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

[retiredman]

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

Its not on their archive: "Every day, the case mounts against Saddam" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/ma...h=10&year=2001

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

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

I guess I was wrong.

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

[glockmail]

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

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

I guess I was wrong.

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

I found the link.

So what does this have to do with the OP?

[retiredman]

I found the link.

So what does this have to do with the OP?

our discussion had long moved past the OP.

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

[glockmail]

our discussion had long moved past the OP.

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

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

[retiredman]

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

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

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

get it?

[glockmail]

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

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

get it?

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

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

[retiredman]

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

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

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


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

[glockmail]

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

....

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

[retiredman]

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

the fact that you have a gunrack full of firearms at home will not make your decision to hand a rifle to the gang of homocidal maniacs seeking to kill you a wise one.

[glockmail]

the fact that you have a gunrack full of firearms at home will not make your decision to hand a rifle to the gang of homocidal maniacs seeking to kill you a wise one.

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

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

[retiredman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bullypulpit]

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

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

[red states rule]

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

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

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

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

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

[retiredman]

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

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

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

[glockmail]

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

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

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

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

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