keep incrementally proving my point. :coffee:(decaf)

[glockmail]

no glock... you are the one who suggested google. I offered up just one of the footnotes that supposedly make your case....

I assumed you were a googlestud who could find that link.

I guess I was wrong.

I do not intend to keep listing footnoted quote after footnoted quote only to have you keep incrementally proving my point. :coffee:(decaf)

I found the link.

So what does this have to do with the OP?

[retiredman]

I found the link.

So what does this have to do with the OP?

our discussion had long moved past the OP.

I stated that you have nothing of substance that would show Saddam's suport for AQ. And, as I have said before, the primary strategic goal of AQ would have made it clear to Saddam the sheer suicidal folly of providing such support

[glockmail]

our discussion had long moved past the OP.

I stated that you have nothing of substance that would show Saddam's suport for AQ. And, as I have said before, the primary strategic goal of AQ would have made it clear to Saddam the sheer suicidal folly of providing such support It is the primary stategic goal of US foreign policy to foster democracy in the world. By your logic we should cease trade with China, OPEC and a handful of European countries.

[retiredman]

It is the primary stategic goal of US foreign policy to foster democracy in the world. By your logic we should cease trade with China, OPEC and a handful of European countries.

Should we provide weapons and terrorist training for countries whose sworn strategic goal is our anihilation?

Saddam knew what AQ's strategic goal was. It made no sense for HIM to profice weapons and terrorist training to THEM.

get it?:lol:

[glockmail]

Should we provide weapons and terrorist training for countries whose sworn strategic goal is our anihilation?

Saddam knew what AQ's strategic goal was. It made no sense for HIM to profice weapons and terrorist training to THEM.

get it?:lol:

You seem to think that Saddam put an actual value on the lives of his countrymen. What in his behavior would lead you to believe that? It took the US military months to hunt him down and find him, and only after a major offensive. He knew AQ couldn't touch him.

So when are you going to admit that US troops are winning in Iraq?:laugh2:

[retiredman]

You seem to think that Saddam put an actual value on the lives of his countrymen. What in his behavior would lead you to believe that? It took the US military months to hunt him down and find him, and only after a major offensive. He knew AQ couldn't touch him.

So when are you going to admit that US troops are winning in Iraq?:laugh2:


I think that Saddam put a great deal of value on his own continuing dictatorship. Giving weapons and training to a group who was sworn to bring down that very regime would have been ridiculous - and suicidal.


And I have publicly - in this thread and elsewhere - stated my pride in the battlefield accomplishments of our military. Our troops can certainly win each skirmish and control the battlespace. My only doubt is the abilities and willingness of Iraqi politicians to forge a multicultural democracy that will survive in our absence.

[glockmail]

I think that Saddam put a great deal of value on his own continuing dictatorship. Giving weapons and training to a group who was sworn to bring down that very regime would have been ridiculous - and suicidal.

....

He had more than enough planes and tanks to defeat the terrorists if they turned against him. By doing so it would have ensured his continued dictatorship. And he would not have pansied against waterboarding like Democrats.

[retiredman]

He had more than enough planes and tanks to defeat the terrorists if they turned against him. By doing so it would have ensured his continued dictatorship. And he would not have pansied against waterboarding like Democrats.
the fact that you have a gunrack full of firearms at home will not make your decision to hand a rifle to the gang of homocidal maniacs seeking to kill you a wise one.

[glockmail]

the fact that you have a gunrack full of firearms at home will not make your decision to hand a rifle to the gang of homocidal maniacs seeking to kill you a wise one. Piss-poor analogy. How long did it take the US military to catch him? Do you think AQ could have done that?

Oh- that's right. You think AQ will defeat the US military.

[retiredman]

Piss-poor analogy. How long did it take the US military to catch him? Do you think AQ could have done that?

Oh- that's right. You think AQ will defeat the US military.


you are mixing apples and soccer balls now....

it took us a long time to find him because he was out of power, on the run, and hiding. Such would not have been the case with AQ...

and this has nothing to do with a military fight between AQ and America's armed forces (which I have repeatedly said that we can easily win)...it has to do with whether or not it would have made any sense at all for a dictator of a secular arab baathist nation state to provide weapons and/or military training to an organization whose primary goal was the destruction of secular arab nation states.

you are just throwing anything into this now.... a true sign that you are beaten and beaten badly. You should consider finding another thread. Your lip is getting very bloody in this one.:laugh2:

[bullypulpit]

I have blown your liberal ass out of the water many times BP - then you disappear for a few days and come back like nothing happened

That's because nothing happened, except within the dimly lit, narrow confines of your deluded little mind.

[red states rule]

That's because nothing happened, except within the dimly lit, narrow confines of your deluded little mind.

Not only are you continuing your war on Bush, but your war on reality as well

Once again today, your party that stands for surrender and appeasement will try to insert their surrender date in a spending bill

The bill has no chance of passing, but do Dems care about wasting taxpayer money on this crap?

Of course not. With libs like them (and you) their intentions are much more important then actual results

[retiredman]

RSR...you're like a broken record. Nobody wants to appease any of our enemies. Nobody wants to surrender anything to our enemies.

Please.... grow up and try to debate with your own words and not merely endless repetitions of the same old lines that someone else fed you.

Again: I want to fight the war against islamic extremism probably even more fervently than YOU do.... we merely disagree as to whether the actions in Iraq are serving to further our cause in that war.

[glockmail]

you are mixing apples and soccer balls now....

it took us a long time to find him because he was out of power, on the run, and hiding. Such would not have been the case with AQ...

and this has nothing to do with a military fight between AQ and America's armed forces (which I have repeatedly said that we can easily win)...it has to do with whether or not it would have made any sense at all for a dictator of a secular arab baathist nation state to provide weapons and/or military training to an organization whose primary goal was the destruction of secular arab nation states.

you are just throwing anything into this now.... a true sign that you are beaten and beaten badly. You should consider finding another thread. Your lip is getting very bloody in this one.:laugh2:
Continuing with your analogy shows that your logic is deeply flawed. Saddam "in power" had nothing to do with him being an effective leader, or sucessful administrator. It had everything to do with being seen as the most ruthless. An internal war with AQ would have simply reinforced that, giving Saddam the oppurtunity to conduct public executions and beheadings. Are you arguing that his terrorist infrastructure was not as capable as AQ?:lol:

[glockmail]

That's because nothing happened, except within the dimly lit, narrow confines of your deluded little mind. I saw what happened. You looked like a cockroach when the lights come on and your escape route had been blocked.:lol:

[retiredman]

you are mixing apples and soccer balls now....

it took us a long time to find him because he was out of power, on the run, and hiding. Such would not have been the case with AQ...

and this has nothing to do with a military fight between AQ and America's armed forces (which I have repeatedly said that we can easily win)...it has to do with whether or not it would have made any sense at all for a dictator of a secular arab baathist nation state to provide weapons and/or military training to an organization whose primary goal was the destruction of secular arab nation states.

you are just throwing anything into this now.... a true sign that you are beaten and beaten badly. You should consider finding another thread. Your lip is getting very bloody in this one.:laugh2:

Interesting enough, this was responded to not by an admission that my analysis was valid, but by a whining bitter negative reputation comment. Glock can't win the debate, so he cravenly attacks me with his reputation clout bloated from months of incestuous positive rep circle jerks with his geeky pals. Why am I not surprised? :laugh2:

[retiredman]

Continuing with your analogy shows that your logic is deeply flawed. Saddam "in power" had nothing to do with him being an effective leader, or sucessful administrator. It had everything to do with being seen as the most ruthless. An internal war with AQ would have simply reinforced that, giving Saddam the oppurtunity to conduct public executions and beheadings. Are you arguing that his terrorist infrastructure was not as capable as AQ?:lol:

wow. Saddam's leadership or administration skills have nothing to do with whether or not it would make sense for him to provide the enemies of his regime with the training and weaponry they could use to topple it.

[glockmail]

Interesting enough, this was responded to not by an admission that my analysis was valid, but by a whining bitter negative reputation comment. Glock can't win the debate, so he cravenly attacks me with his reputation clout bloated from months of incestuous positive rep circle jerks with his geeky pals. Why am I not surprised? :laugh2: It was responded to by a neg rep followed by my response. You got the neg because you fell off the wagon and are back on the bottle with personal insults. And you are the one whining about it. :lol:

[glockmail]

wow. Saddam's leadership or administration skills have nothing to do with whether or not it would make sense for him to provide the enemies of his regime with the training and weaponry they could use to topple it.
You didn't address the debate points, and your "argument" is nonsensical..... a true sign that you are beaten and beaten badly. You should consider finding another thread. Your lip is getting very bloody in this one. :laugh2:

[retiredman]

You didn't address the debate points, and your "argument" is nonsensical..... a true sign that you are beaten and beaten badly. You should consider finding another thread. Your lip is getting very bloody in this one. :laugh2:

of course I addressed the points. Here is what you said:

"Continuing with your analogy shows that your logic is deeply flawed. Saddam "in power" had nothing to do with him being an effective leader, or sucessful administrator. It had everything to do with being seen as the most ruthless. An internal war with AQ would have simply reinforced that, giving Saddam the oppurtunity to conduct public executions and beheadings. Are you arguing that his terrorist infrastructure was not as capable as AQ"

It is ridiculous to suggest that Saddam would arm an enemy sworn to destroy his regime simply for the opportunity to crush it and this prove to the Iraqi people what they already know: that he is ruthless. AQ would not have fought any sort of "war" with Iraq. How do you fight a war within your own borders against fellow arabs who are committed to blowing themselves up as they inflict maximum damage? Why would anyone sew the seeds of their own demise? Saddam saw AQ as a threat. He said exactly that under interrogation by the United States. Saddam's security forces were certainly capable, but they were not capable of stopping committed suicide bombers in the middle of market places any more than we are.

Again... I don't care how big your gun rack is, nobody GIVES weapons to their enemies and shows them how to use them.

Saddam's efforts at supporting terrorism were always confined to arab nationalist organizations whose primary target was always Israel.

Your twisting of all logic by suggesting otherwise is just your flailing attempts to desperately avoid admitting your argument has no merit.

Sad, really.

[retiredman]

It was responded to by a neg rep followed by my response. You got the neg because you fell off the wagon and are back on the bottle with personal insults. And you are the one whining about it. :lol:

I am sorry if you are insulted by the evidence of your own failures. It was not meant as any insult...merely a factual accounting of your vapid "argument".

[glockmail]

....

It is ridiculous to suggest that Saddam would arm an enemy sworn to destroy his regime simply for the opportunity to crush it ..... Straw Man (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man)

[glockmail]

I am sorry if you are insulted by the evidence of your own failures. It was not meant as any insult...merely a factual accounting of your vapid "argument". Enjoying you bottle?:alcoholic:

[retiredman]

Enjoying you bottle?:alcoholic:


naturally decaffeinated green tea.

it's Lent.

[retiredman]

Straw Man (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man)

it is not a straw man...that was precisely what you suggested he would be willing to do.

[glockmail]

it is not a straw man...that was precisely what you suggested he would be willing to do. Where precisely did I say that was his motive, and not simply a contingency?

[retiredman]

Where precisely did I say that was his motive, and not simply a contingency?


where did I say motive? As an explanation as to why Saddam would arm AQ, you said:

"An internal war with AQ would have simply reinforced that, giving Saddam the oppurtunity to conduct public executions and beheadings"

pretty clear.

again... it makes no sense for Saddam to provide training and armament to an organization sworn to his demise. To claim otherwise is illogical.

[glockmail]

....

pretty clear.

.... illogical. Te only thing clear is how you are trying to set up a straw man. So much for intelligent debate. Neg rep for you as soon as I can.

[retiredman]

Te only thing clear is how you are trying to set up a straw man. So much for intelligent debate. Neg rep for you as soon as I can.


isn't that your case as to why Saddam would, in fact, arm and train a group sworn to his own demise? so that he could have "the oppurtunity to conduct public executions and beheadings" and show the arab world and his own people that he was "the most ruthless"?

Those are your words, not mine. Either stand by them or step away from them...but don't accuse me of building a strawman with YOUR straw.

Oh...and hurry up and pos rep all your circle jerk pals so you can get back to me quickly! I can hardly wait! LOL

[glockmail]

isn't that your case as to why Saddam would, in fact, arm and train a group sworn to his own demise? so that he could have "the oppurtunity to conduct public executions and beheadings" and show the arab world and his own people that he was "the most ruthless"?

Those are your words, not mine. Either stand by them or step away from them...but don't accuse me of building a strawman with YOUR straw.

Oh...and hurry up and pos rep all your circle jerk pals so you can get back to me quickly! I can hardly wait! LOL All your doing is turning your straw man into argumentum ad nauseam (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20nauseam). No one is fooled. Again, so much for intelligent debate.

[retiredman]

All your doing is turning your straw man into argumentum ad nauseam (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20nauseam). No one is fooled. Again, so much for intelligent debate.

I have WON the argument that is is illogical to suggest that Saddam would have armed and trained Al Qaeda. You have shown nothing but absurdity. So much for expecting intelligence in any format from you. AMF.

[glockmail]

I have WON the argument that is is illogical to suggest that Saddam would have armed and trained Al Qaeda. You have shown nothing but absurdity. So much for expecting intelligence in any format from you. AMF. Red herring. (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Red%20herring) :pee:

[glockmail]

FORT LEAVENWORTH, Kan. — The Army yesterday rolled out the first revision of its operations manual since the Sept. 11 terror attacks, putting stability operations — nation-building — on par with combat. Army officials said that it reflects a focus on fighting terrorism.

The new manual reflects Army experiences over the past six years of fighting the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan and insurgents in Iraq, as well as with relief efforts after hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173354791304

Now that it is officially in the OM, when will Democrats admit that the strategy is sound and that we are winning?

[retiredman]

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173354791304

Now that it is officially in the OM, when will Democrats admit that the strategy is sound and that we are winning?


again...I agree wholeheartedly that our military is prevailing on the battlefield in Iraq. Adding the surge troops gave them enough critical mass to significantly reduce the carnage that had been going on. Bravo Zulu to our troops!

[glockmail]

again...I agree wholeheartedly that our military is prevailing on the battlefield in Iraq. Adding the surge troops gave them enough critical mass to significantly reduce the carnage that had been going on. Bravo Zulu to our troops! Nice avoidance. But the methods to stabilize an area that have been perfected over the last 6 years have now been codified. Are you still denying that they are working?

[retiredman]

Nice avoidance. But the methods to stabilize an area that have been perfected over the last 6 years have now been codified. Are you still denying that they are working?

I just got done saying that our military efforts have been successful. Can you not read?:laugh2:

[glockmail]

I just got done saying that our military efforts have been successful. Can you not read?:laugh2: It took you 101 pages of thread to finally admit this:?


.....

Will the Dems admit we are winning in Iraq, or still keep fighting their war on reality?......

[retiredman]

It took you 101 pages of thread to finally admit this:?


from post #3:

no one has ever doubted the skill and abilities of the United States military. Of course they will "win" in any ground encounter in Iraq for as long as we stay there.


:laugh2:

[glockmail]

from post #3:

no one has ever doubted the skill and abilities of the United States military. Of course they will "win" in any ground encounter in Iraq for as long as we stay there.


:laugh2:
We are talking about stabilization.

[LuvRPgrl]

where did I say motive? As an explanation as to why Saddam would arm AQ, you said:

"An internal war with AQ would have simply reinforced that, giving Saddam the oppurtunity to conduct public executions and beheadings"

pretty clear.

again... it makes no sense for Saddam to provide training and armament to an organization sworn to his demise. To claim otherwise is illogical.

I believe the logic goes like this: (I will go very slow for you), S A D D A M
would arm AQ because he is not worried about AQ attacking Iraq because both sides know Saddam will kick AQ out with a huge black eye.

I notice that in Afghanastan its The Taliban/terrorists (yet the Taliban had recently had control of the country, hence they could be called insurgents)

BUt in Iraq, you guys call AQ and the other terrorists "insurgents" even though it is not their country, nor have they had leadership power there,
and you also claim AQ is there when you want to make it sound bad that President Bush invaded because that is what lead to AQ being in Iraq.

They are terrorist when it suits you, and insurgents when it suits you.
Pure propaganda, I gotta admit, you guys are good at it.

[LuvRPgrl]

I have WON the argument that is is illogical to suggest that Saddam would have armed and trained Al Qaeda. You have shown nothing but absurdity. So much for expecting intelligence in any format from you. AMF.

And yet so many other nations and leaders joined in ousting him. Oh yea, you will say President Bush and the US strong armed them, but that means your arguement depends on an UNFOUNDED, UNPROVEN assertation. And you actually think you are winning this arguement??

Saddam would have armed and trained Al Q in a heartbeat, or have you forgotten where the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend">?

ALL of your posistions, views and arguements always have a weak link in the change, such as the one above. It reminds me of the Muslims who ultimately claim that the "proof" we have is fabricated, lies, distortions, made up tapes.

I was talking to a Muslim the other day. I asked him if he knows anything about "mohammads" wives. He said no, then I told him about the 7 year old he married, he then claimed "no he didnt, he wouldnt do that",,,OH, but I thought you just said you dont know anything about his wives?

[retiredman]

And yet so many other nations and leaders joined in ousting him. Oh yea, you will say President Bush and the US strong armed them, but that means your arguement depends on an UNFOUNDED, UNPROVEN assertation. And you actually think you are winning this arguement??

Saddam would have armed and trained Al Q in a heartbeat, or have you forgotten where the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend">?

ALL of your posistions, views and arguements always have a weak link in the change, such as the one above. It reminds me of the Muslims who ultimately claim that the "proof" we have is fabricated, lies, distortions, made up tapes.

I was talking to a Muslim the other day. I asked him if he knows anything about "mohammads" wives. He said no, then I told him about the 7 year old he married, he then claimed "no he didnt, he wouldnt do that",,,OH, but I thought you just said you dont know anything about his wives?

what does the fact that Bush convinced other nations to help him invade Iraq have to do with the fact that it is illogical to think that Saddam would have armed and trained Al Qaeda. Your "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" adage does NOT take into consideration the circumstance where the enemy of your enemy is also one of your enemies.

And... you know stupid muslims. why am I not surprised?:lol:

[LuvRPgrl]

what does the fact that Bush convinced other nations to help him invade Iraq:
LIAR.


have to do with the fact that it is illogical to think that Saddam would have armed and trained Al Qaeda. Your "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" adage does NOT take into consideration the circumstance where the enemy of your enemy is also one of your enemies. :

You're such a fucking idiot. THATS EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS. THATS WHAT THE SAYING WAS INTENDED TO PROVE, THAT ONE OF MY ENEMIES BECOMES MY friend when we have a common enemy also. HAHHAHHA, you are pathetic. Know wonder you are so delusional.



And... you know stupid muslims. why am I not surprised?:lol:

That is not stupidity, its closed mindedness, something you should be very familiar with. Oh, sorry, you are delusional, and a self diagnosis of yourself, you couldnt see how bigotted you are anyways. Hey, have a nice day idiot :)

[retiredman]

You're such a fucking idiot. THATS EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS. THATS WHAT THE SAYING WAS INTENDED TO PROVE, THAT ONE OF MY ENEMIES BECOMES MY friend when we have a common enemy also. HAHHAHHA, you are pathetic. Know wonder you are so delusional.



an analogy:

YOU hate your next door neighbor because he planted a high hedge that obscures your view.

A motorcycle gang arrives in your town with the expressed desire to drive all of the inhabitants out of the area or kill them if they do not leave.

You would NOT offer up the contents of your gun rack to the motorcycle gang if they suggested that they would use those weapons to attack your next door neighbor.

The enemy of your enemy only becomes your friend when that enemy of your enemy is NOT an even bigger enemy of you than he is of your first enemy.

Saddam may have been an enemy of America.... Al Qaeda may have been an enemy of America...but considering that Al Qaeda's primary focus was the elimination of Saddam's Iraq and all other secular muslim nation states, Saddam would NOT have provided any assistance to Al Qaeda when such assistance could just as easily be used against HIM as against US.

[glockmail]

Another stupid analogy by our favorite liberal. :pee:

[retiredman]

Another stupid analogy by our favorite liberal. :pee:


glock....pissing on an analogy is always easier for you than refuting it.:lol:

[glockmail]

glock....pissing on an analogy is always easier for you than refuting it.:lol: Arguing about one of your stupid analogies is "mental masturbation". Knock yerself out. :pee:

[retiredman]

Arguing about one of your stupid analogies is "mental masturbation". Knock yerself out. :pee:

the fact remains: using "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" to suppose a Saddam-Osama friendship and explain why Saddam would provide weapons and training to Al Qaeda for use against America is fatally flawed by the fact that Osama's primary goal was the elimination of Saddam, NOT the elimination of America... and Saddam was well aware of that.

[glockmail]

... the fact that Osama's primary goal was the elimination of Saddam, NOT the elimination of America... Your unfounded opinion.

[retiredman]

Your unfounded opinion.


I can fully understand how someone like you, who has never read a word written by any wahabbist philosopher, would suggest that my opinion was "unfounded". It is, however, well founded in my study of the goals of the radical islamic movement that Osama, Zawahiri, and the rest of Al Qaeda ascribe to.

[FSUK]

The US is NOT winning in Iraq, why do some people try to convince themselves. The US has caused the mess there, it is their presence that has caused Iraq to descend into civi war.

The US soldiers should be saluted for trying to eliminate the terrorists there, however their presence is simply making things worse.

[retiredman]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080310/wl_mcclatchy/2875005

sorry glock....even your own pentagon thinks that your milnet stuff is goofy.

stick with more dependable and non-partisan sources going forward and we won't have to have these moments where I feed you a plate of steaming crow.

[glockmail]

An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network. [ie: no direct anal contact]

….. did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups….

…..
The new study appears destined to be used by both critics and supporters of Bush's decision to invade Iraq to advance their own familiar arguments…..

Saddam… gave some financial support to Palestinian groups that sponsored terrorism against Israel .

…. Saddam supported the militant Islamic group Hamas in Gaza , Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command , a radical, Syrian-based terrorist group.

Saddam also hosted Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal , …..

…… Fedayeen Saddam opened paramilitary training camps that, starting in 1998, hosted "Arab volunteers" from outside of Iraq . ……

No mention of Milnet’s independent sources. This study based on 600,000 documents, all independent of Milnet, and don’t dispute the Milnet claims.

[retiredman]

"An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network. "

and I have NEVER denied that Saddam did not support arab nationalist terror groups.... as did every other arab muslim nationstate in the region. I merely stated that anyone who knew anything about wahabbism and baathism would understand the idiocy of any claims that Saddam would help Al Qaeda.:lol:

[glockmail]

"An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network. "

and I have NEVER denied that Saddam did not support arab nationalist terror groups.... as did every other arab muslim nationstate in the region. I merely stated that anyone who knew anything about wahabbism and baathism would understand the idiocy of any claims that Saddam would help Al Qaeda.:lol:
The key word here being operational. In other words, there were links, just no direct anal contact.:pee:

[retiredman]

America spent most of the cold war with "links" to the soviet union. I have personally served with soviet officers.... those "links" did not mean we were giving the soviets WMD's!:lol:

As I said, anyone who knew anything about wahabbism and baathism would understand the idiocy of any claims that Saddam would help Al Qaeda.

[LuvRPgrl]

the fact remains: using "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" to suppose a Saddam-Osama friendship and explain why Saddam would provide weapons and training to Al Qaeda for use against America is fatally flawed by the fact that Osama's primary goal was the elimination of Saddam, NOT the elimination of America... and Saddam was well aware of that.


Im sorry, I must be mistaken, but the terrorist act of 9/11 was on Iraq or the US? hahhahahhah, you are still an idiot

[retiredman]

Im sorry, I must be mistaken, but the terrorist act of 9/11 was on Iraq or the US? hahhahahhah, you are still an idiot

your overly simplistic view of middle eastern foreign affairs makes it difficult to have an intelligent conversation with you.

Have you done much reading as to the goals and vision of wahabbism?

[Yurt]

your overly simplistic view of middle eastern foreign affairs makes it difficult to have an intelligent conversation with you.

Have you done much reading as to the goals and vision of wahabbism?

are you saying osama is wahabbi? why then has he declared war on the saudi royal family?

[retiredman]

are you saying osama is wahabbi? why then has he declared war on the saudi royal family?
extremist wahabbism is different than that practiced by the saudis. Osama is more in line with radical wahabbists such as sayyid qutb.

[JohnDoe]

are you saying osama is wahabbi? why then has he declared war on the saudi royal family?
wahabbi are against the royal family raking them over the coals....there is civil unrest against the royal family i believe?

And the royal family pays them off to not cause a bunch of rutkis!

and kicks people like Bin Laden, a rebel riser, out of their country... is how i thought it was, in the most simplistic of words...

jd

[Kathianne]

extremist wahabbism is different than that practices by the saudis. Osama is more in line with radical wahabbists such as sayyid qutb.

Meaning what?

[retiredman]

Meaning what?


meaning that the saudis practice wahabbism as a conservative interpretation of sunni islam.... Osama and other extreme islamists from the wahabbi tradition has taken it well beyond to espouse the destruction of secular nation states in the region.

[Yurt]

extremist wahabbism is different than that practiced by the saudis. Osama is more in line with radical wahabbists such as sayyid qutb.


The author of The 'Wahhabi' Myth outlines the principles of the Salafi creed in an easy to understand manner. Using many different sources, he carefully presents the arguments of the critics of Salafism and successfully addresses the misconceptions that are contained within these criticisms. Specifically, he addresses the commonly held belief that Osama Bin Laden is a Salafi/"Wahhabi". He compellingly dispels this myth and unveils the sect that has provoked Bin Laden to become the leader of a terrorist movement.



Karen Armstrong speaks about the difference between Osama bin Laden's sect (Qutbism) and Salafism/"Wahhabism" in a Guardian article entitled "The label of Catholic terror was never used about the IRA":

“Bin Laden was not inspired by Wahhabism but by the writings of the Egyptian ideologue Sayyid Qutb, who was executed by President Nasser in 1966. Almost every fundamentalist movement in Sunni Islam has been strongly influenced by Qutb, so there is a good case for calling the violence that some of his followers commit "Qutbian terrorism." Qutb urged his followers to withdraw from the moral and spiritual barbarism of modern society and fight it to the death.

Western people should learn more about such thinkers as Qutb, and become aware of the many dramatically different shades of opinion in the Muslim world. There are too many lazy, unexamined assumptions about Islam.”
http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/

[LuvRPgrl]

I decided to go back and get this on track a bit.

Notice the dodge technique used here.

When elections were planned the libs were claiming we could never pull it off, then when it happened, they claimed, "yea, but militarily the war is not winnable"
Now we proved that wrong, they roll back to its "not politically winnable",
To answer the question of the thread, the answer is NO. They will never admit any mistakes, that they are ever wrong.

Their egos are much bigger than any concerns for winning or losing.
Thats what happens when you live in a delusional world.


no one has ever doubted the skill and abilities of the United States military. Of course they will "win" in any ground encounter in Iraq for as long as we stay there. The point is: to what end? The stated mission of the surge was to provide some peaceful "space" so that political progress could be made. Even our ground commanders now say that regardless of how militarily successful the surge has been, the Iraqi political reconciliation has not moved forward and that the inability of the Iraqi government to actually begin governing and coming to grips with the sectarian issues that divide it is THE most grave threat to the long term stability of Iraq. The "enemy" isn't AQ anymore....it isn't even really the sectarian militias...it is the Iraqi politicians who are unable and unwilling to create a stable government.

but it is nice to see you back to you old "cut and paste" form.... always using other people's words because you are too lazy to write anything of substance yourself!

welcome back!

[retiredman]

I decided to go back and get this on track a bit.

Notice the dodge technique used here.

When elections were planned the libs were claiming we could never pull it off, then when it happened, they claimed, "yea, but militarily the war is not winnable"
Now we proved that wrong, they roll back to its "not politically winnable",
To answer the question of the thread, the answer is NO. They will never admit any mistakes, that they are ever wrong.

Their egos are much bigger than any concerns for winning or losing.
Thats what happens when you live in a delusional world.


even the generals have said that the war is not winnable "militarily". We can "win" every battle, every skirmish...we can drive the "enemy" from the battlespace... but that will not create "victory" in Iraq. Iraqi politicians and Iraqi people are the only ones who can create the viable multicultural democracy that we sought to spoon feed them. All our military successes will not "win" a democracy for Iraq.

[glockmail]

America spent most of the cold war with "links" to the soviet union. I have personally served with soviet officers.... those "links" did not mean we were giving the soviets WMD's!:lol:

As I said, anyone who knew anything about wahabbism and baathism would understand the idiocy of any claims that Saddam would help Al Qaeda.

This post is basically as illogical as they come.

[glockmail]

I decided to go back and get this on track a bit.

Notice the dodge technique used here.

When elections were planned the libs were claiming we could never pull it off, then when it happened, they claimed, "yea, but militarily the war is not winnable"
Now we proved that wrong, they roll back to its "not politically winnable",
To answer the question of the thread, the answer is NO. They will never admit any mistakes, that they are ever wrong.

Their egos are much bigger than any concerns for winning or losing.
Thats what happens when you live in a delusional world.
Its called "moving the goal posts", and a tactic used by the Democrats to demoralize our military.

[retiredman]

This post is basically as illogical as they come.

no. contact between enemies is a common occurence throughout the world. enemies don't give each other weapons. how is that not a logical statement?

[retiredman]

Its called "moving the goal posts", and a tactic used by the Democrats to demoralize our military.


not true. I have no desire whatsoever to demoralize our military.

[glockmail]

no. contact between enemies is a common occurence throughout the world. enemies don't give each other weapons. how is that not a logical statement? If you can't figger out how it's illogical then I won't 'splain it.

[glockmail]

not true. I have no desire whatsoever to demoralize our military. Liar.

[retiredman]

If you can't figger out how it's illogical then I won't 'splain it.


weak dodge.

like I said..."contacts" happen all the time betweeh enemies in this world. given the goals of Al Qaeda, it would have been suicidal for Saddam to enter into any sort of agreement wherein he would supply them with the rope to hang him with.

[retiredman]

Liar.


gratuitous inaccurate insult. Typical of you.

[atliberty]

The terrorists are in the white house and we will never surrender. You may be loosing the war but these bad spawn listed below are not:

They say Vance Coffman of Lockheed martin made 150 million, John Walsh of GE made 122million, L.B. Raymond of Exon made 114 million, Michel Dell made 500 million, Davis Cote of TRW made 44 million, George David of United Technologies made 280 million, DHB David Brooks made 250 million in one year including wages, bonuses, benefits and stock options…Now that is more than a billion dollars between seven people…by the way, all these chicken hawks donated to Bush's election campaigns…ha ha

All the main streem media is bought by cororate Amerika and is not liberal. The Bushmasters gave big media over a billion dollars a year since the war started to help you see things their way and it was well spent money as well as getting you to support torture, war profiteering and windfall oil profits. The blood of 4000 of our soldiers and a million Iraqis is on your hands, repent, the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

[jimnyc]

I smell brain cells cooking in the air.

[LuvRPgrl]

no. contact between enemies is a common occurence throughout the world. enemies don't give each other weapons. how is that not a logical statement?

Well, just for starters, you said we didnt give them WMD's, yea, thats because Russia could make its own.

And just because you can find one example where it doesnt happen, that doesnt prove it can never happen.

Look at Finland in WWll. US and England supplied Finland with weapons when Russia attacked, but then later Finland was supplied by Hitler because Russia was attacked by Hitler, and now the Americans and Brits would no longer supply Finland.

Global politics is tricky, and you just come up with simplistic examples to "prove" your pov. Fact is, you are driven by anger and bitterness. I dont know where it comes from, but it makes you and a lot of other liberals very delusional, sad and pathetic. There is help for you guys however.

[LuvRPgrl]

not true. I have no desire whatsoever to demoralize our military.

LIAR

[LuvRPgrl]

meaning that the saudis practice wahabbism as a conservative interpretation of sunni islam.... Osama and other extreme islamists from the wahabbi tradition has taken it well beyond to espouse the destruction of secular nation states in the region.

Oh, and I thought the attack on 9/11 was our own fault because we are meddling in the middle east where we shouldnt be.

[retiredman]

Oh, and I thought the attack on 9/11 was our own fault because we are meddling in the middle east where we shouldnt be.
Why Osama attacked us has nothing to do with why Saddam would NOT have helped him do so.

[LuvRPgrl]

The terrorists are in the white house and we will never surrender. You may be loosing the war but these bad spawn listed below are not:

They say Vance Coffman of Lockheed martin made 150 million, John Walsh of GE made 122million, L.B. Raymond of Exon made 114 million, Michel Dell made 500 million, Davis Cote of TRW made 44 million, George David of United Technologies made 280 million, DHB David Brooks made 250 million in one year including wages, bonuses, benefits and stock options…Now that is more than a billion dollars between seven people…by the way, all these chicken hawks donated to Bush's election campaigns…ha ha

All the main streem media is bought by cororate Amerika and is not liberal. The Bushmasters gave big media over a billion dollars a year since the war started to help you see things their way and it was well spent money as well as getting you to support torture, war profiteering and windfall oil profits. The blood of 4000 of our soldiers and a million Iraqis is on your hands, repent, the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

So what if they made a bundle of cash. Why are you so envious? Envy is a sin you realize.
Fact is, these and other CEO's have made the world a much richer, materialistically, place for people overall. Many more millions are far better off in terms of possesions than people were just 50 years ago.

The wealthy vs poor battle no longer exists. It did from the beginning of history until about 100 years ago (thats when it started to become obsolete, but NOT completely or almost completely eliminated at that time), when its demise became inevitable.

Until the industrial revolution, wealth was limited in its scope worldwide. There was only so much wealth to go around, as things of value were limited. There are only so many diamonds and gold in the world. There are only so many goats and horses that can be raised. So, to get wealthy, one had to take wealth from another wealthy person, or a little tiny bit of wealth from a lot of people, forcing them to be poor. Also, you could take wealth from another wealthy person, but you could not simply CREATE wealth, for the most part, (using wealth and POWER interchangably, for the most part also).

This caused a faction between the wealthy and poor. Then came along the industrial revolution, and now wealth can and is CREATED. Wealth is determined, for the most part, by possesions that are manufactured (created). Wealth is no longer limited, it is now limitless. ANYONE and EVERYONE could theoretically become wealthy.
SInce that is the case, a schism between the poor and wealthy is no longer guaranteed to exist. It is kept going in the minds of some who want to manipulate the poor to gain power from them, but through increased productivity, everyone could become wealthy.
If and when we can make a car in minutes, everyone will own one. We did it with electronics, the VCR was once only available to some because of its cost to make. Then as production techniques improved, now anyone can own one. This did not exist until recently, as manufacturing was not part of the human condition just a few hundred years ago, prior to the industrial revolution.
WHen wealth was limited, there had to be a schism between those who had it, and those who wanted it.
NOw that it is limitless, there no longer needs to be that schism, as those who dont have it can gain it without stripping those who do have it, of their wealth.
It is no longer necessary to be envious of the wealthy. If you want it, go get it. To continue to perpetuate the delusion that the poor are poor because the powerful and wealthy keep them down, is a LIE. That those ceo's made so much money doesnt prevent poor people from becoming wealthy. In fact, quite the opposite, when the ceo's make the companies more productive, poor people gain wealth.
OUCH !,,, I just slipped off my soap box !! (oh hell, are the liberals out there still going to accuse me of not having any original thoughts and just being a ditto head- even though I never listen to Rush?)

[LuvRPgrl]

Why Osama attacked us has nothing to do with why Saddam would NOT have helped him do so.

But in several posts in this thread you described Osama as being a radical extremist. So, which is it? Did he attack us on 9/11 because of our influence in the middle east, thus making it our own fault, or because he is a radical extremist? You cant have it both ways. Extremists dont need a reason to attack, and they will attack regardless if they have a legitimate reason or not. Its inevitable, and cannot be the fault of the attacked, if in fact, the attacker is an extremist and radical in their beliefs.

And , if you have ONE enemy who is so much bigger and stronger (America) than another enemy of yours, then yes, you do make temporary alliances. Its often stated as "politics makes for strange bedfellows". Its a part of the fabric of humanity, has always existed and always will.

I hate your guts and consider you an enemy of this country, bringing it down socially and through terrible ethics, taxation and through govt power and the destruction of the Constitution as the governing document of our laws. yet if we were attacked by Russia, you and I would be fighting side by side and helping each other in any way we could. Deny that, and you are either a LIAR (which we have already establised), or a traitor (which we have already established) or both, (which is now apparent to be the truth, you are both)

[retiredman]

But in several posts in this thread you described Osama as being a radical extremist. So, which is it? Did he attack us on 9/11 because of our influence in the middle east, thus making it our own fault, or because he is a radical extremist? You cant have it both ways. Extremists dont need a reason to attack, and they will attack regardless if they have a legitimate reason or not. Its inevitable, and cannot be the fault of the attacked, if in fact, the attacker is an extremist and radical in their beliefs.

And , if you have ONE enemy who is so much bigger and stronger (America) than another enemy of yours, then yes, you do make temporary alliances. Its often stated as "politics makes for strange bedfellows". Its a part of the fabric of humanity, has always existed and always will.

I hate your guts and consider you an enemy of this country, bringing it down socially and through terrible ethics, taxation and through govt power and the destruction of the Constitution as the governing document of our laws. yet if we were attacked by Russia, you and I would be fighting side by side and helping each other in any way we could. Deny that, and you are either a LIAR (which we have already establised), or a traitor (which we have already established) or both, (which is now apparent to be the truth, you are both)
what are you talkiing about? Are you suggesting that Osama can be either an islamic extremist or he can want to attack us for our heavy handed pro-israeli meddling in the middle east but not both? Extremists are extreme but they are not just loose cannons bouncing around attacking willy-nilly without purpose.

And again. The overriding motivation for Al Qaeda was and is the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. That means the elimination of arab nation states. Secular leaders of arab nation states were and are well aware of that overriding motivation. To provide Al Qaeda with any material assistance would be suicidal. period.

And if America were attacked, I would not be waiting around to see if you were fighting next to me. I would defend my country...

and the fact that you would call me a traitor and a liar would not be all that important to me then...and is of zero importance to me now. The fact that you would be so offensively dismissive of patriotic Americans with different viewpoints than yours is repugnant to me. Your opinion of me, therefore is as valuable to me as a bucket of warm spit. Go fuck yourself.

[LuvRPgrl]

what are you talkiing about? Are you suggesting that Osama can be either an islamic extremist or he can want to attack us for our heavy handed pro-israeli meddling in the middle east but not both? Extremists are extreme but they are not just loose cannons bouncing around attacking willy-nilly without purpose.

And again. The overriding motivation for Al Qaeda was and is the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. That means the elimination of arab nation states. Secular leaders of arab nation states were and are well aware of that overriding motivation. To provide Al Qaeda with any material assistance would be suicidal. period.

And if America were attacked, I would not be waiting around to see if you were fighting next to me. I would defend my country....

so typical of you to distort reality and the facts. Did I say I would be waiting around? hahha, you are a joke.


and the fact that you would call me a traitor and a liar would not be all that important to me then...and is of zero importance to me now. The fact that you would be so offensively dismissive of patriotic Americans with different viewpoints than yours is repugnant to me. Your opinion of me, therefore is as valuable to me as a bucket of warm spit. Go fuck yourself.

hahah, pissed off again eh? Not important to you? Apparently another of your lies. "go fuck yourself" proves it. Well, so sorry, I cant do that, my wife takes care of that for me, my hard bodied 32 year old filipino dial a bride. HHHAHAHHAH

You believe too much of what you read. Terrorists at the level of Osama are not operating on ideals , but rather on emotions and delusions, desiring power and control. Look at the CONTROL the taliban had.

And yes, whether or not we are or were meddling in the middle east, Osama would want, try and have attacked us as much as possible. You think he is going to attack Chile or Latvia?

Im not dismissive of patriotic Americans, but I am dismissive of those who are trying to destroy our country from within. Read the oath of the President, it is the duty of all Americans to battle our enemies, foreign or domestic. I consider you an enemy.

Have a nice day if you can. :laugh2::lol::lol:

[retiredman]

You believe too much of what you read. Terrorists at the level of Osama are not operating on ideals , but rather on emotions and delusions, desiring power and control. Look at the CONTROL the taliban had.

And yes, whether or not we are or were meddling in the middle east, Osama would want, try and have attacked us as much as possible. You think he is going to attack Chile or Latvia?

Im not dismissive of patriotic Americans, but I am dismissive of those who are trying to destroy our country from within. Read the oath of the President, it is the duty of all Americans to battle our enemies, foreign or domestic. I consider you an enemy.


We can question Osama's ideals....and one should ALWAYS question the ideals of extremists... but he certainly has them. I laid out for you the goals of Al Qaeda and you conveniently forgot to address them. Understanding those goals - as Saddam certainly did - would have prevented him fromEVER providing military assistance to such an organization

And no.... if America were not involved in the middle east, we would not be targets for Al Qaeda.

And I think it is YOU who should read the oath of the President. It does not mention foreign or domestic enemies. The oath that I took when I joined our military as a commissioned officer, however, does. I have always lived up to that oath.

[LuvRPgrl]

We can question Osama's ideals....and one should ALWAYS question the ideals of extremists... but he certainly has them. I laid out for you the goals of Al Qaeda and you conveniently forgot to address them. Understanding those goals - as Saddam certainly did - would have prevented him fromEVER providing military assistance to such an organization

And no.... if America were not involved in the middle east, we would not be targets for Al Qaeda.

And I think it is YOU who should read the oath of the President. It does not mention foreign or domestic enemies. The oath that I took when I joined our military as a commissioned officer, however, does. I have always lived up to that oath.

So, why are the Philippines and Indonesia targets of al quiada?

[retiredman]

So, why are the Philippines and Indonesia targets of al quiada?

I think that the goals of Al Qaeda have spawned many similar organizations in other muslim countries.. and franchise operations have sprung up in those countries. I Do not believe that the goals of the radical extremist organization that attacked us go beyond reestablishing the extent of influence of Islam to its former high water marks.

Did you go back and read the president's oath, by the way? :laugh2:

[LuvRPgrl]

I think that the goals of Al Qaeda have spawned many similar organizations in other muslim countries.. and franchise operations have sprung up in those countries. I Do not believe that the goals of the radical extremist organization that attacked us go beyond reestablishing the extent of influence of Islam to its former high water marks.:

Or not.


Did you go back and read the president's oath, by the way? :laugh2:

No need, the oath is short/concise. It does direct the President to uphold the COTUS and correct me if Im wrong, the COTUS does talk about enemies foreign and domestic.

[retiredman]

No need, the oath is short/concise. It does direct the President to uphold the COTUS and correct me if Im wrong, the COTUS does talk about enemies foreign and domestic.


your words:

"Read the oath of the President, it is the duty of all Americans to battle our enemies, foreign or domestic. I consider you an enemy."

I already corrected you. You were wrong.

but if you would like to show me the quote from the Constitution that talks about "enemies foreign and domestic", I'd LOVE to read it.

And I consider you to be an annoying moronic buffoon.

[glockmail]

mfm must be the last liberal standing who can't admit that the US is winning in Iraq. :lame2:

[retiredman]

mfm must be the last liberal standing who can't admit that the US is winning in Iraq. :lame2:


funny you should say that. I have long ago stated that our troops have maintained their winning ways on the battlefield in Iraq. But I know that you have been so dismissive of what I have ever written that you probably missed it.

not really surprising.... just pathetic.

[glockmail]

Pathetic is you putting up that tired Straw Man. :pee:

[retiredman]

Pathetic is you putting up that tired Straw Man. :pee:


US troops ARE winning in Iraq. I have agreed with that statement. YOU said I had not. YOu are beating a dead horse.... but DO continue.... it highlights the meager nature of your position.

[glockmail]

From post 1: "For years the left bellowed how the US was losing in Iraq, it was mess, our troops were being slaughtered, and Harry Reid sneered "the war was lost"

Now, the troops are winning, the liberal media is not reporting the good news, and Dems are ducking any questions about the success

Will the Dems admit we are winning in Iraq, or still keep fighting their war on reality?"

[retiredman]

from post #1591:

"mfm must be the last liberal standing who can't admit that the US is winning in Iraq"

proven to be an inaccurate statement. ho hum.

[FSUK]

The troops are losing badly. Now Petraeus is blaming the iraqi govt for failing to unite the people and political parties etc...its an obvious tactic by the US- to shift blame for the ''surge'' failure into the iraqis.

Please, someone tell me- how the hell are the troops winning?. Iraq is a hell hole these days.

[retiredman]

The troops are losing badly. Now Petraeus is blaming the iraqi govt for failing to unite the people and political parties etc...its an obvious tactic by the US- to shift blame for the ''surge'' failure into the iraqis.

Please, someone tell me- how the hell are the troops winning?. Iraq is a hell hole these days.

our troops win every military encounter. The Iraqis, however, have not stepped up and created stable democracy in the shelter provided by our troops. When Sadr calls off his ceasefire, all hell will undoubtedly break loose again, and the Iraqi "government" - if you can call it that - has made precious little progress in preparing for that eventuality.

[Gaffer]

The troops are losing badly. Now Petraeus is blaming the iraqi govt for failing to unite the people and political parties etc...its an obvious tactic by the US- to shift blame for the ''surge'' failure into the iraqis.

Please, someone tell me- how the hell are the troops winning?. Iraq is a hell hole these days.

:link:

[glockmail]

:link:
Don't hold your breathe. This new liberal has no clothes. :pee:

[atliberty]

After 5 years of the Iraq war and much of over 500 billion being transferred into the pockets of defense contractor CEOs, we know why 9/11 was planed by government insiders. David H. Brooks made over $250 million in one year on bullet proof vests that were recalled while someone who risks their lives for their country in military service may get 25k a year.

Any person who puts messages here claiming that 9/11 was not orchestrated by deviant elements within our government must watch "How the Towers Fell" also known as "9/11: Blue Print for Truth: the Architecture of Destruction, by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. If they continue to post message here in denial of the fact that war profiteers within our government planned 9/11, you are doing a disservice to all the honorable soldiers and veterans of our nation. The truth shall set you free and it can be seen before your very eyes here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/10025 an/or here: http://blip.tv/file/306082/ ; the second site video feed can be viewed in full screen mode.

Please, be rational and righteous. As proud as you may think you are, if you do not have the courage to watch this movie to educate yourself and then decide if you want to continue to back Bushwhacker and Chainmaster or join the people of the US who are demanding their impeachment.

Thank you for your bravery and honesty

K

[Monkeybone]

After 5 years of the Iraq war and much of over 500 billion being transferred into the pockets of defense contractor CEOs, we know why 9/11 was planed by government insiders. David H. Brooks made over $250 million in one year on bullet proof vests that were recalled while someone who risks their lives for their country in military service may get 25k a year.

Any person who puts messages here claiming that 9/11 was not orchestrated by deviant elements within our government must watch "How the Towers Fell" also known as "9/11: Blue Print for Truth: the Architecture of Destruction, by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. If they continue to post message here in denial of the fact that war profiteers within our government planned 9/11, you are doing a disservice to all the honorable soldiers and veterans of our nation. The truth shall set you free and it can be seen before your very eyes here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/10025 an/or here: http://blip.tv/file/306082/ ; the second site video feed can be viewed in full screen mode.

Please, be rational and righteous. As proud as you may think you are, if you do not have the courage to watch this movie to educate yourself and then decide if you want to continue to back Bushwhacker and Chainmaster or join the people of the US who are demanding their impeachment.

Thank you for your bravery and honesty

K

wow...another same exact post.....

[glockmail]

wow...another same exact post..... Yes, and a :lame2: one at that. :pee:

[LuvRPgrl]

your words:

"Read the oath of the President, it is the duty of all Americans to battle our enemies, foreign or domestic. I consider you an enemy."

I already corrected you. You were wrong.

but if you would like to show me the quote from the Constitution that talks about "enemies foreign and domestic", I'd LOVE to read it.

And I consider you to be an annoying moronic buffoon.

NOPE, I DIDNT say the oath specifically states that the President battle our enemies foreign and domestic,

[retiredman]

NOPE, I DIDNT say the oath specifically states that the President battle our enemies foreign and domestic,


then why, pray tell, did you tell me to read it?:lol:

[glockmail]

The comeback of Fallujah, the site of two major battles between Marines and insurgents in 2004, surprises even the most optimistic U.S. planners.

“It continues to outpace all expectations,” said Navy Capt. John Dal Sant, part of a State Department-financed effort called the Provincial Reconstruction Team for Fallujah. more (http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173355053130)

How will the America hater's spin this?

[retiredman]

more (http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173355053130)

How will the America hater's spin this?

I don't know any America haters on here....

I think this is GREAT news!

[glockmail]

So you admit that our troops are winning.

[retiredman]

So you admit that our troops are winning.

I have said, no less than half a dozen times, in this thread alone, that american troops are prevailing on the battlefields of Iraq. That was never in doubt.

American troops were winning for a purpose: that was to create an environment where the Iraqi politicians could create the framework for compromise that would allow a multicultural democracy to flourish in our absence. THAT has not happened and, I predict, will not happen regardless of how long we stay there or on how many battlefields we militarily prevail.

[LuvRPgrl]

more (http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173355053130)

How will the America hater's spin this?

By ignoring it. Which is exactly what they are doing. The avg American doesnt even know what is going on there now, an amazing 180 degree turn around from what the media did in world war two.

Todays media is evil, flat out and out. They are suppose to have a responsability to present the truth, they are the conduits for a free society to be well informed, which is required for a democracy to function well. They are breaking the publics trust, and the public doesnt even know it.
They are also narcissistic elitists, which is how they justify their distortions of the news, truth.

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't know any America haters on here....

I think this is GREAT news!

Ive always suspected that you truly really dont know yourself, hence the immediate, and ONLY denial here.

[LuvRPgrl]

I have said, no less than half a dozen times, in this thread alone, that american troops are prevailing on the battlefields of Iraq. That was never in doubt.

American troops were winning for a purpose: that was to create an environment where the Iraqi politicians could create the framework for compromise that would allow a multicultural democracy to flourish in our absence. THAT has not happened and, I predict, will not happen regardless of how long we stay there or on how many battlefields we militarily prevail.

Other predictions by you and the rest of the America haters, whos political future depends on us losing in Iraq, were wrong also. You guys said the war, militaraly, was unwinnable. PROVEN WRONG.

Do you think the American experiment in Democracy was an overnight sucess?
Funny how you guys claim to support equal civil rights for all, yet you dont think the Iraqi's deserve a shot at it.

[Austin.Texas]

In this discussion about currently winning in Iraq, there is one very significant fact which has not been mentioned. The US has been paying thousands of sunnis as "private security".

More than 70,000 members of mostly Sunni Arab groups now work for American forces in neighborhood security programs. Transferring them to the control of the Shiite Muslim-dominated government, as policemen and members of public works crews, has taken on a new urgency as American troops begin to withdraw, officials indicated in recent interviews, meetings and briefings.
The day-to-day commander in Iraq, Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, believes that the Iraqi government's reconciliation with onetime Sunni fighters represents the "primary driver of enhanced security" over the next six months, according to internal military planning documents
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usiraq14jan14,0,7596784.story

In despair over the Iraqi situation in 2007, the Americans played their last card with "the surge." They bet enormous resources on "the surge." But the reversion to tribalism in Iraq cannot serve them the same way it served the British during the years 1920-1930. The Americans cannot continue to give 300 euros a month - almost twice a teacher's salary - to every militia auxiliary whom they arm. The temporary reduction in violence is due solely to this windfall.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032108G.shtml

So the idea that violence is down solely because of Bush's increase in the number of troops is not necessarily accurate. Of course, that is not to say that the tactic of paying the Sunnis is bad. I am not saying that at all, just that ascribing all of the success to the "surge" is incomplete.

[retiredman]

Other predictions by you and the rest of the America haters, whos political future depends on us losing in Iraq, were wrong also. You guys said the war, militaraly, was unwinnable. PROVEN WRONG.

Do you think the American experiment in Democracy was an overnight sucess?
Funny how you guys claim to support equal civil rights for all, yet you dont think the Iraqi's deserve a shot at it.


I never predicted American military defeat in Iraq. I only predicted that Iraqis are going to devolve into sectarian strife no matter when we leave... and I predicted that, whenever we do leave, that the Iraqi government which will exist upon our departure will be dominated by shiites and will become much more closely alligned with Iran than they will be with us.

And I think that no one handed us our sovereignty and having to fight for it and fight with one another to perfect it was essential to our current strength.

[retiredman]

Ive always suspected that you truly really dont know yourself, hence the immediate, and ONLY denial here.


I've always suspected that you are pathetic loser who uses mail order bride services because no self respecting American woman would give you the time of day. And, as I have said...I have, in this very thread, numerous times, acknowledged and praised the successes of our military forces.

[Austin.Texas]

In this discussion about currently winning in Iraq, there is one very significant fact which has not been mentioned. The US has been paying thousands of sunnis as "private security".

More than 70,000 members of mostly Sunni Arab groups now work for American forces in neighborhood security programs. Transferring them to the control of the Shiite Muslim-dominated government, as policemen and members of public works crews, has taken on a new urgency as American troops begin to withdraw, officials indicated in recent interviews, meetings and briefings.
The day-to-day commander in Iraq, Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, believes that the Iraqi government's reconciliation with onetime Sunni fighters represents the "primary driver of enhanced security" over the next six months, according to internal military planning documents
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usiraq14jan14,0,7596784.story

In despair over the Iraqi situation in 2007, the Americans played their last card with "the surge." They bet enormous resources on "the surge." But the reversion to tribalism in Iraq cannot serve them the same way it served the British during the years 1920-1930. The Americans cannot continue to give 300 euros a month - almost twice a teacher's salary - to every militia auxiliary whom they arm. The temporary reduction in violence is due solely to this windfall.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032108G.shtml

So the idea that violence is down solely because of Bush's increase in the number of troops is not necessarily accurate. Of course, that is not to say that the tactic of paying the Sunnis is bad. I am not saying that at all, just that ascribing all of the success to the "surge" is incomplete.

[Austin.Texas]

New info to add:
"The success of the US 'surge' strategy in Iraq may be under threat as Sunni militia employed by the US to fight al Qaida are warning of a national strike because they are not being paid regularly." Leading members of the awakening councils "have said they will stop fighting unless payment of their $10 a day wage is resumed." According to a survey by GuardianFilms, four of the 49 councils have quit while 38 more are threatening to leave.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/21/iraq.alqaida?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews

[atliberty]

If as a soldier one feels proud that they helped kill over a million people and none of those people had a damb thing to do with 9/11, that soldier is winning this war about as much as Hitler's soldiers won his war. Unless you respect bad spawn slime excuses of humans who are making millions and billions in blood money, none of us are winning this except the likes of criminal creatures with woman and children's blood dripping from their smacking lips listed below:

They say Vance Coffman of Lockheed martin made 150 million, John Walsh of GE made 122million, L.B. Raymond of Exon made 114 million, Michel Dell made 500 million, Davis Cote of TRW made 44 million, George David of United Technologies made 280 million, DHB David Brooks made 250 million in one year including wages, bonuses, benefits and stock options…Now that is more than a billion dollars between seven people…by the way, all these chicken hawks donated to Bushwhacker's election campaigns



'225 continuing a financial crimes enterprise: count one: Allowing and being part of a war profiteering scheme. The congress put limits on CEO and defense contractor pay and benefits to keep individuals from profiting from war, because the money used to protect our nation comes from every individual tax payer. See: § 2324. Allowable costs under defense contracts, FY 2001 -- $374,228, This determination is required to be made pursuant to Section 808 of Pub. L. 105-85. The average pay for defense CEOs was $11.6 million in 2004.

Now, ask yourself, are you winning in this Iraq war?

[glockmail]

I have said, no less than half a dozen times, in this thread alone, that american troops are prevailing on the battlefields of Iraq. That was never in doubt.

American troops were winning for a purpose: that was to create an environment where the Iraqi politicians could create the framework for compromise that would allow a multicultural democracy to flourish in our absence. THAT has not happened and, I predict, will not happen regardless of how long we stay there or on how many battlefields we militarily prevail. Post 1606 discusses the comeback of Fallujah due to the political progress by the Iraqis. But of course you will dismiss that progress.

[retiredman]

Post 1606 discusses the comeback of Fallujah due to the political progress by the Iraqis. But of course you will dismiss that progress.
Post 1607 is my statement that I find the improvements in Fallujah to be "great news". Did you miss that?:lol:

[LuvRPgrl]

YES, we are.
If as a soldier one feels proud that they helped kill over a million people and none of those people had a damb thing to do with 9/11, that soldier is winning this war about as much as Hitler's soldiers won his war. Unless you respect bad spawn slime excuses of humans who are making millions and billions in blood money, none of us are winning this except the likes of criminal creatures with woman and children's blood dripping from their smacking lips listed below:

They say Vance Coffman of Lockheed martin made 150 million, John Walsh of GE made 122million, L.B. Raymond of Exon made 114 million, Michel Dell made 500 million, Davis Cote of TRW made 44 million, George David of United Technologies made 280 million, DHB David Brooks made 250 million in one year including wages, bonuses, benefits and stock options…Now that is more than a billion dollars between seven people…by the way, all these chicken hawks donated to Bushwhacker's election campaigns



'225 continuing a financial crimes enterprise: count one: Allowing and being part of a war profiteering scheme. The congress put limits on CEO and defense contractor pay and benefits to keep individuals from profiting from war, because the money used to protect our nation comes from every individual tax payer. See: § 2324. Allowable costs under defense contracts, FY 2001 -- $374,228, This determination is required to be made pursuant to Section 808 of Pub. L. 105-85. The average pay for defense CEOs was $11.6 million in 2004.

Now, ask yourself, are you winning in this Iraq war?

[glockmail]

Post 1607 is my statement that I find the improvements in Fallujah to be "great news". Did you miss that?:lol: But you still can't admit that our troops are winning. :pee:

[retiredman]

But you still can't admit that our troops are winning. :pee:


what the fuck are you talking about?

I have many times.

I have repeatedly stated that our troops can and do win any skirmish or battle that they engage in.

I have also said that our troops cannot win the political battle that the Iraqi politicians alone can win. That's a fact.

[glockmail]

So the article about Fallujah is a lie then? :pee:

[retiredman]

So the article about Fallujah is a lie then? :pee:
oh no... the sunnis in fallujah are doing just great.

Basra and Baghdad these days are a bit different, eh?

Sadr calls off his ceasefire and all hell is breaking loose.

[glockmail]

Looks like you're reall happy about that.

Fallujah was the worst area. Its an example of how well our military can win.

[retiredman]

Looks like you're reall happy about that.

Fallujah was the worst area. Its an example of how well our military can win.


not so. I am quite unhappy about that. And fallujah was a sunni town and we have done a great job at bringing the sunnis around to our side.... it's too bad that they are the minority of the population. Like I said, Basra and Baghdad are coming unglued.... and that is because the Iraqis cannot seem to do what the surge was designed to allow them to do. Not our fault. Our troops win every battle... THEIR fault. It is only the fault of our leaders in Washington for getting us into this mess. Our troops are doing their very best.

[retiredman]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3631718.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2015164


despite the efforts of brave american servicemen, Iraq is boiling over into a bloody mess.

When will American leaders finally realize that invading, conquering, and occupying Iraq instead of actually concentrating on the guys who attacked us has been a bad idea?

time to take the keys away from the irresponsible assholes in the republican party and make them go sit in the corner for a few election cycles until they figure out how to act like people worthy of any responsibility.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3631718.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2015164


despite the efforts of brave american servicemen, Iraq is boiling over into a bloody mess.

When will American leaders finally realize that invading, conquering, and occupying Iraq instead of actually concentrating on the guys who attacked us has been a bad idea?

time to take the keys away from the irresponsible assholes in the republican party and make them go sit in the corner for a few election cycles until they figure out how to act like people worthy of any responsibility.:laugh2:



Please tell us again how you "support" the troops, and how you want the US to win the war

Are you hanging a white flag from your front porch yet in "support" of the troops MFM?

[retiredman]

Please tell us again how you "support" the troops, and how you want the US to win the war

Are you hanging a white flag from your front porch yet in "support" of the troops MFM?


I completely support our troops. I want the US to win the war against Islamic extremism and hope we can dislodge ourselves from this quagmire in Iraq soon so that we can get started.

[red states rule]

I completely support our troops. I want the US to win the war against Islamic extremism and hope we can dislodge ourselves from this quagmire in Iraq soon so that we can get started.

You support them by wanting them to surrender, expressing gleeful joy over any bad news, (real or not) and continuing to move the goal posts as to when you are satisified with their success

White flags and yelow streaks sums up your attitude on the war

[retiredman]

You support them by wanting them to surrender, expressing gleeful joy over any bad news, (real or not) and continuing to move the goal posts as to when you are satisified with their success

White flags and yelow streaks sums up your attitude on the war


bullshit. you're a liar. I do not support surrender and I am never gleeful about bad news.

tell me: how does what is happening in Basra and Baghdad today play into achieving the objectives that the surge was designed to allow?

[red states rule]

bullshit. you're a liar. I do not support surrender and I am never gleeful about bad news.

tell me: how does what is happening in Basra and Baghdad today play into achieving the objectives that the surge was designed to allow?


Add 2 more lies to the ever growing list of lies from MFM - the #1 cheerleader for the US losing in Iraq

Terrorists know that if they step up attacks, surrender monkies like you will scream louder for the US to cut and run

You are just another useful idiot the terrorists are using to achieve their goals

[retiredman]

Add 2 more lies to the ever growing list of lies from MFM - the #1 cheerleader for the US losing in Iraq

Terrorists know that if they step up attacks, surrender monkies like you will scream louder for the US to cut and run

You are just another useful idiot the terrorists are using to achieve their goals


fuck you. show me where I have EVER been a cheerleader for our failure you lying sack of shit.

I TOLD you months ago that the success of the surge was dependent on Sadr maintaining his ceasefire. And look what has happened.

Do you even understand the difference between Sadr's Mahdi army and Al Qaeda or are they all just brown-skinned ragheaded terrorists to you?

[red states rule]

fuck you. show me where I have EVER been a cheerleader for our failure you lying sack of shit.

I TOLD you months ago that the success of the surge was dependent on Sadr maintaining his ceasefire. And look what has happened.

Do you even understand the difference between Sadr's Mahdi army and Al Qaeda or are they all just brown-skinned ragheaded terrorists to you?

I see the truth still bothers you. Like the party leaders you bow before, nothing would make yu (and them) happier to see the troops come home as losers

After all, you libs call the war in Iraq "Bush' s war"

You have zero respect for the troops - just like the elected Dems you blindly support

[retiredman]

I see the truth still bothers you. Like the party leaders you bow before, nothing would make yu (and them) happier to see the troops come home as losers

After all, you libs call the war in Iraq "Bush' s war"

You have zero respect for the troops - just like the elected Dems you blindly support


Fusk you, YOU make shit up. I can completely embrace the truth.

This IS Bush's war...and it will be hung around McCain's neck as well.

Tell me about how the events in Basra and Baghdad show that our surge has produced the desired results in the Iraqi political situation.

[red states rule]

Fusk you, YOU make shit up. I can completely embrace the truth.

This IS Bush's war...and it will be hung around McCain's neck as well.

Tell me about how the events in Basra and Baghdad show that our surge has produced the desired results in the Iraqi political situation.

Thank you for making my point. Your support stops when their is any success.

You have shown clearly you put your party ahead of your country and the troops

[retiredman]

Thank you for making my point. Your support stops when their is any success.

You have shown clearly you put your party ahead of your country and the troops


I support our troops every day in many substantive ways. My support for them...my prayers for them...NEVER stop.

YOU are the enemy of our constitution...and our troops, who you claim to support, have all taken an oath to defend that document against just such despicable assholes as you.

[red states rule]

I support our troops every day in many substantive ways. My support for them...my prayers for them...NEVER stop.

YOU are the enemy of our constitution...and our troops, who you claim to support, have all taken an oath to defend that document against just such despicable assholes as you.

I am not surprised you pray for them to lose before Election Day

That is not a surprise

You play the role of offended and insulted liberal pretty good MM. You lay it on way to thick however

[retiredman]

I am not surprised you pray for them to lose before Election Day

That is not a surprise

You play the role of offended and insulted liberal pretty good MM. You lay it on way to thick however

What you say about me is insulting.... but I consider the source and pretty much laugh it off.

Tell me about what the events in Basra and Baghdad say about the success of the progress that the surge was designed to allow.

I'll wait.

[red states rule]

What you say about me is insulting.... but I consider the source and pretty much laugh it off.

Tell me about what the events in Basra and Baghdad say about the success of the progress that the surge was designed to allow.

I'll wait.

Since when is the truth insulting?

I answered your lame question

If you want another explanation go to Helen Wait

[retiredman]

Since when is the truth insulting?

I answered your lame question

If you want another explanation go to Helen Wait

you did not answer my question, but please feel free to give me a post number that contains your answer in case I missed it, and your lies about me will never be construed as the truth by ANYONE with ANY integrity.

[red states rule]

you did not answer my question, but please feel free to give me a post number that contains your answer in case I missed it, and your lies about me will never be construed as the truth by ANYONE with ANY integrity.

#1633

What lies? I NEVER said you were a strong supporter of the troops and a true patriot

[retiredman]

so shiite militiamen are terrorists? do you think that they are in cahoots with Al Qaeda?:lol:

[red states rule]

As Pres Bush said, now is a defining moment in Iraq

Our troops will rise to the occassion

Iraq needs to step up and take a larger role in defending and governing itseld

Meanwhile, libs like you will do all they can to undermine the troops and make sure the troops come home defeated. After all, the only power you care about MM is the Dems power

[retiredman]

As Pres Bush said, now is a defining moment in Iraq

Our troops will rise to the occassion

Iraq needs to step up and take a larger role in defending and governing itseld

Meanwhile, libs like you will do all they can to undermine the troops and make sure the troops come home defeated. After all, the only power you care about MM is the Dems power


Of course our troops will rise to the occasion, because the Iraqi troops won't!

The surge was supposed to be a short term increase in troop levels to buy the Iraqi politicians time to solve their differences. The surge is nearly a year old and Sadr can overturn our progress simply by waving a hand and stopping his ceasefire. Al Maliki will be unable to control the Mahdi army....

[red states rule]

Of course our troops will rise to the occasion, because the Iraqi troops won't!

The surge was supposed to be a short term increase in troop levels to buy the Iraqi politicians time to solve their differences. The surge is nearly a year old and Sadr can overturn our progress simply by waving a hand and stopping his ceasefire. Al Maliki will be unable to control the Mahdi army....

Sorry to break the good news to you........

Iraq forces could control all provinces this year: U.S.
Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:36pm EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iraq's army and police could be ready to take over security in all 18 provinces by the end of this year as the U.S. military moves toward a less prominent role in the country, U.S. officials said on Thursday.

"We look at it every month. We make recommendations. I think that if we continue along the path we're on now, we'll be able to do that by the end of 2008," Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the No. 2 commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said when asked when Iraqi forces could take the lead in all provinces.

He said that a joint operation under way led by Iraqi troops and supported by U.S. troops against al Qaeda militants in the northern city of Mosul was a model for the future.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1724900020080117

[retiredman]

Sorry to break the good news to you........

Iraq forces could control all provinces this year: U.S.
Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:36pm EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iraq's army and police could be ready to take over security in all 18 provinces by the end of this year as the U.S. military moves toward a less prominent role in the country, U.S. officials said on Thursday.

"We look at it every month. We make recommendations. I think that if we continue along the path we're on now, we'll be able to do that by the end of 2008," Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the No. 2 commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said when asked when Iraqi forces could take the lead in all provinces.

He said that a joint operation under way led by Iraqi troops and supported by U.S. troops against al Qaeda militants in the northern city of Mosul was a model for the future.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1724900020080117


a january news report.... long before the shit hit the fan in Basra.

typical cut and paste bullshit from the master!

[red states rule]

a january news report.... long before the shit hit the fan in Basra.

typical cut and paste bullshit from the master!

I knew you would hate to see any positive news from Iraq. You have to keep beating the surrender drum and do what you can to run down the US troops and support the terrorists

Party before country no matter what with you

[retiredman]

I knew you would hate to see any positive news from Iraq. You have to keep beating the surrender drum and do what you can to run down the US troops and support the terrorists

Party before country no matter what with you


the POINT is.... what you posted is not NEWS. What you posted does not address what is happening this week in Basra and Baghdad.

You are such a predictable idiot.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

the POINT is.... what you posted is not NEWS. What you posted does not address what is happening this week in Basra and Baghdad.

You are such a predictable idiot.:laugh2:

It is news, if you want to know the good news. You on the other hand want to only hear about dead US troops, and any and all bad news which feeds your thirst for surrender and appeasement

You are nothing but a political hack who has no reservation selling out the troops and his country as long as it benefits your political party

[retiredman]

It is news, if you want to know the good news. You on the other hand want to only hear about dead US troops, and any and all bad news which feeds your thirst for surrender and appeasement

You are nothing but a political hack who has no reservation selling out the troops and his country as long as it benefits your political party

I said: The surge was supposed to be a short term increase in troop levels to buy the Iraqi politicians time to solve their differences. The surge is nearly a year old and Sadr can overturn our progress simply by waving a hand and stopping his ceasefire. Al Maliki will be unable to control the Mahdi army....

and you said...sorry to break the NEWS to you and proceeded to post a two and a half month old news story that was written BEFORE Sadr called off his cease fire.

what a hack.

[red states rule]

I said: The surge was supposed to be a short term increase in troop levels to buy the Iraqi politicians time to solve their differences. The surge is nearly a year old and Sadr can overturn our progress simply by waving a hand and stopping his ceasefire. Al Maliki will be unable to control the Mahdi army....

and you said...sorry to break the NEWS to you and proceeded to post a two and a half month old news story that was written BEFORE Sadr called off his cease fire.

what a hack.

Must have struck a nerve with the boards #1 surrender monkey

[retiredman]

Must have struck a nerve with the boards #1 surrender monkey

you struck no nerve.... you just exposed what a hack you are.

wshy don't you address the failures of the Iraqi military in Basra and Baghdad?

[red states rule]

you struck no nerve.... you just exposed what a hack you are.

wshy don't you address the failures of the Iraqi military in Basra and Baghdad?

I must have. The Iraqi military are killing the terrorists, while you are hoping the terrorists kill them and more of our troops

Keep cheering on the terrorists MM. They have to make some progress in time for the election, which is what you want

[retiredman]

I must have. The Iraqi military are killing the terrorists, while you are hoping the terrorists kill them and more of our troops

Keep cheering on the terrorists MM. They have to make some progress in time for the election, which is what you want

RSR.... you really need to find as new schtick. I have NEVER cheered terrorists.

I also have never tried to put lipstick on a fucking pig, which is all you have EVER done about our actions in Iraq. Like I have said again and again....our military is vastly superior to any fighting force in Iraq...WE will always win every encounter. THAT is irrrelevant if the Iraqis cannot develop the will to forge the compromises necessary to halt the sectarian struggle that our invasion set in motion.

this news story suggests that things are not going as well in Basra as you have said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/world/middleeast/30iraq.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

this news story says that vioence is INCREASING! I thought you've been telling us all along how the surge was making Iraq a safe and wonderful place. What gives?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-03-29-14-38-59

and here...I thought you had said that Baghdad was a safe town and that the surge had made it safe... and these aren't Al Qaeda terrorists we're fighting here...these are Iraqi shiite citizens who don't want us in their country.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/28/AR2008032803810.html?hpid=topnews


the fact that you continue to wave pompoms for this administration from the safety of your trailer park while Americans die in Iraq makes me so fucking sick I could puke.

[retiredman]

how is THIS good news, RSR? Don't your arms get a little tired from waving those pompoms for your failed president's horrible war?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080329/wl_nm/iraq_dc

[gabosaurus]

Mission still accomplished...

<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/ba1b5f2eb8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/ba1b5f2eb8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>

[red states rule]

how is THIS good news, RSR? Don't your arms get a little tired from waving those pompoms for your failed president's horrible war?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080329/wl_nm/iraq_dc

The last thing a liberal kook like you wants to see is anyone supporting our troops and wanting them to win in Iraq

You are your ilk MM have invested so much time, eneergy, and politcal capital into the the US losing in Iraq - any good news mush be squashed at once

The more troops that come home in body bags MM the happier you are. You see more votes as each body is laid to rest. Like one Dem said before the 2002 midterm 'every 1000 point drop in the Dow is another seat in Congress for us'

You have the same mindset. You do not give a shit about the troops, the people of Iraq, the terrorists who want as many Americans as possible dead - all you care about is political power

That is why you never go agaist your party and their current talking points. You stand along side those who have smeared and attached the troops. Those who took a free trip to Iraq and defended Saddam. Those who sprew hate filled racism

As long as they are a Dem and can help your party you will bow before them and kiss their ass. You will defend them with lies, and if anyone gets int he way you attack - even wishing them death

[retiredman]

The last thing a liberal kook like you wants to see is anyone supporting our troops and wanting them to win in Iraq

You are your ilk MM have invested so much time, eneergy, and politcal capital into the the US losing in Iraq - any good news mush be squashed at once

The more troops that come home in body bags MM the happier you are. You see more votes as each body is laid to rest. Like one Dem said before the 2002 midterm 'every 1000 point drop in the Dow is another seat in Congress for us'

You have the same mindset. You do not give a shit about the troops, the people of Iraq, the terrorists who want as many Americans as possible dead - all you care about is political power

That is why you never go agaist your party and their current talking points. You stand along side those who have smeared and attached the troops. Those who took a free trip to Iraq and defended Saddam. Those who sprew hate filled racism

As long as they are a Dem and can help your party you will bow before them and kiss their ass. You will defend them with lies, and if anyone gets int he way you attack - even wishing them death

I guess you cannot address the situation in Iraq today.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/29/iraq.main/index.html

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-03-30-07-31-09

Sadr ends his ceasefire and the places is starting to boil over. I think I predicted that would happen months ago, but you were too busy waving your pompoms to listen. And all the while, our REAL enemies are as strong as they were on 9/11 and getting stronger. When will we EVER start fighting the REAL war against Islamic extremism and get out from this sectarian quagmire in Iraq?

[red states rule]

After nearly a year, libs can once again turn on their TV and open the newspaper and see some bad news coming from Iraq.

Once again lib break out in a wide grin, lick their lpis, and dream of death and destruction. They think about talking points they will sprew and how "Buish's war" is lost

They dream of watching dead troops coming home and thinking how many votes that will get them on election day

The terrorists know if they keep fighting, the cowards on the left will scream for surrender and run away for the fight

You MFM would be happy to sign the surrender papers, and supervise the loading of the trucks, and give CNN a map of the highway the trucks will take so the film of US troops running away from the fight can be shown on TV

Then you can blame Pres Bush for losing the war, and rant how Dems really wanted to stand up tot he terrorists, but Iraq was to far gone even for Dems to save

[retiredman]

After nearly a year, libs can once again turn on their TV and open the newspaper and see some bad news coming from Iraq.

Once again lib break out in a wide grin, lick their lpis, and dream of death and destruction. They think about talking points they will sprew and how "Buish's war" is lost

They dream of watching dead troops coming home and thinking how many votes that will get them on election day

The terrorists know if they keep fighting, the cowards on the left will scream for surrender and run away for the fight

You MFM would be happy to sign the surrender papers, and supervise the loading of the trucks, and give CNN a map of the highway the trucks will take so the film of US troops running away from the fight can be shown on TV

Then you can blame Pres Bush for losing the war, and rant how Dems really wanted to stand up tot he terrorists, but Iraq was to far gone even for Dems to save

I guess you really can't address the issue at all. Iraq is in the middle of a civil war. It is a war between Iraqi sunnis and Iraqi shiites. They are not going to forget about their enmity just because Americans occupy their lands. This isn't OUR war. This is a war that has been waiting to be fought ever since sunnis, shiites and kurds in the region had a line drawn around all of them by victorious Europeans after WWI "Iraq" is an artificial construct. There is no history or identity as a country. The people living there do NOT wish to live with one another. I would applaud President Bush if he were to begin focusing on the REAL war against Islamic extremism and disengage from this mess in Iraq as soon as possible.

[red states rule]

I guess you really can't address the issue at all. Iraq is in the middle of a civil war. It is a war between Iraqi sunnis and Iraqi shiites. They are not going to forget about their enmity just because Americans occupy their lands. This isn't OUR war. This is a war that has been waiting to be fought ever since sunnis, shiites and kurds in the region had a line drawn around all of them by victorious Europeans after WWI "Iraq" is an artificial construct. There is no history or identity as a country. The people living there do NOT wish to live with one another. I would applaud President Bush if he were to begin focusing on the REAL war against Islamic extremism and disengage from this mess in Iraq as soon as possible.

Sorry to bust your bubble one again MFM


Government Welcomes Al-Sadr's Orders to Pull Fighters From Streets
Sunday, March 30, 2008

BAGHDAD, Iraq — The Iraqi government has welcomed an order by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to pull his fighters off the streets.

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told FOX News that the decision is "positive and responsive."

Al-Dabbagh said the move would "help the government confront those who are violating the law" and that it would help to "isolate those who are trying to destroy the government effort".

He said Iraqi security operations in Basra would not end until the "criminal elements" operating there are removed.

Also praising al-Sadr's orders was Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who said it was "a step in the right direction."

Al-Sadr ordered those loyal to him and his Mahdi Army Sunday off the streets in Basra and cities across Iraq, saying that whoever carries arms against Iraqi forces is not one of his followers

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343231,00.html



Damn, while you are cheering on the terrorists and looking forward to more bad news - your buddy Al-Sadr sees he is losing and he takes your white flag from you and starts waving it in the face of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki

[retiredman]

Sorry to bust your bubble one again MFM


Government Welcomes Al-Sadr's Orders to Pull Fighters From Streets
Sunday, March 30, 2008

BAGHDAD, Iraq — The Iraqi government has welcomed an order by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to pull his fighters off the streets.

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told FOX News that the decision is "positive and responsive."

Al-Dabbagh said the move would "help the government confront those who are violating the law" and that it would help to "isolate those who are trying to destroy the government effort".

He said Iraqi security operations in Basra would not end until the "criminal elements" operating there are removed.

Also praising al-Sadr's orders was Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who said it was "a step in the right direction."

Al-Sadr ordered those loyal to him and his Mahdi Army Sunday off the streets in Basra and cities across Iraq, saying that whoever carries arms against Iraqi forces is not one of his followers

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343231,00.html



Damn, while you are cheering on the terrorists and looking forward to more bad news - your buddy Al-Sadr sees he is losing and he takes your white flag from you and starts waving it in the face of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
it doesn't burst my bubble at all. Do you honestly think that Sadr is done fighting? Don't you understand that all he has to do is start violating this cease fire - just like he did the last one - and we're back in the middle of carnage all over again? How is OUR presence there and our SURGE going to stop him for doing that again?

[red states rule]

it doesn't burst my bubble at all. Do you honestly think that Sadr is done fighting? Don't you understand that all he has to do is start violating this cease fire - just like he did the last one - and we're back in the middle of carnage all over again? How is OUR presence there and our SURGE going to stop him for doing that again?

Hang onto to your white flag MM and surrender papers MFM. I know you are hoping he continues to fight and more people die

The last thing you and your ilk want is for any progress to be made

You love the bad news, and dismiss the good news.

[retiredman]

Hang onto to your white flag MM and surrender papers MFM. I know you are hoping he continues to fight and more people die

The last thing you and your ilk want is for any progress to be made

You love the bad news, and dismiss the good news.


that is a lie.... and it gets old.

I would LOVE to see some real progress in the war against Islamic extremism.... and I would love to see us let Iraqis figure out how to divide up their "country" without our occupying it.

[red states rule]

that is a lie.... and it gets old.

I would LOVE to see some real progress in the war against Islamic extremism.... and I would love to see us let Iraqis figure out how to divide up their "country" without our occupying it.

Get a Kleenex and keep telling yourself the terrorists can still win this. They are your best hope for a win in November

And keep downplaying and dismissing any good news.

[retiredman]

Get a Kleenex and keep telling yourself the terrorists can still win this. They are your best hope for a win in November

And keep downplaying and dismissing any good news.

I have never said that the terrorists can win anywhere. Do you consider the Mahdi Army to be "terrorists"?

[red states rule]

I have never said that the terrorists can win anywhere. Do you consider the Mahdi Army to be "terrorists"?

You do hope and want any bad news to keep your quest for surrender going.

[retiredman]

You do hope and want any bad news to keep your quest for surrender going.

no. I don't. now try to answer the question.

it really shouldn't be too hard.

[DragonStryk72]

Sorry to bust your bubble one again MFM


Government Welcomes Al-Sadr's Orders to Pull Fighters From Streets
Sunday, March 30, 2008

BAGHDAD, Iraq — The Iraqi government has welcomed an order by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to pull his fighters off the streets.

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told FOX News that the decision is "positive and responsive."

Al-Dabbagh said the move would "help the government confront those who are violating the law" and that it would help to "isolate those who are trying to destroy the government effort".

He said Iraqi security operations in Basra would not end until the "criminal elements" operating there are removed.

Also praising al-Sadr's orders was Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who said it was "a step in the right direction."

Al-Sadr ordered those loyal to him and his Mahdi Army Sunday off the streets in Basra and cities across Iraq, saying that whoever carries arms against Iraqi forces is not one of his followers

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343231,00.html



Damn, while you are cheering on the terrorists and looking forward to more bad news - your buddy Al-Sadr sees he is losing and he takes your white flag from you and starts waving it in the face of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki

A weak argument from a weak mind. Any time someone is against this war, they abolutely MUST be hoping for America to fail, they MUST hate freedom and liberty, they MUST love terrorists, and MUST want them to destroy America. It is a pathetic, sad, and boring argument, used to sweep legitimate debate under the carpet, because the one who uses this tactic is too weak to come up with a true counterpoint.

[retiredman]

well said dragon... but you could get rich betting against RSR ever using his own words to effectively counter anyone's argument.

He recycles the same pathetic crap over and over again and NEVER EVER even tries to have an intelligent discussion.

He is a Bush ass-licking insult machine who clearly loves his cowboy from Texas and his grand old party much more than he does his country.

[Yurt]

A weak argument from a weak mind. Any time someone is against this war, they abolutely MUST be hoping for America to fail, they MUST hate freedom and liberty, they MUST love terrorists, and MUST want them to destroy America. It is a pathetic, sad, and boring argument, used to sweep legitimate debate under the carpet, because the one who uses this tactic is too weak to come up with a true counterpoint.

so you want the terrorists to win....

[DragonStryk72]

so you want the terrorists to win....

lol, no, and I do believe that we need to fix the mess we created over there. We're never going to out-hate, or out-terror the terrorists, just like you can't use gasoline to fight fires. We need a better approach than just idly jumping a random country.

I am against the war in Iraq, and have been for quite some time, but that doesn't change the fact that the second we decided we were removing Sadam, we became responsible for every life that was under his control, and we have handled that responsibility poorly thus far, leading to the consequence of an increased ability for recruiting people over to radical islam.

When we went at this, we should have fully occupied the country, UN be damned, and secured the whole thing before we set about trying to rebuild, putting them under protections as territory under the control of the USA. this would have given them the framework to understand that a neutral third party would be present to protect their individual rights, and done much to calm the populace at large.

We also should not have carelessly fired the entirety of the republican guard that was in place, as many of them have now become the insurgents. these were trained soldiers who got fired, and, lack other professions, re-embarked on their former career. Yes, I understand, they had torturers, but at some point, you are going to have address the fact that, by and large, all 3rd world countries have something like this kind of group.

This war has been botched on so many fronts, that we have become almost complacent about the massive Cluster Fucks that have occured.

[red states rule]

so you want the terrorists to win....

Not him

MFM yes. He eats, sleeps, breaths, and prays for the US to lose in Iraq

[red states rule]

A weak argument from a weak mind. Any time someone is against this war, they abolutely MUST be hoping for America to fail, they MUST hate freedom and liberty, they MUST love terrorists, and MUST want them to destroy America. It is a pathetic, sad, and boring argument, used to sweep legitimate debate under the carpet, because the one who uses this tactic is too weak to come up with a true counterpoint.

Lets see all the support the left has shown the troops

We have had elected Dem leaders call our troops in Iraq uneducated, terrorists, cold bloded killers, compared them to Nazi's and Pol Pot

Before the surge was at full strength, Harry Reid said the war was lost

43 times Dems have tried to insert a surrender date into spending bills

Yes, based on what the left has shown by their actions. most on the left want the US to lose this war - and surrender and appease the terrorists

They see this as Bish's war - so they think it is not a defeat for America

And libs see political gain in losing in Iraq. That is the most important factor they consider before they take any action

MFM is living proof of this that BTW

[retiredman]

Lets see all the support the left has shown the troops

We have had elected Dem leaders call our troops in Iraq uneducated, terrorists, cold bloded killers, compared them to Nazi's and Pol Pot

Before the surge was at full strength, Harry Reid said the war was lost

43 times Dems have tried to insert a surrender date into spending bills

Yes, based on what the left has shown by their actions. most on the left want the US to lose this war - and surrender and appease the terrorists

They see this as Bish's war - so they think it is not a defeat for America

And libs see political gain in losing in Iraq. That is the most important factor they consider before they take any action

MFM is living proof of this that BTW


standard Rush talking points. that is all you have ever had.

YOu refuse to read what I write. I have said countless times that I support our troops and want them to prevail in every encounter - and they have.

I have said that this war in Iraq is counterproductive to the war against our real enemies, and because I want to quit stalling and actually start fighting the war we ought to be fighting, you denigrate me, my ideas and my service.... all because you put your party above your country.

very pathetic.

[red states rule]

To you talking points are facts. The left have a long history of showing their "support"

History you try to rewrite on a daily basis - or ignore

[retiredman]

To you talking points are facts. The left have a long history of showing their "support"

History you try to rewrite on a daily basis - or ignore

here is what I said:

I have said that this war in Iraq is counterproductive to the war against our real enemies, and because I want to quit stalling and actually start fighting the war we ought to be fighting, you denigrate me, my ideas and my service.... all because you put your party above your country.
caqn you address it or not?

[red states rule]

here is what I said:

I have said that this war in Iraq is counterproductive to the war against our real enemies, and because I want to quit stalling and actually start fighting the war we ought to be fighting, you denigrate me, my ideas and my service.... all because you put your party above your country.
caqn you address it or not?

We are fighting our enemies in Iraq

To you, the "real" enemies are anyone who disagrees with you. These are the people you want to fight a war with.

Keep siding against your country MFM - it is best to go with your strengths

[retiredman]

We are fighting our enemies in Iraq

To you, the "real" enemies are anyone who disagrees with you. These are the people you want to fight a war with.

Keep siding against your country MFM - it is best to go with your strengths

why are the Iraqis who are squabbling with one another over who will control Iraq necessarily OUR enemies?

And please.... rather than just attack me, personally, on every post, why not actually try to debate me on the points I make.

[red states rule]

A weak argument from a weak mind. Any time someone is against this war, they abolutely MUST be hoping for America to fail, they MUST hate freedom and liberty, they MUST love terrorists, and MUST want them to destroy America. It is a pathetic, sad, and boring argument, used to sweep legitimate debate under the carpet, because the one who uses this tactic is too weak to come up with a true counterpoint.

So can you point out how elected Dems have supported the troops?

I can

Elected Dems have called the troops in Iraq uneducated, terrorists, cold blooded killers, compared them to Nazi's and Pol Pot

They have tried to insert a surrender date over 43 times

Harry Reid said the war is lost even before the surge was at full strength

Libs cheer as the liberal media publishes classified information, telling our enemies how we are tracking them and their money

Yet many Dems ignore, spin, and defend their actions.

You can attack me for pointing out these facts if you wish - I know MFM will

[retiredman]

So can you point out how elected Dems have supported the troops?

I can

Elected Dems have called the troops in Iraq uneducated, terrorists, cold blooded killers, compared them to Nazi's and Pol Pot

They have tried to insert a surrender date over 43 times

Harry Reid said the war is lost even before the surge was at full strength

Libs cheer as the liberal media publishes classified information, telling our enemies how we are tracking them and their money

Yet many Dems ignore, spin, and defend their actions.

You can attack me for pointing out these facts if you wish - I know MFM will

I have countered those points often enough...that never seems to stop you from repeating the same tired old mantra over and over and over and over and over and over again in lieu of debate. I won't bother this time.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

I have countered those points often enough...that never seems to stop you from repeating the same tired old mantra over and over and over and over and over and over again in lieu of debate. I won't bother this time.:laugh2:

No you ducked, dodged, and lied about those valid facts

[retiredman]

No you ducked, dodged, and lied about those valid facts


no. I never did any such thing. You have been repeating the same tired old list since the days when you posted on USMB all the time.... and I have spent countless posts refuting your silliness. The record is clear.

[red states rule]

no. I never did any such thing. You have been repeating the same tired old list since the days when you posted on USMB all the time.... and I have spent countless posts refuting your silliness. The record is clear.

Facts never change MFM, only your lame attempts to defend your fellow Dems do

[retiredman]

Facts never change MFM, only your lame attempts to defend your fellow Dems do


talking points from Rush start out tasteless and then get stale. I grow weary of them.

[red states rule]

talking points from Rush start out tasteless and then get stale. I grow weary of them.

I know you grow wearly of being reminded of your parties efforts to smear, insult, and undermine the troops

But that is what the Dem party is all about

[red states rule]

Another example on how the moonbat left sees the war in Iraq


Turner: Iraqi Insurgents 'Patriots,' Inaction on Warming: Cannibalism
By Brent Baker | April 2, 2008 - 02:18 ET




Interviewed Tuesday for Charlie Rose's PBS show, CNN founder Ted Turner argued that inaction on global warming “will be catastrophic” and those who don't die “will be cannibals.” He also applied moral equivalence in describing Iraqi insurgents as “patriots” who simply “don't like us because we've invaded their country” and so “if the Iraqis were in Washington, D.C., we'd be doing the same thing.” On not taking drastic action to correct global warming:
Not doing it will be catastrophic. We'll be eight degrees hottest in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.
Turner ridiculed the need for a big U.S. military, insisting “China just wants to sell us shoes. They're not building landing craft to attack the United States,” and “even with our $500 billion military budget, we can't win in Iraq. We're being beaten by insurgents who don't even have any tanks.” After Rose pointed out the Iraqi insurgents “have a lot of roadside bombs that kill a lot of Americans” and wondered “where do you think they come from?”, Turner answered:

I think that they're patriots and that they don't like us because we've invaded their country and occupied it. I think if the Iraqis were in Washington, D.C., we'd be doing the same thing: we'd be bombing them too. Nobody wants to be invaded.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/04/02/turner-iraqi-insurgents-patriots-inaction-warming-cannibalism

[retiredman]

I know you grow wearly of being reminded of your parties efforts to smear, insult, and undermine the troops

But that is what the Dem party is all about

not true. One wonders about the senior retired military flag officers who are supporting both Hillary and Obama. Do you honestly think they would support democrats if there was really any substance to your mantra?

[red states rule]

not true. One wonders about the senior retired military flag officers who are supporting both Hillary and Obama. Do you honestly think they would support democrats if there was really any substance to your mantra?

You are not the only one who hates Pres Bush with a passion, and sees this war as Bush's war

[retiredman]

You are not the only one who hates Pres Bush with a passion, and sees this war as Bush's war

I might dislike our president, and think he is a terrible leader. So do many senior retired military leaders. Regardless, they would not align themselves with a party that they felt actually wanted to undermine our troops as your slander would suggest. Their participation proves the foolishness of your rhetoric.

[red states rule]

I might dislike our president, and think he is a terrible leader. So do many senior retired military leaders. Regardless, they would not align themselves with a party that they felt actually wanted to undermine our troops as your slander would suggest. Their participation proves the foolishness of your rhetoric.

Several have, and yes, you hate Pres Bush and most of those who support him

[retiredman]

and yes, you hate Pres Bush and most of those who support him


true that, but I do not undermine our troops and neither does my party... if we did, professional soldiers would not participate with us.

[red states rule]

true that, but I do not undermine our troops and neither does my party... if we did, professional soldiers would not participate with us.

What do you call all the "support" your party has shown the troops?

Calling them uneducated, terrorists, cold blooded killers, the Gen Betray Us ad, surrender dates in spending bills, ect, ect, ect

[retiredman]

What do you call all the "support" your party has shown the troops?

Calling them uneducated, terrorists, cold blooded killers, the Gen Betray Us ad, surrender dates in spending bills, ect, ect, ect

all of those talking points are unadulerated spin. The democrats support our troops and want very much to use them effectively to keep America safe and strong... unlike Bush who wants to use them to babysit a civil war in Iraq.

[red states rule]

all of those talking points are unadulerated spin. The democrats support our troops and want very much to use them effectively to keep America safe and strong... unlike Bush who wants to use them to babysit a civil war in Iraq.

They are facts and show how the Dems feel about the troops. Dems see them as the terrorists in Iraq, and have treated them accordingly. They have spent years insulting and smearing them - and you stand on the sidelines defending the smears

Libs would rather use the troops as political props when needed, otherwise they shove aside and ignore them

[retiredman]

They are facts and show how the Dems feel about the troops. Dems see them as the terrorists in Iraq, and have treated them accordingly. They have spent years insulting and smearing them - and you stand on the sidelines defending the smears

Libs would rather use the troops as political props when needed, otherwise they shove aside and ignore them

no. no one has said that our troops were terrorists in Iraq. No one has smeared them.... again...if that were really the case, retired generals would not be working to get democrats elected.

[red states rule]

no. no one has said that our troops were terrorists in Iraq. No one has smeared them.... again...if that were really the case, retired generals would not be working to get democrats elected.

Kerry called them terrorists

[retiredman]

Kerry called them terrorists

no. he did not.

you need to learn how to read and how to use the dictionary.

[red states rule]

no. he did not.

you need to learn how to read and how to use the dictionary.

More spin and defending the slimes

[retiredman]

More spin and defending the slimes

no "spin"...merely the correct use of the words in the english language.

You chose not to use our language correctly when you think you can drive home some slanderous political point by misusing it.

hack.

[red states rule]

no "spin"...merely the correct use of the words in the english language.

You chose not to use our language correctly when you think you can drive home some slanderous political point by misusing it.

hack.

Right, and the same thing applies to Murtha would called the troops cold blooded killers

[retiredman]

Right, and the same thing applies to Murtha would called the troops cold blooded killers

I have already stated that Murtha's use of the word "murderer" was inappropriate.

But DO try to change the subject!:lol:

[red states rule]

I have already stated that Murtha's use of the word "murderer" was inappropriate.

But DO try to change the subject!:lol:

Or how Sen Durbin did not compare the troops to Nazi's and Pol Pot

[retiredman]

Or how Sen Durbin did not compare the troops to Nazi's and Pol Pot


he conpared the interrogation tactics to those used by the nazis and pol pot....and later apologized for the statement.

but again...keep running away from your inability to use the language.

moron.

[red states rule]

he conpared the interrogation tactics to those used by the nazis and pol pot....and later apologized for the statement.

but again...keep running away from your inability to use the language.

moron.

He did compare the troops to Nazi's and Pol Pot. When his comments were all over talk radio and Fox News, severla days later he made a very lame "apology"

Typical liberal who makes the mistake of expressing his true feeling about the US military on tape instead of closed event with other moonbats

[retiredman]

He did compare the troops to Nazi's and Pol Pot. When his comments were all over talk radio and Fox News, severla days later he made a very lame "apology"

Typical liberal who makes the mistake of expressing his true feeling about the US military on tape instead of closed event with other moonbats

no...he compared the interrogation techniques, not the troops.

and he apologized. either accept it or not.

and that is really all you have, isn't it? the same tired old list of one liner soundbites that you claim shows how "disrespectful" the democrats are.... and that list keeps you from debating substantive issues about the war in Iraq... because, quite frankly, you are incapable of doing so.

[red states rule]

no...he compared the interrogation techniques, not the troops.

and he apologized. either accept it or not.

and that is really all you have, isn't it? the same tired old list of one liner soundbites that you claim shows how "disrespectful" the democrats are.... and that list keeps you from debating substantive issues about the war in Iraq... because, quite frankly, you are incapable of doing so.

I will always remind you of your parties greatest hits, and top examples of the support they have showed the troops

You can continue to excuse and try to sleaze your way out. But their words and actions show how they feel about the US military, and the disatin have for them

Your defense of them also shows your lack of character and how you do indeed put your party ahead of the troops and the country

[retiredman]

I will always remind you of your parties greatest hits, and top examples of the support they have showed the troops

You can continue to excuse and try to sleaze your way out. But their words and actions show how they feel about the US military, and the disatin have for them

Your defense of them also shows your lack of character and how you do indeed put your party ahead of the troops and the country


blah blah blah.
when you are ready to discuss Iraq.... for example, your hairbrained idea that Iran is supplying Al Qaeda (even McCain quickly corrected himself last week for making that mistake) your idiotic idea that AQ will somehow take over Iraq and rule it jointly with Iran....your inability to understand the difference between islamic extremist and Iraqi nationalists...

when you'd like to delve into the real issues that swirl around this war in Iraq and leave the soundbites behind, I'll be waiting.:coffee:

[red states rule]

blah blah blah.
when you are ready to discuss Iraq.... for example, your hairbrained idea that Iran is supplying Al Qaeda (even McCain quickly corrected himself last week for making that mistake) your idiotic idea that AQ will somehow take over Iraq and rule it jointly with Iran....your inability to understand the difference between islamic extremist and Iraqi nationalists...

when you'd like to delve into the real issues that swirl around this war in Iraq and leave the soundbites behind, I'll be waiting.:coffee:

I always talk about the successes in Iraq, and how you and your ilk want to stop the US military from winning the fight

[retiredman]

I always talk about the successes in Iraq, and how you and your ilk want to stop the US military from winning the fight

what are your thoughts on the statement by Adm. Mullen taht we won't be able to send the troops we need to send to Afghanistan because of the troops still being required in Iraq?

Or are you wearing your Bush goggles and can only see the great victories in Iraq and refuse to acknowledge the problems?

Are you ever going to explain your former statements that Iran is supporting Al Qaeda? And how you think that Al Qaeda is going to be able to control oil revenues in Iraq against the will of the sunni majority?

Are you ever going to explain who exactly our "enemy" is in Iraq now and who exactly you think that we would be "surrendering" to if we redeployed troops to where Mullen would like to send them and let the Iraqi political factions work out their own mess?

[red states rule]

what are your thoughts on the statement by Adm. Mullen taht we won't be able to send the troops we need to send to Afghanistan because of the troops still being required in Iraq?

Or are you wearing your Bush goggles and can only see the great victories in Iraq and refuse to acknowledge the problems?

Are you ever going to explain your former statements that Iran is supporting Al Qaeda? And how you think that Al Qaeda is going to be able to control oil revenues in Iraq against the will of the sunni majority?

Are you ever going to explain who exactly our "enemy" is in Iraq now and who exactly you think that we would be "surrendering" to if we redeployed troops to where Mullen would like to send them and let the Iraqi political factions work out their own mess?


Sorry to bust your bubble again

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=13302

[retiredman]

Sorry to bust your bubble again

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=13302

all you can do is spam...you can't stand and defend ANY of your goofy fucking assertions.

what a joke you are!

[actsnoblemartin]

I feel what we did for the iraqi people was noble, and a country run by a dictator who murdered 300-400 thousand of his own people, not to mention the other atrocities he committed, is not invading a sovereign nation. As well as the fact, he did not live up to his obligations from the first war, which he agreed to, and which was done from the u.n.

Second, I think killing islamo-nazi's is noble, and calling them insurgents, is like calling child molesters, child love seekers. a.k.a. a lie, and intellectually dishonest.

[red states rule]

all you can do is spam...you can't stand and defend ANY of your goofy fucking assertions.

what a joke you are!

I knew you would hate to see good news, this time from Afghanistan

Showing your "support" again MFM?

[actsnoblemartin]

Seeing you and mfm fight is like watching, ann coulter and al franken fight

meaning: everyone should duck for cover and run.


I knew you would hate to see good news, this time from Afghanistan

Showing your "support" again MFM?

[red states rule]

Seeing you and mfm fight is like watching, ann coulter and al franken fight

meaning: everyone should duck for cover and run.

I do not like libs who undermine the troops Martin

MFM is a typical Moveon.org jerk who wants the US to lose this fight because he thinks it will help his party

[red states rule]

Seeing you and mfm fight is like watching, ann coulter and al franken fight

meaning: everyone should duck for cover and run.

Martin, the left is so typical

Hearts and Minds, Again
April 3, 2008
Is it uncharitable to suggest that when the fighting erupted in Basra last week between Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and the U.S.-trained Iraqi army, some opponents of the war hoped it would become George Bush's Tet Offensive? That is, a battle whose military details are largely irrelevant, but whose sudden violence "proves" to voters that a U.S. military commitment is unwinnable and should be abandoned?

It was hard not to miss the antiwar spin coming off reports of the fighting, after a year of unmistakable gains from the Petraeus surge strategy.


Wonder Land columnist Dan Henninger discusses the interpretation of recent violence in Basra and the antiwar legacy. Kelsey Hubbard reports. (April 2)
An Obama foreign policy adviser, Denis McDonough, said it "does raise a handful of concerns as it relates to the surge and, more importantly, about the prospect of political reconciliation." The New York Times noted that Hillary Clinton, campaigning in Pennsylvania, said the Bush commitment to keeping up troop levels in Iraq is a "clear admission that the surge has failed to accomplish its goals."

The Democrats appear so invested in a failure that a half-week of violence erases a year of progress. What is the source of such instincts?

for the complete article

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120718399181985179.html?mod=todays_columnists

[retiredman]

one of the key ingedients on the ground that enabled the success of our surge was the self imposed Mahdi Army ceasefire. Sadr showed the world how he can easily tip the balance between calm and carnage. He will undoubtedly continue to have that capability. He remains the single most popular shiite leader/cleric in Iraq. He continues to maintain strong ties to Iran.

What will prevent him from doing exactly what he did in Basra and Baghdad last week again after we leave, whenever that may be?

[red states rule]

one of the key ingedients on the ground that enabled the success of our surge was the self imposed Mahdi Army ceasefire. Sadr showed the world how he can easily tip the balance between calm and carnage. He will undoubtedly continue to have that capability. He remains the single most popular shiite leader/cleric in Iraq. He continues to maintain strong ties to Iran.

What will prevent him from doing exactly what he did in Basra and Baghdad last week again after we leave, whenever that may be?

and like a dog at a water bowl the liberal media and Dems lap it up when Sadr needs some free publicity

With his useful idiots willing to do what he wants, the incentive is there to continue to try and cause trouble

[retiredman]

and like a dog at a water bowl the liberal media and Dems lap it up when Sadr needs some free publicity

With his useful idiots willing to do what he wants, the incentive is there to continue to try and cause trouble


so covering violence in Iraq is now the work of useful idiots?

are you suggesting that we have a press blackout and not allow the American people to know anything about what is happening in a country where 150K of their countrymen are fighting?

What is to prevent Sadr from mobilizing his militia at any time he choses?

[red states rule]

so covering violence in Iraq is now the work of useful idiots?

are you suggesting that we have a press blackout and not allow the American people to know anything about what is happening in a country where 150K of their countrymen are fighting?

What is to prevent Sadr from mobilizing his militia at any time he choses?

Where were all the stories over the last 8 months when things were calm in Iraq? Where was Harry 'the war is lost" Reid?

Both the liberal media and the Dems want only bad news. They love it, and love to talk about it

But the good news is ignored, dismissed, and downplayed

All they want is defeat for the US in Iraq

[retiredman]

"if it bleeds it leads"

when was the last time you saw a front page story of a fireman rescuing a kitten from a tree?

feel good stories don't make it above the fold regardless of the political party in office.

Quit dodging my question regarding Sadr:

What will prevent him from doing exactly what he did in Basra and Baghdad last week again after we leave, whenever that may be?

[red states rule]

"if it bleeds it leads"

when was the last time you saw a front page story of a fireman rescuing a kitten from a tree?

feel good stories don't make it above the fold regardless of the political party in office.

Quit dodging my question regarding Sadr:

What will prevent him from doing exactly what he did in Basra and Baghdad last week again after we leave, whenever that may be?

I have seen so many puff pieces on Dems and what they want. The bottom line is, libs are invested in defeat in Iraq

The liberal media will do their bidding, and provide the bias one sided coverage of the war to appease them - and the terrorists

Which is what the left wants

[actsnoblemartin]

if jesus christ returned (in iraq), they wouldnt say a peep.

if an islamo nazi, murdered an innocent iraqi civilian, the libs would blame us, and say if we left, that wouldnt happen :coffee:


I have seen so many puff pieces on Dems and what they want. The bottom line is, libs are invested in defeat in Iraq

The liberal media will do their bidding, and provide the bias one sided coverage of the war to appease them - and the terrorists

Which is what the left wants

[retiredman]

I have seen so many puff pieces on Dems and what they want. The bottom line is, libs are invested in defeat in Iraq

The liberal media will do their bidding, and provide the bias one sided coverage of the war to appease them - and the terrorists

Which is what the left wants


quit dodging the question about Sadr:

What will prevent him from doing exactly what he did in Basra and Baghdad last week again after we leave, whenever that may be?

[red states rule]

if jesus christ returned (in iraq), they wouldnt say a peep.

if an islamo nazi, murdered an innocent iraqi civilian, the libs would blame us, and say if we left, that wouldnt happen :coffee:

Coverage by the liberal media was nonexistent when it was calm. Now the liberal media is once again trying to paint the pitcure of a civil war

Even though the thugs have waved the white flag

[retiredman]

Coverage by the liberal media was nonexistent when it was calm. Now the liberal media is once again trying to paint the pitcure of a civil war

Even though the thugs have waved the white flag


Didn't Maliki demand that the Sadr Army turn in their weapons?

How'd that turn out?:dance:

[red states rule]

Didn't Maliki demand that the Sadr Army turn in their weapons?

How'd that turn out?:dance:

Keep showing hiow you love the bad news MM. That is how you show your support for the troops anyway

[retiredman]

Keep showing hiow you love the bad news MM. That is how you show your support for the troops anyway

keep swilling the koolaid and avoiding the tough questions, RSR...it is what you do best.

again...quit dodging this about Sadr:

What will prevent him from doing exactly what he did in Basra and Baghdad last week again after we leave, whenever that may be?

[red states rule]

keep swilling the koolaid and avoiding the tough questions, RSR...it is what you do best.

again...quit dodging this about Sadr:

What will prevent him from doing exactly what he did in Basra and Baghdad last week again after we leave, whenever that may be?

Keep waving the white flag, and enjoying the bad news. The terroists thank you for your continued support MM

[retiredman]

Keep waving the white flag, and enjoying the bad news. The terroists thank you for your continued support MM

so. you really are incapable of discussing the situation in Iraq and how Sadr complicates it?

fine.

[red states rule]

so. you really are incapable of discussing the situation in Iraq and how Sadr complicates it?

fine.

Last the checked he sold you out by waving the white flag and running away from the fight

He got his ass kicked so he gave up

Libs are in mourning over his decision

[retiredman]

Last the checked he sold you out by waving the white flag and running away from the fight

He got his ass kicked so he gave up

Libs are in mourning over his decision

right. "he gave up"

are you suggesting that the Mahdi Army is a thing of the past?

Have we "solved" that particular problem? What then, is left?

Are you EVER going to discuss your wild theories about Iran supporting Al Qaeda and AQ taking over Iraq? Or is that just more of your failed prognostication that you will hereafter refuse to discuss or even acknowledge?:laugh2:

[red states rule]

right. "he gave up"

are you suggesting that the Mahdi Army is a thing of the past?

Have we "solved" that particular problem? What then, is left?

Are you EVER going to discuss your wild theories about Iran supporting Al Qaeda and AQ taking over Iraq? Or is that just more of your failed prognostication that you will hereafter refuse to discuss or even acknowledge?:laugh2:

Like the Dem party, he is waiting for his next chance to try and stick the knife in the PM's back. I know you are waiting breathlessly for the next round of fighting. It makes you feel so warm all over

The US should take him out and be done with it

[retiredman]

Like the Dem party, he is waiting for his next chance to try and stick the knife in the PM's back. I know you are waiting breathlessly for the next round of fighting. It makes you feel so warm all over

The US should take him out and be done with it

But I thought you just got done saying that he had given up? which is it?

and do you really think that "taking out" the single most popular shiite cleric in a shiite country is the way to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? Do you really think that that is the way to get them to want to establish a multicultural Jeffersonian democracy on the banks of the Euphrates?

and are you EVER going to discuss your wild theories about Iran supporting Al Qaeda and AQ taking over Iraq? Or is that just more of your failed prognostication that you will hereafter refuse to discuss or even acknowledge?

[red states rule]

But I thought you just got done saying that he had given up? which is it?

and do you really think that "taking out" the single most popular shiite cleric in a shiite country is the way to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? Do you really think that that is the way to get them to want to establish a multicultural Jeffersonian democracy on the banks of the Euphrates?

and are you EVER going to discuss your wild theories about Iran supporting Al Qaeda and AQ taking over Iraq? Or is that just more of your failed prognostication that you will hereafter refuse to discuss or even acknowledge?


He ran away from this fight - he will probably try and come back

Yes, take him out. You want him around so he can cause troble and then blather about the "civil war"

You look for any bad news, then scream how rotten things are in Iraq from the rooftops

[retiredman]

and are you EVER going to discuss your wild theories about Iran supporting Al Qaeda and AQ taking over Iraq? Or is that just more of your failed prognostication that you will hereafter refuse to discuss or even acknowledge?

[red states rule]

and are you EVER going to discuss your wild theories about Iran supporting Al Qaeda and AQ taking over Iraq? Or is that just more of your failed prognostication that you will hereafter refuse to discuss or even acknowledge?

It will happen, Whi will stop them if the Dems get their dream of surrender in Iraq

Iran will have more power as well. But Dems see Little Adolf as one of their own. Anyone who hates Pres Bush and America as much as he does can't be all that bad in the Dems book

[retiredman]

It will happen, Who will stop them?

the shiites...like Sadr...

duh

with the help of Iran

[red states rule]

the shiites...like Sadr...

duh

with the help of Iran

Yea. The terrorists love your support MM. Hand thme Iraq on a silver platter and do exactly what they want. Useful idiots in the Dem party are thier best allies

[retiredman]

Yea. The terrorists love your support MM. Hand thme Iraq on a silver platter and do exactly what they want. Useful idiots in the Dem party are thier best allies

So.. do you see any difference between Al Qaeda and Iraqi shiites who are loyal to Sadr?

and will you explain how Al Qaeda can take over Iraq when forces like the Mahdi Army AND the sunni warlords are all against them?

[red states rule]

So.. do you see any difference between Al Qaeda and Iraqi shiites who are loyal to Sadr?

and will you explain how Al Qaeda can take over Iraq when forces like the Mahdi Army AND the sunni warlords are all against them?

the appeasers did not see any threat from Hitler either

Libs would rather stick their head in the sand and ignore the threats - which is what they want you to do

You are willing to oblige them MM

[retiredman]

the appeasers did not see any threat from Hitler either

Libs would rather stick their head in the sand and ignore the threats - which is what they want you to do

You are willing to oblige them MM

why do you keep avoiding defending your own assertions?

simple questions.... don't blather about Hitler, just try to answer them:


do you see any difference between Al Qaeda and Iraqi shiites who are loyal to Sadr?

and will you explain how Al Qaeda can take over Iraq when forces like the Mahdi Army AND the sunni warlords are all against them?

[red states rule]

why do you keep avoiding defending your own assertions?

simple questions.... don't blather about Hitler, just try to answer them:


do you see any difference between Al Qaeda and Iraqi shiites who are loyal to Sadr?

and will you explain how Al Qaeda can take over Iraq when forces like the Mahdi Army AND the sunni warlords are all against them?

Terrorists want us to surrender and leave Iraq. Dems want to surrender and leave Iraq

Dems are willing to sell out the people of Iraq and the troops for politcal gain

and you support the Dems gane plan

Party before country (and the troops)

[retiredman]

Terrorists want us to surrender and leave Iraq. Dems want to surrender and leave Iraq

Dems are willing to sell out the people of Iraq and the troops for politcal gain

and you support the Dems gane plan

Party before country (and the troops)


and who, exactly, do you think we will be "surrendering" to? Al Qaeda? Sadr? WHO?

Explain your goofy assertion that Iran is backing Al Qaeda and that Al Qaeda will take over Iraq over the objections of the shiite majority.

[retiredman]

Hey...RSR...are you ever gonna defend your goofy assertions?

[red states rule]

Hey...RSR...are you ever gonna defend your goofy assertions?

I have, but like all threads you ignore the facts and go back to DNC approved tlaking points

Or foul language and insults

[retiredman]

I have, but like all threads you ignore the facts and go back to DNC approved tlaking points

Or foul language and insults


you have previously said that Iran is supporting Al Qaeda. If that is the case, why did John McCain feel it necessary to quickly correct himself when he said the same thing last week? Why do YOU think that persian shiites would help sunni arabs take oil revenues away from other shiites?