US Troops Are Winning in Iraq - When Will Dems Admit It? [Archive] - Page 9 - Debate Policy

red states rule

04-16-2008, 02:09 PM

There's no one to surrender to. So it can't be surrender. We aren't strong enough to win, but we SURE aren't weak enough to have to surrender!!

Now. Things could get worse, though, like a gazillion Iranians coming across to help an outraged Iraqi populace get rid of us.

It's certainly not appeasement! What are we giving them, like Chamberlain gave Hitler Czechoslovakia? We aren't giving them anything, we've destroyed their country totally. Personally, I think that's why the terrorists DON'T come over here: they've figured out we're a bad-tempered people and it's not good for the future of any country to make us mad.

If so, then finally you'll really see a fight. The whole problem with the Iraq war was that the Iraqis DIDN'T come over here and attack us, so our heart wasn't in the fight.

We will be surrendering to the terrorists. We wil be handing Iraq over to terroists to use as a base of operations, and they can use oil money to finance their terrorist operations

Did you read the link I provided? Mr Yon has been in Iraq for years, and he is one of the few reporters who is reporting the progress bing made

For some reason some peole thinking running away form the terrorists will stop them from wanting to kill us

mundame

04-16-2008, 02:23 PM

Did you read the link I provided? Mr Yon has been in Iraq for years, and he is one of the few reporters who is reporting the progress bing made

No, I don't believe all that propaganda happy-talk stuff.

It's obvious we are losing.

I study a lot of military history, RSR, and I have to tell you, this is one dead war.

It's all over but the pullout. Bush is just hanging in there letting our people die in hopes the Dems will get negative publicity pulling out.

red states rule

04-16-2008, 02:27 PM

No, I don't believe all that propaganda happy-talk stuff.

It's obvious we are losing.

I study a lot of military history, RSR, and I have to tell you, this is one dead war.

It's all over but the pullout. Bush is just hanging in there letting our people die in hopes the Dems will get negative publicity pulling out.

So you, like MFM, are not interested in the truth but rather what the Dems spoon feed you

Mr Yon has been in Iraq for years, and even 2 NY Times reporters have come out and siad the progress is incredible

So I can put on the side of surrender and appeasemnt

BTW the troops thank you for your "support"

mundame

04-16-2008, 02:34 PM

So you, like MFM, are not interested in the truth but rather what the Dems spoon feed you

What is truth?

Your truth is not my truth, not about this war.

What you call truth I call the usual lying propaganda from a government that has done nothing but lie the entire Bush administration.

red states rule

04-16-2008, 02:36 PM

What is truth?

Your truth is not my truth, not about this war.

What you call truth I call the usual lying propaganda from a government that has done nothing but lie the entire Bush administration.

Mr Yon is NOT an emplyee of the US government. He is a reporter

And I guess you would dismiss this as "propaganda"

Local Soldier Sees Progress in Iraq; Determined to Finish Mission
Understanding ‘Progress’ in a Changing Iraq; Part Three

snip

McCary has been in Iraq for more than 11 months and his unit has achieved incredible gains both in security and working with the local community.

“Basically we’ve not been backing down. The Iraqi people, they’re not backing down [to al-Qaida] and we’ve caught a lot of bad guys,” he said.

The Warrior and the War
Though he might sound like another over-eager, gung-ho soldier, McCary misses home and recognizes how difficult the mission has been at times, especially when McCary first came to Baghdad at the height of violence and insurgent disruption, when the mission seemed insurmountable and the tactics employed at that time seemed counterproductive.

McCary has been involved in firefights and IED attacks while serving in Iraq. He has walked the streets of Baghdad, dealt with the loss of friends and been forced to take human life. But he told The Sacramento Union that he remains committed to the mission.

“Like I told you earlier, you get discouraged. There’s been days when I thought we shouldn’t even be in Iraq. But then I see a little girl wearing new clothes, or a guy driving a car and they would never be able to have that if we weren’t here. You know, it totally changes,” he said.

The 2007 “troop surge” strategy implemented by Gen. David Petraeus, the current Commanding General of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, has bolstered Operation Iraqi Freedom with 30,000 extra troops and buoyed McCary’s hopes.

“I believe if we pulled out now, all of our troops, I think Iraq would go back to the way it was before [the surge],” he said.

http://www.sacunion.com/pages/weekly/feature_c/9463/

retiredman

04-16-2008, 03:40 PM

Libs like you call it a "redeployment"

But it is still cutting and running, surrender, and appeasement

I call it letting Iraqis settle their own problems and America starting to actually take the fight intelligently to the real enemy. I would surrender to no one and I certainly would appease no one.

by the way, do you accuse pale rider of being in favor of appeasement and surrender?

red states rule

04-16-2008, 05:54 PM

I call it letting Iraqis settle their own problems and America starting to actually take the fight intelligently to the real enemy. I would surrender to no one and I certainly would appease no one.

by the way, do you accuse pale rider of being in favor of appeasement and surrender?

CAll it what it is: surrender and appeasemnt

Pale and I can debate in a clam and civil way. Unlike you, Pale does not use foul language or personal insults when someone disagrees with him

Pale and I can agree to disagree, as we have told each other many times

retiredman

04-16-2008, 09:34 PM

CAll it what it is: surrender and appeasemnt

Pale and I can debate in a clam and civil way. Unlike you, Pale does not use foul language or personal insults when someone disagrees with him

Pale and I can agree to disagree, as we have told each other many times

It is not surrender and appeasement.

Does Pale allow you to suggest that he supports surrender and appeasement? He has exactly the same thoughts about Iraq that I do. You and I can agree to disagree....I just will not allow you to characterize OUR disagreement by insulting MY patriotism and MY service when you do NOT similarly insult all posters who disagree with this war in Iraq.

red states rule

04-17-2008, 05:59 AM

It is not surrender and appeasement.

Does Pale allow you to suggest that he supports surrender and appeasement? He has exactly the same thoughts about Iraq that I do. You and I can agree to disagree....I just will not allow you to characterize OUR disagreement by insulting MY patriotism and MY service when you do NOT similarly insult all posters who disagree with this war in Iraq.

You have long sided with the Dems who have smeared and insulted the troops

You have lied for those Dems, and have offered the most lame escuses for them

When you have nothing else, you play your usual offended liberal role

You draw your service as a weapon like Jesse James drew his gun

retiredman

04-17-2008, 07:55 AM

You have long sided with the Dems who have smeared and insulted the troops

You have lied for those Dems, and have offered the most lame escuses for them

When you have nothing else, you play your usual offended liberal role

You draw your service as a weapon like Jesse James drew his gun

I ask again:

Does Pale allow you to suggest that he supports surrender and appeasement? He has exactly the same thoughts about Iraq that I do.

red states rule

04-17-2008, 08:18 AM

I ask again:

Does Pale allow you to suggest that he supports surrender and appeasement? He has exactly the same thoughts about Iraq that I do.

I have told Pale it is surrender and appeasement, but unlike you, he does not meltdown and whine I am attacking his patriotism

You would wallow in a pool of self pity then have a conversation

retiredman

04-17-2008, 08:31 AM

I have told Pale it is surrender and appeasement, but unlike you, he does not meltdown and whine I am attacking his patriotism

You would wallow in a pool of self pity then have a conversation

I have NEVER seen you tell pale that he supports appeasement and surrender.

and...in fact, it isn't. I want to appease no one nor surrender to anyone.

red states rule

04-17-2008, 08:39 AM

I have NEVER seen you tell pale that he supports appeasement and surrender.

and...in fact, it isn't. I want to appease no one nor surrender to anyone.

Nothing new here. You have no idea what you are talking about. I have told Pale several times it is surrender and appeasement

You have been waving the white flag for as long as I have been here and on the other board

retiredman

04-17-2008, 08:51 AM

Nothing new here. You have no idea what you are talking about. I have told Pale several times it is surrender and appeasement

You have been waving the white flag for as long as I have been here and on the other board

that's incorrect. I have never suggested we appease anyone or surrender to anyone.

red states rule

04-17-2008, 08:54 AM

that's incorrect. I have never suggested we appease anyone or surrender to anyone.

Yea, you call it a "redeployment" :rolleyes:

retiredman

04-17-2008, 09:01 AM

Yea, you call it a "redeployment" :rolleyes:

no. Iraq is a counterproductive diversion. We cannot fight a military ground war against a stateless enemy. We need to approach the war against islamic extremism with much greater agility than we display when we use a massive ground force that is suited to capture and hold territory. Our enemy is not a state....in many ways, it is not even a defined or identifiable set of people....our enemy is an idea, and, as I said in my blog entry that you, no doubt, did not take the time to read:

"At its very essence is this erroneous idea that our enemies are making some stand in Iraq and we must “win” against them there or they will have somehow “defeated” us. This view of this involvement in Iraq as some sort of time constrained contest is artificial and tends to skew our perspective away from reality. This is not some global sporting event and we are not in the third quarter of a fixed time game. Our real enemy seeks to outlast us - not on the battlefield in Iraq, but in the timeless worldwide war of ideas and influence. In that war, we “win” when America’s social and economic interest is felt in the world and when those interests prevail in the world. We certainly need to look at that war with a wider, longer view… we definitely want to WIN that war of influence and ideas over the next century."

mundame

04-17-2008, 09:46 AM

Iraq is a counterproductive diversion. We cannot fight a military ground war against a stateless enemy.

At any rate, whoever inherits this war had better end it quick or it will eat his or her administration up, just as this war has eaten up George Bush's whole administration. Nothing else will get done at all.

The Army seems to think the war WILL end in 2009 --- there's a news story leading Reuters about that today.

U.S. sees Iraqis in control in Baghdad in a year (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL179318320080417)

Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:18am EDT
<SCRIPT> var adsrc = 'reuters.com.dart/newsone/article;' + (typeof(seg)=='undefined'?'':seg) + 'type=featured_broker;sz=170x40;articleID=USL17931 8320080417;ord=' + (typeof(tmstmp)!='undefined'?tmstmp:12345) + '?';</SCRIPT>

By Peter Graff
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. forces in Baghdad hope to turn over responsibility for security in most of the Iraqi capital to Iraqi forces in about a year, the chief of staff of the American military in the city said.

The remarks by Colonel Allen Batschelet describe a smaller role for the U.S. military in Baghdad after the next U.S. president takes over from George W. Bush in January.
************************************************** *****

My guess is that the Army has given up trying to persuade Bush to get out and relieve the intense pressures on the military, but they are planning and counting on the next prez letting them "redeploy" ----- home.

Therefore, the military must not think McCain is going to win the election.

McCain wants to go on and on and on forever, which certainly doesn't seem to be what they are planning, according to the story above.

red states rule

04-17-2008, 09:48 AM

At any rate, whoever inherits this war had better end it quick or it will eat his or her administration up, just as this war has eaten up George Bush's whole administration. Nothing else will get done at all.

The Army seems to think the war WILL end in 2009 --- there's a news story leading Reuters about that today.

U.S. sees Iraqis in control in Baghdad in a year

Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:18am EDT
<SCRIPT> var adsrc = 'reuters.com.dart/newsone/article;' + (typeof(seg)=='undefined'?'':seg) + 'type=featured_broker;sz=170x40;articleID=USL17931 8320080417;ord=' + (typeof(tmstmp)!='undefined'?tmstmp:12345) + '?';</SCRIPT>

By Peter Graff
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. forces in Baghdad hope to turn over responsibility for security in most of the Iraqi capital to Iraqi forces in about a year, the chief of staff of the American military in the city said.

The remarks by Colonel Allen Batschelet describe a smaller role for the U.S. military in Baghdad after the next U.S. president takes over from George W. Bush in January.
************************************************** *****

My guess is that the Army has given up trying to persuade Bush to get out and relieve the intense pressures on the military, but they are planning and counting on the next prez letting them "redeploy" ----- home.

Therefore, the military must not think McCain is going to win the election.

McCain wants to go on and on and on forever, which certainly doesn't seem to be what they are planning, according to the story above.

I know you will dismiss this

What a Difference …
A year makes. A report from Fallujah, Iraq.

A year ago Shura Chamal-Eit (Elizabeth Street) in downtown Fallujah was a lethal place for American troops attempting to tame the city, a center of lawlessness and defiance by insurgents. Terrorists from Al Qaeda in Iraq and other groups attacked Coalition troops on the street and around the city, killing some and injuring many. But as U.S. Marines here pass yet another Christmas fighting a war few expected to last this long, Fallujah is on the verge of becoming a success story and symbol of a new, cooperative paradigm for winning Iraq.

Fed up with the wanton assassinations and summary executions by Al Qaeda in Iraq and alarmed that the group was strangling Fallujah's economy, city leaders and residents joined forces with the Marines to expel the group. Many Fallujah residents once offered help to insurgents or at best looked the other way when they fired rocket-propelled grenades, mortar and artillery at Marines and killed or maimed them with the dreaded improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that became commonplace. The same residents now identify insurgents to the Iraqi Army and Iraqi police force, who kill, capture or drive them from the city. Many of the terrorists have fled into the desert, often into Tharthar, an area also in Anbar province, north of Fallujah.

Marines who once passed their days trying to stay alive now work as virtual municipal employees, trying to restore and expand services like electricity, trash collection and water treatment. "I'm getting ready to go sit in on a political meeting at city hall," says Lt. Col. Christopher Dowling, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines Regiment.

for the complete article

http://www.newsweek.com/id/81993

retiredman

04-17-2008, 09:58 AM

successes in Fallujah are a great thing. I have no need to dismiss them. I didn't dismiss them the first seven times you cut and pasted this same article. I just don't think that they matter all that much in the overarching issue of the intractable enmity between sunnis and shiites in Iraq, and the unavoidable influence of Iran in the process.

red states rule

04-17-2008, 10:04 AM

mundame

04-17-2008, 10:05 AM

Fallujah is on the verge of becoming a success story and symbol of a new, cooperative paradigm for winning Iraq.

How many times has Fallujah been a brand-new success story? Are we up to seven by now? Same with Rahmadi.

Same with the whole of Anbar Province. We conquer it, the enemy takes it back. We conquer it, the enemy takes it back. We conquer it, the enemy takes it back.

Some people call repeatedly taking the same ground over and over and over "winning," but I call it failure, and I'm in the majority. Most people in this country think the war stinks and want us out.

http://deephousepage.com/smilies/yawn.gif

red states rule

04-17-2008, 10:07 AM

How many times has Fallujah been a brand-new success story? Are we up to seven by now? Same with Rahmadi.

Same with the whole of Anbar Province. We conquer it, the enemy takes it back. We conquer it, the enemy takes it back. We conquer it, the enemy takes it back.

Some people call repeatedly taking the same ground over and over and over "winning," but I call it failure, and I'm in the majority. Most people in this country think the war stinks and want us out.

http://deephousepage.com/smilies/yawn.gif

Oh well, some liberals refuse to accept reality Mundame; no matter how many facts they are presented to the contrary

retiredman

04-17-2008, 10:34 AM

Oh well, some liberals refuse to accept reality Mundame; no matter how many facts they are presented to the contrary

Do YOU accept THIS reality, RSR???

CBS News/New York Times Poll. March 28-April 2, 2008. N=1,368 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"

Right Thing 34
Stayed Out 62
Unsure 4

Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. April 7-9, 2008. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"When it comes to the situation in Iraq, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?" If "mixed feelings" or not sure: "If you had to choose, do you lean more toward approve or disapprove?"

Approve 31
Disapprove 65
Mixed 3
Unsure 1

red states rule

04-17-2008, 10:35 AM

Where in your poll does it state the folks want to surrrender in Iraq, and lose the war?

I'll wait

retiredman

04-17-2008, 10:38 AM

Where in your poll does it state the folks want to surrrender in Iraq, and lose the war?

I'll wait

I don't know anyone who wants to surrender in Iraq.

I certainly don't want to lose the war against Islamic extremists. I want us to really start fighting THAT war instead of babysitting Iraqis who have no natural affinity for one another as they try to form a country where none ever really existed before.

red states rule

04-17-2008, 10:39 AM

I don't know anyone who wants to surrender in Iraq.

Look in the mirror

retiredman

04-17-2008, 10:40 AM

retiredman

04-17-2008, 10:42 AM

Look in the mirror

see...there you go insulting me again. I do not want to surrender to anyone...I have said that over and over again, and I have said that I find your continually saying that to be insulting and you keep saying it....

don't complain when I insult you in return. Simple as that.

red states rule

04-17-2008, 10:42 AM

CBS News Poll. March 15-18, 2008. N=1,067 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

From what you know about the U.S. involvement in Iraq, how much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of U.S. troops remain in Iraq: less than a year, one to two years, two to five years or longer than five years?"

Less Than A Year 46
One to Two Years 22
Two to Five Years 14
Longer ThanFive Years 6
Other/Unsure 12

So now libs want to run antional defense based on polls

Yes, MM keep waving the white flag, and let the terrorists know they will be safe if you clowns win in Novemebr

They wil be safe - the US will not be

retiredman

04-17-2008, 10:45 AM

So now libs want to run antional defense based on polls

Yes, MM keep waving the white flag, and let the terrorists know they will be safe if you clowns win in Novemebr

They wil be safe - the US will not be

I just showed you where the majority of Americans want us out of Iraq sooner than later. nobody wants to surrender to anyone. We want to start fighting the war we ought to have been fighting all along.

why don't you try to use your own words to comment on my post #2026?

red states rule

04-17-2008, 10:49 AM

I just showed you where the majority of Americans want us out of Iraq sooner than later. nobody wants to surrender to anyone. We want to start fighting the war we ought to have been fighting all along.

why don't you try to use your own words to comment on my post #2026?

and your boy Obama said troops will be in Iraq for years into his term

Hillary said they would not be out until her second term

So which is it? Surrender now or surrender later?

Gaffer

04-17-2008, 10:51 AM

I don't know anyone who wants to surrender in Iraq.

I certainly don't want to lose the war against Islamic extremists. I want us to really start fighting THAT war instead of babysitting Iraqis who have no natural affinity for one another as they try to form a country where none ever really existed before.

To really start fighting THAT war we need to go after the main supporter of THAT war. iran

Are you ready to commit to that?

retiredman

04-17-2008, 10:52 AM

I say again: why don't you try to use your own words to comment on my post #2026?

red states rule

04-17-2008, 10:53 AM

I say again: why don't you try to use your own words to comment on my post #2026?

Ducking from the fact your candidates said troops will be in Iarq for years into their terms

Much like the Dems promised to cut off funding for the war :laugh2:

retiredman

04-17-2008, 10:54 AM

To really start fighting THAT war we need to go after the main supporter of THAT war. iran

Are you ready to commit to that?

I disagree that Iran is necessary as a starting point... I am certain that Iraq is a diversion, however.

retiredman

04-17-2008, 10:55 AM

Ducking from the fact your candidates said troops will be in Iarq for years into their terms

Much like the Dems promised to cut off funding for the war :laugh2:

you are the one ducking and dodging RSR...I post a rather lengthy comment in 2026 and you have ducked it ever since. Why not try to address it.

YOu obviously did not listen to Obama's statements on Iraq, btw.

red states rule

04-17-2008, 10:57 AM

you are the one ducking and dodging RSR...I post a rather lengthy comment in 2026 and you have ducked it ever since. Why not try to address it.

YOu obviously did not listen to Obama's statements on Iraq, btw.

Obama is for surrender , and so are you

You do not want to address the fact he then says troops will be in Iraq for years into his term

Just like elected Dems said they would end the war

Broken promises are a mere detail to Kool Aide drinkers like you

Party before country as usual

retiredman

04-17-2008, 10:59 AM

2026.... try and address it.

go ahead. show us your debating skills. use your own words to address my own words. why not try?

red states rule

04-17-2008, 11:01 AM

2026.... try and address it.

go ahead. show us your debating skills. use your own words to address my own words. why not try?

Translation - I do not want to talk about what Dems said to get elected; and I dont give a damn Barry said troops wil be in Iraq for years into his first term

So talk about what I want to talk about. That is how a debate with me works

retiredman

04-17-2008, 11:16 AM

RSR: So talk about what I want to talk about. That is how a debate with me works

how true...how true!:laugh2:

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

now....your turn. #2026.

or are we only going to talk about what YOU want to talk about some MORE?

red states rule

04-17-2008, 11:22 AM

how true...how true!:laugh2:

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

now....your turn. #2026.

or are we only going to talk about what YOU want to talk about some MORE?

As with the Dem platform, and what you beleive in; Dems always reserve to revise and extend their remarks

Obama adviser: Keep 80,000 troops in Iraqposted at 10:20 am on April 4, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama’s adviser on Iraq has written a confidential paper arguing that the US needs to remain robustly engaged in Iraq in order to build on the successes of the past year. The New York Sun’s Eli Lake reports on the confidential paper by Colin Kahl, the coordinator for Obama’s advisory group on Iraq, which foresees the same kind of long-term presence that John McCain has advocated. It calls for a gradual reduction through 2010 to a baseline presence of as many as 80,000 American troops:

A key adviser to Senator Obama’s campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.
The paper, obtained by The New York Sun, was written by Colin Kahl for the center-left Center for a New American Security. In “Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement,” Mr. Kahl writes that through negotiations with the Iraqi government “the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000–80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground).”

Mr. Kahl is the day-to-day coordinator of the Obama campaign’s working group on Iraq. A shorter and less detailed version of this paper appeared on the center’s Web site as a policy brief.

Both Mr. Kahl and a senior Obama campaign adviser reached yesterday said the paper does not represent the campaign’s Iraq position. Nonetheless, the paper could provide clues as to the ultimate size of the residual American force the candidate has said would remain in Iraq after the withdrawal of combat brigades. The campaign has not publicly discussed the size of such a force in the past.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/04/obama-adviser-keep-80000-troops-in-iraq/

So Barry wants to have it both ways. He says one thing, while saying anither

and the Obama Kool Aide drinkers ignore the flip flops

retiredman

04-17-2008, 11:26 AM

When Barack Obama endorses the plans in this "confidential paper" obtained by the NY Sun:lol:, I will believe it. Until then, I take him at his word.

now....your turn. #2026.

or are we only going to talk about what YOU want to talk about some MORE?

red states rule

04-17-2008, 11:28 AM

retiredman

04-17-2008, 11:30 AM

As usal MFM, ignore anything that goes against your boy, and gulp down some more Kool Aide

Like I said, when I hear Obama retract his stated plan, I will believe it. Until then, I take him at his word. I wonder why no other media outlet has picked up this NY Sun story.

Now...again: #2026.

or are we only going to talk about what YOU want to talk about some MORE?

red states rule

04-17-2008, 01:16 PM

Like I said, when I hear Obama retract his stated plan, I will believe it. Until then, I take him at his word. I wonder why no other media outlet has picked up this NY Sun story.

Now...again: #2026.

or are we only going to talk about what YOU want to talk about some MORE?

Even after all the lies Barry has been caught in, you would still believe what he tells you?

OK, take another gulp of Barry Kool Aide :laugh2:

retiredman

04-17-2008, 01:37 PM

Even after all the lies Barry has been caught in, you would still believe what he tells you?

are you gonna quit shuckin' and jivin' and duckin' and dodgin' and just reply to post #2026????

red states rule

04-17-2008, 01:51 PM

are you gonna quit shuckin' and jivin' and duckin' and dodgin' and just reply to post #2026????

MFM has drank way to much Obama Kool Aide

Now he is down with Obama lingo

retiredman

04-17-2008, 01:55 PM

MFM has drank way to much Obama Kool Aide

Now he is down with Obama lingo

keep dodging.

retiredman

04-17-2008, 01:57 PM

here it is.... why not give me some intelligent thoughts about this post of mine, or are you AFRAID to discuss this issue intelligently?
Iraq is a counterproductive diversion. We cannot fight a military ground war against a stateless enemy. We need to approach the war against islamic extremism with much greater agility than we display when we use a massive ground force that is suited to capture and hold territory. Our enemy is not a state....in many ways, it is not even a defined or identifiable set of people....our enemy is an idea, and, as I said in my blog entry that you, no doubt, did not take the time to read:

"At its very essence is this erroneous idea that our enemies are making some stand in Iraq and we must “win” against them there or they will have somehow “defeated” us. This view of this involvement in Iraq as some sort of time constrained contest is artificial and tends to skew our perspective away from reality. This is not some global sporting event and we are not in the third quarter of a fixed time game. Our real enemy seeks to outlast us - not on the battlefield in Iraq, but in the timeless worldwide war of ideas and influence. In that war, we “win” when America’s social and economic interest is felt in the world and when those interests prevail in the world. We certainly need to look at that war with a wider, longer view… we definitely want to WIN that war of influence and ideas over the next century."

red states rule

04-17-2008, 02:09 PM

here it is.... why not give me some intelligent thoughts about this post of mine, or are you AFRAID to discuss this issue intelligently?

I would say we are doing very well

Alot of dead and captured terrorists

Elections in Iraq

Troops are exceeding all objectives

and libs going out of their "minds" that the troops are winning

mundame

04-17-2008, 02:25 PM

I would say we are doing very well

Alot of dead and captured terrorists

Elections in Iraq

Troops are exceeding all objectives

and libs going out of their "minds" that the troops are winning

Or not..............Say, wasn't northern Iraq one of our big so-called successes? It seems to be getting hit every day now.

Suicide bomber kills 50 at Iraq funeral (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0434078820080417)

Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:02pm EDT
Related News
Suicide blast kills 17 in Afghan bazaar: governor (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0434078820080417)12:33pm EST

http://statse.webtrendslive.com/dcsncwimc10000kzgoor3wv9x_3f2v/dcs.gif?dcsdat=408173537&dcssip=www.reuters.com&dcsuri=/sphereModules&WT.ti=SphereModule&ContentChannel=topNews&ContentType=SphereRelatedNews&rChannel=Sphere&rCountry=US&VirtualEvent=1&WT.cg_n=Sphere%20-%20Impression%20Related%20News

Featured Broker sponsored link

<SCRIPT> var adsrc = 'reuters.com.dart/news/top/article;' + (typeof(seg)=='undefined'?'':seg) + 'type=featured_broker;sz=170x40;articleID=USL04340 78820080417;ord=' + (typeof(tmstmp)!='undefined'?tmstmp:12345) + '?';</SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=javascript type=text/javascript> if ((typeof (hideAllAds) == 'undefined' || hideAllAds == false) && (typeof (hideAd_478780) == 'undefined' || hideAd_478780 == false)) { document.write('<scri' + 'pt language="javascript" type="text/javascript" src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/' + adsrc + '"></scri' + 'pt>'); if ((!document.images && navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Mozilla/2.") >= 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV") >= 0) { document.write(''); document.write('http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/reuters.com.dart/news/top/article;' + (typeof(seg)=='undefined'?'':seg) + 'type=featured_broker;sz=170x40;articleID=USL04340 78820080417;ord=' + (typeof(tmstmp)=='undefined'?12345:tmstmp) + '? (http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/reuters.com.dart/news/top/article;' + (typeof(seg)=='undefined'?'':seg) + 'type=featured_broker;sz=170x40;articleID=USL04340 78820080417;ord=' + (typeof(tmstmp)=='undefined'?12345:tmstmp) + '?)'); } } </SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=javascript src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/reuters.com.dart/news/top/article;type=featured_broker;sz=170x40;articleID=U SL0434078820080417;ord=2008317192036100?" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/reuters.com.dart/news/top/article;seg1=10047;type=featured_broker;sz=170x40; articleID=USL0434078820080417;ord=2303? (http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/reuters.com.dart/news/top/article;seg1=10047;type=featured_broker;sz=170x40; articleID=USL0434078820080417;ord=2303?) </NOSCRIPT><SCRIPT> if (typeof(window.populateRaptAdSize) != 'undefined') populateRaptAdSize('type=featured_broker;sz=170x40 ;'); </SCRIPT>


By Dean Yates
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A suicide bomber struck a funeral in northern Iraq on Thursday, killing 50 mourners and wounding 55 in an attack that suggests militants have launched a new campaign of violence in the north.

Survivors said the funeral had been for two members of a U.S.-backed neighborhood security unit who were killed on Wednesday. Blame is likely to fall on the Sunni Islamist al Qaeda, which has vowed to target the neighborhood units because they work with U.S. forces.

red states rule

04-17-2008, 02:29 PM

Or not..............Say, wasn't northern Iraq one of our big so-called successes? It seems to be getting hit every day now.

Suicide bomber kills 50 at Iraq funeral (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0434078820080417)

Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:02pm EDT
Related News
Suicide blast kills 17 in Afghan bazaar: governor (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0434078820080417)12:33pm EST

http://statse.webtrendslive.com/dcsncwimc10000kzgoor3wv9x_3f2v/dcs.gif?dcsdat=408173537&dcssip=www.reuters.com&dcsuri=/sphereModules&WT.ti=SphereModule&ContentChannel=topNews&ContentType=SphereRelatedNews&rChannel=Sphere&rCountry=US&VirtualEvent=1&WT.cg_n=Sphere%20-%20Impression%20Related%20News

Featured Broker sponsored link

<SCRIPT> var adsrc = 'reuters.com.dart/news/top/article;' + (typeof(seg)=='undefined'?'':seg) + 'type=featured_broker;sz=170x40;articleID=USL04340 78820080417;ord=' + (typeof(tmstmp)!='undefined'?tmstmp:12345) + '?';</SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=javascript type=text/javascript> if ((typeof (hideAllAds) == 'undefined' || hideAllAds == false) && (typeof (hideAd_478780) == 'undefined' || hideAd_478780 == false)) { document.write('<scri' + 'pt language="javascript" type="text/javascript" src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/' + adsrc + '"></scri' + 'pt>'); if ((!document.images && navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Mozilla/2.") >= 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV") >= 0) { document.write(''); document.write('http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/reuters.com.dart/news/top/article;' + (typeof(seg)=='undefined'?'':seg) + 'type=featured_broker;sz=170x40;articleID=USL04340 78820080417;ord=' + (typeof(tmstmp)=='undefined'?12345:tmstmp) + '? (http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/reuters.com.dart/news/top/article;' + (typeof(seg)=='undefined'?'':seg) + 'type=featured_broker;sz=170x40;articleID=USL04340 78820080417;ord=' + (typeof(tmstmp)=='undefined'?12345:tmstmp) + '?)'); } } </SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=javascript src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/reuters.com.dart/news/top/article;type=featured_broker;sz=170x40;articleID=U SL0434078820080417;ord=2008317192036100?" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/reuters.com.dart/news/top/article;seg1=10047;type=featured_broker;sz=170x40; articleID=USL0434078820080417;ord=2303? (http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/reuters.com.dart/news/top/article;seg1=10047;type=featured_broker;sz=170x40; articleID=USL0434078820080417;ord=2303?) </NOSCRIPT><SCRIPT> if (typeof(window.populateRaptAdSize) != 'undefined') populateRaptAdSize('type=featured_broker;sz=170x40 ;'); </SCRIPT>


By Dean Yates
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A suicide bomber struck a funeral in northern Iraq on Thursday, killing 50 mourners and wounding 55 in an attack that suggests militants have launched a new campaign of violence in the north.

Survivors said the funeral had been for two members of a U.S.-backed neighborhood security unit who were killed on Wednesday. Blame is likely to fall on the Sunni Islamist al Qaeda, which has vowed to target the neighborhood units because they work with U.S. forces.

OK

How many people were murdered in LA yeaterday? Or NY city?

Do we give up and pull the Police from those areas?

The terrorists know the lieft is for surrender. You want to give them what they want Mundame?

You love to use your articles when it is bad news, but dismiss the good news articles as propaganda

mundame

04-17-2008, 02:38 PM

OK

How many people were murdered in LA yeaterday? Or NY city?

Not fifty people killed at a funeral, not in either city!!

Do we give up and pull the Police from those areas?

If we had that kind of violence, we call in the National Guard.

Oh, wait ------------- they're all in Iraq, aren't they? So I guess we better hope the U.S. doesn't have any emergencies.

The terrorists know the lieft is for surrender. You want to give them what they want Mundame?

I think they should all kill each other. That would suit me down to the ground: our troops home, and them shooting each other as fast as they can.

You love to use your articles when it is bad news, but dismiss the good news articles as propaganda

My articles are news reports. Your articles are sort of pitiful, some sad sack soldier trying to pretend to himself that hanging around over there in danger of the people shooting off his arms and legs so he comes home looking like a stump is somehow worthwhile; that he's doing some sort of good even though they all hate him and want him gone.

That's worse than propaganda, in a way; it's wishful thinking.

red states rule

04-17-2008, 02:40 PM

Look who is supporting your gal Hillary (not that it will mean anything to you)

It's official: Terrorists
endorse Hillary in '08
On the record, Mideast jihadi leaders
say she's best hope for victory in Iraq

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 07, 2007
10:29 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

Sen. Hillary Clinton at annual Congressional Black Caucus meeting
WASHINGTON – With presidential primaries approaching and the race for the White House heating up, Muslim terrorist leaders in the Middle East have offered their endorsement for America's highest office, stating in a new book they hope Sen. Hillary Clinton is victorious in 2008.

"I hope Hillary is elected in order to have the occasion to carry out all the promises she is giving regarding Iraq," stated Ala Senakreh, West Bank chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group.

Senakreh is one of dozens of terror leaders sounding off about American politics in the new book, "Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans – to a Jew!" by WND Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein

Abu Hamed, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in the northern Gaza Strip, explained in "Schmoozing" Clinton's repeated calls for a withdrawal from Iraq "proves that important leaders are understanding the situation differently and are understanding the price and the consequences of the American policy in Iraq and in the world."

"The Iraqi resistance is succeeding," stated Hamed. "Hillary and the Democrats call for withdrawal. Her popularity shows that the resistance is winning and that the occupation is losing. We just hope that she will go until the end and change the American policy, which is based on oppressing poor and innocent people."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57970

mundame

04-17-2008, 02:45 PM

Look who is supporting your gal Hillary (not that it will mean anything to you)

It's official: Terrorists
endorse Hillary in '08
On the record, Mideast jihadi leaders
say she's best hope for victory in Iraq

Oooo, gross. http://www.catchride.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/yuck.gif

Well, maybe you'd better vote for Barama Oobleck, then.

(No! No!! Don't do it!!! Just kidding!)

red states rule

04-17-2008, 02:46 PM

Oooo, gross. http://www.catchride.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/yuck.gif

Well, maybe you'd better vote for Barama Oobleck, then.

(No! No!! Don't do it!!! Just kidding!)

No comment that Hillary has the terrorist vote? After all, she (like you) want to do exactly what they want her to do

mundame

04-17-2008, 03:07 PM

No comment that Hillary has the terrorist vote? After all, she (like you) want to do exactly what they want her to do

I don't care what those worthless nothings want. http://www.viverge.fr/smileys/I-Am-Smiling.gif

red states rule

04-17-2008, 03:09 PM

I don't care what those worthless nothings want. http://www.viverge.fr/smileys/I-Am-Smiling.gif

So you do not care you are doing what they want you to do?

By giving them what they want, the terrorosts will be much safer

But America will not

mundame

04-17-2008, 03:11 PM

So you do not care you are doing what they want you to do?

By giving them what they want, the terrorosts will be much safer

But America will not

I don't think it harms them or benefits us to keep losing a war in some sandpit on the other side of the planet for another 46 years or whatever.

Anyway, most Americans want the troops home and don't care WHAT the damn Muslims want.

red states rule

04-17-2008, 03:13 PM

I don't think it harms them or benefits us to keep losing a war in some sandpit on the other side of the planet for another 46 years or whatever.

Anyway, most Americans want the troops home and don't care WHAT the damn Muslims want.

Well, the terrorists are backing your gal, and share your views

You are doing your part to make their safe houses safer

snip

Abu Hamed, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in the northern Gaza Strip, explained in "Schmoozing" Clinton's repeated calls for a withdrawal from Iraq "proves that important leaders are understanding the situation differently and are understanding the price and the consequences of the American policy in Iraq and in the world."

"The Iraqi resistance is succeeding," stated Hamed. "Hillary and the Democrats call for withdrawal. Her popularity shows that the resistance is winning and that the occupation is losing. We just hope that she will go until the end and change the American policy, which is based on oppressing poor and innocent people."

The Brigades, together with the Islamic Jihad terrorist group, took responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past three years. The Brigades also has carried out hundreds of recent shootings and rocket attacks.

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by Clinton's calls for an eventual withdrawal from Iraq.

"It is clear that it is the resistance operations of the mujahideen that has brought about these calls for withdrawal," boasted Abu Ayman.

Nasser Abu Aziz, the West Bank deputy commander of the Al Aqsa Brigades, declared it is "very good" there are "voices like Hillary and others who are now attacking the Iraq invasion."

In "Schmoozing," every terrorist leader out of dozens interviewed stated they hope a Democrat becomes president in 2008. Some terror leaders explained their endorsement of Clinton is not necessarily at the expense of other Democratic presidential candidates, whose policies are not as well known to them.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57970

red states rule

04-17-2008, 03:30 PM

Son of a liberal: What did you do in the War On Terror, Daddy?

Liberal father: I fought the Americans, along with all the other liberals.

LuvRPgrl

04-20-2008, 07:54 PM

We havent made any new enemies.
bullshit.

If we took on Japan and Germany, Italy in WWll, we certainly can handle Afghanastan and Iraq.
tell that to the Chair of the Joint Chiefs... I'm sure he'll change his mind because you say so.

As for only servicemen being able to vote to go to war, then it would require only servicemen can run for President.who ever said anything about only servicement being able to vote?

If our troops were soley in Afghanastan, then the terrorists in Iraq would be there also.
prove it. most of "AQ in Iraq" are homegrown Iraqis that formed their little franchise in response to our invasion. They are a nationalist movement that seeks to rid Iraq of US influence, which is a diffferent strategic goal than Al Qaeda

SInce you support a candidate (assumption on my part), then you support withdrawing (defeat)

Nobody on this board has a clue what the JCS thinks.

It has been expressed often that we "chickenhawk' republicans shouldnt have a say so as to sending guys to Iraq unless we have served.

Most of them are not home grown, and those who are, would probably head of to Afghanastan, at least a very large number would. IF there are so many home grown terrorists, then where the hell were they when Saddam was President.?

LuvRPgrl

04-20-2008, 07:58 PM

Not fifty people killed at a funeral, not in either city!!

If we had that kind of violence, we call in the National Guard.

Oh, wait ------------- they're all in Iraq, aren't they? So I guess we better hope the U.S. doesn't have any emergencies.

I think they should all kill each other. That would suit me down to the ground: our troops home, and them shooting each other as fast as they can.

My articles are news reports. Your articles are sort of pitiful, some sad sack soldier trying to pretend to himself that hanging around over there in danger of the people shooting off his arms and legs so he comes home looking like a stump is somehow worthwhile; that he's doing some sort of good even though they all hate him and want him gone.

That's worse than propaganda, in a way; it's wishful thinking.

They arent all in Iraq. Many are in Afghanastan, or did you forget already?

LuvRPgrl

04-20-2008, 08:02 PM

you are the one ducking and dodging RSR...I post a rather lengthy comment in 2026 and you have ducked it ever since. Why not try to address it.

YOu obviously did not listen to Obama's statements on Iraq, btw.

To claim it is a war we cannot win, makes you a dereatist. ANd you have a desire to see us lose, or else you will be proven wrong.

Fact is, we can win it. AQ isnt as much of an invisible enemy as you think. They are limited on recruits, money and materials.

retiredman

04-20-2008, 09:35 PM

SInce you support a candidate (assumption on my part), then you support withdrawing (defeat)

Nobody on this board has a clue what the JCS thinks.

It has been expressed often that we "chickenhawk' republicans shouldnt have a say so as to sending guys to Iraq unless we have served.

Most of them are not home grown, and those who are, would probably head of to Afghanastan, at least a very large number would. IF there are so many home grown terrorists, then where the hell were they when Saddam was President.?
1. advocating withdrawing from a skirmish is not advocating defeat. Do you think that America has never withdrawn from a particular battle in a war in order to improve our chances of winning the war. Our "war" is not against Iraqi sunnis or shiites, but against stateless Islamic extremists. I want to win that war, apparently more than you do.

2. The CJCS clearly and unambiguously stated that our troop numbers in Iraq were preventing us from sending as many troops to Afghanistan as he would like.

3. I have never said any such thing about chickenhawks. You have had your say for more than five years now... your stupidity has been refuted by the majority of Americans.

4. Al Qaeda in Iraq is an organization that came into existence as a result of our invasion of Iraq. Saddam did a great job at rewarding the sunni minority in Iraq.

Yurt

04-20-2008, 09:39 PM

1. advocating withdrawing from a skirmish is not advocating defeat. Do you think that America has never withdrawn from a particular battle in a war in order to improve our chances of winning the war. Our "war" is not against Iraqi sunnis or shiites, but against stateless Islamic extremists. I want to win that war, apparently more than you do.

2. The CJCS clearly and unambiguously stated that our troop numbers in Iraq were preventing us from sending as many troops to Afghanistan as he would like.

3. I have never said any such thing about chickenhawks. You have had your say for more than five years now... your stupidity has been refuted by the majority of Americans.

4. Al Qaeda in Iraq is an organization that came into existence as a result of our invasion of Iraq. Saddam did a great job at rewarding the sunni minority in Iraq.

#4 is patently false. AQ was in iraq before we removed saddam.

retiredman

04-20-2008, 09:47 PM

#4 is patently false. AQ was in iraq before we removed saddam.

bullshit. The group presently known as Al Qaeda in Iraq (or Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia) was NOT in IRaq before we removed Saddam. There WERE some AQ operatives in northern kurdish controlled areas of Iraq prior to our invasion, but they are not the same folks who today call themselves AQ in Iraq.

You should stick to attacking Obama...that is a topic you are well versed in. The world of Islam is not your strong suit.

Kathianne

04-20-2008, 09:55 PM

retiredman

04-20-2008, 09:58 PM

Not true and you are too smart to say such:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm

Zarqawi was not part of Al Qaeda until well after our invasion. And the organization he ran was made up almost entirely of Iraqis who joined him in response to our invasion.

Kathianne

04-20-2008, 10:26 PM

Zarqawi was not part of Al Qaeda until well after our invasion. And the organization he ran was made up almost entirely of Iraqis who joined him in response to our invasion.

Funny that Juan Cole was trying to say the same in June, 2002:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7625.html

Yurt

04-20-2008, 10:32 PM

bullshit. The group presently known as Al Qaeda in Iraq (or Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia) was NOT in IRaq before we removed Saddam. There WERE some AQ operatives in northern kurdish controlled areas of Iraq prior to our invasion, but they are not the same folks who today call themselves AQ in Iraq.

You should stick to attacking Obama...that is a topic you are well versed in. The world of Islam is not your strong suit.

just because i've whipped you many times about islam does not mean you need to be snivelly about it...

crips in LA are different from crips in san francisco, how? same gang mr. islam. same thing here. if they are so different, why take on the same name? and you have no proof whatsoever that "most" of the members are/were iraqis. i already proved you wrong about AQ existing in iraq....to say that "AQ in iraq" is fundamentally different than AQ is foolish. whenever we get into islamic stuff you fall back on your decades old experience with "some" muslims.... stick to insults and whining like a sissy, not debating stuff like this, its too much for you

retiredman

04-20-2008, 10:40 PM

just because i've whipped you many times about islam does not mean you need to be snivelly about it...

crips in LA are different from crips in san francisco, how? same gang mr. islam. same thing here. if they are so different, why take on the same name? and you have no proof whatsoever that "most" of the members are/were iraqis. i already proved you wrong about AQ existing in iraq....to say that "AQ in iraq" is fundamentally different than AQ is foolish. whenever we get into islamic stuff you fall back on your decades old experience with "some" muslims.... stick to insults and whining like a sissy, not debating stuff like this, its too much for you

there is a difference betweeen nationalist islamic organizations and islamic extremists who seek to eliminate nation states. sorry. and what do you fall back on? stuff your dad taught you?

Yurt

04-20-2008, 10:47 PM

there is a difference betweeen nationalist islamic organizations and islamic extremists who seek to eliminate nation states. sorry. and what do you fall back on? stuff your dad taught you?

LOL, you don't know anything, true muslims see NO "nation" nationalism is not a true islamic principle :poke: if AQ in Iraq took on the name AQ, then there is an understanding that there is no nationalism, especially for a state created by europeans after the muslims lost the land by siding with the germans. the goals of AQ in iraq are not fundamentally different from AQ in general, it is merely a name to rally the nationalists in iraq, at its core, it is world domination and the removal of the west or anyone who does not toe the extreme sunni line, out of the ME.

stick to tiddliwinks

Yurt

04-20-2008, 10:58 PM

NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

In fact, this happened more than once.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe. The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq. The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

retiredman

04-20-2008, 10:59 PM

LOL, you don't know anything, true muslims see NO "nation" nationalism is not a true islamic principle :poke: if AQ in Iraq took on the name AQ, then there is an understanding that there is no nationalism, especially for a state created by europeans after the muslims lost the land by siding with the germans. the goals of AQ in iraq are not fundamentally different from AQ in general, it is merely a name to rally the nationalists in iraq, at its core, it is world domination and the removal of the west or anyone who does not toe the extreme sunni line, out of the ME.

stick to tiddliwinks

so...muslim palestinians, for example, who seek a palestinian state, are not "true muslims"?

don't be gratuitously insulting when you don't know what the fuck you are talking about in the first place. stick to ambulance chasing.

Yurt

04-20-2008, 11:06 PM

so...muslim palestinians, for example, who seek a palestinian state, are not "true muslims"?

don't be gratuitously insulting when you don't know what the fuck you are talking about in the first place. stick to ambulance chasing.

if they truly wanted a "palestinian state" it would have been done moron, they want israel gone from the whole area, taking the palestinian state (a western idea) would be a very, very last resort as a method to cling to the land until they can destroy israel and reclaim the whole area. don't forget the profit ran from mecca for a whole year after having his bluff called by the pagens, he then came back and leveled the pagens and took over mecca.

you again show the astounding depths of your ignorance.

retiredman

04-20-2008, 11:16 PM

if they truly wanted a "palestinian state" it would have been done moron, they want israel gone from the whole area, taking the palestinian state (a western idea) would be a very, very last resort as a method to cling to the land until they can destroy israel and reclaim the whole area. don't forget the profit ran from mecca for a whole year after having his bluff called by the pagens, he then came back and leveled the pagens and took over mecca.

you again show the astounding depths of your ignorance.

profit? pagens? did you even graduate from high school?

You should know better than to suggest that I am ignorant about the middle east.

the palestinians want a palestinian state, not a muslim caliphate... they are deeply nationalist in their political beliefs... and they want Jerusalem as their capital.

Yurt

04-20-2008, 11:23 PM

profit? pagens? did you even graduate from high school?

You should know better than to suggest that I am ignorant about the middle east.

the palestinians want a palestinian state, not a muslim caliphate... they are deeply nationalist in their political beliefs... and they want Jerusalem as their capital.

dude, i suggest you actually do some reading before responding again, you know absolutely nothing about islam. the profit muhammad (yes its a play on words for the ignorant mfm so he knows the difference between a true prophet and a money grubbing profit) and mecca in the beginning of his reign here on earth, read about it... it will help you understand the current the islamic mind set which you clearly know nothing about. and yes you are ignorant on many things islamic in the middle east, you didn't even know about muhammad's beginnings and how he conquered mecca after running away from the pagens at first.

if the muslims in palestine are true muslims, then they want a caliphate. that is the goal of all muslims. read the quran smart guy, there is no such thing as a nation. nationalism is against the ethos of islam. i don't care what the people in palestine are saying, i am telling you that true islam does not recognize a nation state. are you actually telling me that if you asked palestinians:

A. do you want just a palestinian state, or

B. do you want isreal gone and the entire area to be yours

they would choose A? go to bed, its past your bed time.

retiredman

04-20-2008, 11:32 PM

dude, i suggest you actually do some reading before responding again, you know absolutely nothing about islam. the profit muhammad (yes its a play on words for the ignorant mfm so he knows the difference between a true prophet and a money grubbing profit) and mecca in the beginning of his reign here on earth, read about it... it will help you understand the current the islamic mind set which you clearly know nothing about. and yes you are ignorant on many things islamic in the middle east, you didn't even know about muhammad's beginnings and how he conquered mecca after running away from the pagens at first.

if the muslims in palestine are true muslims, then they want a caliphate. that is the goal of all muslims. read the quran smart guy, there is no such thing as a nation. nationalism is against the ethos of islam. i don't care what the people in palestine are saying, i am telling you that true islam does not recognize a nation state. are you actually telling me that if you asked palestinians:

A. do you want just a palestinian state, or

B. do you want isreal gone and the entire area to be yours

they would choose A? go to bed, its past your bed time.

so, you are saying that palestinian nationalists are not true muslims?
Are you really suggesting that wanting option B would make them NOT want a palestinian state in the entire area where Israel now exists? Just because palestinian nationalists want the entire area formerly known as palestine to be their nation, does not mean that they want an islamic caliphate stretching from Spain to India. They are nationalists and they are muslims. Relying on your book knowledge of the words of the Quran does not mean you understand how modern day middle eastern muslims interpret that book.

red states rule

04-21-2008, 08:08 AM

How libs would deal with another attack on US soil

What Did You Do in the War on Terror, Daddy?
By Clarice Feldman

October 30, 2008,Washington (AP) Nuclear devices have caused untold havoc in Los Angeles, New York. Chicago and Washington, D.C. Operating on an emergency broadcasting network from a hidden location outside the Capital, the President declared a State of Emergency. National Guard troops and emergency medical teams are aiding local police and fire departments in emergency evacuations of all three cities. Homeland Security is directing supplies to evacuation centers but do not believe supplies can reach those trapped inside those cities for several days.

"It is not yet certain who was behind the attacks but the markings on two devices which failed to detonate were in Farsi," said unnamed sources inside the Langley, Virginia Frank Church memorial bunker of the Climate Intelligence Agency, the former Central Intelligence Agency, renamed last year as part of the Intelligence Authorization Bill passed by the Democratic Congress. "At least we think it was Farsi, he added, explaining, "we had to replace all our Farsi speakers with Sheryl Crow and Laurie David under the new law."

The attack happened as the Agency head was meeting with Area Studies professors in Durham North Carolina to issue a joint proclamation accusing white male athletes of systematically raping the planet and using more than their allotted share of carbon dioxide emissions. "All the huffing and panting and busing from one event to another places them just under bovine flatulence in the scale of polluters," charged Jennifer Broadhurst, Chair of the Professors for Fair Share Emissions, a public interest group.

Former Vice-President Gore had been scheduled to address the meeting but his Gulfstream Jet was stalled on the ground in Kyoto because of an unexplained problem respecting the credit card he was using to pay for the carbon offsets for the trip.

In the Congressional bunker at another undisclosed location, Congressman Henry Waxman said, "As soon as we can dig our way out of this, I am holding hearings to determine whether the outing of Plame is behind this massive intelligence failure." He indicated he'd been in contact with Richard Clarke who asserted that he had warned the President that "someday, somewhere, somehow, something bad was going to happen."

Senator Schumer demanded to know, "Who is responsible for this?" He hinted that a subpoena of Karl Rove's emails to the RNC and a voter in Boise made reference to a Persian Cat. "I can't prove it, but a circumstantial case could be made that this shows he knew what was about to befall us and kept quiet to effect the election."

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee for President issued a statement from her headquarters blaming Bush, "When we voted for this the President should have known it was stupid and stopped us. If we'd known now what we should have known then if we'd read the intelligence reports we were given we wouldn't have passed this. A leader would have called us into the Oval Office and read it out loud to us."*

There was no word from the Republican nominee who reportedly had rolled up his sleeves and joined the rescue party in the Capital.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/05/what_did_you_do_in_the_war_on.html

Gaffer

04-21-2008, 08:22 AM

so, you are saying that palestinian nationalists are not true muslims?
Are you really suggesting that wanting option B would make them NOT want a palestinian state in the entire area where Israel now exists? Just because palestinian nationalists want the entire area formerly known as palestine to be their nation, does not mean that they want an islamic caliphate stretching from Spain to India. They are nationalists and they are muslims. Relying on your book knowledge of the words of the Quran does not mean you understand how modern day middle eastern muslims interpret that book.

For all your time in the middle east you really knon nothing about it or its history. There never was a palestine, there was a palestine mandate. What is considered palestine now is just unincorporated territory. pals are not nationalists. They are muslim.Their goal is not a pal state, it's the destruction of Israel. That is their single and only goal.The pals are the pawns of the arab states of the region. They serve as the proxy army of those states and are kept in their condition to be used as fodder.

Yurt

04-21-2008, 12:14 PM

For all your time in the middle east you really knon nothing about it or its history. There never was a palestine, there was a palestine mandate. What is considered palestine now is just unincorporated territory. pals are not nationalists. They are muslim.Their goal is not a pal state, it's the destruction of Israel. That is their single and only goal.The pals are the pawns of the arab states of the region. They serve as the proxy army of those states and are kept in their condition to be used as fodder.

i doubt he ever spent time over there, if he did, to rely on decades old opinions of the few ""muslims"" he allegedly spoke with is foolish.

retiredman

04-21-2008, 12:15 PM

For all your time in the middle east you really knon nothing about it or its history. There never was a palestine, there was a palestine mandate. What is considered palestine now is just unincorporated territory. pals are not nationalists. They are muslim.Their goal is not a pal state, it's the destruction of Israel. That is their single and only goal.The pals are the pawns of the arab states of the region. They serve as the proxy army of those states and are kept in their condition to be used as fodder.

all ther palestinians I ever met wanted a palestinian state. you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Palestinians were nothing more than bedouins who settled down in agrarian population centers in that portion of the ottoman empire later called Palestine after WWI.

nothing new there.

Yurt

04-21-2008, 12:24 PM

all ther palestinians I ever met wanted a palestinian state. you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Palestinians were nothing more than bedouins who settled down in agrarian population centers in that portion of the ottoman empire later called Palestine after WWI.

nothing new there.

so, over two decades ago, you met all the palestinians? and all these palestinians wanted <-- Israel to remain in existence forever? do you really expect a decision maker to rely on decades old "intelligence" from a christian american talking with palestinians?

retiredman

04-21-2008, 12:32 PM

so, over two decades ago, you met all the palestinians? and all these palestinians wanted <-- Israel to remain in existence forever? do you really expect a decision maker to rely on decades old "intelligence" from a christian american talking with palestinians?

I never said anything about any palestinians' wishes about Israel. All the ones that I met wanted a palestinian state. They did NOT all want a giant islamic caliphate that stretched from Spain to India. Are you suggesting that such an attitude made them not real muslims?

How many palestinians have YOU worked with in the middle east, by the way? Chased many red crescent ambulances?

moron.

Yurt

04-21-2008, 02:59 PM

I never said anything about any palestinians' wishes about Israel. All the ones that I met wanted a palestinian state. They did NOT all want a giant islamic caliphate that stretched from Spain to India. Are you suggesting that such an attitude made them not real muslims?

How many palestinians have YOU worked with in the middle east, by the way? Chased many red crescent ambulances?

moron.

if you think your alleged decades old talks with palestinians is somehow relevant today, there is no point discussing anything with you, you have made up your mind on decades old alleged intel, i wouldn't be surprised if you had tea with the profit mummu himself

retiredman

04-21-2008, 04:10 PM

if you think your alleged decades old talks with palestinians is somehow relevant today, there is no point discussing anything with you, you have made up your mind on decades old alleged intel, i wouldn't be surprised if you had tea with the profit mummu himself

I stay in touch with many palestinians and other arabs that I met while in the middle east.

My "intell" is quite current. Yours is based upon WHAT, exactly?

Yurt

04-21-2008, 04:42 PM

I stay in touch with many palestinians and other arabs that I met while in the middle east.

My "intell" is quite current. Yours is based upon WHAT, exactly?

uh, huh, last time you never mentioned this "current" communication, only your talks twenty plus years ago...

Kathianne

04-21-2008, 06:44 PM

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jHsQRblm7HMkR9L73psMuMjYeqjQ

Iraq: After the bombs, the tomatoes

9 hours ago

ARAB JUBUR, Iraq (AFP) — Three months after US forces dropped tonnes of bombs on Arab Jubur and put Al-Qaeda to flight, farmers are everywhere out in their fields tending their tomatoes.

Homes in the Sunni Arab rural patch about 25 kilometres (15 miles) south of Baghdad, meanwhile, are being rebuilt, schools reopened, roads repaired and irrigation pumps renewed, even as shopkeepers happily dust off their shelves.

"It's the first time in three years I am able to work in my lands," said Ammar Wadi, a 30-year-old vegetable farmer who also runs a small dairy herd.

His lands, on the banks of the Tigris, are thriving. Besides tomatoes, he also grows ochre and wheat, while some of his 30 acres is devoted to pastures.

"When Al-Qaeda was here it was impossible to farm," said the jolly-faced farmer from under an orange cap while taking time out from his labours to visit his cousin's newly-reopened grocery store on a dusty rural road....

"Within days of our air assault Al-Qaeda had fled," said Hollenback.

By February 11, the main roads had been cleared, US forces had hired hundreds of locals as members of their Sons of Iraq anti-Qaeda fronts they are setting up across Iraq, and residents started returning in droves.

Among them was Juburi.

"We found that our house had been vandalised, all the furniture was gone, Our cattle had been stolen. We had to start from zero again," said the gap-toothed former soldier bitterly.

Schools too had to start from zero, but from a mere 20 to 25 children in mid-February, attendance at Arab Jubur's primary school has now shot up to 260, according to headmaster Hamudi Salman.

This is still down from 450 before Al-Qaeda moved in but far better than in December and January when the jihadists took over the building and used it as a headquarters, after months of harassing female teachers and forcing them to wear the veil, long skirts and gloves.

Ali Mohammed Khalaf, a slim, 28-year-old farmer with a squint, was among the thousands of residents who returned to find his house looted and vandalised.

To help rebuild his life, he joined the Sons of Iraq and is paid 300 dollars a month by the US military.

In between his shifts, Khalaf tends his tomato fields. But he does so very nervously. On the edge of one field is an old yellow bus the US military believes has been booby-trapped by Al-Qaeda.

At the other end of the field is the rubble of a building bombed by US warplanes during the January bombardment because it too had been booby-trapped.

"I have to be careful. There may still be bombs under the rubble," he said.

US commanders say there are still countless roadside bombs and booby-traps in the area and it will take months to clear them all.

Al-Qaeda may have left Arab Jubur in haste, but they left behind many deep and dangerous footprints.

gabosaurus

04-21-2008, 07:01 PM

Yep, Mission Accomplished ya'll! Now where are dem dam pretzels...

<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/409_1208355592"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/409_1208355592" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>

Kathianne

04-21-2008, 07:39 PM

Yeah:

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=61546&archive=true

‘Daughters of Iraq’ to be formed south of Baghdad

By Joseph Giordono, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Sunday, April 19, 2008

The U.S. military is expanding efforts to bring Iraqi women into the armed civilian groups that it is funding and which commanders have credited with increased security in some areas.

Officials late Friday announced that some 30 Iraqi women would comprise the first “Daughters of Iraq” group to be formed in areas south of Baghdad. The U.S. military had dubbed the armed groups — which include nearly 100,000 members throughout the country — as the “Sons of Iraq.”

While mainly Shiite, some of the groups are Sunni-led. The U.S. military says they are instrumental in guarding their neighborhoods, setting up checkpoints and finding roadside bombs.

Officials with the 3rd Infantry Division, which commands U.S. troops south of Baghdad, called the formation of the first women’s group within the so-called “Sons of Iraq” a “bold step in its evolution.”

The female group will be in the city of Yusafiyah, which had long been an insurgent stronghold and scene of battles with U.S. forces. The “DOI,” as the military referred to them, “would be able to search other females at security checkpoints,” which Iraqi cultural norms do not allow men to do....

http://www.iimefpublic.usmc.mil/MNF/mnfw_IM.nsf/ArticlesListingReadCurrent/AFF478FD185F7B1743257402006C68D6

Sisters of Fallujah help to protect city
Story and photos by Sgt. Nathaniel LeBlanc

FALLUJAH, Iraq (March 2, 2008) -- It has become desperate times for the insurgents in the al Anbar province. Backed up against the ropes and badly beaten, they are trying to resort to any dirty trick that they can come up with… even if it means sneaking bomb-making material with women and children past the Coalition and Iraqi forces’ security.

These tactics have proven to be futile thanks to the brave women known as the Sisters of Fallujah who selflessly help protect their city and stop any insurgents’ attempt to harm their community.

The Sisters of Fallujah, a program which started Dec. 15, has local women working along-side Marines and Iraqi Police at each Entry Control Point, which allows inbound traffic and people into the city. They are at the forefront of their community’s defense where every woman, child and their belongings are searched by them. They look for any suspicious items that could possibly be bomb-making material or pose a threat such as copper wires, washer machine timers, electronic devices or even large sums of money.

In the past, Marines and Iraqi Police could not search the women due to the cultural barrier where men are prohibited to touch women. The women were even able to stay in their vehicles while the men were searched. This created a gap in the city’s security. But with the Sisters of Fallujah stepping up and doing their part for the community, they have overcome such barriers.

“We all want to help our city,” said 43 year-old “Sarah” a Sister of Fallujah, who uses a pseudonym to protect her name and family. “We are doing this job because we want to help our country, our people, our husbands, and to make Fallujah a safer city in the world.”

“Sarah” like many other Sisters of Fallujah is a resident of Fallujah and a working mother. She works every week; two days on, two days off, with a salary of $500 a month. She has seven children and hopes to one day build a new home for her family.

“My husband likes that I’m working here,” she said. “He knows that I’m helping my people and my country.”

These women’s sense of family and community, and wanting to keep them safe has made an impact in bringing peace to the region. They have shown that their contribution is invaluable.

“The Sisters of Fallujah are very essential to our efforts,” said Capt. Waleed Naji Mohammad, Iraqi Police ECP chief. “Before, no one could search the woman. Now with the Sisters of Fallujah, we are able to prevent insurgents from smuggling anything harmful with the women and children. They are doing a good job at keeping the city safe.”

Marines, who have deployed to the area in past years, know all to well the frustration of being unable to search women at the ECPs, but have now seen the changes that the Sisters of Fallujah have made.

Lance Cpl. Arthur Austin, an Eagle Grove, Iowa native, who had deployed to the al Anbar province in 2006, and is currently back as the ECP 1’s corporal of the guard with weapons platoon, Company K, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment said, “There was an uneasiness of being unable to search the women. We weren’t able to provide that complete security. Having the Sisters of Fallujah around, it has improved quite a bit. It’s nice to see that they want to make a difference.”

The Sisters of Fallujah’s program has proven to be successful and has shown that even Iraqi women have a place in the fight against insurgency and henceforth there will always be a sentry standing her post, from the time the gates open and until they close, who is proud of her country and her people.

LuvRPgrl

04-22-2008, 02:25 AM

Yep, Mission Accomplished ya'll! Now where are dem dam pretzels...

value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/409_1208355592"></param><param name="wmode" value="t

Ya know, you posting a pic like that just makes me sick.

gabosaurus

04-22-2008, 08:37 AM

I hear that the next video response from bin Laden will come in December. He and Dubya will appear on Dancing With The Stars, to the tune of "Not Ready To Make Nice."

LuvRPgrl

04-22-2008, 01:31 PM

1. advocating withdrawing from a skirmish is not advocating defeat..
When it most surely will lead to defeat, it is. YOU want us to lose. You are a defeatist.

Do you think that America has never withdrawn from a particular battle in a war in order to improve our chances of winning the war..
Irrelevant, cuz thats not the case with Iraq.

Our "war" is not against Iraqi sunnis or shiites, but against stateless Islamic extremists. I want to win that war, apparently more than you do..
UHHHHHHh, we can handle both at once dude, DUUUUUUDE, besides, keeping them tied up in Iraq is good strategy, rather than letting them hide out planning another 9/11. If you think ALL of the terrorists fighting in Iraq right now would go home and start mowing their lawns instead of planning more attacks on us, well, I already know you are delusional anyways.

2. The CJCS clearly and unambiguously stated that our troop numbers in Iraq were preventing us from sending as many troops to Afghanistan as he would like..
as HE would like. Nato hasnt even met their troop levels, so we upped ours. So, why is going after the taliban the same as going after AQ?

3. I have never said any such thing about chickenhawks. You have had your say for more than five years now... your stupidity has been refuted by the majority of Americans..
so which is it? First you say you have never said that, then you say those who do are right. SO, do you support those who say such, or not? I know, you want to take the rewards without possilbly taking any losses, talk about a chickenhawk,

4. Al Qaeda in Iraq is an organization that came into existence as a result of our invasion of Iraq..

only in your little delusional realm. (see response to #1

Saddam did a great job at rewarding the sunni minority in Iraq.

Ahhh, yes, go tell that to the women who were raped at their own weddings, under police supervision.
Go tell that to the kids who were imprisoned and tortured.

Ultimatelly, your last sentence tells it all, you dont give a rats ass what happens to the Iraqis, you are one of those elitists who think you know who deserves democracy and those who dont.

Let me give you another clue,the current Marines (and I know, my son has enlisted) and the families of those killed in Iraq, OVERWHELMINGLY want us to stay and finish the job. Too bad for you. But I know, YOU know whats good for them better than they do.

red states rule

04-22-2008, 01:37 PM

MFM is more then happy to sign the surrender papers on behalf of the US. He will be more then happy to bend over, and grab the ankles in a gesture of friendship to the terrorists

bullypulpit

04-22-2008, 04:08 PM

MFM is more then happy to sign the surrender papers on behalf of the US. He will be more then happy to bend over, and grab the ankles in a gesture of friendship to the terrorists

And you are so full of shit your eyes are brown.

red states rule

04-22-2008, 04:09 PM

And you are so full of shit your eyes are brown.

and like MFM you have a huge yellow streak running down your back, and one in your shorts :laugh2:

bullypulpit

04-22-2008, 04:25 PM

and like MFM you have a huge yellow streak running down your back, and one in your shorts :laugh2:

MFM and myself both served our country honorably and proudly as members of the US military, which is more than you can say. So, fuck you. :finger3:

red states rule

04-22-2008, 04:29 PM

MFM and myself both served our country honorably and proudly as members of the US military, which is more than you can say. So, fuck you. :finger3:

But now you want to surrender and appease to terrorists for polical reasons

And go out of your way to ensure the comfort of terrorosts rather then stoping their attacks

Agin all to help your party

Gaffer

04-22-2008, 05:24 PM

MFM and myself both served our country honorably and proudly as members of the US military, which is more than you can say. So, fuck you. :finger3:

So what did you do with that honor and pride. You sure don't have it now.

red states rule

04-22-2008, 05:32 PM

So what did you do with that honor and pride. You sure don't have it now.

He has sold his soul to the Dem party

retiredman

04-22-2008, 05:49 PM

So what did you do with that honor and pride. You sure don't have it now.

how the fuck would you know? asshole.

I am quite proud of my service and I am quite proud of my country.... that does not mean that my country gets a carte blanche to do anything. I reserve the right to be critical of my government and critical of my president.

red states rule

04-22-2008, 05:52 PM

how the fuck would you know? asshole.

I am quite proud of my service and I am quite proud of my country.... that does not mean that my country gets a carte blanche to do anything. I reserve the right to be critical of my government and critical of my president.

Only when it is a Republican President. Otherwise, you will have your lips pressed firmly on the Dems ass

retiredman

04-22-2008, 05:57 PM

Only when it is a Republican President. Otherwise, you will have your lips pressed firmly on the Dems ass

not so. I was FURIOUS with Jimmy Carter and his handling of the Iranian hostage situation and I was so disgusted with Mondale that I voted for Anderson.

red states rule

04-22-2008, 05:59 PM

not so. I was FURIOUS with Jimmy Carter and his handling of the Iranian hostage situation and I was so disgusted with Mondale that I voted for Anderson.

They are acting like modern day Dems - appeasers

Yet you bow before them

Kathianne

04-22-2008, 06:05 PM

not so. I was FURIOUS with Jimmy Carter and his handling of the Iranian hostage situation and I was so disgusted with Mondale that I voted for Anderson.

How do you feel about his latest foray into reaching out to terrorists?

glockmail

04-22-2008, 08:11 PM

MFM and myself both served our country honorably and proudly as members of the US military, which is more than you can say. So, fuck you. :finger3:
So what happened to both of you that removed all semblance of manhood?

red states rule

04-22-2008, 08:18 PM

So what happened to both of you that removed all semblance of manhood?

Well, when I neutered my cat he became a liberal. That is what might have happened to them

glockmail

04-22-2008, 08:30 PM

Well, when I neutered my cat he became a liberal. That is what might have happened to them You think they both got their balls blown off? Damn! No wonder they're bitter.

red states rule

04-22-2008, 08:32 PM

You think they both got their balls blown off? Damn! No wonder they're bitter.

I did not know they used pea shooters in combat :laugh2:

retiredman

04-22-2008, 09:05 PM

How do you feel about his latest foray into reaching out to terrorists?

less than pleased.

retiredman

04-22-2008, 09:07 PM

So what happened to both of you that removed all semblance of manhood?

you think that supporting a counterproductive war in Iraq is a sign of manhood?

that's fucked up

bullypulpit

04-23-2008, 06:35 AM

So what happened to both of you that removed all semblance of manhood?

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

Is that the best you can do!?! Some juvenile reference to being emasculated? God...you ARE pathetic.

Your own lack of manhood shows with your blind, slavish subservience to an administration which has pushed US ground forces to near the breaking point, has wrecked the economy, has seriously endangered national security with its reckless borrowing...All in pursuit of the wrong enemy.

The REAL enemy has reconstituted itself in the mountains bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan, and we don't have the resources to hunt them down because they're tied down in the fruitless occupation of a nation that posed no threat to anyone beyond its own borders before the invasion.

And you pathetic losers continue your blind support of the administration which set this fiasco on motion, lacking the intestinal fortitude to question it.

Dismissed.

red states rule

04-23-2008, 06:38 AM

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

Is that the best you can do!?! Some juvenile reference to being emasculated? God...you ARE pathetic.

Your own lack of manhood shows with your blind, slavish subservience to an administration which has pushed US ground forces to near the breaking point, has wrecked the economy, has seriously endangered national security with its reckless borrowing...All in pursuit of the wrong enemy.

The REAL enemy has reconstituted itself in the mountains bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan, and we don't have the resources to hunt them down because they're tied down in the fruitless occupation of a nation that posed no threat to anyone beyond its own borders before the invasion.

And you pathetic losers continue your blind support of the administration which set this fiasco on motion, lacking the intestinal fortitude to question it.

Dismissed.

You are such a bitter person

Keep waving the white flag, and continue your war on Pres Bush and reality

Gaffer

04-23-2008, 07:45 AM

The REAL enemy has reconstituted itself in the mountains bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan, and we don't have the resources to hunt them down because they're tied down in the fruitless occupation of a nation that posed no threat to anyone beyond its own borders before the invasion.

The enemy is in pakistan. How do you propose we deal with them? We are currently hunting them down on the afgan side.

Your just bitter because your boy saddam was hanged. Do you keep his picture on your wall to remind you of the good old days?

bullypullit, dhimi extraodinair.

red states rule

04-23-2008, 07:50 AM

The enemy is in pakistan. How do you propose we deal with them? We are currently hunting them down on the afgan side.

Your just bitter because your boy saddam was hanged. Do you keep his picture on your wall to remind you of the good old days?

bullypullit, dhimi extraodinair.

Saddam was hanged without the liberal media being notified, and it was done near midnight

BP did not have time to organize a group of Hollywood clebs, and other liberal moonbats, to protest the hanging, and that really hurt him

glockmail

04-23-2008, 07:50 AM

you think that supporting a counterproductive war in Iraq is a sign of manhood?

that's fucked up

I think standing up for your responsibilities is a sign of manhood. So is being truthful about Iraq instead of repeating DNC talking points.

retiredman

04-23-2008, 07:51 AM

I think standing up for your responsibilities is a sign of manhood.

we have a responsibility to win the war against islamic extremism. We have no responsibility to babysit a civil war that the Iraqis are bound and determined to fight.

glockmail

04-23-2008, 08:53 AM

we have a responsibility to win the war against islamic extremism. We have no responsibility to babysit a civil war that the Iraqis are bound and determined to fight.
The CIC and his Generals believe that developing a stable base of operations in the geographical center of Islamic extremism is critical to winning the war with it. They are in a better position to assess the situation than the Democrat leadership that you are following. Furthermore, the Democrats have a political stake in the failure of the Administration policy. I disagree with the Administration regarding a unified Iraq, but I am not so arrogant as to think that I know better than the professionals that made the current policy.

Regardless of your opinion on the overall mission, it would be irresponsible to abandon our efforts in the middle of it, or even near the end. That is what happened when the US abandoned Vietnam, and it cost the lives of three million civilians. That is what happened when the UN abandoned Rwanda, and that cost the lives of one million civilians. That is what happened when Clinton abandoned Bosnia.

Real men may disagree, but they don’t let Party goals trump National interests. Real men finish what they have started, regardless of any disagreement of whether or not they should have started.

Before Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, he had to make a decision and he did so based on his core principles as a gentleman. Lee could have easily scattered his men into the woods and instructed them to fight a guerrilla war. Those tactics were well known by Lee, as well as Grant; in fact they were perfected 90 years previous by American generals. Lee, however, understood that even if successful, this would not achieve his goal of a stable, peaceful and economically viable Confederacy. These are the principles are of a real man.

The terrorists in Iraq are fighting a guerrilla war, and they cannot win unless we let them. Furthermore their goals are not stability, peace, or economic viability. They are not real men in any sense of the term. Anyone that pretends that they are ain’t one themselves.

retiredman

04-23-2008, 09:11 AM

The CIC and his Generals believe that developing a stable base of operations in the geographical center of Islamic extremism is critical to winning the war with it. They are in a better position to assess the situation than the Democrat leadership that you are following. Furthermore, the Democrats have a political stake in the failure of the Administration policy. I disagree with the Administration regarding a unified Iraq, but I am not so arrogant as to think that I know better than the professionals that made the current policy.

Regardless of your opinion on the overall mission, it would be irresponsible to abandon our efforts in the middle of it, or even near the end. That is what happened when the US abandoned Vietnam, and it cost the lives of three million civilians. That is what happened when the UN abandoned Rwanda, and that cost the lives of one million civilians. That is what happened when Clinton abandoned Bosnia.

Real men may disagree, but they don’t let Party goals trump National interests. Real men finish what they have started, regardless of any disagreement of whether or not they should have started.

Before Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, he had to make a decision and he did so based on his core principles as a gentleman. Lee could have easily scattered his men into the woods and instructed them to fight a guerrilla war. Those tactics were well known by Lee, as well as Grant; in fact they were perfected 90 years previous by American generals. Lee, however, understood that even if successful, this would not achieve his goal of a stable, peaceful and economically viable Confederacy. These are the principles are of a real man.

The terrorists in Iraq are fighting a guerrilla war, and they cannot win unless we let them. Furthermore their goals are not stability, peace, or economic viability. They are not real men in any sense of the term. Anyone that pretends that they are ain’t one themselves.

I disagree with your opinions. I believe that the sunnis and shiites in Iraq cannot live peacefully together. They will continue to want to kill one another as long as we insist that they be forced to live together in this constructed country called Iraq. We have a war to fight... our efforts in Iraq are counterproductive to that war, IMHO.

glockmail

04-23-2008, 09:16 AM

retiredman

04-23-2008, 09:27 AM

Again, regardless of your opinion of a unified Iraq, it would be irresponsible to abandon our efforts in the middle of it. Real men finish what they have started. Real men don’t let Party goals trump National interests.

I would never let party goals trump national interests. I happen to fervently believe that the war in Iraq is counter to our national interests. If I am correct, and a unified Iraq is impossible, how many centuries would you think that real men like you would continue to expend blood and treasure trying and accomplish something that is not possible? I have always believed that when you find yourself in the bottom of a deep hole, the very first thing you need to do is STOP digging.

Gaffer

04-23-2008, 09:34 AM

I would never let party goals trump national interests. I happen to fervently believe that the war in Iraq is counter to our national interests. If I am correct, and a unified Iraq is impossible, how many centuries would you think that real men like you would continue to expend blood and treasure trying and accomplish something that is not possible? I have always believed that when you find yourself in the bottom of a deep hole, the very first thing you need to do is STOP digging.

No, you start digging a stairway so you can safely walk out of the hole. The hole is then useful instead of just a hole.

retiredman

04-23-2008, 09:48 AM

No, you start digging a stairway so you can safely walk out of the hole. The hole is then useful instead of just a hole.Walking out of the hole called Iraq is a brilliant suggestion. If the sunnis and shiites living there do not want to live in peace, I really it is none of our business at this point, especially when we need to get out of the hole and start fighting the folks who attacked us.

And the hole is "useful" in what way? as a monument of how not to fight a war against Islamic extremists, perhaps?

Yurt

04-23-2008, 10:05 AM

red states rule

04-23-2008, 10:08 AM

Walking out of the hole called Iraq is a brilliant suggestion. If the sunnis and shiites living there do not want to live in peace, I really it is none of our business at this point, especially when we need to get out of the hole and start fighting the folks who attacked us.

And the hole is "useful" in what way? as a monument of how not to fight a war against Islamic extremists, perhaps?

Still pushing for surrender and appeasement I see

retiredman

04-23-2008, 10:13 AM

oh, but what about your nationalist parties mfm? baathists? you told me that the was the reality in the ME....

nationalist parties are a reality in the middle east. I merely pointed out that the falsely constructed country of Iraq has elements who, if given the chance to make their own country instead of having conquering europeans make it for them, would not chose to cast their lots together. There may very well be a strong movement for a kurdish state in the region...and there may very well be a strong movement for sunni dominated secular state in the territory called Iraq run by a baathist like party...and there may very well be a strong movement for a shiite dominated quasi-theocratic state aligned with Iran and run by a party like al-daawa...but there is NOT a strong movement amongst Iraqis to join those three groups togehter in a multicultural deomcracy. Nor is there a strong movement to toss any desires for nationalism aside and seek some global caliphate.

retiredman

04-23-2008, 10:14 AM

Still pushing for surrender and appeasement I see

still mindlessly spewing rush oneliners like a broken record, I see

red states rule

04-23-2008, 10:15 AM

still mindlessly spewing rush oneliners like a broken record, I see

The truth will set you free MFM

Why not start using the word "redepolyment" like fellow surrender monkey Murtha :laugh2:

retiredman

04-23-2008, 11:46 AM

The truth will set you free MFM

Why not start using the word "redepolyment" like fellow surrender monkey Murtha :laugh2:

you really don't know what the word truth means. You have lied about my positions on Iraq for two straight years now. and insulted my patriotism each and every time...and then throw a hissy fit and whine and neg rep me whenever I retaliate...and then NEVER accept my apology when you yourself have NEVER apologized for anything you have ever said that insulted me...

you and truth are polar opposites.

glockmail

04-23-2008, 11:46 AM

I would never let party goals trump national interests. I happen to fervently believe that the war in Iraq is counter to our national interests. If I am correct, and a unified Iraq is impossible, how many centuries would you think that real men like you would continue to expend blood and treasure trying and accomplish something that is not possible? I have always believed that when you find yourself in the bottom of a deep hole, the very first thing you need to do is STOP digging. Perhaps you can explain to us how a democratic Iraq is not in our national interest.

retiredman

04-23-2008, 11:50 AM

Perhaps you can explain to us how a democratic Iraq is not in our national interest.

it would be, if it were feasible. I believe it is not. I believe that a multicultural democratic country called Iraq constituted within its current borders is not a feasible goal.

Perhaps you could explain to ME how many centuries - or even decades - you would continue to flush blood and treasure down the drain in an attempt to get sunnis and shiites in Iraq to play nicely with one another before admitting that the endeavor was not going to happen.

red states rule

04-23-2008, 11:53 AM

you really don't know what the word truth means. You have lied about my positions on Iraq for two straight years now. and insulted my patriotism each and every time...and then throw a hissy fit and whine and neg rep me whenever I retaliate...and then NEVER accept my apology when you yourself have NEVER apologized for anything you have ever said that insulted me...

you and truth are polar opposites.

You are the whiner here MFM not me. You play the roles of the offended liberal, while you push for the defeat of the troops in Iraq; and defend those who smear and insult them

Keep crying into your tofu, but try not ot make it to soggy:laugh2:

retiredman

04-23-2008, 11:57 AM

You are the whiner here MFM not me. You play the roles of the offended liberal, while you push for the defeat of the troops in Iraq; and defend those who smear and insult them

Keep crying into your tofu, but try not ot make it to soggy:laugh2:

bullshit. I have never pushed for the defeat of the troops in Iraq. I am not whining, I merely point out what a thin skin you have....you can dish it out and repeatedly say things that you KNOW are distressing to me, but throw such a tantrum that your wig flies off whenever anyone gives it back to you.

red states rule

04-23-2008, 11:59 AM

bullshit. I have never pushed for the defeat of the troops in Iraq. I am not whining, I merely point out what a thin skin you have....you can dish it out and repeatedly say things that you KNOW are distressing to me, but throw such a tantrum that your wig flies off whenever anyone gives it back to you.

Grab a Kleenex Crybaby Cannon, and keep waving the white flag

retiredman

04-23-2008, 12:18 PM

Grab a Kleenex Crybaby Cannon, and keep waving the white flag

I'm not crying, and I certainly have never advocated surrender.

red states rule

04-23-2008, 12:22 PM

I'm not crying, and I certainly have never advocated surrender.

You are a surrendner monkey and have been crying on multiple threads

retiredman

04-23-2008, 12:28 PM

You are a surrendner monkey and have been crying on multiple threads

no. I have never advocated surrender...

and you ARE a whiner!:laugh2:

but I can imagine why you might be.

red states rule

04-23-2008, 12:34 PM

no. I have never advocated surrender...

and you ARE a whiner!:laugh2:

but I can imagine why you might be.

Yea, you call it redeployment

Here is your last temper tanturm

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=13543&page=27

glockmail

04-23-2008, 12:41 PM

it would be, if it were feasible. I believe it is not. I believe that a multicultural democratic country called Iraq constituted within its current borders is not a feasible goal.

Perhaps you could explain to ME how many centuries - or even decades - you would continue to flush blood and treasure down the drain in an attempt to get sunnis and shiites in Iraq to play nicely with one another before admitting that the endeavor was not going to happen.

Again: My solution for Iraq from the get-go was to break it into three regions, by religion, with defensible borders, tied together by a weak federal government to distribute oil money based on the population at that time. I think that you agree with that. The Bush Administration believes differently.

The areas where you and I disagree is that I respect the Administrations decision for a unified Iraq and you don't. I don't pretend to have more expertise than the Administration, while you do. I support their effort in spite of my disagreement and you do not.

In fact the Democrat Party, in site of being in a position of supporting the unified Iraq policy at the outset has done everything possible to undermine its success. At best this is unmanly as I have previously explained. At worst it is treasonous.

retiredman

04-23-2008, 12:47 PM

Again: My solution for Iraq from the get-go was to break it into three regions, by religion, with defensible borders, tied together by a weak federal government to distribute oil money based on the population at that time. I think that you agree with that. The Bush Administration believes differently.

The areas where you and I disagree is that I respect the Administrations decision for a unified Iraq and you don't. I don't pretend to have more expertise than the Administration, while you do. I support their effort in spite of my disagreement and you do not.

In fact the Democrat Party, in site of being in a position of supporting the unified Iraq policy at the outset has done everything possible to undermine its success. At best this is unmanly as I have previously explained. At worst it is treasonous.

I agree completely concerning the division of Iraq into three separate countries.

Again...I am entitled to my opinions regarding the wisdom of the administration's actions in Iraq. To suggest that I must agree with whatever the president does is bullshit... and regarding your accusations that I am treasonous, Teddy Roosevelt was quite clear on that a century ago and would seem to be saying that YOU are the traitor, and unpatriotic and servile as well:

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

now...quit dodging this simple question:

Perhaps you could explain to ME how many centuries - or even decades - you would continue to flush blood and treasure down the drain in an attempt to get sunnis and shiites in Iraq to play nicely with one another before admitting that the endeavor was not going to happen?

retiredman

04-23-2008, 12:50 PM

Yea, you call it redeployment

Here is your last temper tanturm

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=13543&page=27

no temper there at all.... I think it is funny that you are free to insult me in ways that I find profoundly offensive, but I have to treat you with kid gloves because you're not feeling well.

LuvRPgrl

04-23-2008, 01:31 PM

MFM and myself both served our country honorably and proudly as members of the US military, which is more than you can say. So, fuck you. :finger3:

Using your service to promote yourself, shame on you.

As I said before, and MFM denied , if having not served is demeaning, or grounds for not being able to run for president, then we might as well have our govt run by the military

LuvRPgrl

04-23-2008, 01:37 PM

I disagree with your opinions. I believe that the sunnis and shiites in Iraq cannot live peacefully together. They will continue to want to kill one another as long as we insist that they be forced to live together in this constructed country called Iraq. We have a war to fight... our efforts in Iraq are counterproductive to that war, IMHO.

Thats all fine and dandy, but to claim glock, RSR and others are supporting a counterproductive war is the problem with you. Its the problem with all liberals these days

Liberals think their opinions are right and therefore, anyone who doesnt agree is evil, plus it gives them carte blanche cuz "the end justifies the means", instead of looking at it from another point of view, "hey, maybe these guys really believe this is the right thing to do".

But instead you claim its counterproductive/wrong, no matter what we think or the evidence shows, therefore "republicans support a counterproductive war, hence, they are in it for oil, money, power, anything but to thwart world wide terrorism".

LuvRPgrl

04-23-2008, 01:41 PM

nationalist parties are a reality in the middle east. I merely pointed out that the falsely constructed country of Iraq has elements who, if given the chance to make their own country instead of having conquering europeans make it for them, would not chose to cast their lots together. There may very well be a strong movement for a kurdish state in the region...and there may very well be a strong movement for sunni dominated secular state in the territory called Iraq run by a baathist like party...and there may very well be a strong movement for a shiite dominated quasi-theocratic state aligned with Iran and run by a party like al-daawa...but there is NOT a strong movement amongst Iraqis to join those three groups togehter in a multicultural deomcracy. Nor is there a strong movement to toss any desires for nationalism aside and seek some global caliphate.

Well, now that they have the opportunity to decide that for themselves, they will form their own countries. But without that, it would have continued to be a threat to us

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

criticizing the President is not the same as advocating withdrawing the troops early and not allowing the process enough time to work.

Your question about how long we should wait, my question is, what will convince you it is working or has worked?

Last I checked:

Dictator was removed
Elections were held
Provisional govt instituted
More elections
More permanent govt institured along with a president
Violence has been quelled enormously

Dont forget, it took 13 years for America to re write its original Constitution because it wasnt working. That was without all the problems IRaq has, so why would you give Iraq LESS time than we did in our beginning? I say, give it at least equal time we took, plus 5 years.

If you do that, then the soldiers who died, didnt die for nothing, cuz the attempt was made. But your way, the attempt was never given a chance, and therefore their deaths are for nothing.

Go ask the families of those who died, or those who are wounded, overwhelmingly they support continuing the process. But I guess you know what better for them than they do, elistist propaganda as usual.

Oh, and as for your tit for tat with RSR, it sounds to me like you are the one whining, over and over and over.

"

retiredman

04-23-2008, 01:51 PM

Thats all fine and dandy, but to claim glock, RSR and others are supporting a counterproductive war is the problem with you. Its the problem with all liberals these days

Liberals think their opinions are right and therefore, anyone who doesnt agree is evil, plus it gives them carte blanche cuz "the end justifies the means", instead of looking at it from another point of view, "hey, maybe these guys really believe this is the right thing to do".

But instead you claim its counterproductive/wrong, no matter what we think or the evidence shows, therefore "republicans support a counterproductive war, hence, they are in it for oil, money, power, anything but to thwart world wide terrorism".

I am sure that you and glock and RSR think that forcing the Iraqis to try to form a multicultural democracy within the confines of the artificially created state of Iraq so that we can have a kindred jeffersonian democracy as our ally in the middle east makes perfect sense. I disagree...not because I don't think that having a kindred democracy in that area wouldn't be a delightful thing, but because I do not believe that the people of Iraq want to have such a government. I would LOVE to start thwarting the sort of islamic extremists that flew planes into our buildings. I happen to fervently believe that Iraq is a diversion from that goal and a one with zero chance of success... because the "mission" in Iraq is one that must be won by the Iraqi people themselves and not the America military.

retiredman

04-23-2008, 01:52 PM

Well, now that they have the opportunity to decide that for themselves, they will form their own countries. But without that, it would have continued to be a threat to us

it was never a threat to us to begin with... and Iraq will not have the opportunity to decide to form three separate countries as long as we are supporting the Maliki government and the Iraqi armed forces which have been built for the express purpose of creating and controlling ONE Iraq.

glockmail

04-23-2008, 03:42 PM

I agree completely concerning the division of Iraq into three separate countries.

Again...I am entitled to my opinions regarding the wisdom of the administration's actions in Iraq. To suggest that I must agree with whatever the president does is bullshit... and regarding your accusations that I am treasonous, Teddy Roosevelt was quite clear on that a century ago and would seem to be saying that YOU are the traitor, and unpatriotic and servile as well:

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

now...quit dodging this simple question:

Perhaps you could explain to ME how many centuries - or even decades - you would continue to flush blood and treasure down the drain in an attempt to get sunnis and shiites in Iraq to play nicely with one another before admitting that the endeavor was not going to happen?

I don’t agree with the premise of your question. By your use of the terms “centuries, decades, and flushing”, it is apparent that you have made up your mind on what the outcome will be. I am a bit more optimistic and much more open minded than that. So to address your issue as best that I can, I invoke the words of JFK: “we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

Now that I have addressed your issue, you should return the courtesy and address mine:
1. You appear to be claiming more expertise that the Administration with regards to the issue of a unified Iraq, and I would like to know why you think that.
2. You and the Democrat leadership appear to be undermining the Administration’s efforts to achieve it’s stated goals, and I would like to know why.

retiredman

04-23-2008, 03:53 PM

I don’t agree with the premise of your question. By your use of the terms “centuries, decades, and flushing”, it is apparent that you have made up your mind on what the outcome will be. I am a bit more optimistic and much more open minded than that. So to address your issue as best that I can, I invoke the words of JFK: “we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

Now that I have addressed your issue, you should return the courtesy and address mine:
1. You appear to be claiming more expertise that the Administration with regards to the issue of a unified Iraq, and I would like to know why you think that.
2. You and the Democrat leadership appear to be undermining the Administration’s efforts to achieve it’s stated goals, and I would like to know why.

no. you dodged my issue by spewing a smoke screen or word games. Try again:

How long are you willing to continue to attempt to make sunnis and shiites live together peacefully in a multicultural democracy in the territory we call Iraq?

I claim NO more expertise than the administration. I have an opinion. I stated it, and I stated the basis for it. Clearly, you disagree....and on at least one key point, you don't really disagree with me, you merely disagree with my right to voice my disagreement, preferring, it would seem, to silently witness attempts to institute what you believe to be bad foreign policy rather than speaking up. THAT would fit my definition of a manliness deficit on your part.

As I said, I think that the administration's stated goals are stupid and unachievable. I have a desire to affect a change in American foreign policy by using the ballot box. That is my right and my duty as an American.

red states rule

04-24-2008, 05:36 AM

Dems continue to push for surrender and appeasement to terrorists. Not only that, Dems are loading a war funding bill with pork

Nothing much ever changes with the Dems

Pelosi plots three-step Iraq dance

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is rapidly pulling together a carefully orchestrated plan for what looks to be the last Iraq war supplemental before November’s election: Let Democrats take separate, conscience-clearing votes on troop withdrawal timelines and economic stimulus proposals, then negotiate a deal with the Senate and the White House that would combine money for the war with some modest domestic spending.

The complicated choreography — sketched out by lawmakers and congressional aides involved in the ongoing discussions — could involve a dance around a veto; White House Budget Director Jim Nussle warned again Wednesday that the president will veto any bill that exceeds his $108 billion request.

Pelosi and other Democratic leaders are thinking through their moves in a series of behind-the-scenes meetings this week. Their goals: maximize the political impact of votes, paint the White House and the Republicans as intransigent on the war and the economy, but still provide funding for the troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Lawmakers and aides in both chambers caution that nothing is settled and there is still vigorous debate within the Democratic Caucus about how to proceed. But Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said that Democrats understand that the supplemental may provide their best, last chance for accomplishing anything on economic issues.

“This may be the only legislation that has sufficient leverage,” he said. “This is the last defining bill.”

All the Democratic hand-wringing amuses Republicans, who say they have just one goal in what amounts to the final substantive congressional debate on the war this year: “No pork, no surrender,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

for the complete article

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9848.html

glockmail

04-24-2008, 09:00 AM

no. you dodged my issue by spewing a smoke screen or word games. Try again:

How long are you willing to continue to attempt to make sunnis and shiites live together peacefully in a multicultural democracy in the territory we call Iraq?

I claim NO more expertise than the administration. I have an opinion. I stated it, and I stated the basis for it. Clearly, you disagree....and on at least one key point, you don't really disagree with me, you merely disagree with my right to voice my disagreement, preferring, it would seem, to silently witness attempts to institute what you believe to be bad foreign policy rather than speaking up. THAT would fit my definition of a manliness deficit on your part.

As I said, I think that the administration's stated goals are stupid and unachievable. I have a desire to affect a change in American foreign policy by using the ballot box. That is my right and my duty as an American. So now JFK's philosophy is a word game to you. My how far Democrats have fallen.

To answer our question more directly, if it is in America’s interests, I advocate paying any price or bearing any burden.

You admit that you have no more expertise than the Administration. Yes you are entitled to your opinion no matter how misinformed. However you never addressed my question as to why the Democrat leadership appears to be undermining the Administration’s efforts to achieve it’s stated goals.

red states rule

04-24-2008, 09:09 AM

retiredman

04-24-2008, 10:10 AM

So now JFK's philosophy is a word game to you. My how far Democrats have fallen.

To answer our question more directly, if it is in America’s interests, I advocate paying any price or bearing any burden.

You admit that you have no more expertise than the Administration. Yes you are entitled to your opinion no matter how misinformed. However you never addressed my question as to why the Democrat leadership appears to be undermining the Administration’s efforts to achieve it’s stated goals.

I think it is the duty of the loyal opposition to affect a change in our foreign policy when they feel it is poorly designed and fatally flawed in its inept execution and it is the duty of the loyal opposition to do their very best to keep the administration from driving the ship of state up onto the rocks and shoals.

Again....you yourself doubt the ability of sunnis and shiites to live together. How many decades would you suggest we continue an effort which you yourself question the validity of? Are we better served by spending twenty more years trying to get them to live together before finally coming to the realization that they really don't want to and won't do so regardless of the blood and treasure we throw at them?

Would you sit quietly in your seat on a bus when you could clearly see that the bus driver was steering the bus over a cliff, or would you try to take action to change the direction of the bus?

glockmail

04-24-2008, 10:49 AM

I think it is the duty of the loyal opposition to affect a change in our foreign policy when they feel it is poorly designed and fatally flawed in its inept execution and it is the duty of the loyal opposition to do their very best to keep the administration from driving the ship of state up onto the rocks and shoals.

Again....you yourself doubt the ability of sunnis and shiites to live together. How many decades would you suggest we continue an effort which you yourself question the validity of? Are we better served by spending twenty more years trying to get them to live together before finally coming to the realization that they really don't want to and won't do so regardless of the blood and treasure we throw at them?

Would you sit quietly in your seat on a bus when you could clearly see that the bus driver was steering the bus over a cliff, or would you try to take action to change the direction of the bus?
Your analogy is way over the top and not worth commenting on.

With regards to the reality of Iraq, I repeat again: if it is in America’s interests, I advocate paying any price or bearing any burden.

You have now admitted that the Democrat leadership not only appears to be, but is actively working towards undermining the Administration’s efforts to achieve it’s stated goals. This is in spite of the fact that the Democrats authorized the Administrations actions in the first place. How is that not treason?

As I stated before: ‘Real men may disagree, but they don’t let Party goals trump National interests. Real men finish what they have started, regardless of any disagreement of whether or not they should have started.’

Let’s say that the Democrats were successful, and our troops were required to leave Iraq immediately. As we saw in Vietnam, Rwanda, and Bosnia, that is likely to result in the slaughter of millions of innocent people. That is an undeniable fact. Why would the Democrats advocate that?

retiredman

04-24-2008, 11:14 AM

Your analogy is way over the top and not worth commenting on.
With regards to the reality of Iraq, I repeat again: if it is in America’s interests, I advocate paying any price or bearing any burden.

You have now admitted that the Democrat leadership not only appears to be, but is actively working towards undermining the Administration’s efforts to achieve it’s stated goals. This is in spite of the fact that the Democrats authorized the Administrations actions in the first place. How is that not treason?

As I stated before: ‘Real men may disagree, but they don’t let Party goals trump National interests. Real men finish what they have started, regardless of any disagreement of whether or not they should have started.’

Let’s say that the Democrats were successful, and our troops were required to leave Iraq immediately. As we saw in Vietnam, Rwanda, and Bosnia, that is likely to result in the slaughter of millions of innocent people. That is an undeniable fact. Why would the Democrats advocate that?

My analogy is valid. you are just afraid of it. real men don't run away from arguments. If you were a member of congress and you believed that the president was engaging in foreign policy misadventures that put our country at risk, would you sit silently or would you speak up and attempt to influence the administration, through the political process, to change course?

you state: "if it is in America’s interests, I advocate paying any price or bearing any burden." In theory, I agree with that statement. Unlike you, I would temper it with reality. If president Bush determined that it was in America's interests to overcome the law of gravity, I would not agree with him and would not advocate paying any price or bearing any burden in an attempt to do so. I happen to fervently believe that trying to make Iraq into a unified multicultural democracy is a fool's errand.

Treason? How IS it treason? It is not seeking to overthrow the government. It is seeking to affect change in our foreign policy through the legal processes set up in our constitution. Treason??? Bullshit. Use of that word is nothing but hyperbolic rhetoric.

An undeniable fact? how can a likelihood be a fact?

I can just as easily say that it is an undeniable fact that, regardless of when we leave Iraq and how tamped down the violence may be, the minute we leave, all hell will break loose, the well trained Iraqi army will disintegrate into two well trained sectarian militias, and the carnage will explode.

glockmail

04-24-2008, 12:17 PM

My analogy is valid. you are just afraid of it. real men don't run away from arguments. If you were a member of congress and you believed that the president was engaging in foreign policy misadventures that put our country at risk, would you sit silently or would you speak up and attempt to influence the administration, through the political process, to change course?

you state: "if it is in America’s interests, I advocate paying any price or bearing any burden." In theory, I agree with that statement. Unlike you, I would temper it with reality. If president Bush determined that it was in America's interests to overcome the law of gravity, I would not agree with him and would not advocate paying any price or bearing any burden in an attempt to do so. I happen to fervently believe that trying to make Iraq into a unified multicultural democracy is a fool's errand.

Treason? How IS it treason? It is not seeking to overthrow the government. It is seeking to affect change in our foreign policy through the legal processes set up in our constitution. Treason??? Bullshit. Use of that word is nothing but hyperbolic rhetoric.

An undeniable fact? how can a likelihood be a fact?

I can just as easily say that it is an undeniable fact that, regardless of when we leave Iraq and how tamped down the violence may be, the minute we leave, all hell will break loose, the well trained Iraqi army will disintegrate into two well trained sectarian militias, and the carnage will explode.

On your first analogy: The war is not a like a bus about to go over a cliff. The bus has one driver, while the war has many knowledgeable professionals involved; “off a cliff” alludes to complete destruction of the entire population and infrastructure, and we are talking about a small war in a small foreign country.

Your second analogy about the laws of gravity is even more ludicrous.

It is my “opinion” that the Democrat leadership has gone well past the acceptable bounds of political discourse in order to undermine the war effort and in effect, have given aid and comfort to our enemy. From John Kerry’s “Stuck in Iraq”, to Ted Kennedy’s “lies, lies, lies”, these antics have been acknowledged by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: “I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media.” http://patriotpost.us/news/zawahiri.asp

As I stated previously, it is an undeniable fact that our immediate withdrawal from Iraq is likely to result in the slaughter of millions of innocent people. In your response you agree with that assessment. So I ask you again, Why would the Democrats advocate that?

retiredman

04-24-2008, 01:21 PM

On your first analogy: The war is not a like a bus about to go over a cliff. The bus has one driver, while the war has many knowledgeable professionals involved; “off a cliff” alludes to complete destruction of the entire population and infrastructure, and we are talking about a small war in a small foreign country.

Your second analogy about the laws of gravity is even more ludicrous.

It is my “opinion” that the Democrat leadership has gone well past the acceptable bounds of political discourse in order to undermine the war effort and in effect, have given aid and comfort to our enemy. From John Kerry’s “Stuck in Iraq”, to Ted Kennedy’s “lies, lies, lies”, these antics have been acknowledged by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: “I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media.” http://patriotpost.us/news/zawahiri.asp

As I stated previously, it is an undeniable fact that our immediate withdrawal from Iraq is likely to result in the slaughter of millions of innocent people. In your response you agree with that assessment. So I ask you again, Why would the Democrats advocate that?

the president is the captain of the ship of state. He sets the course. I disagree with the course. I feel as if he is heading the ship of state onto the rocks and shoals. He has an able crew who is keeping the various systems of that ship operating correctly, but the course is wrong. The war in Iraq is not merely about a small foreign country, it is indicative of the failed direction of this president. As a patriot, I will speak loudly and try to get the captain removed from his command prior to the ship running aground. I will try to get the captain to slow his speed to further delay what I see as an impending collision.

Your opinion about the democrats is certainly yours to have...but nothing they have done has been anything that is not sanctioned and authorized by the constitution. To call them traitors for disagreeing with the president is, itself morally treasonable and servile.

And again... how can a likelihood by an undeniable fact??? I do not agree that it is an undeniable fact that slaughter will occur. I think it might very well occur and if it does, it will happen, IMHO, whether we stay there ten months or ten years. The only difference will be the number of lives WE lose and the treasure WE lose and the allies WE lose and the world prestige WE lose and the time WE lose in our efforts to fight and defeat Islamic extremism. If Iraqis want democracy...or three democracies, they will have to fight for it. No one handed us our freedom. We should not spill one more drop of American blood in a misguided effort to hand them something that will be worthless to them without their having to fight for it in the first place.

theHawk

04-24-2008, 01:35 PM

And again... how can a likelihood by an undeniable fact??? I do not agree that it is an undeniable fact that slaughter will occur. I think it might very well occur and if it does, it will happen, IMHO, whether we stay there ten months or ten years. The only difference will be the number of lives WE lose and the treasure WE lose and the allies WE lose and the world prestige WE lose and the time WE lose in our efforts to fight and defeat Islamic extremism. If Iraqis want democracy...or three democracies, they will have to fight for it. No one handed us our freedom. We should not spill one more drop of American blood in a misguided effort to hand them something that will be worthless to them without their having to fight for it in the first place.

I can agree with that. I didn't have a problem with starting the war in Iraq. And I still say it was a damned good thing to get Saddam out and dead rather than leaving him there. We accomplished all of the goals of Operation Iraqi Freedom. We've given them the chance to form their own democracy, whether or not they can sustain it is up to them.

retiredman

04-24-2008, 01:38 PM

I can agree with that. I didn't have a problem with starting the war in Iraq. And I still say it was a damned good thing to get Saddam out and dead rather than leaving him there. We accomplished all of the goals of Operation Iraqi Freedom. We've given them the chance to form their own democracy, whether or not they can sustain it is up to them.

thank you for that.

LuvRPgrl

04-24-2008, 02:59 PM

thank you for that.

HA ! He really didnt even back anything you said in your post.

As for GLOCK and your CLAIM he is dodging your question, the premise of your question is false, therefore it cant be answered.

retiredman

04-24-2008, 03:07 PM

HA ! He really didnt even back anything you said in your post.

As for GLOCK and your CLAIM he is dodging your question, the premise of your question is false, therefore it cant be answered.

so..when he said "I can agree with that"...you think i meant that he DIDN'T back the quote he posted????

What the fuck do you think that:
"We've given them the chance to form their own democracy, whether or not they can sustain it is up to them".
means???

The premise is not false at all...you all just refuse to discuss how long you will beat the dead horse of a Iraqi multicultural pipedream. You have refused to acknowledge that you might be wrong and the Iraqis might never WANT to have a big group hug and sing Kumbaya no matter how many years we spend teaching them the words.

Yurt

04-24-2008, 03:20 PM

fuck fuck fuck

desperation is clear when people must resort to TYPING the word fuck over and over

retiredman

04-24-2008, 03:37 PM

fuck fuck fuck

desperation is clear when people must resort to TYPING the word fuck over and over

oh... the polite squad has shown up. how cute. how droll. Where exactly am I showing "desperation", counselor?

glockmail

04-24-2008, 04:31 PM

the president is the captain of the ship of state. He sets the course. I disagree with the course. I feel as if he is heading the ship of state onto the rocks and shoals. He has an able crew who is keeping the various systems of that ship operating correctly, but the course is wrong. The war in Iraq is not merely about a small foreign country, it is indicative of the failed direction of this president. As a patriot, I will speak loudly and try to get the captain removed from his command prior to the ship running aground. I will try to get the captain to slow his speed to further delay what I see as an impending collision.

Your opinion about the democrats is certainly yours to have...but nothing they have done has been anything that is not sanctioned and authorized by the constitution. To call them traitors for disagreeing with the president is, itself morally treasonable and servile.

And again... how can a likelihood by an undeniable fact??? I do not agree that it is an undeniable fact that slaughter will occur. I think it might very well occur and if it does, it will happen, IMHO, whether we stay there ten months or ten years. The only difference will be the number of lives WE lose and the treasure WE lose and the allies WE lose and the world prestige WE lose and the time WE lose in our efforts to fight and defeat Islamic extremism. If Iraqis want democracy...or three democracies, they will have to fight for it. No one handed us our freedom. We should not spill one more drop of American blood in a misguided effort to hand them something that will be worthless to them without their having to fight for it in the first place.

I’m really losing patience with your ridiculous analogies. First a bus, then gravity, now a boat. They are silly and serve no purpose. Stick to reality.

As I said previously, the Democrats have given aid and comfort to our enemy, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi confirms that. That’s treason and evidence of it. I have no problem with political discourse but this has gone well past Constitutional authority and congressional privilege.

Stop pretending that you don’t know how to read. I’ll state it a third time: it is an undeniable fact that our immediate withdrawal from Iraq is likely to result in the slaughter of millions of innocent people. You have stated twice now that you agree with that assessment, so stop trying to play semantic games.

I’ll ask you a third time: Why would the Democrats advocate that?

retiredman

04-24-2008, 05:18 PM

I’m really losing patience with your ridiculous analogies. First a bus, then gravity, now a boat. They are silly and serve no purpose. Stick to reality.

As I said previously, the Democrats have given aid and comfort to our enemy, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi confirms that. That’s treason and evidence of it. I have no problem with political discourse but this has gone well past Constitutional authority and congressional privilege.

Stop pretending that you don’t know how to read. I’ll state it a third time: it is an undeniable fact that our immediate withdrawal from Iraq is likely to result in the slaughter of millions of innocent people. You have stated twice now that you agree with that assessment, so stop trying to play semantic games.

I’ll ask you a third time: Why would the Democrats advocate that?

speech is not comfort to the enemy. grow up....and quit running away from valid analogies just because the subject matter is uncomfortable to you.

Re: your question: I "advocate" nothing of the sort.

semantics? How can you claim that a likelihood can be an undeniable fact.

It is an undeniable fact that it may rain tomorrow. How stupid a grammatical construct is that????

And when will you quit running away from my points and show some balls and answer one once in a while?

Iraqis are grown ups. They do not need us to hold their hand for the next decade. Either they want democracy or they don't. If they don't...it ain't MY problem... it ain't America's problem.

Why would republicans advocate spending American treasure and spilling American blood for an undetermined amount of time on the unfounded hunch that sunnis and shiites in Iraq would decide that THIS century might be a good one to stop hating one another?

glockmail

04-24-2008, 07:34 PM

speech is not comfort to the enemy. grow up....and quit running away from valid analogies just because the subject matter is uncomfortable to you.

Re: your question: I "advocate" nothing of the sort.

semantics? How can you claim that a likelihood can be an undeniable fact.

It is an undeniable fact that it may rain tomorrow. How stupid a grammatical construct is that????

And when will you quit running away from my points and show some balls and answer one once in a while?

Iraqis are grown ups. They do not need us to hold their hand for the next decade. Either they want democracy or they don't. If they don't...it ain't MY problem... it ain't America's problem.

Why would republicans advocate spending American treasure and spilling American blood for an undetermined amount of time on the unfounded hunch that sunnis and shiites in Iraq would decide that THIS century might be a good one to stop hating one another?

You must be drinking again. So much for having a rational discussion with you.

red states rule

04-24-2008, 07:36 PM

You must be drinking again. So much for having a rational discussion with you.

You are just now finding that out?

retiredman

04-24-2008, 07:45 PM

You must be drinking again. So much for having a rational discussion with you.

sober as a judge.

nice dodge

glockmail

04-24-2008, 07:46 PM

You are just now finding that out? Prior to the last post he was his typical evasive. In the last post he was stuck on stoopid. Disappointing, even for him, and not worth responding to.

red states rule

04-24-2008, 07:47 PM

sober as a judge.

nice dodge

Sober as Judge Ted (hic) Kennedy driving home over a bridge

retiredman

04-24-2008, 07:49 PM

Sober as Judge Ted (hic) Kennedy driving home over a bridge
pointless insult

red states rule

04-24-2008, 07:56 PM

pointless insult

To you perhaps - but ot is an accurate description

retiredman

04-24-2008, 07:59 PM

To you perhaps - but ot is an accurate description

no..it's not. I am drinking decaf green tea. you are just insulting for no purpose. go play somewhere else.

red states rule

04-24-2008, 08:00 PM

no..it's not. I am drinking decaf green tea. you are just insulting for no purpose. go play somewhere else.

laced with Obama Kool Aide as usual

retiredman

04-24-2008, 08:04 PM

laced with Obama Kool Aide as usual

pointless insult. grow up. let's talk about Iraq if you dare. if not...fuck off.

glockmail

04-24-2008, 08:18 PM

pointless insult. grow up. let's talk about Iraq if you dare. if not...fuck off. Classic MFM. Ironic, insulting, and immature. :lol:

red states rule

04-24-2008, 08:20 PM

Classic MFM. Ironic, insulting, and immature. :lol:

and those are his good points :laugh2:

retiredman

04-24-2008, 08:21 PM

Classic MFM. Ironic, insulting, and immature. :lol:

run away. you do that well. Let me ask you again:

Why would republicans advocate spending American treasure and spilling American blood for an undetermined amount of time on the unfounded hunch that sunnis and shiites in Iraq would decide that THIS century might be a good one to stop hating one another?

show some balls, glock. answer the question and don't duck and dodge.

retiredman

04-24-2008, 08:23 PM

and those are his good points :laugh2:

you two should get a room so we don't have to witness your wiping each other's jism off your chins.:lol:

glockmail

04-24-2008, 08:30 PM

run away. you do that well. Let me ask you again:

Why would republicans advocate spending American treasure and spilling American blood for an undetermined amount of time on the unfounded hunch that sunnis and shiites in Iraq would decide that THIS century might be a good one to stop hating one another?

show some balls, glock. answer the question and don't duck and dodge.
After putting up with your dodging my question three times it has become quite clear that a rational discussion is beyond your understanding.

retiredman

04-24-2008, 08:30 PM

After putting up with your dodging my question three times it has become quite clear that a rational discussion is beyond your understanding.

I answered your question. answer mine.

LuvRPgrl

04-25-2008, 01:09 AM

so..when he said "I can agree with that"...you think i meant that he DIDN'T back the quote he posted????

What the fuck do you think that:
"We've given them the chance to form their own democracy, whether or not they can sustain it is up to them".
means???

The premise is not false at all...you all just refuse to discuss how long you will beat the dead horse of a Iraqi multicultural pipedream. You have refused to acknowledge that you might be wrong and the Iraqis might never WANT to have a big group hug and sing Kumbaya no matter how many years we spend teaching them the words.

Your premise includes the statement that "IF slaughter does occur, it will happen in one year from now, or 10 years from now...so on and so forth"

Since no one can predict the future, that is a hypothetical at best, and a false premise at worst.

LuvRPgrl

04-25-2008, 01:15 AM

oh... the polite squad has shown up. how cute. how droll. Where exactly am I showing "desperation", counselor?

HE JUST TOLD YOU, YOU DUMB FUCK.

"BY USING THE TERM FUCK, OVER AND OVER"

And his complaint isnt that you use it(which would make him part of the polite squad-not that there is anything wrong with that), but that you use it over and over....

LuvRPgrl

04-25-2008, 01:18 AM

pointless insult

to a pointless statement

retiredman

04-25-2008, 05:50 AM

Your premise includes the statement that "IF slaughter does occur, it will happen in one year from now, or 10 years from now...so on and so forth"

Since no one can predict the future, that is a hypothetical at best, and a false premise at worst.

and my point, and I think that Hawk concurs, is that I really don't care WHEN OR IF Iraqis start slaughtering one another. If they want democracy, let them fight for it. If they want to slaughter one another instead, let them do so without spilling gallons on American blood in the process.

retiredman

04-25-2008, 05:52 AM

HE JUST TOLD YOU, YOU DUMB FUCK.

"BY USING THE TERM FUCK, OVER AND OVER"

And his complaint isnt that you use it(which would make him part of the polite squad-not that there is anything wrong with that), but that you use it over and over....

and yet, I can honestly say that my using "fuck" is not brought on on heightened by any sense of desperation whatsoever. Hence my question.

jimnyc

04-26-2008, 05:19 PM

Offensive posts split into their own thread and left in the cage. Original thread placed back where it belongs.

stang56k

04-30-2008, 11:17 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080430/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_080428200059

BAGHDAD - The killings of three U.S. soldiers in separate attacks in Baghdad pushed the American death toll for April up to 47, making it the deadliest month since September.

LuvRPgrl

05-04-2008, 01:57 PM

Offensive posts split into their own thread and left in the cage. Original thread placed back where it belongs.
test

Roomy

05-11-2008, 04:17 AM

What are you winning exactly?Serious question.

actsnoblemartin

05-11-2008, 05:22 AM

The longest thread!

What are you winning exactly?Serious question.

semi liberal girl

05-23-2008, 01:46 PM

What are you winning exactly?Serious question.

Our troops are killing and capturing the terrorists who want all of us dead

Even the ones who are pushing for surrender and appeasement. As a reward,they will kill you guys last

actsnoblemartin

02-24-2009, 09:09 PM

because they're scared

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?

American troops are winning
By Pete Hegseth
December 11, 2007

In May and June, overall attacks in Iraq were at their highest levels since the war began, monthly coalition deaths were near an all-time high, and violence against civilians was still at staggering levels. To most observers, the war in Iraq was not going well.

At the same time, members of Congress were already declaring the "surge" a failure and stepping up their "timeline for withdrawal" rhetoric. Anti-war Democrats, and a few Republicans, cited "realities on the ground" as compelling evidence to call for an immediate, or more nuanced "phased," end to the war.

These same "realities," also emboldening anti-war groups to declare an "Iraq Summer," during which they would finally crush domestic support for the war and force Congress to de-fund the mission there. MoveOn.org and others dispatched operatives around the country and harassed members of Congress.

Truthfully, as we now know, these "realities" on the ground were the unfortunate birth pangs of the new counter-insurgency strategy being implemented by Gen. David Petraeus. Some on Capitol Hill understood this fact in June, and their courage in those dark days kept Congress from prematurely declaring defeat in Iraq.

In June, the full compliment of surge forces had just arrived, hence the violence levels hadn't yet ebbed; by June, American forces had moved off of large bases and defensive positions, and into an offensive posture among the population, hence the initially high casualty rate; and in June, al Qaeda had yet to felt the full shock of the surge, hence their continue brutality.

But that was then, and this is now; and Iraq in December 2007 is a drastically different place than Iraq in June 2007. Overall attack levels are now at the lowest levels since 2005, monthly coalition deaths are nearing an all-time low, and violence against Iraqi civilians has been reduced by more than 60 percent, according to the anti-war site icasualties.org

However, the more things change in Iraq, the more they stay the same on Capitol Hill. For the past month, with a few off-handed exceptions, Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill has largely refused to acknowledge success. They are stuck in the talking points of June, and stuck on a narrative of failure.

Despite the incredible progress made by our military — which has opened the door for real and sustainable political progress in Iraq — the Democratic leadership continues to insist that we de-fund the war and bring the troops home no matter what. Beholden to entrenched and noisy anti-war interest groups, the Democrat leadership in Washington seems willing to cut-off much needed funding, placing our brave troops in harms way.

For the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071211/EDITORIAL/112110007/1013