# Surge this!



## Rosotar

More evidence that Bush's "surge" is not working.

Does anybody think Bush will finally be held accountable for yet another in a long list of failures?

Will people like RSR continue to make excuses for Bush in a few months when it becomes painfully obvious that all this "surge" rhetoric was just another stalling technique by the Bushies to avoid having to admit that they started a war they can't win?

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17087215.htm

RSR may not give a damn how many American soldiers have to die while Bush figures out a way to save his legacy but some of us do!


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> More evidence that Bush's "surge" is not working.
> 
> Does anybody think Bush will finally be held accountable for yet another in a long list of failures?
> 
> Will people like RSR continue to make excuses for Bush in a few months when it becomes painfully obvious that all this "surge" rhetoric was just another stalling technique by the Bushies to avoid having to admit that they started a war they can't win?
> 
> http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17087215.htm
> 
> RSR may not give a damn how many American soldiers have to die while Bush figures out a way to save his legacy but some of us do!





We can do without the anti war lefts support and suggestions


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0anRyWT9nQg[/ame]


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> We can do without the anti war lefts support and suggestions
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0anRyWT9nQg



and you obviously can do without the truth.  You still claiming that America has seen a 60% decrease in casualties because of the surge????


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> and you obviously can do without the truth.  You still claiming that America has seen a 60% decrease in casualties because of the surge????



I see how the anti war left shows their "support" for the troops

Tha really has pised off the libs around here


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I see how the anti war left shows their "support" for the troops
> 
> Tha really has pised off the libs around here



just answer the question:  are you still trying to sell that lie that american casualties have decreased by 60% ?  yes or no?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> just answer the question:  are you still trying to sell that lie that american casualties have decreased by 60% ?  yes or no?



are you sure you were not in the video?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> are you sure you were not in the video?



why are you so afraid to support your own statements?

you really are pathetic.


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> just answer the question:  are you still trying to sell that lie that american casualties have decreased by 60% ?  yes or no?




yes or no?


----------



## maineman

*RSR still wants everyone to believe that things are going just ducky in the "surge".... that it is a top knotch success...that we are winning this thing, dammit!  Unfortuantely, the real stories from the area paint a much gloomier assessment - and the assessment is painted in blood*


http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10119454.html

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=179789&Sn=WORL&IssueID=30031

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/CBS_News_Violence_suggests_Iraq_surge_0419.html

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=e5d35b37-ade2-4aa1-9c21-58283d4bcc7d

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1901877.htm

*and that just scratches the surface*


----------



## maineman

come on RSR.... tell us again how American casualties have "decreased by 60%" because of the "success" of the "surge".


----------



## sitarro

maineman said:


> *RSR still wants everyone to believe that things are going just ducky in the "surge".... that it is a top knotch success...that we are winning this thing, dammit!  Unfortuantely, the real stories from the area paint a much gloomier assessment - and the assessment is painted in blood*
> 
> 
> http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10119454.html
> 
> http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=179789&Sn=WORL&IssueID=30031
> 
> http://rawstory.com/news/2007/CBS_News_Violence_suggests_Iraq_surge_0419.html
> 
> http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=e5d35b37-ade2-4aa1-9c21-58283d4bcc7d
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1901877.htm
> 
> *and that just scratches the surface*



Great sources Popeye, where are your personal messages from your hero Osama you piece of shit(they would be about as credible)? The U.S.Navy is a lot stronger and certainly better staffed without shitheads like you, they probably have a holiday to celebrate the great day that you jumped ship. Your trust of biased sources obviously opposed to anything done by this Administration and the United States that you pretend to love shows just how full of shit you are. Where are U.S. intelligence reports, ones investigated by our people not our enemies?


----------



## Rosotar

sitarro said:


> Great sources Popeye, where are your personal messages from your hero Osama you piece of shit(they would be about as credible)? ?



There's no need to loose a civil tongue sitarro......

But if you must let me tell you that I have served my country honorably and believe me....I know frightened, bogus, pseudo-patriotic drivel when I hear it and I'm looking at it right now. You're a phony.

BTW I notice you take exception to a few points that have been made in this thread but you fail to offer any of your own opinions in rebuttal.

Why is that?



sitarro said:


> The U.S.Navy is a lot stronger and certainly better staffed without shitheads like you, they probably have a holiday to celebrate the great day that you jumped ship.



You need to learn to have respect for those of us that have served your country son.

Quit sounding like some spoiled rotten, yuppie teenager.

I'd love to have the opportunity to slap some of the stupid right out of you but unfortunately this is just a cyber chat.




sitarro said:


> Your trust of biased sources obviously opposed to anything done by this Administration and the United States that you pretend to love shows just how full of shit you are. Where are U.S. intelligence reports, ones investigated by our people not our enemies?



Why don't you STFU and stick to what you know kid!

You wouldn't be able to recognize real bias if it bit you in the ass!


----------



## Dirt McGirt

sitarro said:


> Great sources Popeye, where are your personal messages from your hero Osama you piece of shit(they would be about as credible)? The U.S.Navy is a lot stronger and certainly better staffed without shitheads like you, they probably have a holiday to celebrate the great day that you jumped ship. Your trust of biased sources obviously opposed to anything done by this Administration and the United States that you pretend to love shows just how full of shit you are. Where are U.S. intelligence reports, ones investigated by our people not our enemies?


Since when do shithead baggage handlers get to question the service of military retirees?

Not only are you a loser who can't operate a camera but you're a fucking liar as well....



			
				Sitarro said:
			
		

> *
> Maineman, you will never hear another thing from me relating to your extensive tour of service to our country except thank you, that is a promise.*


http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=47560&page=12

Wow. A piece of crap like Shitarro goes back on his word. Not surprising.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> *RSR still wants everyone to believe that things are going just ducky in the "surge".... that it is a top knotch success...that we are winning this thing, dammit!  Unfortuantely, the real stories from the area paint a much gloomier assessment - and the assessment is painted in blood*
> 
> 
> http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10119454.html
> 
> http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=179789&Sn=WORL&IssueID=30031
> 
> http://rawstory.com/news/2007/CBS_News_Violence_suggests_Iraq_surge_0419.html
> 
> http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=e5d35b37-ade2-4aa1-9c21-58283d4bcc7d
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1901877.htm
> 
> *and that just scratches the surface*




We never hear about these heros

The liberal media seldom speaks a words about them 

Find your state and take a look

Libs are telling these men and women they are losers and they can't win


http://www.defenselink.mil/heroes/50heroes/ME2.html


----------



## maineman

sitarro said:


> Great sources Popeye, where are your personal messages from your hero Osama you piece of shit(they would be about as credible)? The U.S.Navy is a lot stronger and certainly better staffed without shitheads like you, they probably have a holiday to celebrate the great day that you jumped ship. Your trust of biased sources obviously opposed to anything done by this Administration and the United States that you pretend to love shows just how full of shit you are. Where are U.S. intelligence reports, ones investigated by our people not our enemies?



Why does everyone on the right use this exact same tactic?  Why, when patriotic americans who HAVE served their country question the wisdom of this administration's war in Iraq, are their loylaty to country always questioned?  Why does the fact that I happen to think that the "surge" was an idiotic idea mean that Osama is somehow my hero?  Why does shitarro feel compelled to denigrate my service to this country simply because I question the continued posting of "rosy scenario" and glowing progress reports about what is clearly a failed venture?  For shitarro to suggest that MY sources are biased, but the ones that he and his koolaid soaked pals continue to tout are UNbiased is ridiculous.  These are news sources from the middle east...NOT the Washington Times...NOT Faux News....NOT newsbusters.... they report from the area that the surge is not working.  And because I bring them to folks' attention, I am somehow a traitor, but the assholes who lied about Saddam's connection to 9/11, LIED about his stockpiles of WMD's... invaded, conquered, and occupied a nation that was not our enemy costing us 28K dead and wounded Americans, a trillion dollars, and the loss of stature amongst the family of nation and the loss of goodwill of much of the wolrd ...THOSE assholes are, somehow, HEROES?  

I firmly believe that the real traitors are those republicans who value party and president over the best interests of their country.... they are - like shitarro - most foul.


----------



## maineman

and RSR...when will YOU ever retract your claim that American casualties have decreased by 60% because of the success of the surge?

Can we expect that retraction sometime soon?


----------



## red states rule

I knew you ignore the hero link

Even the hero from Main

I wonder how he would respond to your hope for failure in his mission


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I knew you ignore the hero link
> 
> Even the hero from Main
> 
> I wonder how he would respond to your hope for failure in his mission




I don't hope for the failure of his mission.  why must you lie?

tell me again about the 60% decrease in casualties.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I don't hope for the failure of his mission.  why must you lie?
> 
> tell me again about the 60% decrease in casualties.



You would send white flags to him and his men in your CARE package


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> You would send white flags to him and his men in your CARE package



polly wanna cracker?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> polly wanna cracker?



MM is losing - he is stuck on repeat again


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> MM is losing - he is stuck on repeat again



no...I have just been trying to get you to back up a claim you have made about the surge...and you seem intent on avoiding it.... you are the one running from your own words here.

you are the one who claimed that american casualties had decreased by 60% because of the success of the surge.... and you refuse to back that bullshit up with any facts.... it is clearly YOU that are losing and losing badly.  and nto very gracefully either.


----------



## red states rule

The surge is working - much to the dismay of of the left

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0320200..._____opedcolumnists_gordon_cucullu.htm?page=0


----------



## maineman

that press release is a month old.   


will you ever back up your claim that America has seen casualties decrease by 60% because of the success of the surge?


----------



## maineman

hey shitarro...gonna come on back with your fucking tail between your pansyass shaved legs and explain what the fuck that "promise" meant? 

you know...this one:

Maineman, you will never hear another thing from me relating to your extensive tour of service to our country except thank you, that is a promise.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> that press release is a month old.
> 
> 
> will you ever back up your claim that America has seen casualties decrease by 60% because of the success of the surge?



Should have known you would dismiss Gen Petraeus's assesment

Libs vote for him -  now they do not want to give him the tools to win

Now they say the war is lost.  Nothing like libs boosting the troops morale


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Should have known you would dismiss Gen Petraeus's assesment
> 
> Libs vote for him -  now they do not want to give him the tools to win
> 
> Now they say the war is lost.  Nothing like libs boosting the troops morale



I only point out that it is a month old...the surge has failed miserably since then... American casaulties have NOT decreased by 60% as you continue to claim..... when will you retract that idiotic claim?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I only point out that it is a month old...the surge has failed miserably since then... American casaulties have NOT decreased by 60% as you continue to claim..... when will you retract that idiotic claim?





Libs have a strange way of "supporting" the troops

The terrorists are hoping libs continue their dedicated efforts. It will make their ultimate goals much easier to achieve


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Libs have a strange way of "supporting" the troops
> 
> The terrorists are hoping libs continue their dedicated efforts. It will make their ultimate goals much easier to achieve




I don't think that *lying* about what is happening in Iraq is supporting the troops.  do you?

so please...once and for all.... either back up your claims of a 60% decrease in American casualties, or retract them.

I'll wait.


----------



## maineman

I notice that shitarro has stopped by to visit a few times since he stepped on his dick here and proved what a scumbag lying sack of shit he is, but oddly enough, he has not had the courage to actually SAY anything since then!


----------



## Diuretic

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070421/ap_on_go_pr_wh/iraq_troop_boost



> WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is laying the groundwork to extend the U.S. troop buildup in Iraq. At the same time, the administration is warning Iraqi leaders that the boost in forces could be reversed if political reconciliation is not evident by summer.



I'd say the evidence is mixed at best.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I don't think that *lying* about what is happening in Iraq is supporting the troops.  do you?
> 
> so please...once and for all.... either back up your claims of a 60% decrease in American casualties, or retract them.
> 
> I'll wait.



When I see all the "support" Dems are giving the troops - I think of Tokyo Rose and Neville Chamberlain


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> When I see all the "support" Dems are giving the troops - I think of Tokyo Rose and Neville Chamberlain



you equate "lying" about their situation to protect your president with "supporting" them.  that is really treasonous.


when will you ever retract your lies about a 60% decrease?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you equate "lying" about their situation to protect your president with "supporting" them.  that is really treasonous.
> 
> 
> when will you ever retract your lies about a 60% decrease?



Well now, the Dems are in panic mode over the polls and they are trying to calm down the kook left

It is so much fun to atch Dems overplay their hand

Anti-War Liberals in House Weary of Opposing Iraq Funding Bill
Friday, April 20, 2007


WASHINGTON  Anti-war liberals worried about party unity are reluctant to mount opposition to war spending legislation in the House even if it does not set a firm date for troop withdrawal.

Their support would pave the way for Democratic leaders next week to send President Bush a bill that would fund the Iraq war and still call for troops to leave by March 31, 2008, albeit a nonbinding withdrawal date.

The measure would be weaker than House Democrats wanted but is advocated by the Senate, where Democrats hold a slimmer majority and many party members oppose setting a firm timetable on the war.

Rather than let the bill sink, "we want to get it to the president and let him veto it," said Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., a party liberal who opposes funding the war at all.

In the Senate, the debate on the war grew sharper Thursday when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the war had been lost and that Bush's troop buildup is not stemming violence in Iraq. That statement prompted Republicans to declare that Democrats don't support the troops in Iraq.

"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and  you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows  (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, D-Nev.

Bush has promised to veto any bill that sets a timetable on the Iraq war, contending that decisions on troop deployments must be left to the commander in chief and military commanders on the ground. His position raises the bigger question of what Democrats will do after the veto.

The quiet support of a House-Senate compromise among the rank-and-file represents a new tack by Democrats who say they want to pull together in their fight against Bush on the war.

Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia, a freshman Democrat who represents a district strongly opposed to the war, said lending his support to a bill that funds the war without setting a firm end date will be difficult. On the other hand, he added, Democrats might be in a tougher spot if they can't pull the caucus together long enough to act against Bush.

"We have to look at the political realities of being the party that's in control, and prove to the American people we can govern," he said.

Last month, Watson was one of several liberal Democrats who threatened to block passage of the House bill because she did not think the measure went far enough to end the war. Watson and California Democratic Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters said they refused to fund the war and wanted language that would end combat before the end of 2007.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched an aggressive whip operation to persuade members the bill was their best shot at trying to force Bush to abandon his Iraq policy. Eventually, the group said they would help round up support for the bill despite their intention to personally vote against it.

The bill passed narrowly, mostly along party lines, in a 218-212 vote. House appropriators are now trying to negotiate a final bill that could be sent to the president by next week.

With Senate leaders nervous the final bill would fail if it included a firm deadline, aides said Democrats were leaning toward accepting the Senate's nonbinding goal. The compromise bill also is expected to retain House provisions preventing military units from being worn out by excessive combat deployments; however, the president could waive these standards if he states so publicly.

On Thursday, Pelosi, D-Calif., summoned Woolsey, Lee, Waters and several other of the party's more liberals members to her office to discuss the issue. According to aides and members, concerns were expressed but there were no loud objections to a conference bill that would adopt the Senate's nonbinding goal.

Watson said she would personally oppose the final bill, as she did last month, but would not stand in Pelosi's way if the speaker agrees to the Senate version.

"It's still a timeline," she said. "We're not backing down from that."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267381,00.html


----------



## maineman

keep running away from your own words...keep tossing out cut and pastes in a futile attempt to make people forget about your lies


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> keep running away from your own words...keep tossing out cut and pastes in a futile attempt to make people forget about your lies



Ah, poor MM all upset his party is falling on their asses


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Ah, poor MM all upset his party is falling on their asses




As I have said...I am not upset about my party at all...I am laughing at your futile attempts to explain your own lies away.  Come on.... when will you retract that stupid lie that American casualties have decreased by 60% due to the success of the surge?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> As I have said...I am not upset about my party at all...I am laughing at your futile attempts to explain your own lies away.  Come on.... when will you retract that stupid lie that American casualties have decreased by 60% due to the success of the surge?



So one has to win the war for the terrorists 

Dems are more then happy to help


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> So one has to win the war for the terrorists
> 
> Dems are more then happy to help




when will you retract that stupid lie that American casualties have decreased by 60% due to the success of the surge?

why do you run away from your own assertions like that?  are you really that big of a coward in real life, or is it only here in cyberspace?


----------



## red states rule

The terrorists thank you for your loyal and continued support MM


----------



## Paul Revere

red states rule said:


> The terrorists thank you for your loyal and continued support MM



I seriously doubt that Cheney and Bush would thank him.


----------



## red states rule

Paul Revere said:


> I seriously doubt that Cheney and Bush would thank him.



But Al Qaeda thanks him - and you

Libs are their biggest allies they have in America


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The terrorists thank you for your loyal and continued support MM



I don't support terrorists at all...I think that lying about the extent of our casualties to protect your party and your president to the detriment of your own country is pretty despicable.


When ARE you ever gonna admit you fucked up about that 60% decrease claim?

Or will yoiu just keep ignoring it like a total pussy?  Everyone sees you running from it.  I get PM's every day from people from all sides on here telling me how bady I have owned your sorry ass on that point....you don't seem to realize that your BEST move at this point would be to admit it so that I can no longer rub your nose in it all the time....


----------



## Diuretic

red states rule said:


> When I see all the "support" Dems are giving the troops - I think of Tokyo Rose and Neville Chamberlain



Must be a bit of free association going on in your mind then.  What are the connections, if any?


----------



## Diuretic

I'm surprised you can't see the "stay the course" policy at work here.


----------



## red states rule

Diuretic said:


> Must be a bit of free association going on in your mind then.  What are the connections, if any?



There is little, if any, support of the troops at the anti war rallies

Elected Dems have called the troops terrorists, uneducated, compared them to Nazi's and Pol Pot

At these rallies, the anti war peace niks have burned a US soldier in Effigy 

There are a few Dems who get it - Joe Liberman, Zell Miller,  and Ed Koch


----------



## Diuretic

red states rule said:


> There is little, if any, support of the troops at the anti war rallies



What do you mean by the phrase "support for the troops"?  I keep reading it in your various posts, like a mantra, but I need to know your definition.



red states rule said:


> Elected Dems have called the troops terrorists, uneducated, compared them to Nazi's and Pol Pot



In another thread I've asked you for some info on this (and acknowledged the Kerry "joke" which fell flat)



red states rule said:


> At these rallies, the anti war peace niks have burned a US soldier in Effigy



Yes they did.  Fucking stupid action it was too. 



red states rule said:


> There are a few Dems who get it - Joe Liberman, Zell Miller,  and Ed Koch



Joe's an Independent now, didn't Zell say he was going GOP?  Ed Koch - what a great bloke he is, great Mayor he was indeed.  I think he's wrong in supporting Clinton for the nomination though.


----------



## red states rule

Read the other thread 

BTW it was not a "botched joke" it was an insult

The troops can do without the support of the Dems. The troops are trying to win the war - Dems are trying to lose it


----------



## Diuretic

red states rule said:


> Read the other thread
> 
> BTW it was not a "botched joke" it was an insult
> 
> The troops can do without the support of the Dems. The troops are trying to win the war - Dems are trying to lose it



Leaving aside your interpretation of Kerry's stupid joke let's look at your assertion in the last sentence.

In Iraq there is no "war".   There were two distinct phases to this operation.  One was the invasion.  Successful.  The second was the occupation.  Now to be reasonable and fair an occupation can only be judged on what it seeks to achieve.  The occupation of Germany was a success, very difficult at times, but a success for the West.  The occupation of Germany by the Soviets and the establishment of the GDR was a failure in the end for the Soviet bloc.  Agreed?  The occupation of Japan was a success?  Agreed.

The occupation of Iraq continues.  So far it hasn't succeeded.  The administration is, to be blunt, fucking the occupation up.  It is tossing more and more troops into the meat grinder, 'stay the course'.  The Democrats can see that the administration hasn't got a clue about how to make the occupation work.  That the administration hasn't a clue isn't surprising.  There is no exit plan because there was no intent to exit. 

Let me ask  you a straight question and I'd appreciate a straight answer.  Leaving aside for a moment the numbers of deaths of Iraqis, how many US military personnel should be killed and shockingly maimed before you would pull the pin?  The Democratic Party has said that it's enough, what's wrong with that?  What's wrong with them saying no more of your troops should be killed in this failed enterprise?  But since you want it to continue, tell me, at what point would you say, that's it,  it's just not worth it?  What numbers would need to fall for you to make that decision?


----------



## red states rule

Diuretic said:


> Leaving aside your interpretation of Kerry's stupid joke let's look at your assertion in the last sentence.
> 
> In Iraq there is no "war".   There were two distinct phases to this operation.  One was the invasion.  Successful.  The second was the occupation.  Now to be reasonable and fair an occupation can only be judged on what it seeks to achieve.  The occupation of Germany was a success, very difficult at times, but a success for the West.  The occupation of Germany by the Soviets and the establishment of the GDR was a failure in the end for the Soviet bloc.  Agreed?  The occupation of Japan was a success?  Agreed.
> 
> The occupation of Iraq continues.  So far it hasn't succeeded.  The administration is, to be blunt, fucking the occupation up.  It is tossing more and more troops into the meat grinder, 'stay the course'.  The Democrats can see that the administration hasn't got a clue about how to make the occupation work.  That the administration hasn't a clue isn't surprising.  There is no exit plan because there was no intent to exit.
> 
> Let me ask  you a straight question and I'd appreciate a straight answer.  Leaving aside for a moment the numbers of deaths of Iraqis, how many US military personnel should be killed and shockingly maimed before you would pull the pin?  The Democratic Party has said that it's enough, what's wrong with that?  What's wrong with them saying no more of your troops should be killed in this failed enterprise?  But since you want it to continue, tell me, at what point would you say, that's it,  it's just not worth it?  What numbers would need to fall for you to make that decision?




Dems believe by leaving Iraq now the terrorists will lay down their guns and bombs and become law abiding citizens

Dems believe the terrorists will not kill those who are helping the US set up the govenment

Dems believe Iran will not step in and help the terrorists take over the country

Dems believe the terrorists and Iran qill not use the oil revenues from Iraq to finance terrorist operations

Dems believe if the US leaves Iraq the terrorists will stop their attacks on US interests

As I said, we can do without the Dems support


----------



## maineman

Dems believe by leaving Iraq now the terrorists will lay down their guns and bombs and become law abiding citizens
*not true.  I believe that our true enemies are NOT the sunnis and shiites fighting one another in Iraq... I think that whenever we leave, they will continue to kill one another until they lose their stomach for it... but regardless, they are not the ones who attacked us and they are not the ones we ought to be killing*
Dems believe the terrorists will not kill those who are helping the US set up the govenment
*I believe that the non-Iraqi AQ elements are a small piece of the puzzle...I am sure that sunnis will kill shiites in the government and shiites will kill sunnis in the government*

Dems believe Iran will not step in and help the terrorists take over the country
*I believe that Iran is already helping the shiites in Iraq just like Syria and Saudi Arabia are helping the sunnis in Iraq. I am able to understand the difference between indiginous Iraqis who are fighting one another for control of their own country and islamic extremists who have a totally different agenda*
Dems believe the terrorists and Iran qill not use the oil revenues from Iraq to finance terrorist operations
*I do not believe that the shiites who will ultimately control Iraq will give oil revenues to any sunni wahabbists whatsoever*

Dems believe if the US leaves Iraq the terrorists will stop their attacks on US interests
*Absolutely false.  I believe that the sooner we leave Iraq and start actually fighting the war against the people who attacked us and who intend to attack us again, the safer we will be.*

As I said, we can do without the Dems support
*we can do without morons like you who don't know what the fuck you are talking about.*


----------



## red states rule

Translation - do not confuse the Dem talking points with facts


----------



## Diuretic

red states rule said:


> Dems believe by leaving Iraq now the terrorists will lay down their guns and bombs and become law abiding citizens



Point me to such a statement.



red states rule said:


> Dems believe the terrorists will not kill those who are helping the US set up the govenment



Oh?  They believe that? Show me.  



red states rule said:


> Dems believe Iran will not step in and help the terrorists take over the country



LOL - there's a fucking Shi'ite government in Iraq.  The Democrats can see that, they know as soon as the US pulls out that al-Maliki and his mates are going to go Persian on them.  So what?  Who fucking cares?  Of course Iran is going to buddy up with Iraq, they're doing it already.  Now you're starting to get it.  If Iraq (second biggest oil reserves in the world, possibly the biggest in the world according a recent discover) and Iran (both Shi'ite) get together then their oil reserves will be bigger than the Saudis (Sunni - Wahabbist).  Now you know why Bush won't pull out.  He can't.  He fucked it up.  The US is  going to have to stay there until the oil runs out if an accommodation can't be reached with Iran and seeing as how Bush won't deal with Iran - hello...is it getting through to you yet?....there's a fucking stalemate.  




red states rule said:


> Dems believe the terrorists and Iran qill not use the oil revenues from Iraq to finance terrorist operations



Why the fuck would they?  Iran is in a hell of state, economically speaking.  It has been mismanaged long before Ahmadinajad got into power but the little bloke has really managed to fuck it up even more.  Why the hell would they finance terrorist ops?  No advantage if they've got a nice friendly Shi'ite govt in Iraq that will be their new special best friend.




red states rule said:


> Dems believe if the US leaves Iraq the terrorists will stop their attacks on US interests



Fuck! What if they're right????  What if the terrorists suddenly realise there's no point in attacking US/Western interests?



red states rule said:


> As I said, we can do without the Dems support



You need their brains.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Translation - do not confuse the Dem talking points with facts



why not actually address the points I made instead of running away from them?


----------



## maineman

you see...you made a series of statements, and I responded to each one of them.  why not answer each of my responses and we can go from there?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> why not actually address the points I made instead of running away from them?



I have

You are running a marathon


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> why not actually address the points I made instead of running away from them?





red states rule said:


> I have
> 
> You are running a marathon



no....merely saying _"Translation - do not confuse the Dem talking points with facts"_ is not "addressing the points I made".

try again.


----------



## Diuretic

red states rule said:


> I have
> 
> You are running a marathon



And you're playing dodgeball.


----------



## red states rule

Diuretic said:


> And you're playing dodgeball.



More like nail the liberal


----------



## maineman

no...really....you made a series of accusations.  I took the time to address each and every one of them....and you have dodged responding to that.  but hten, that is what you do about everything.  Remember...it was you who said that America had seen a 60% decrease in casualties because of the success of the surge and have NEVER EVER been able to back that lie up.  Why IS that?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no...really....you made a series of accusations.  I took the time to address each and every one of them....and you have dodged responding to that.  but hten, that is what you do about everything.  Remember...it was you who said that America had seen a 60% decrease in casualties because of the success of the surge and have NEVER EVER been able to back that lie up.  Why IS that?



Well, isn't this just grand? You have to know this: in remote caves, training camps, and safe houses all over the world, champagne corks are popp -- well, not champage -- jugs of goat's milk are popping as terrorists toast a job well done.

Al-Qaeda and likeminded murderous, infidel-hating zealots worldwide are now, officially, just one step away from total victory. America's armed forces -- once the mightiest, the most courageous, and victorious fighting machine in the world -- have been defeated.

The admission of US defeat in the war on terror was issued by Senate Majority Leader "Benedict Arnold" Harry Reid, speaking on behalf of the formerly great people of the United States. The Nevada Democrat announced to his countrymen -- and to the terrorists: "This war is lost, and the surge is not accomplishing anything." He left the door open for de-funding the remaining troops in Iraq who are still, stubbornly, fighting a losing effort.

No reaction yet from terror camps, but Al-Qaeda leaders could soon appear with Dingy Harry in a joint video statement, to denounce the American effort to defend itself and formally declare victory. The terms of surrender are still unclear, but many experts predict new terrorist activity inside the US -- now that the Iraqi theater has been declared lost by Harry Reid and the Democrats.

Now, the one remaining obstacle to complete victory is the capitulation of President Bush. But Democrats -- who have fought his Administration since hostilities began in earnest on 9/11 -- have pledged to exact the president's submission shortly.

From the war front, this is your correspondent, Rush Limbaugh, reporting. As-salam aleikum, hala hala... whatever.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042007/content/01125101.member.html


----------



## Diuretic

red states rule said:


> More like nail the liberal



So far you've failed.


----------



## red states rule

Diuretic said:


> So far you've failed.



Failed only to libs who cannot face facts


----------



## maineman

why can't you debate me?  why must you always hide behind the editorials of others?  YOU have made statements about our casualties that are flat out lies and you do not have the grace to admit it...you make statements and accusations which I take the time to respond to and then you ignore the responses.  what is up with you?  do you want to carry on a discussion or do you just hang out here with the express purpose of annoying people?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> why can't you debate me?  why must you always hide behind the editorials of others?  YOU have made statements about our casualties that are flat out lies and you do not have the grace to admit it...you make statements and accusations which I take the time to respond to and then you ignore the responses.  what is up with you?  do you want to carry on a discussion or do you just hang out here with the express purpose of annoying people?



Still suffer from that fobia of facts?

Pity


----------



## Diuretic

red states rule said:


> Well, isn't this just grand? You have to know this: in remote caves, training camps, and safe houses all over the world, champagne corks are popp -- well, not champage -- jugs of goat's milk are popping as terrorists toast a job well done.
> 
> Al-Qaeda and likeminded murderous, infidel-hating zealots worldwide are now, officially, just one step away from total victory. America's armed forces -- once the mightiest, the most courageous, and victorious fighting machine in the world -- have been defeated.
> 
> The admission of US defeat in the war on terror was issued by Senate Majority Leader "Benedict Arnold" Harry Reid, speaking on behalf of the formerly great people of the United States. The Nevada Democrat announced to his countrymen -- and to the terrorists: "This war is lost, and the surge is not accomplishing anything." He left the door open for de-funding the remaining troops in Iraq who are still, stubbornly, fighting a losing effort.
> 
> No reaction yet from terror camps, but Al-Qaeda leaders could soon appear with Dingy Harry in a joint video statement, to denounce the American effort to defend itself and formally declare victory. The terms of surrender are still unclear, but many experts predict new terrorist activity inside the US -- now that the Iraqi theater has been declared lost by Harry Reid and the Democrats.
> 
> Now, the one remaining obstacle to complete victory is the capitulation of President Bush. But Democrats -- who have fought his Administration since hostilities began in earnest on 9/11 -- have pledged to exact the president's submission shortly.
> 
> From the war front, this is your correspondent, Rush Limbaugh, reporting. As-salam aleikum, hala hala... whatever.
> 
> http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042007/content/01125101.member.html



Have you ever had an original thought RSR?  Or are you just another one of Limbaugh's dittoheads?  Seriously.  Do you draw your inspiration from a radio clown?  A self-confessed entertainer?

You poor, sad fool.  Think for yourself.  Have some fucking human dignity.


----------



## red states rule

Diuretic said:


> Have you ever had an original thought RSR?  Or are you just another one of Limbaugh's dittoheads?  Seriously.  Do you draw your inspiration from a radio clown?  A self-confessed entertainer?
> 
> You poor, sad fool.  Think for yourself.  Have some fucking human dignity.



He calls it correctly

Libs hate to see what they are exposed to the light of day


----------



## maineman

I suffer from no PHobias.... you illiterate moron...when will YOU answer a simple question?

Here are two:

can you explain your claim that we have seen a 60% decrease in casaulties because of the surge?

Do you support military personnel when they violate the uniform code of military justice?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I suffer from no PHobias.... you illiterate moron...when will YOU answer a simple question?
> 
> Here are two:
> 
> can you explain your claim that we have seen a 60% decrease in casaulties because of the surge?
> 
> Do you support military personnel when they violate the uniform code of military justice?



You do suffer from the disease know as liberalsim

It takes away all reason, logic, and the ability to see facts

Pity


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> You do suffer from the disease know as liberalsim
> 
> It takes away all reason, logic, and the ability to see facts
> 
> Pity



why can't you answer any questions?


----------



## maineman

I have asked you two very simple questions in this thread.

When you get around to answering them, we can proceed.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I have asked you two very simple questions in this thread.
> 
> When you get around to answering them, we can proceed.



I have

You are still stuck in spin mode


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I have
> 
> You are still stuck in spin mode



no...you have never answered either of those questions.

You made the assertion that American casualties decreased by 60% because of the success of the surge.  I have shown you from DoD casualty figures that that assertion is incorrect.  You have never replied.

And you certainly have never even tried to reply to the question posed earlier this morning:

Do you or do you not support military personnel violating the UCMJ?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I have
> 
> You are still stuck in spin mode




if you have....please point me to the thread and post number of your answers.


I'll wait.


----------



## red states rule

Diuretic said:


> Leaving aside your interpretation of Kerry's stupid joke let's look at your assertion in the last sentence.
> 
> In Iraq there is no "war".   There were two distinct phases to this operation.  One was the invasion.  Successful.  The second was the occupation.  Now to be reasonable and fair an occupation can only be judged on what it seeks to achieve.  The occupation of Germany was a success, very difficult at times, but a success for the West.  The occupation of Germany by the Soviets and the establishment of the GDR was a failure in the end for the Soviet bloc.  Agreed?  The occupation of Japan was a success?  Agreed.
> 
> The occupation of Iraq continues.  So far it hasn't succeeded.  The administration is, to be blunt, fucking the occupation up.  It is tossing more and more troops into the meat grinder, 'stay the course'.  The Democrats can see that the administration hasn't got a clue about how to make the occupation work.  That the administration hasn't a clue isn't surprising.  There is no exit plan because there was no intent to exit.
> 
> Let me ask  you a straight question and I'd appreciate a straight answer.  Leaving aside for a moment the numbers of deaths of Iraqis, how many US military personnel should be killed and shockingly maimed before you would pull the pin?  The Democratic Party has said that it's enough, what's wrong with that?  What's wrong with them saying no more of your troops should be killed in this failed enterprise?  But since you want it to continue, tell me, at what point would you say, that's it,  it's just not worth it?  What numbers would need to fall for you to make that decision?





Got this in an email

Sums up what libs are ignoring



As I have to sit here and listen to the BS being spewed by a majority in the MSM and in our government that always supported freedom and liberties, that somehow Iraq was a mistake because you have a bunch of morons who want a religious fight forever.

Get over it. Murder is murder. Religious fighting in Iraq has been going on now for over 30 years. Claiming America started it is absurd.

The legislation drafted by both republicans and democrats listed many reasons for going to war with Iraq. One that you do not hear talked about in the MSM and these boobs in Washington is liberating the Iraqi people and having them form a democratic government.

Well guess what. That is what Iraq is today even with the religious fighting that has gone on now for over 30 years.

Iraqis have a right to vote, freedom of expression, freedom of the press (this includes getting non international censored news) freedom to travel, freedom to protest Americans being on their soil, all freedoms that you enjoy.

If Iraq is such a failure, how did these people have 3 elections, monitored and recounted and legit, insurgents not really able to stop this government from forming, not able to remove American and foreign troops, not able to stop Iraq from moving forward?

They do seem to be murdering Iraqis that is only forming more opposition against Iraqi terrorists and insurgents.

I see Iraqis closing the door on the insurgency and terrorism because it has no legitimacy. There is no religious legitimacy to murder.

No giving Iraqis the right to choose their future via a free voting process and giving them Western Style freedoms will historically never be a mistake.

Something American Democrats need to think about that.

Why?

That is what their future holds.


----------



## red states rule

Give 'Em Surrender Harry Finds His Tet Offensive
By Scott Sultzer

We now have two "Harry" bookends to the current historical period. At one end is Harry Truman, who led us through to victory in World War II and stood up to communist aggression into the Korean Conflict. That Harry had a nickname. It was "Give 'Em Hell" Harry. 


And now, at the opposite end of the spectrum in time and substance, we have "Give 'Em Surrender" Harry, the Senate Majority leader. 

Give 'Em Surrender Harry just declared our counterinsurgency failed and the war lost. In making this lover's embrace of defeat, Give Em Surrender Harry cited as his evidence of the surge's failure a series of 4 car bombs, 3 of them suicide bombs, that occurred in Baghdad Wednesday and for which Al Qaeda in Iraq claimed responsibility. It's Give Em Surrender Harry's version of the Tet Offensive. 

For those who might not know, Tet was the defining event of the Vietnam War. It was a mass offensive by 84,000 North Vietnamese Army (NVA) soldiers and Viet Cong. And it was a total military failure. Within thirty days of its start, the U.S. had killed 50,000, completely decimating the Viet Cong and had taken a sizable chunk out of the NVA. U.S. losses were 1,100 soldiers. For the first time, television brought home the carnage suffered by our troops. The American casualties shocked the press who, led by Walter Cronkite, portrayed Tet as a North Vietnamese victory and the Vietnam War as unwinnable. Our withdrawal from Vietnam became inevitable.

Give Em Surrender Harry's defining event is not quite as large as Tet, of course. Give Em Surrender Harry just declared that the United States' new strategy in Iraq, the surge, and indeed our entire nation, has been defeated in Iraq by four members of al Qaeda. 

Let that sink in for a moment. 

The foe we face in radical Islam is, though not a nation state, every bit as much an existential threat to us and Western Civilization as Nazi Germany. We are one dirty bomb on Wall Street away from a recession or possibly even a depression. We are one nuclear explosion in a port city away from much, much worse. As Give 'Em Hell Harry's predecessor, FDR told the nation on December 9, 1941 - 

"the United States can accept no result save victory, final and complete," against such an existential foe, else we would be living in a world without "security for any nation-or any individual . . ." 
Give 'Em Surrender Harry apparently missed that speech on American values and resolve. 

Though the threat we face may be dire, Give 'Em Surrender Harry is declaring our defeat in a Tet Offensive that saw no U.S. casualties. To date, our soldiers lost in Iraq number 3,315. Each is a tragedy, and as a former soldier and the father of soldiers, I deeply appreciate and grieve for each one. I am in no way belittling their loss when I point out, for the benefit of Give 'Em Surrender Harry, that 3,315 killed in Iraq is 3% of the losses we sustained in WWI to defeat German aggression; it is 1% of what we sustained defeating the Nazis in WWII; it is 6% of what we sustained in destroying the North Korean Army and driving back the Chinese hordes in the Korean Conflict; and, it is 6% of what we sustained in Vietnam before we pulled out. 

And, just so you know, the U.S. has never lost an engagement in Iraq or Afghanistan involving a platoon size element or larger of U.S. soldiers. A platoon is about thirty men. Do you understand how significant that is? And those platoons have sent countless jihadis to meet Allah. 

With that track record, how can we possibly lose to Islamic extremists in Iraq or Afghanistan - or anywhere else in the world for that matter? Well, that is unless we are forced to embrace defeat predicated upon Give 'Em Surrender Harry's Tet Offensive of 4 al Qaeda suicide bombers. 

Do you think Give 'Em Surrender Harry really means it when he says the surge has failed and our nation has lost in Iraq? Or is it just Give Em Surrender Harry who has decided that he wants us to lose, putting his quest for raw power above the horrid ramifications for our national security and our foreign policy (who will ever again ally with us against a determined opponent?) if we leave Iraq before a democracy of Shia, Kurd and Sunni is functioning and secure there? It is cowardice, cynicism and hypocrisy writ on a grand scale. 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/...rry_finds.html
__________________


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> no...you have never answered either of those questions.
> 
> You made the assertion that American casualties decreased by 60% because of the success of the surge.  I have shown you from DoD casualty figures that that assertion is incorrect.  You have never replied.
> 
> And you certainly have never even tried to reply to the question posed earlier this morning:
> 
> Do you or do you not support military personnel violating the UCMJ?





maineman said:


> if you have....please point me to the thread and post number of your answers.
> 
> 
> I'll wait.




still waiting


----------



## red states rule

Still supporting the "Surrender At All Costs" bill I see


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Still supporting the "Surrender At All Costs" bill I see



why can't you answer simple questions?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> why can't you answer simple questions?



Keep bowing at the alter of liberalsim MM


----------



## maineman

more talking points?


----------



## Diuretic

red states rule said:


> Failed only to libs who cannot face facts



A nyah-nyah.


----------



## Diuretic

red states rule said:


> Got this in an email
> 
> Sums up what libs are ignoring
> 
> 
> 
> As I have to sit here and listen to the BS being spewed by a majority in the MSM and in our government that always supported freedom and liberties, that somehow Iraq was a mistake because you have a bunch of morons who want a religious fight forever.
> 
> Get over it. Murder is murder. Religious fighting in Iraq has been going on now for over 30 years. Claiming America started it is absurd.
> 
> The legislation drafted by both republicans and democrats listed many reasons for going to war with Iraq. One that you do not hear talked about in the MSM and these boobs in Washington is liberating the Iraqi people and having them form a democratic government.
> 
> Well guess what. That is what Iraq is today even with the religious fighting that has gone on now for over 30 years.
> 
> Iraqis have a right to vote, freedom of expression, freedom of the press (this includes getting non international censored news) freedom to travel, freedom to protest Americans being on their soil, all freedoms that you enjoy.
> 
> If Iraq is such a failure, how did these people have 3 elections, monitored and recounted and legit, insurgents not really able to stop this government from forming, not able to remove American and foreign troops, not able to stop Iraq from moving forward?
> 
> They do seem to be murdering Iraqis that is only forming more opposition against Iraqi terrorists and insurgents.
> 
> I see Iraqis closing the door on the insurgency and terrorism because it has no legitimacy. There is no religious legitimacy to murder.
> 
> No giving Iraqis the right to choose their future via a free voting process and giving them Western Style freedoms will historically never be a mistake.
> 
> Something American Democrats need to think about that.
> 
> Why?
> 
> That is what their future holds.



Who wrote that?  Christopher Hitchens?  David Horowitz?  Homer Simpson?


----------



## Diuretic

red states rule said:


> Keep bowing at the alter of liberalsim MM



Another nyah-nyah.


----------



## Rosotar

maineman said:


> why can't you debate me?  why must you always hide behind the editorials of others?  YOU have made statements about our casualties that are flat out lies and you do not have the grace to admit it...you make statements and accusations which I take the time to respond to and then you ignore the responses.  what is up with you?  do you want to carry on a discussion or do you just hang out here with the express purpose of annoying people?



I think because he's a troll MM. 

I've been away for a while but when I got back I started reading this thread and it occured to me that RSR hasn't really "said" anything. He just comes back over and over with these childish insults and one-liners that aren't really relevant to any points that are made.


----------



## Paul Revere

Rosotar said:


> I think because he's a troll MM.
> 
> I've been away for a while but when I got back I started reading this thread and it occured to me that RSR hasn't really "said" anything. He just comes back over and over with these childish insults and one-liners that aren't really relevant to any points that are made.



RSR is the "Perfect" Bush supporter,  a babbling idiot.










Can you picture two of him debating each other???

It would look something like this............................


----------



## Diuretic




----------



## actsnoblemartin

Does anyone notice how words matter. The word anti-war, traitor and anti-american are now replacing the word racist as the new 21st century mccaryism. If someone calls you that, how do you prove your not, same as the word racist. Are you now or have you ever been against the war?. Tar and feather him.

Anyone who serves their country by definition, UNLESS they commit an actual treasonist act for which they are tried and committed are not a traitor or anti-american. 

Second, unless an american, gives al queda, or any other terrorist group, money, or material support, which doesnt mean saying, I am mad at america, or i hate america, which is not a crime, even if they did, they would have to say, here is something that CAN help you commit a terrorist attack, not simply saying i disagree with a war, and bring our troops home. 

Some examples of materials support are money, maps, recruiting fighters (suicide bombers or jihadists to fight in iraq or afghanistan) for their cause.

I cant stand what some believe, but it doesnt give me the right, to personally smear their integrity or character. It takes guts to stand up for what you believe in, and we must all challenge each other and our government (peacefully) when we disagree, WHICH , is the very reason I try to be friends with all of you.


----------



## Diuretic

Do you like reading George Orwell?  I mean not just _Nineteen Eighty-Four _but all his work?  I'm reading _Coming Up For Air_ right now and it's remarkable how his ideas about the misuse of language (which reached its zenith in _Nineteen Eighty-Four_ with Newspeak) permeate his writings.

That's my tortuous way of agreeing with you.


----------



## red states rule

Paul Revere said:


> RSR is the "Perfect" Bush supporter,  a babbling idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you picture two of him debating each other???
> 
> It would look something like this............................



I thought by now you would be defending your fake letter thread

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=48275


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> I think because he's a troll MM.
> 
> I've been away for a while but when I got back I started reading this thread and it occured to me that RSR hasn't really "said" anything. He just comes back over and over with these childish insults and one-liners that aren't really relevant to any points that are made.



The terrorists are happy to see the Dems wanting to surrender in Iraq

Now they can step up their attacks

Report: Al Qaeda Plans 'Large Scale' Attack on U.K. 
Monday, April 23, 2007

Al Qaeda leaders in Iraq are planning the first large-scale terrorist attacks on Britain and other western targets with the help of supporters in Iran, according to a leaked intelligence report.

Spy chiefs warn that one operative had said he was planning an attack on a par with Hiroshima and Nagasaki in an attempt to shake the Roman throne, a reference to the West.

Another plot could be timed to coincide with Tony Blair stepping down as prime minister, an event described by Al Qaeda planners as a change in the head of the company.

The report, produced earlier this month and seen by The Sunday Times, appears to provide evidence that Al Qaeda is active in Iran and has ambitions far beyond the improvised attacks it has been waging against British and American soldiers in Iraq.

There is no evidence of a formal relationship between Al Qaeda, a Sunni group, and the Shiite regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but experts suggest that Irans leaders may be turning a blind eye to the terrorist organisations activities.

The intelligence report also makes it clear that senior Al Qaeda figures in the region have been in recent contact with operatives in Britain.

The report was compiled by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Center (JTAC)  based at MI5s London headquarters. It draws a distinction between Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaedas core leadership, who are thought to be hiding on the Afghan-Pakistan border, and affiliated organisations elsewhere.

The document states: While networks linked to AQ [Al Qaeda] Core pose the greatest threat to the UK, the intelligence during this quarter has highlighted the potential threat from other areas, particularly AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq].

The report continues: Recent reporting has described AQIs Kurdish network in Iran planning what we believe may be a large-scale attack against a western target.

The report says there is no indication this attack would specifically target Britain, although we are aware that AQI . . . networks are active in the UK.

The Home Office declined to comment.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267826,00.html


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> The terrorists are happy to see the Dems wanting to surrender in Iraq





Monday, April 23, 2007
Reid defends calling Iraq war 'lost,' calling Bush 'a liar'
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid defended his past comments calling the Iraq war "lost" and President Bush a "liar."

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid defended calling the war in Iraq "lost" in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash Monday.

"General Petreaus has said the war cannot be won militarily, he's said that," Reid said. "And President Bush is doing nothing economically, he's doing nothing diplomatically, he's not doing anything even the minimal requested by the Iraq Study Group, so I stick with General Petreaus. I have no doubt the war cannot be won militarily and that's what I said last Thursday and I stick with that."

His comments have triggered angry backlash from the White House and a number of Republican congressmen. Some have said that his comments send the wrong message to the troops.

"I do what I think is right, and I think this war is headed in the wrong direction," Reid said. "And I'm going to speak out as often and as regularly as I can."

Reid has been an outspoken critic of the president, calling him a loser and a liar in the past.

"I don't back off that at all," he said. "So if you say something that is untrue to me and in the right circumstances, I will call you a liar. I have no regret having called him a liar, because he lied."

In a speech in Washington Monday, Reid said Congress would sent a war supplemental spending bill that would require a withdrawal of troops to be begin by October 1 and be completed by April 1, 2008, according to the Associated Press.

President Bush on Monday reiterated his vow to veto any legislation that includes a withdrawal timetable.


-- CNN's Dana Bash and Lauren Kornreich

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/reid-defends-calling-iraq-war-lost.html


----------



## red states rule

How does Harry know what is going on in Iraq when the Dems skip the briefings?


Democrats Skipping Military Briefings -- Where's the MSM Outrage?
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on April 23, 2007 - 14:34. 
A few sources, not the least of which is Michael Barone, are reporting that the Democrats are ignoring important Iraq briefings conducted by General David Petraeus in an apparent effort to stymie efforts in Iraq. It is well known that they are not supportive of the troops in Iraq and the president's "surge" plan they are currently conducting, but whether they like the plan or not, to skip these briefings is an act of blatant negligence that borders on the criminal. So where is the MSM's outrage? Why are we not being told of this Democrat negligence?

Barone, one of the best political pundits out there today, closed his recent Real Clear Politics Report with the following:

What's curious is that congressional Democrats don't seem much interested in what's actually happening in Iraq. The commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Pelosi's office said "scheduling conflicts" prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but the episode brings to mind the fact that Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a Pentagon videoconference with Petraeus on March 8. 

It has also been reported that one recent meeting with Gen. Petraeus on the Hill only saw one Democrat in attendance, that being Senator Carl Levin of Michigan.

It might be too early to say directly that it is some concerted effort or plan of the Democrat leadership to steer clear of Iraq briefings, but at the very least it certainly reveals their collective feeling that the war is already lost and that it's time to move on past it all.

But here is the thing; they simply cannot claim to "support the troops" if they won't even attend briefings held by the General in command of those troops. If the Democrats don't attend these briefings they simply cannot claim to have the knowledge they need to make decisions necessary for policy direction. Unless, that is, they have fully decided, regardless of what is actually going on on the ground where our troops are facing the enemy, that all is lost.

If they have, indeed, completely quit wanting to have the discussion of what is actually going on in theater, then it is downright abusive of our troops for Democrats to ignore them in this way. This unconcern over what is happening to our forces simply makes it impossible for the Democrats to claim they support the troops.

It should be remembered that General Petraeus was given a unanimous vote in Congress and he never made any bones about the fact that he intended to implement the president's surge plan, so Democrats simply cannot claim they didn't know he was going to do so. But, it appears that the support they gave him for the surge was a cynical attempt to allow the plan to crash and burn if their ignoring his efforts to inform them of the actual accomplishments of the plan is any indication.

I have seen a few pundits and commentators claiming that the Democrats are somehow putting themselves in a bad position by ignoring these briefings and to that I say pish tosh. They have surely weakened their moral position and made their claims of supporting the troops untenable, but this will probably not harm them at all -- not that it shouldn't. The problem with the feeling that this will harm the Democrat Party is that no one, by and large, will ever hear of this betrayal of our troops. It is doubtful whether the story will ever break through the din of the cycles controlled by a news media supportive of the Democrat agenda.

In any case, the Democrat Party is acting irresponsibly to say the least, criminally at the worst. The biggest question, however, is will the News Media allow the American people to become aware that the Democrats are so badly falling down on the job? Will they be held accountable for the harm they are causing our country, cause and our troops not to mention the harm they cause the Iraqi people by this turning away from their needs and concerns?

Sadly, my guess is no.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12244


----------



## maineman

how is it that a "surge" can be deemed successful when the carnage keeps getting worse?  what the hell would an unsuccessful surge look like that is any different than this?  We lost TEN soldiers YESTERDAY alone!  April is shaping up to the be bloodiest month for coalition troops in over two years!  Surge this!


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> how is it that a "surge" can be deemed successful when the carnage keeps getting worse?  what the hell would an unsuccessful surge look like that is any different than this?  We lost TEN soldiers YESTERDAY alone!  April is shaping up to the be bloodiest month for coalition troops in over two years!  Surge this!



You would have been such a confidence boost on Omaha beach MM

You would have been one the first to tell Ike, "Lets get the hell out of there - besides Hitler did not attack Pearl Harbor sir"


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> You would have been such a confidence boost on Omaha beach MM
> 
> You would have been one the first to tell Ike, "Lets get the hell out of there - besides Hitler did not attack Pearl Harbor sir"



World War II analogies are disrespectful to those who fought and died in that honorable and just war.  This war was never the right thing to do.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> World War II analogies are disrespectful to those who fought and died in that honorable and just war.  This war was never the right thing to do.




Libs have no problem comparing Republicans to Hitler (as you have) so is this another example of your selective outrage?


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> Libs have no problem comparing Republicans to Hitler (as you have) so is this another example of your selective outrage?



All libs RSR?

How about a link that proves ALL libs compare Bush ti Hitler?


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> All libs RSR?
> 
> How about a link that proves ALL libs compare Bush ti Hitler?



Did I say all?

Look at posts from Paul and MM for starters

Check out Daily Kos, Progressivesonline, and Democrat Underground


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Libs have no problem comparing Republicans to Hitler (as you have) so is this another example of your selective outrage?



apples and oranges.  I am outraged at this war.  I am not outraged at everything.  My outrage IS selective...it is confined to this war.  That is the only issue that outrages me.  Global warming, abortion, tax cuts, attorney general firings...NONE of those issues *outrage* me.  The war outrages me. It infuriates me. It sickens me.  It breaks my heart to see the carnage we have so senselessly unleashed.  It breaks my heart to know that humpty dumpty has fallen off the wall and we will not be able to put him back together again...we have fucked up the middle east...we have unleashed the beast...and we cannot unfuck it...we cannot put it back in its cage.  I think that THIS war is wrong.  I think YOu are wrong when you tell us how much better things are for everyone since we put 28K more troops into the breach.  I think YOU lie about the success... I think YOU run away from your lies and refuse to admit when you have misspoken.  I think YOU are a traitor to your country and your love for party and president over country makes me sick to my stomach.


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> You would have been such a confidence boost on Omaha beach MM
> 
> You would have been one the first to tell Ike, "Lets get the hell out of there - besides Hitler did not attack Pearl Harbor sir"



This is not WWII RSR!

"We are fighting an enemy unlike any we have ever fought before."

Isn't that the standard line whenever Cons try to explain things like why the U.S. doesn't abide by the Geneva Conventions in regards to things like the rights of captured enemy soldiers?

Is this another example of you, in your ignorance and confusion wanting things both ways?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> apples and oranges.  I am outraged at this war.  I am not outraged at everything.  My outrage IS selective...it is confined to this war.  That is the only issue that outrages me.  Global warming, abortion, tax cuts, attorney general firings...NONE of those issues *outrage* me.  The war outrages me. It infuriates me. It sickens me.  It breaks my heart to see the carnage we have so senselessly unleashed.  It breaks my heart to know that humpty dumpty has fallen off the wall and we will not be able to put him back together again...we have fucked up the middle east...we have unleashed the beast...and we cannot unfuck it...we cannot put it back in its cage.  I think that THIS war is wrong.  I think YOu are wrong when you tell us how much better things are for everyone since we put 28K more troops into the breach.  I think YOU lie about the success... I think YOU run away from your lies and refuse to admit when you have misspoken.  I think YOU are a traitor to your country and your love for party and president over country makes me sick to my stomach.



Want a kleenex?

Your "support" for the troops shows thru very clearly. You think of them as losers. You support the surrender mentality of your party.

Now anyone who dares to disagree with the great Mainman is a traitor

Selective outrage and typical liberal double standards


----------



## Diuretic

red states rule said:


> Did I say all?
> 
> Look at posts from Paul and MM for starters
> 
> Check out Daily Kos, Progressivesonline, and Democrat Underground



Yeah look at all that First Amendment exercising going on.  Funny though, I don't remember reading any of the stuff you allege on any official Democratic Party sites.  If you really want to piss yourself laughing check out Free Republic.  It's Hugh1!  More morans to the square mile than anywhere in real life!  I'm series, you're screwn if you don't get there RSR!


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Want a kleenex?
> 
> Your "support" for the troops shows thru very clearly. You think of them as losers. You support the surrender mentality of your party.
> 
> Now anyone who dares to disagree with the great Mainman is a traitor
> 
> Selective outrage and typical liberal double standards



that is wrong.  I do not think our troops are losers in any way. I think that the suits that direct them are losers... and no...not everyone who disagrees with me is a traitor...only those who clearly and distinctly place the interests of their party and their president OVER those of their country.


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> Did I say all?
> 
> Look at posts from Paul and MM for starters
> 
> Check out Daily Kos, Progressivesonline, and Democrat Underground



You probably don't know anything about Fascism and that's why you're so bewildered by comparisons of Bush to Hitler.

Why don't you do a little studying and then come back and tell me how these things that have gone on under the Bush administration are NOT Fascist.

Make a good argument for a change and try to gain a little credibility here!


----------



## red states rule

Diuretic said:


> Yeah look at all that First Amendment exercising going on.  Funny though, I don't remember reading any of the stuff you allege on any official Democratic Party sites.  If you really want to piss yourself laughing check out Free Republic.  It's Hugh1!  More morans to the square mile than anywhere in real life!  I'm series, you're screwn if you don't get there RSR!



Point is - Dems have double standards and suffer from selective outrage, selective memory lapses, and selective racism


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> that is wrong.  I do not think our troops are losers in any way. I think that the suits that direct them are losers... and no...not everyone who disagrees with me is a traitor...only those who clearly and distinctly place the interests of their party and their president OVER those of their country.



Back peddling already I see


----------



## maineman

point is:  american casualties are soaring, not decreasing my ANY percentage, let alone the inflated bullshit number you put out there and refuse to retract.  that is the point.  the surge is not working.... the carnage continues at a brisk pace.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Back peddling already I see



what the fuck are you talking about?  what about my statement is backpedalling in any way?  please...use your own words to explain that claim.   please.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> what the fuck are you talking about?  what about my statement is backpedalling in any way?  please...use your own words to explain that claim.   please.



First you in a state of mouth frothing hysteria, now you are backing off a little

Must be your imitation of Pelosi and Reid

Can't seem to make up your mind which way to go


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> First you in a state of mouth frothing hysteria, now you are backing off a little
> 
> Must be your imitation of Pelosi and Reid
> 
> Can't seem to make up your mind which way to go



what have I backed off a little from?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> what have I backed off a little from?



Try how in one ost you say the troops cannot win - then you say you suport them

Keep your support in your mouth and stop telling all of us how you "feel" for them


----------



## red states rule

Here is how the Dems are helping the terrorists - FROM THE NY TIMES no less

(This reporter will be fired for this)

Burns of NYT: Insurgents Know U.S. Politics Moving in Direction Favorable To Them
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on April 24, 2007 - 08:05. 
Does it give the Dem leaders of Congress pause to realize that the enemies of the United States in Iraq, the people killing our troops, are banking on their political success? Reid and Pelosi might be tempted to dismiss this as the raving of a right-wing blogger.  They shouldn't. It is in fact the considered view of someone they surely see as a respected, nay, an authoritative source: no less than the Baghdad bureau chief of the New York Times, John Burns.

Burns was a guest on this morning's "Today." In the set-up piece, NBC White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell rolled a clip of precisely the kind of politics to which Burns later alluded, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] fumed: "No more will the Congress turn a blind eye to the Bush administration's incompetence and dishonesty." Just wondering: when's the last time Reid spoke with such vitriol about al-Qaeda?

View video here.

Moments later, Matt Lauer asked Burns: "By its very nature a surge is a temporary dynamic. What is the biggest factor in your opinion as to whether they can have success in the near term and the longer term?"

NYT BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF JOHN BURNS: Well, the number of troops, that's finite. The amount of time they can stay, we think that's probably finite, too. And the calculations of the insurgents, who, as one military officer said to me, will always trade territory for time. That's to say, they will move out, they will wait. Because they know the political dynamic in the United States is moving in a direction that is probably going to be favorable to them.
The Dem party is often described as a coalition of interest groups: racial/ethnic minorities, Big Labor, gays, pro-choice activists, etc. Shall we add the Iraqi insurgents to the mix?

http://newsbusters.org/node/12261


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> apples and oranges.  I am outraged at this war.  I am not outraged at everything.  My outrage IS selective...it is confined to this war.  That is the only issue that outrages me.  Global warming, abortion, tax cuts, attorney general firings...NONE of those issues *outrage* me.  The war outrages me. It infuriates me. It sickens me.  It breaks my heart to see the carnage we have so senselessly unleashed.  It breaks my heart to know that humpty dumpty has fallen off the wall and we will not be able to put him back together again...we have fucked up the middle east...we have unleashed the beast...and we cannot unfuck it...we cannot put it back in its cage.  I think that THIS war is wrong.  I think YOu are wrong when you tell us how much better things are for everyone since we put 28K more troops into the breach.  I think YOU lie about the success... I think YOU run away from your lies and refuse to admit when you have misspoken.  I think YOU are a traitor to your country and your love for party and president over country makes me sick to my stomach.




More bad news for MM

Judge Tosses Anti-War Lawsuit

(AP) A federal judge on Monday threw out a lawsuit that raised constitutional concerns in seeking an injunction to bar President George W. Bush from launching war against Iraq. 

The lawsuit, filed earlier this month by six Democratic members of Congress and three unidentified service members and their parents, maintained that only Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war. 

The plaintiffs argued that the resolution Congress approved in October supporting military action against Iraq did not specifically declare war and unlawfully ceded the decision to Mr. Bush. 

One of the plaintiffs, Democratic Rep. John Conyers, cited the passage of the U.S. Constitution that states: "Congress shall have power ... to declare war." 

However, U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled Monday that the court did not have jurisdiction to issue an injunction against Mr. Bush. 

Tauro said the lawsuit engaged "political questions in the legal sense that are beyond the jurisdiction of the court." 

The judge added that, considering the October congressional resolution, he could not find evidence of any conflict between the will of the executive and legislative branches. 

"Case law makes clear that the Congress does not have the exclusive right to determine whether or not the United States engages in war," he said. 

An attorney for the government, Joseph Hunt, had argued that the court had no standing to issue an injunction because there was no conflict between Congress and the president. Hunt said it was also premature for the court to become involved because no one could say whether war was truly imminent or whether the president was merely using the threat of war as a bluff. 

Congress has not formally declared a war since World War II. The War Powers Act, passed in 1973 in response to the war in Vietnam and the actions of President Richard Nixon, requires the president to seek congressional approval before or shortly after ordering military action abroad. It also requires the president to report to Congress. 

A similar lawsuit was filed against Mr. Bush's father before the Gulf War by 54 members of Congress but was rejected by a federal judge in 1990. 

That judge said the elder President George Bush had not clearly committed the country to a course of action. The judge also noted that only about 10 percent of the Congress had asked for the injunction  a percentage he said was not representative of the entire body. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in540591.shtml
__________________


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Try how in one ost you say the troops cannot win - then you say you suport them
> 
> Keep your support in your mouth and stop telling all of us how you "feel" for them



I am saying that the situation in Iraq will not be solved militarily by american troops.  If I were to point out that the brain surgery being attempted on Operating Room #1 could not be successfully completed by the hospital's maintenance staff, that would not be a statement of lack of support for the maintenance staff.  Iraq is a situation that demands the diplomatic talents of the people in Iraq...it demands that politicians come up with a political solution that will be enough of a victory for both sides so that they will want to stop killing each other... Iraq cannot be solved by American military might.  It is the wrong tool for the job.  It is a great tool... it is a talented tool and a dedicated tool, but it is the wrong tool to use to try to "fix" Iraq.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I am saying that the situation in Iraq will not be solved militarily by american troops.  If I were to point out that the brain surgery being attempted on Operating Room #1 could not be successfully completed by the hospital's maintenance staff, that would not be a statement of lack of support for the maintenance staff.  Iraq is a situation that demands the diplomatic talents of the people in Iraq...it demands that politicians come up with a political solution that will be enough of a victory for both sides so that they will want to stop killing each other... Iraq cannot be solved by American military might.  It is the wrong tool for the job.  It is a great tool... it is a talented tool and a dedicated tool, but it is the wrong tool to use to try to "fix" Iraq.



White Flag MM agrees with White Flag Reid

No shocker there


----------



## maineman

how does the carnage in Iraq mean the surge is working RSR?  are you gonna post that bullshit percentage again?  what about that month old press release?  when will you admit that the surge is just another stupid idea from a stupid president?


----------



## ErikViking

maineman said:


> I am saying that the situation in Iraq will not be solved militarily by american troops.  If I were to point out that the brain surgery being attempted on Operating Room #1 could not be successfully completed by the hospital's maintenance staff, that would not be a statement of lack of support for the maintenance staff.  Iraq is a situation that demands the diplomatic talents of the people in Iraq...it demands that politicians come up with a political solution that will be enough of a victory for both sides so that they will want to stop killing each other... Iraq cannot be solved by American military might.  It is the wrong tool for the job.  It is a great tool... it is a talented tool and a dedicated tool, but it is the wrong tool to use to try to "fix" Iraq.



Okay, this is understandable. And along way from "I want out of this stupid war". It is almost constructive. 
In order for any politician in Iraq to survive don't you think a military presence is required? Something to form a secure and stable platform to speak from, so to say?


----------



## maineman

ErikViking said:


> Okay, this is understandable. And along way from "I want out of this stupid war". It is almost constructive.
> In order for any politician in Iraq to survive don't you think a military presence is required? Something to form a secure and stable platform to speak from, so to say?




perhaps...but not OUR military.  The Sadr army could do that job quite nicely...and we are kidding ourselves if we think that the end result will be anything other than a shiite quasi-theocracy anway... but americans have been kidding themselves about iraq for four years now so I really don't expect them to get serious all of a sudden.


----------



## ErikViking

maineman said:


> perhaps...but not OUR military.  The Sadr army could do that job quite nicely...and we are kidding ourselves if we think that the end result will be anything other than a shiite quasi-theocracy anway... but americans have been kidding themselves about iraq for four years now so I really don't expect them to get serious all of a sudden.



But if so, if they can do the job quite nicely, then your job is done isn't it? There will be no civil war?


----------



## Diuretic

ErikViking said:


> But if so, if they can do the job quite nicely, then your job is done isn't it? There will be no civil war?



Civil war has been happening for some time now.


----------



## maineman

ErikViking said:


> But if so, if they can do the job quite nicely, then your job is done isn't it? There will be no civil war?



oh...there will be a civil war.... regardless of when we leave, there will be bloodshed.... if we wait three years instead of three months. the only real substantive difference will be in our body count.


----------



## maineman

and since when was it America's responsibility to prevent Iraqis from fighting a civil war?  We deposed their dictator... we helped them write a constitution and hold elections.  Now...it's their turn.  It will never get any easier.... sunnis will not all of a sudden stop hating shiites if we stay a bit longer.....

Iraqis need to solve their own problems.


----------



## ErikViking

maineman said:


> and since when was it America's responsibility to prevent Iraqis from fighting a civil war?  We deposed their dictator... we helped them write a constitution and hold elections.  Now...it's their turn.  It will never get any easier.... sunnis will not all of a sudden stop hating shiites if we stay a bit longer.....
> 
> Iraqis need to solve their own problems.



Enlightning


----------



## actsnoblemartin

what are we arguing (not listening to each other  ) about, what are we fighting )needing to be right) over?

Just my humble opinion .


----------



## maineman

ErikViking said:


> Enlightning



is that some special form of lightning?

and do you have anything to add of any substance to my post other than one misspelled word?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> is that some special form of lightning?
> 
> and do you have anything to add of any substance to my post other than one misspelled word?



Burns of NYT: Insurgents Know U.S. Politics Moving in Direction Favorable to Them
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on April 24, 2007 - 08:05. 
Does it give the Dem leaders of Congress pause to realize that the enemies of the United States in Iraq, the people killing our troops, are banking on their political success? Reid and Pelosi might be tempted to dismiss this as the raving of a right-wing blogger. They shouldn't. It is in fact the considered view of someone they surely see as a respected, nay, an authoritative source: no less than the Baghdad bureau chief of the New York Times, John Burns.

Burns was a guest on this morning's "Today." In the set-up piece, NBC White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell rolled a clip of precisely the kind of politics to which Burns later alluded, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] fumed: "No more will the Congress turn a blind eye to the Bush administration's incompetence and dishonesty." When's the last time Reid spoke with such vitriol about al-Qaeda? Just wondering.

View video here.

Moments later, Matt Lauer asked Burns: "By its very nature a surge is a temporary dynamic. What is the biggest factor in your opinion as to whether they can have success in the near term and the longer term?"

NYT BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF JOHN BURNS: Well, the number of troops, that's finite. The amount of time they can stay, we think that's probably finite, too. And the calculations of the insurgents, who, as one military officer said to me, will always trade territory for time. That's to say, they will move out, they will wait. Because they know the political dynamic in the United States is moving in a direction that is probably going to be favorable to them.
The Dem party is often described as a coalition of interest groups: racial/ethnic minorities, Big Labor, gays, pro-choice activists, etc. Shall we add the Iraqi insurgents to the mix?
http://newsbusters.org/node/12261


----------



## Edward

maineman said:


> no...I have just been trying to get you to back up a claim you have made about the surge...and you seem intent on avoiding it.... you are the one running from your own words here.
> 
> you are the one who claimed that american casualties had decreased by 60% because of the success of the surge.... and you refuse to back that bullshit up with any facts.... it is clearly YOU that are losing and losing badly.  and nto very gracefully either.



The fucking idiot can't back up his claim. Your patience with this moron is commendable and you should be congratulated for your patience. I on the other hand will tell the fucking loser to shut the fuck up and to go to hell. Facts mean nothing to these retards. They have led this country into a war and a lot of innocen Americans and Iraqi's have died for their opinion even though they do not share it. These patriots joined the military to defend this country and instead are sent to die by Republican voters who care more about their opinions than about the lives of our young men and women in uniform.


----------



## Edward

Rosotar said:


> I think because he's a troll MM.
> 
> I've been away for a while but when I got back I started reading this thread and it occured to me that RSR hasn't really "said" anything. He just comes back over and over with these childish insults and one-liners that aren't really relevant to any points that are made.



Reading what this idiot has to say makes me laugh. He doesn't say anything and never has. This is why I don't even bother giving a serious response to what the retard has said instead I tell him to fuck off and vote for some retard who agrees with his silly ass. I am sure he wishes Georgie Bush could run again so he could vote for him and I am sure Laurie Bush would like that because she gets off being fucked in the White House like the whore that she is.


----------



## Edward

maineman said:


> that is wrong.  I do not think our troops are losers in any way. I think that the suits that direct them are losers... and no...not everyone who disagrees with me is a traitor...only those who clearly and distinctly place the interests of their party and their president OVER those of their country.



Here are a few words to consider, "No decision a leader makes is more important than the decision to put American men and women in harms way...Right now our troops are serving in Iraq without a clear mission, without benchmarks to determine success or failure and without a clear timeline for either coming home or redeploying to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan."

Red State Rule's response would be to call the person who said this a liberal and would suggest that they are undermining the troops by their comment.

If the same person said, "I saw how President Bush had shortchanged our troops...I saw how our continued military presence in Iraq can inflame sectarian strife...I saw how our failure to implement a timeline for withdrawal left the Iraqis with no incentive to stand up and fight for their own democracy" he would probably insult this person for making the comment.

Who is this person? He is Representative Patrick Murphy who has served in Iraq and who is an outspoken critic of the President and the way the war is being handled. This Democrat is taking a stand against those who have "shortchanged our troops" and who continue to place them in harm's way. I agree with Representative Murphy and other members of Congress and most importantly with our soldiers who oppose the retarded plan of George Bush and those who voted for him. Bush has undermined our troops, has degraded their sacrifices and has insulted them long enough. It is time for us to stand up and to support our troops and to ask Bush to apologize for undermining our troops with his decisions which have led to the deaths of many innocent men and women who signed up to defend their country but are called upon to fight for the opinion of George Bush of Crawford, Texas. We are all grateful that Representative Murphy lived through Iraq so he could be elected to fight the imbecile in the White House.


----------



## ErikViking

maineman said:


> is that some special form of lightning?
> 
> and do you have anything to add of any substance to my post other than one misspelled word?



I do:


Ignoring a world opinion and the UN, America with a few allies decide to invade Iraq. The reason and the timing was Saddam Husseins access to WMD.


A very effective invasion was carried out. In just a few weeks the war was won. The search for WMD however gave no result and frustration grew.


The label for the war was changed to be about more than WMD. An extension of the war on terror and freeing the people of Iraq.


America makes a promise to the world and the people of Iraq that they will not be abandoned. The whole effort is now called "Iraq freedom".
_"if we stop fighting the terrorists in Iraq, they would be free to plot and plan attacks elsewhere, in America and other free nations. To retreat now would betray our mission, our word and our friends."_

Time passes and the struggle for stability renders thousands of deaths. American casualties are low, but opinion at home starts to shift.


Democrats try to win votes domestically by using the shift in opinions. To get the support of people who do support this effort the democrats now claim the war has to be faught elsewhere.


Again the effort gets a new label. This time it is "stupid". Promises are easy to break and they can now ask the question of how civil war in Iraq can be of their business. They "want out".


The cynisism and arrogance of the democrats lifts to new heights. Suddenly It is up to the Iraqs themselves, but while the betrayed and innocent people die they can at least take some comfort in this:

1. A piece of paper the Americans left behind is called "Constitution".
2. There are no substancial deaths since all American soldiers have left.

So.
And what was enlightened was the true nature of the democrats wish for departing from Iraq. The weak and cowardly approach on responsability and fullfillment. Also the short-sighted perspective of the outcome.
You will leave hundered of thousands of reasons behind for new terror actions. 

Being a democrat myself I totally would support the sitting government in their ambition.


----------



## ErikViking

> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040524-10.html
> .
> .
> .
> Our coalition has a clear goal, understood by all -- to see the Iraqi people in charge of Iraq for the first time in generations. America's task in Iraq is not only to defeat an enemy, it is to give strength to a friend - a free, representative government that serves its people and fights on their behalf. And the sooner this goal is achieved, the sooner our job will be done.
> .
> .
> .
> America will provide forces and support necessary for achieving these goals.
> .
> .
> .
> After June 30th, American and other forces will still have important duties. American military forces in Iraq will operate under American command as a part of a multinational force authorized by the United Nations. Iraq's new sovereign government will still face enormous security challenges, and our forces will be there to help.
> .
> .
> .
> The third step in the plan for Iraqi democracy is to continue rebuilding that nation's infrastructure, so that a free Iraq can quickly gain economic independence and a better quality of life.





> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030428-3.html
> .
> .
> .
> You and I both know that Iraq can realize those hopes. Iraq can be an example of peace and prosperity and freedom to the entire Middle East. It'll be a hard journey, but at every step of the way, Iraq will have a steady friend in the American people.



"Unless, of cource, we change our minds." 

?


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> Burns of NYT: Insurgents Know U.S. Politics Moving in Direction Favorable to Them
> Posted by Mark Finkelstein on April 24, 2007 - 08:05.
> Does it give the Dem leaders of Congress pause to realize that the enemies of the United States in Iraq, the people killing our troops, are banking on their political success? Reid and Pelosi might be tempted to dismiss this as the raving of a right-wing blogger. They shouldn't. It is in fact the considered view of someone they surely see as a respected, nay, an authoritative source: no less than the Baghdad bureau chief of the New York Times, John Burns.
> 
> Burns was a guest on this morning's "Today." In the set-up piece, NBC White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell rolled a clip of precisely the kind of politics to which Burns later alluded, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] fumed: "No more will the Congress turn a blind eye to the Bush administration's incompetence and dishonesty." When's the last time Reid spoke with such vitriol about al-Qaeda? Just wondering.
> 
> View video here.
> 
> Moments later, Matt Lauer asked Burns: "By its very nature a surge is a temporary dynamic. What is the biggest factor in your opinion as to whether they can have success in the near term and the longer term?"
> 
> NYT BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF JOHN BURNS: Well, the number of troops, that's finite. The amount of time they can stay, we think that's probably finite, too. And the calculations of the insurgents, who, as one military officer said to me, will always trade territory for time. That's to say, they will move out, they will wait. Because they know the political dynamic in the United States is moving in a direction that is probably going to be favorable to them.
> The Dem party is often described as a coalition of interest groups: racial/ethnic minorities, Big Labor, gays, pro-choice activists, etc. Shall we add the Iraqi insurgents to the mix?
> http://newsbusters.org/node/12261



The "surge" and this entire war are not failing because of the way American politics are moving RSR.

It's the other way around.

Public opposition to this war is gaining momentum because people are finally beginning to realize that they've been lied to all along about supposed "progress" and benchmarks in this fiasco. The same thing happened to Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam.


http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1614091,00.html


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> The "surge" and this entire war are not failing because of the way American politics are moving RSR.
> 
> It's the other way around.
> 
> Public opposition to this war is gaining momentum because people are finally beginning to realize that they've been lied to all along about supposed "progress" and benchmarks in this fiasco. The same thing happened to Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam.
> 
> 
> http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1614091,00.html



So the reporter who is there does not know what is going on?


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> So the reporter who is there does not know what is going on?



According to you the only people who seem to know what's "going on" are the ones who have been spreading all the false DOD and White House propaganda for four years.


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> According to you the only people who seem to know what's "going on" are the ones who have been spreading all the false DOD and White House propaganda for four years.



Nice spin

I knew libs would ignore this even from the NY Times

I do suspect the reporter will be looking for a new job since he actually reported the truth

Something new for the NY Times


----------



## maineman

so let me get this straight....NYT is now a trusted source of news, RSR, or only when it publishes articles that agree with your preconceived view.  Which is it?  Worthless liberal rag or trusted media outlet? Take your pick.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> so let me get this straight....NYT is now a trusted source of news, RSR, or only when it publishes articles that agree with your preconceived view.  Which is it?  Worthless liberal rag or trusted media outlet? Take your pick.



One lone reporter spoke out

This is not the first time he has

and the NY Times editors pubicly rebuked him for it


----------



## maineman

take your pick...if you quote NYT as a trusted source, I will too.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> take your pick...if you quote NYT as a trusted source, I will too.



You trust them when they ignore the facts and publish the daily DNC talking points


----------



## red states rule

Watch the video from his report - if you dare

http://newsbusters.org/node/12261


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> You trust them when they ignore the facts and publish the daily DNC talking points



Still waiting for you to actually post some "facts" RSR.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> You trust them when they ignore the facts and publish the daily DNC talking points



My only point is....you can either castigate the NYT as a liberal rag, or you can quote it as a trusted source.  You don't get to do both.  

take your fucking pick. or shut your fucking piehole.


----------



## ErikViking

maineman said:


> is that some special form of lightning?
> 
> and do you have anything to add of any substance to my post other than one misspelled word?



#131 & #132?


----------



## maineman

Ignoring a world opinion and the UN, America with a few allies decide to invade Iraq. The reason and the timing was Saddam Husseins access to WMD.
*I am glad you recognize that the reason for war was clearly saddam's supposed stockpiles of WMD's.... without the scary threat of mushroom clouds over American cities, the American people would never have supported the invasion of a country that had nothing to do with attacking us on 9/11*


A very effective invasion was carried out. In just a few weeks the war was won. The search for WMD however gave no result and frustration grew.
*no kidding*


The label for the war was changed to be about more than WMD. An extension of the war on terror and freeing the people of Iraq.
*changing labels for a war felt a lot like the old "bait and switch"  I do not see the enlightened self interest of the United States that is served by expending hundreds of billions of dollars and suffering 28K dead and wounded Americans for a humanitarian cause in someone else's country and backyard..... especially when we've got a war to fight against islamic extremists that we have been all but ignoring since March of '03*


America makes a promise to the world and the people of Iraq that they will not be abandoned. The whole effort is now called "Iraq freedom".
_"if we stop fighting the terrorists in Iraq, they would be free to plot and plan attacks elsewhere, in America and other free nations. To retreat now would betray our mission, our word and our friends."_
*When the Iraqi people starting killing us, the deal is off... the right loves to make the "enemy" in Iraq "terrorists" when, in fact, the VAST majority of folks doing the killing of Americans and doing the killing of Iraqi civilians are indigenous Iraqis.  It is not a "retreat" in any sense of the word.  We shocked, awed, invaded, conquered and occupied Iraq... we helped them write a cobnstitution and hold elections, and lynch their former leader...if they wanna fight one another, that is none of our damned business!*

Time passes and the struggle for stability renders thousands of deaths. American casualties are low, but opinion at home starts to shift.
*Sorry.... they are only "low" if you haven't had to bury anyone you know.  From my perspective....ANY dead Americans in the cause of Iraqi freedom is too many.... if they want freedom, let them earn it ...let them spill THEIR OWN blood.  There is NOTHING that American gets from this war other than more enemies and further behind in the war against the folks who attacked us.*


Democrats try to win votes domestically by using the shift in opinions. To get the support of people who do support this effort the democrats now claim the war has to be faught elsewhere.
*it is not some "claim"...it is reality.  We have enemies.... we know who attacked us.... we know the ideology behind the people who attacked us... it is neither sunni baathism or shia theocracy.... the war in Iraq is NOT a war against our enemies, but a war against the people of Iraq who are becoming our enemies and are being joined by handfuls of deadenders (to quote our illustrious Veep) of our real enemy sent to stir up the pot and keep us pinned down in Iraq so we don't go after them elsewhere and so we continue to stay in Iraq pissing off the muslims of the world, making more enemies and more recruits for the guys who attacked us.*


Again the effort gets a new label. This time it is "stupid". Promises are easy to break and they can now ask the question of how civil war in Iraq can be of their business. They "want out".
*again... our humanitarian mission of goody goodness to the Iraqi people gets called off when the Iraqi people start killing us.  Promise rescinded.  Adios*


The cynisism and arrogance of the democrats lifts to new heights. Suddenly It is up to the Iraqs themselves, but while the betrayed and innocent people die they can at least take some comfort in this:

1. A piece of paper the Americans left behind is called "Constitution".
2. There are no substancial deaths since all American soldiers have left.

*why has it ever been up to anyone else BUT the Iraqis?  When we fought OUR war of independence....did the French storm ashore en masse, whip the British, continue to occupy the colonies, "help" us write a constitution, "help" us hold elections, hold our hand as we figured out how to be a country?  Why do we need to do that for the Iraqis?  WHy, when they are KILLING US, would you attempt to portray our actions as "betraying them"?  And I would imagine that there WILL be Iraqi deaths after we leave.  I would imagine that that will happen no matter how long we stay.  Sunnis and shiites are determined to get it on and they will go through some carnage until both sides have a belly full of it... and that will happen when we leave - if we leave in 2007 or 2015.... the only REAL difference will be OUR body count*


----------



## ErikViking

A good reply, I would have expected nothing less!



maineman said:


> Ignoring a world opinion and the UN, America with a few allies decide to invade Iraq. The reason and the timing was Saddam Husseins access to WMD.
> *I am glad you recognize that the reason for war was clearly saddam's supposed stockpiles of WMD's.... without the scary threat of mushroom clouds over American cities, the American people would never have supported the invasion of a country that had nothing to do with attacking us on 9/11*
> I don't know exactly what you mean here... seems to matter less though.
> 
> 
> The label for the war was changed to be about more than WMD. An extension of the war on terror and freeing the people of Iraq.
> *changing labels for a war felt a lot like the old "bait and switch"  I do not see the enlightened self interest of the United States that is served by expending hundreds of billions of dollars and suffering 28K dead and wounded Americans for a humanitarian cause in someone else's country and backyard..... especially when we've got a war to fight against islamic extremists that we have been all but ignoring since March of '03*
> Yet, America went on doing just that. Are you saying people were fooled somehow into supporting this?
> 
> 
> America makes a promise to the world and the people of Iraq that they will not be abandoned. The whole effort is now called "Iraq freedom".
> _"if we stop fighting the terrorists in Iraq, they would be free to plot and plan attacks elsewhere, in America and other free nations. To retreat now would betray our mission, our word and our friends."_
> *When the Iraqi people starting killing us, the deal is off... the right loves to make the "enemy" in Iraq "terrorists" when, in fact, the VAST majority of folks doing the killing of Americans and doing the killing of Iraqi civilians are indigenous Iraqis.  It is not a "retreat" in any sense of the word.  We shocked, awed, invaded, conquered and occupied Iraq... we helped them write a cobnstitution and hold elections, and lynch their former leader...if they wanna fight one another, that is none of our damned business!*
> The "deal off" thing doesn't hold. So America met opposition? The religios fractions of Iraq wasn't a secret, strategyst knew exactly what they were facing. The quotes from your own presidents web site tells the story.
> 
> 
> Time passes and the struggle for stability renders thousands of deaths. American casualties are low, but opinion at home starts to shift.
> *Sorry.... they are only "low" if you haven't had to bury anyone you know.  From my perspective....ANY dead Americans in the cause of Iraqi freedom is too many.... if they want freedom, let them earn it ...let them spill THEIR OWN blood.  There is NOTHING that American gets from this war other than more enemies and further behind in the war against the folks who attacked us.*
> I know. I was deliberatly being a bit provocative. For every dead American lies thousands of Iraqies. Most innocent. Their blood was spilled - some supporting you - some not.
> 
> 
> Democrats try to win votes domestically by using the shift in opinions. To get the support of people who do support this effort the democrats now claim the war has to be faught elsewhere.
> *it is not some "claim"...it is reality.  We have enemies.... we know who attacked us.... we know the ideology behind the people who attacked us... it is neither sunni baathism or shia theocracy.... the war in Iraq is NOT a war against our enemies, but a war against the people of Iraq who are becoming our enemies and are being joined by handfuls of deadenders (to quote our illustrious Veep) of our real enemy sent to stir up the pot and keep us pinned down in Iraq so we don't go after them elsewhere and so we continue to stay in Iraq pissing off the muslims of the world, making more enemies and more recruits for the guys who attacked us.*
> You know there is a flips side here. The long trail of unresolved end you leave behind will cause you problem. But I do agree, your resources could probably be used better, no doubt.
> 
> 
> Again the effort gets a new label. This time it is "stupid". Promises are easy to break and they can now ask the question of how civil war in Iraq can be of their business. They "want out".
> *again... our humanitarian mission of goody goodness to the Iraqi people gets called off when the Iraqi people start killing us.  Promise rescinded.  Adios*
> I see that the promise is broken for a reason. The people of Iraq broke their "Please invade us" contract first.
> 
> *why has it ever been up to anyone else BUT the Iraqis?*
> Ever since America choosed it to be. Ever since then.
> 
> *When we fought OUR war of independence....did the French storm ashore en masse, whip the British, continue to occupy the colonies, "help" us write a constitution, "help" us hold elections, hold our hand as we figured out how to be a country?
> *
> Aaawh... COME on? Can we drop that?
> 
> * Why do we need to do that for the Iraqis?  WHy, when they are KILLING US, would you attempt to portray our actions as "betraying them"?  And I would imagine that there WILL be Iraqi deaths after we leave.  I would imagine that that will happen no matter how long we stay.  Sunnis and shiites are determined to get it on and they will go through some carnage until both sides have a belly full of it... and that will happen when we leave - if we leave in 2007 or 2015.... the only REAL difference will be OUR body count*
> 
> Okay fine. I know what you mean and I do understand.
> 
> BUT
> 
> You Have Made A Promise
> 
> There were no strings to it. No hidden facts, nothing surpricing about the situation that has evolved. Where next will you take your army for reason "A", promise "B" and do "C"? What people have to suffer next because of your unwillingness to take responsability?


----------



## maineman

ErikViking said:


> A good reply, I would have expected nothing less!
> 
> Okay fine. I know what you mean and I do understand.
> 
> BUT
> 
> You Have Made A Promise
> 
> There were no strings to it. No hidden facts, nothing surpricing about the situation that has evolved. Where next will you take your army for reason "A", promise "B" and do "C"? What people have to suffer next because of your unwillingness to take responsability?



If you make a promise to your next door neighbor that you will help him train his young labrador retriever, and then, after you start the training process, your neighbor kills YOUR pet poodle and then kills your daughter, you no longer have a moral obligation to train that lab puppy after that.  

As Tom Friedman said the other night, America has put itself in the unenviable, no-win situation of being the protector of the sunnis - and the target of the sunnis..... and the protector of the shiites - and the target of the shiites.

FUCK THAT.  We got rid of Saddam.... we held their hands while they wrote a constitution and held not one not two but THREE fucking elections.  We have suffered 28 THOUSAND dead and wounded soldiers  - the vast majority of whom have been killed by the very people you think we have some sacred responsibility to.  Bullshit.  They are killing US... Iraqis are killing US.  We don't owe Iraqis shit.  We have flushed a trillion dollars down the shitter...we have put 3334 proud and brave young americans in their graves.... I had the sad honor to carry the casket of ONE of them and that was too many.


----------



## maineman

"Yet, America went on doing just that. Are you saying people were fooled somehow into supporting this?"
*that is exactly what I am saying.  I am saying that if George Bush had said we need to go invade Iraq and kick Saddam out of office as a humanitarian gesture to the poor folks of Iraq.... and admitted right up front that there was no certainty that Iraq had any Weapons that could hurt us and no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had fuckall to do with 9/11...I do NOT think that America would have supported such a war.*


----------



## maineman

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18312789/

folks like RSR try to paint those of us who want us OUT of Iraq as being OUT of the mainstream.

The Wall Street Journal Poll linked above would tend to indicate that it is the koolaid soaked Bushlickers like RSR who are out of the mainstream.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18312789/
> 
> folks like RSR try to paint those of us who want us OUT of Iraq as being OUT of the mainstream.
> 
> The Wall Street Journal Poll linked above would tend to indicate that it is the koolaid soaked Bushlickers like RSR who are out of the mainstream.



Polls once showed people thought the world was flat


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Polls once showed people thought the world was flat




and polls now show that most folks have figured out that the world is round.

Similarly, polls once showed that Americans believed the bullshit fromthe Bushies that Saddam had shitloads of WMD's, that he was in cahoots with Osama, and that he was a real and immediate danger to the US.... 

and polls now show that most folks have figured out that the world is round.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> and polls now show that most folks have figured out that the world is round.
> 
> Similarly, polls once showed that Americans believed the bullshit fromthe Bushies that Saddam had shitloads of WMD's, that he was in cahoots with Osama, and that he was a real and immediate danger to the US....
> 
> and polls now show that most folks have figured out that the world is round.



Dems have allowed the arrogrance to take over, and they are showing theior true colors - yellow thru and thru


----------



## ErikViking

maineman said:


> If you make a promise to your next door neighbor that you will help him train his young labrador retriever, and then, after you start the training process, your neighbor kills YOUR pet poodle and then kills your daughter, you no longer have a moral obligation to train that lab puppy after that.


Bad example, indeed. Maybe such simplifications led to this situation in the first place? 



maineman said:


> As Tom Friedman said the other night, America has put itself in the unenviable, no-win situation of being the protector of the sunnis - and the target of the sunnis..... and the protector of the shiites - and the target of the shiites.
> 
> FUCK THAT.  We got rid of Saddam.... we held their hands while they wrote a constitution and held not one not two but THREE fucking elections.  We have suffered 28 THOUSAND dead and wounded soldiers  - the vast majority of whom have been killed by the very people you think we have some sacred responsibility to.  Bullshit.  They are killing US... Iraqis are killing US.  We don't owe Iraqis shit.  We have flushed a trillion dollars down the shitter...we have put 3334 proud and brave young americans in their graves.... I had the sad honor to carry the casket of ONE of them and that was too many.


It must feel terrible to have to go thrught that. As I said before I do understand. And I suppose I might feel the same thing. But that doesn't take away the American responsability. What would you say is the biggest difference between 9/11 and this war? Wait. Try explaining it to a child who lost his parents in a Tomahawk strike. Can you manage that without he grows up hating America? Yes. If you stay. And show. What America is actually about.
Don't get me wrong - I see the differance - but the people who has suffered are no less important than the American soldiers.



maineman said:


> "Yet, America went on doing just that. Are you saying people were fooled somehow into supporting this?"
> *that is exactly what I am saying.  I am saying that if George Bush had said we need to go invade Iraq and kick Saddam out of office as a humanitarian gesture to the poor folks of Iraq.... and admitted right up front that there was no certainty that Iraq had any Weapons that could hurt us and no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had fuckall to do with 9/11...I do NOT think that America would have supported such a war.*



And America calls N.Koera a rouge state?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Dems have allowed the arrogrance to take over, and they are showing theior true colors - yellow thru and thru



we're not afraid of anything.  we see no reason to postpone the war against islamic extremism while we babysit the Iraqis in the middle of their sectarian squabble.

we shocked them...we awed them... we invaded them...we conquered them...we helped them apprehend and lynch their former dictator....we helped them write a constitution...we have spent four years training their army and police forces... we have held their hands through three elections.... and now we are being killed by members of both sides of a sectarian struggle with roots older than our nation and the entire effort is costing us men money and time and distracting us from the real fight against the real enemy.  If you ask me, it is the republicans that are afraid to admit to the american people that they have utterly failed to advance the war against our attackers in the years since 9/11.


----------



## maineman

Bad example, indeed. Maybe such simplifications led to this situation in the first place? 

*bad example because YOU say it's bad?  I disagree.  We have no moral obligation to continue to protect a civilian population in a foreign land when that same civilian population is killing us.*


It must feel terrible to have to go thrught that. As I said before I do understand. And I suppose I might feel the same thing. But that doesn't take away the American responsability. What would you say is the biggest difference between 9/11 and this war? Wait. Try explaining it to a child who lost his parents in a Tomahawk strike. Can you manage that without he grows up hating America? Yes. If you stay. And show. What America is actually about.
Don't get me wrong - I see the differance - but the people who has suffered are no less important than the American soldiers.

*the longer we stay, the more Iraqi children will grow up hating us.... we are doing no good...the sectarian squabble will continue when we leave whenever we leave.... the only difference will be the size of OUR body count*



And America calls N.Koera a rouge state?

*actually we call it a "rogue" state, although that little napolean-esque weirdo running the joint probably wears rouge.  But what does that have to do with the fact that Bush hyped the case for war based upon WMD's and a 9/11 connection and America would have never supported a war to save the poor Iraqi people from the scourge of Saddam?  *


----------



## ErikViking

maineman said:


> Bad example, indeed. Maybe such simplifications led to this situation in the first place?
> 
> *bad example because YOU say it's bad?  I disagree.  We have no moral obligation to continue to protect a civilian population in a foreign land when that same civilian population is killing us.*
> Well it is bad because it implies that the question is simple. It isn't. Alot of support for this American effort exist due to the promise. Not all Iraqies want America out. Iraqies in exile can't return as it is. The picture isn't the same in the whole if Iraq. Progress has been made. Other nations has contributed in the task you officially set up. The greyish world doesn't fit in to your dog dead/dog alive scenario. That is why the example is bad.
> I think you DO have a moral obligation, but perhaps not a practical one anymore.
> It must feel terrible to have to go thrught that. As I said before I do understand. And I suppose I might feel the same thing. But that doesn't take away the American responsability. What would you say is the biggest difference between 9/11 and this war? Wait. Try explaining it to a child who lost his parents in a Tomahawk strike. Can you manage that without he grows up hating America? Yes. If you stay. And show. What America is actually about.
> Don't get me wrong - I see the differance - but the people who has suffered are no less important than the American soldiers.
> 
> *the longer we stay, the more Iraqi children will grow up hating us.... we are doing no good...the sectarian squabble will continue when we leave whenever we leave.... the only difference will be the size of OUR body count*
> We can't exactly test this. The history gives mixed answeres to it. If you thought it was best for Iraq that America left we could discuss that. But you openly says you have no interest in Iraq, ONLY American casualties count.
> 
> 
> And America calls N.Koera a rouge state?
> 
> *actually we call it a "rogue" state, although that little napolean-esque weirdo running the joint probably wears rouge.  But what does that have to do with the fact that Bush hyped the case for war based upon WMD's and a 9/11 connection and America would have never supported a war to save the poor Iraqi people from the scourge of Saddam?  *



Yeah...  I know!

It does! Because if YOU (maineman) invalidate every reason for the war and NOW think it is none of your business anymore you have acomplished this:

For no reason attacked a soverign state.
Killed thousands of civilians.
Killed their leader.
Left the country in chaos.

All because the war was "hyped". That is a rogue-like behaviour. You can't explain or defend your actions - it just happened! It was that other presidents doings! In short: You are not trustworthy.


----------



## maineman

You think we have a moral obligation to Iraq.  I am saying that I disagree.  We shocked, awed, invade, conquered, occupied them...we helped them write a constitution, we held their hands for three elections, we trained their military at least as much as we have trained our own soldiers we send to fight in their country... and they are now killing us.  Thus endeth the moral obligation.  period.

Do Iraqi casaulties "COUNT" for me?  Of course they do.... children dying of AIDS in Africa "COUNT" for me.... "no man is an island" and all that... yada yada yada.... We have a war to fight against the people who attacked us and who still wish to do us harm.  Protecting America is the first and primary responsibility of this government.  It would be goody goody good if we had unlimited resources and we could save everyone aid every blind old lady across every crowded intersection and help every kitten out of every tree across the globe.... but we don't.  Sunnis and shiites have been spoiling for a fight in Iraq for a long long time....and mark my words, they will have it.... sooner or later.  Despite ANY and ALL efforts of Uncle Sam to get them to put down their weapons and put aside their millenium old hatred and gather together for a big group hug and three choruses of 'kumbaya', they will have it.

We, I guess, have done SOME good in Iraq.... Saddam is deposed and legally lynched.... they have a constitution now...they have had three elections.... now it's time for us to go...and it is especially time for us to go when the people we are dying to protect are killing us.


----------



## ErikViking

maineman said:


> You think we have a moral obligation to Iraq.  I am saying that I disagree.  We shocked, awed, invade, conquered, occupied them...we helped them write a constitution, we held their hands for three elections, we trained their military at least as much as we have trained our own soldiers we send to fight in their country... and they are now killing us.  Thus endeth the moral obligation.  period.
> 
> Do Iraqi casaulties "COUNT" for me?  Of course they do.... children dying of AIDS in Africa "COUNT" for me.... "no man is an island" and all that... yada yada yada.... We have a war to fight against the people who attacked us and who still wish to do us harm.  Protecting America is the first and primary responsibility of this government.  It would be goody goody good if we had unlimited resources and we could save everyone aid every blind old lady across every crowded intersection and help every kitten out of every tree across the globe.... but we don't.  Sunnis and shiites have been spoiling for a fight in Iraq for a long long time....and mark my words, they will have it.... sooner or later.  Despite ANY and ALL efforts of Uncle Sam to get them to put down their weapons and put aside their millenium old hatred and gather together for a big group hug and three choruses of 'kumbaya', they will have it.
> 
> We, I guess, have done SOME good in Iraq.... Saddam is deposed and legally lynched.... they have a constitution now...they have had three elections.... now it's time for us to go...and it is especially time for us to go when the people we are dying to protect are killing us.



Yeah, I guess we can close for now. It think we know where we stand.

Good discussion though!

I can't help my self typing:

"Would you mind use that fierceful army of yours with a bit more thoughtfulness in the future?"


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> we're not afraid of anything.  we see no reason to postpone the war against islamic extremism while we babysit the Iraqis in the middle of their sectarian squabble.
> 
> we shocked them...we awed them... we invaded them...we conquered them...we helped them apprehend and lynch their former dictator....we helped them write a constitution...we have spent four years training their army and police forces... we have held their hands through three elections.... and now we are being killed by members of both sides of a sectarian struggle with roots older than our nation and the entire effort is costing us men money and time and distracting us from the real fight against the real enemy.  If you ask me, it is the republicans that are afraid to admit to the american people that they have utterly failed to advance the war against our attackers in the years since 9/11.



Dems are scared to death of victory

that is why they snubbed Gen General David Petraeus's briefings


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Dems are scared to death of victory
> 
> that is why they snubbed Gen General David Petraeus's briefings




do you EVER have anything other than catcalls to offer this site?  

Nobody is SCARED of victory.  We just have a different definition of what victory - and defeat - entails.  Leaving Iraqis who are killing US AND each other to solve their own problems after providing them with an enormous amount of assistance in terms of finding and helping to execute their former dictator, helping them write a constitution... holding their hands through three elections..training their army.... mission accomplished.  They want to fight one another and they want to kill us.  We have reason to be in the middle of that.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> do you EVER have anything other than catcalls to offer this site?
> 
> Nobody is SCARED of victory.  We just have a different definition of what victory - and defeat - entails.  Leaving Iraqis who are killing US AND each other to solve their own problems after providing them with an enormous amount of assistance in terms of finding and helping to execute their former dictator, helping them write a constitution... holding their hands through three elections..training their army.... mission accomplished.  They want to fight one another and they want to kill us.  We have reason to be in the middle of that.



So now facts are "catcalls"?

Dems are scared of victory. They have invested their entire political future in the defeat of the US in Iraq

Dems are giving it everything they got to ensure defeat


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> So now facts are "catcalls"?
> 
> Dems are scared of victory. They have invested their entire political future in the defeat of the US in Iraq
> 
> Dems are giving it everything they got to ensure defeat



those are catcalls.  

Nobody in my party is scared of victory...that is just a bullshit phrase you use but can never substantiate.  We have not invested anything in the defeat of the US..and your mere accusation is regugnant and profoundly insulting.  We see a future where America confronts and defeats islamic extremism...the war in Iraq does nothing for that effort and only hurts our chances of victory in it.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> those are catcalls.
> 
> Nobody in my party is scared of victory...that is just a bullshit phrase you use but can never substantiate.  We have not invested anything in the defeat of the US..and your mere accusation is regugnant and profoundly insulting.  We see a future where America confronts and defeats islamic extremism...the war in Iraq does nothing for that effort and only hurts our chances of victory in it.



You only have your entire parties political future invested in defeat

They have done eveything possible for the last four years to undermine the war


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> You only have your entire parties political future invested in defeat
> 
> They have done eveything possible for the last four years to undermine the war




I do not consider allowing Iraqis to determine their own political fate and to finally start fighting the real war against the people who DID attack us as "defeat"  I am saddened that you do.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I do not consider allowing Iraqis to determine their own political fate and to finally start fighting the real war against the people who DID attack us as "defeat"  I am saddened that you do.



If you want the Iraqis to stand on their own, why do you want to pull the US support out?

They are making progress in doing just that


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> If you want the Iraqis to stand on their own, why do you want to pull the US support out?
> 
> They are making progress in doing just that



I think if you'll read the resolution we only want to pull out if they FAIL to make progress doing that....

and when will you ever admit you fucked up about American casualties decreasing as a result of the success of the surge, by the way?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I think if you'll read the resolution we only want to pull out if they FAIL to make progress doing that....
> 
> and when will you ever admit you fucked up about American casualties decreasing as a result of the success of the surge, by the way?



Dems put a surrender date in the bill


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Dems put a surrender date in the bill



no...you obviously do not even know what the word surrender means.

come on back when you do.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no...you obviously do not even know what the word surrender means.
> 
> come on back when you do.



Sticking your head in the sand will not make the truth about the surrender bill go away


----------



## maineman

you see...you were supposed to go find out the definition of the word "surrender" and THEN come back.

go try again.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you see...you were supposed to go find out the definition of the word "surrender" and THEN come back.
> 
> go try again.



The defintion is in the Dems Surrender bill

The date Dems will hand over Iraq to the terrorists and the date they force the troops out


----------



## maineman

_*sur·ren·der* [suh-ren-der] 
verb (used with object) 

1. to yield (something) to the possession or power of another; deliver up possession of on demand or under duress: to surrender the fort to the enemy; to surrender the stolen goods to the police.  

2. to give (oneself) up, as to the police. _ 

*we are not advocating doing any such thing*


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> _*sur·ren·der* [suh-ren-der]
> verb (used with object)
> 
> 1. to yield (something) to the possession or power of another; deliver up possession of on demand or under duress: to surrender the fort to the enemy; to surrender the stolen goods to the police.
> 
> 2. to give (oneself) up, as to the police. _
> 
> *we are not advocating doing any such thing*



to surrender the fort to the enemy

Perfect explanation of the Dems war plan


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> to surrender the fort to the enemy
> 
> Perfect explanation of the Dems war plan




what fort are we "surrendering"?  We are the occupying army here...we are allowing the Iraqi authorities to determine their own political fate.  We are giving no positions to *enemies*, we would be turning over any military installations and assets to *Iraqi government armed forces*....not *surrendering* them to any enemy.  You don't know what the word means.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> what fort are we "surrendering"?  We are the occupying army here...we are allowing the Iraqi authorities to determine their own political fate.  We are giving no positions to *enemies*, we would be turning over any military installations and assets to *Iraqi government armed forces*....not *surrendering* them to any enemy.  You don't know what the word means.



Iraq is the fort

Dems are to blinded by their hate to see it


----------



## maineman

As we leave Iraq, we will turn over all our facilities and all of our assets to Iraqi government military forces.  That is not surrendering to the enemy. 

For our departure to be a surrender, we would have to do so under duress or upon demand, and we would turn over (surrender) our facilities and our assets to the ENEMY.  That is what surrendering is.... we are not doing that.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> As we leave Iraq, we will turn over all our facilities and all of our assets to Iraqi government military forces.  That is not surrendering to the enemy.
> 
> For our departure to be a surrender, we would have to do so under duress or upon demand, and we would turn over (surrender) our facilities and our assets to the ENEMY.  That is what surrendering is.... we are not doing that.



Handing the country over to the terrorists (and Iran) is surrender. Something Dems have wanted to do for years

Dems have a long history of appeasement - some things never change


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Handing the country over to the terrorists (and Iran) is surrender. Something Dems have wanted to do for years
> 
> Dems have a long history of appeasement - some things never change



show me any statement by any democrat that advocates handing anything over to terrorists or Iran.  I suggest that we want to hand everything over to the legitimate Iraqi government.... which is surrendering nothing.


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> Handing the country over to the terrorists (and Iran) is surrender. Something Dems have wanted to do for years



It is important to remember that these terrorists didn't exist in Iraq until we invaded, deposed Saddam, and destabilized the country. Neither was Iran a threat to Iraq before we (Bush) invaded. All of these problems were created by Bush and he's had four years to resolve them. Congress is simply telling him he doesn't have a blank check to kill our soldiers anymore without showing any results. That's not unreasonable.



red states rule said:


> Dems have a long history of appeasement - some things never change



Oh yeah?

How about some examples?


----------



## Paul Revere

maineman said:


> no...you obviously do not even know what the word surrender means.
> 
> come on back when you do.



He knows it means anything Rush limbaugh says it means.


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> You only have your entire parties political future invested in defeat
> 
> They have done eveything possible for the last four years to undermine the war



Just because Rush Slimeball and Michelle Malcontent tell you this doesn't mean it's true RSR!

You are quoting Limbaugh verbatim with this ridiculous crap!


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> If you want the Iraqis to stand on their own, why do you want to pull the US support out?



How long should we give them to "stand on their own?"

Shouldn't we have some deadline where we finally say "it's not going to happen?"

That's all Democrats are doing now. Bush told us his "surge" would make a difference. Commanders said we would know within six months whether it was going to work or not. What's the problem? If the surge works like Bush has assured us it will, then fall of 08 is plenty of time to expect us to pacify Iraq. If the surge fails then that deadline is also realistic. This argument that the enemy will just wait us out is garbage. We're supposed to have defeated the enemy way before that date.

They are making progress in doing just that[/QUOTE]

Well, not really.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070429/pl_bloomberg/a4vqi1odlhkc_1

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq_struggling_police


----------



## red states rule

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269338,00.html

The people of Iraq are starting to fight back - they killed this dirtbag


----------



## maineman

the fact that sunnis don't get along with AQ is not news.... the fact that sunnis don't get along with shiites is not news either.  How about that 60% decrease in AMerican casualties that you trumpeted? How is that going?


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> Just because Rush Slimeball and Michelle Malcontent tell you this doesn't mean it's true RSR!
> 
> You are quoting Limbaugh verbatim with this ridiculous crap!



No, what Dems say in public makes it true

White Flag Reid saying the war is lost is a good start


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> the fact that sunnis don't get along with AQ is not news.... the fact that sunnis don't get along with shiites is not news either.  How about that 60% decrease in AMerican casualties that you trumpeted? How is that going?



Lame attempt at spin

Dems scream about the people of Iraq doing something - they take out a top terrorists and Dems dismiss it

Much like Dems ignoring Gen Patritius's briefing - they do not want to hear any good news or signs of progress


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Lame attempt at spin
> 
> Dems scream about the people of Iraq doing something - they take out a top terrorists and Dems dismiss it
> 
> Much like Dems ignoring Gen Patritius's briefing - they do not want to hear any good news or signs of progress




I don't dismiss it.... if the leader of AQ in iraq is dead, that is great news.  If elements of the Iraqi army got him that is great news.  If sunni insurgents killed him, that is not so great news, is it?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I don't dismiss it.... if the leader of AQ in iraq is dead, that is great news.  If elements of the Iraqi army got him that is great news.  If sunni insurgents killed him, that is not so great news, is it?



any good news from Iraq or on the US economy depresses libs


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> Dems scream about the people of Iraq doing something - they take out a top terrorists and Dems dismiss it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's really not going to make one bit of difference. It won't lessen the violence in Iraq one bit or even help to stabilize the situation.
> 
> Think I'm wrong? Just wait and see.
> 
> 
> 
> red states rule said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much like Dems ignoring Gen Patritius's briefing - they do not want to hear any good news or signs of progress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is important to remember that Patraeus is only there because the last General, George Casey, wasn't saying what Bush wanted to hear. Petraeus got the job because he's little more than a lackey for the Bush spin machine.
> 
> When Casey gave a bleak assessment of the situation in Iraq Bush not only ignored him he replaced him. It's no wonder that this new guy does such a good job of spinning the party line.
> 
> So much for "listening" to the commanders in the field huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> any good news from Iraq or on the US economy depresses libs



No.....

Lame GOP talking points and hollow Conservative propaganda depresses us.


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> No.....
> 
> Lame GOP talking points and hollow Conservative propaganda depresses us.



Libs get pissed over any good news - look at your optimistic reaction over the good news from Iraq


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> Libs get pissed over any good news - look at your optimistic reaction over the good news from Iraq



I'll save your quote here RSR and in a couple weeks I'll post it back for you to look at and I'll ask you to explain why you thought this "good news" really meant anything and why it should have been celebrated.

Will you be ready?


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> I'll save your quote here RSR and in a couple weeks I'll post it back for you to look at and I'll ask you to explain why you thought this "good news" really meant anything and why it should have been celebrated.
> 
> Will you be ready?



I am not surprised by your response. Dems have placed their politcal future in the failure of the US in Iraq

Libs tried that with the US economy and they are losing that fight as well


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> I am not surprised by your response. Dems have placed their politcal future in the failure of the US in Iraq



Not true.

I read Rush's website every single day so I know where you get your talking points.

*REAL* Americans have a duty to think for themselves.

Have you ever tried that RSR?



red states rule said:


> Libs tried that with the US economy and they are losing that fight as well



At least they can still win elections though!


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> Not true.
> 
> I read Rush's website every single day so I know where you get your talking points.
> 
> *REAL* Americans have a duty to think for themselves.
> 
> Have you ever tried that RSR?
> 
> 
> 
> At least they can still win elections though!



Yea, libs won one election out of the last four

I noticed Republicans did not have a temper tantrum like libs did after the previous three elections


----------



## red states rule

Dems are surrendering

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> Dems are surrendering
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/



Nice link ditto-boy!

Did you even read it? Highlights from a CNN ticker. How creative.

If you had bothered to read your own link though you would have come across this interesting item.

SOME REPUBLICANS "BEGINNING TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE": Distressed by the violence in Iraq and worried about tying their political fate to an unpopular president, some Republicans on Capitol Hill are beginning to move away from the White House to stake out a more critical position on the U.S. role in the war. These lawmakers are advocating proposals that would tie the U.S. commitment in the war to the Iraqi government's ability to demonstrate that it is working to quell the sectarian conflict. As Democrats start work on a new war spending bill to replace the one President Bush vetoed, at least three Republican senators who opposed the Democratic withdrawal plan said Wednesday that the new bill should include so-called benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet. Los Angeles Times: Some Republicans split with Bush on the war 

How long will it be before dedicated Bush apologists like yourself start calling Republican proposals like Benchmarks for the Iraqi government a "surrender" plan.


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> Nice link ditto-boy!
> 
> Did you even read it? Highlights from a CNN ticker. How creative.
> 
> If you had bothered to read your own link though you would have come across this interesting item.
> 
> SOME REPUBLICANS "BEGINNING TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE": Distressed by the violence in Iraq and worried about tying their political fate to an unpopular president, some Republicans on Capitol Hill are beginning to move away from the White House to stake out a more critical position on the U.S. role in the war. These lawmakers are advocating proposals that would tie the U.S. commitment in the war to the Iraqi government's ability to demonstrate that it is working to quell the sectarian conflict. As Democrats start work on a new war spending bill to replace the one President Bush vetoed, at least three Republican senators who opposed the Democratic withdrawal plan said Wednesday that the new bill should include so-called benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet. Los Angeles Times: Some Republicans split with Bush on the war
> 
> How long will it be before dedicated Bush apologists like yourself start calling Republican proposals like Benchmarks for the Iraqi government a "surrender" plan.




I read the link 

If Republicans are losing - why are the Dems giving up?

The anti war kook left are going to shit pants when they see Pres Bush wins this one


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> I read the link
> 
> If Republicans are losing - why are the Dems giving up?
> 
> The anti war kook left are going to shit pants when they see Pres Bush wins this one



The weird thing about that is that when Bush "wins" our country looses.

So do our troops in harms way.


----------



## no1tovote4

Rosotar said:


> The weird thing about that is that when Bush "wins" our country looses.
> 
> So do our troops in harms way.



Our country loses if we do not live up to the promise that this time we would stay until the job had been completed.  Until there was a stable and strong Iraq, as was promised right after Baghdad fell.

Leaving before that time will only ensure a future foray into that part of the world, with a better prepared enemy to fight.

Because of the trust issue, after we left them high and dry in our last foray into Iraq, Iraqis have a hard time believing that the US will stay.  Because of this, and current reports of our loss of focus, most Iraqis have begun joining one of the local groups for protection, this solidifies them and pretty much guarantees a long embittered insecurity in that nation.

This belief that as soon as we leave brotherhood and love will prevail as they kill all those from outside the nation because they are really mad is a bit, oh shall we say "wishful" yeah that will be good, of wishful thinking.

It will make it even more difficult, if not impossible, for these people to ever trust the US again.  We must stay true to our promise, or this will haunt us for more than a generation.


----------



## Rosotar

no1tovote4 said:


> Our country loses if we do not live up to the promise that this time we would stay until the job had been completed.  Until there was a stable and strong Iraq, as was promised right after Baghdad fell.



Actually Iraq was pretty stable before we invaded. It only became the way it is after we invaded.



no1tovote4 said:


> Leaving before that time will only ensure a future foray into that part of the world, with a better prepared enemy to fight..



It's a bit naive to believe that even a relatively strong and stable democracy in Iraq is going to enable us to "leave" the region eventually. However if we were to leave altogether it would go a long way toward easing the tensions that cause terrorism toward us and our interests.



no1tovote4 said:


> Because of the trust issue, after we left them high and dry in our last foray into Iraq, Iraqis have a hard time believing that the US will stay.  Because of this, and current reports of our loss of focus, most Iraqis have begun joining one of the local groups for protection, this solidifies them and pretty much guarantees a long embittered insecurity in that nation.



So it sounds like you're getting close to admitting that maybe Bush should have known a little more about what he was getting into before he got into it. He should have known that invading Iraq was not going to be the cakewalk he thought it was. Actually people like Colin Powell and Eric Shenseki tried to tell him but he wouldn't listen so the whole thing is really his fault. He should have known that the majority of Americans were not going to continue supporting failed policy and loosing wars forever. Don't blame the public, the media, or liberals for this failure of Bush's. The entire thing is on his shoulders alone. He got in way over his head and now his apologists will try to blame his mistakes on anybody but him. Everyday though the public gets a little wiser to this ruse as was demonstrated in last fall's elections.



no1tovote4 said:


> This belief that as soon as we leave brotherhood and love will prevail as they kill all those from outside the nation because they are really mad is a bit, oh shall we say "wishful" yeah that will be good, of wishful thinking.



Who says brotherhood and love will prevail. It's going to be a bloodbath. There will be civil war, ethnic cleansing, ect. It is inevitable now and only a matter of time though. Bush and his Neocon puppet handlers have let the genie out of the bottle and they can't put it back in no matter how long we stay. This blood is and will be on George Bush's head no matter how hard he tries to spin it otherwise.



no1tovote4 said:


> It will make it even more difficult, if not impossible, for these people to ever trust the US again.  We must stay true to our promise, or this will haunt us for more than a generation.



Ha! Ha!

Good one!

The Iraqi's didn't invite us. We invaded on the premise of WMD....remember?

The "promise" that you speak of was just invented after the fact to keep Bush's goose from being thoroughly cooked for lying about his reasons for launching a war after it became apparent it wasn't going to be as easy as he thought.

The Iraqi's never "trusted" us with anything to begin with!


----------



## no1tovote4

Rosotar said:


> Actually Iraq was pretty stable before we invaded. It only became the way it is after we invaded.



True, and I did not support it as it was an undeclared war.  However that has little basis on the fact that we did make a promise after taking Baghdad that we would stay until stability becamse a fact for them.



> It's a bit naive to believe that even a relatively strong and stable democracy in Iraq is going to enable us to "leave" the region eventually. However if we were to leave altogether it would go a long way toward easing the tensions that cause terrorism toward us and our interests.



It would not.  We had not invaded Iraq previously and it did not stop them from attacking us.  This is just another excuse that argues against the reality.



> So it sounds like you're getting close to admitting that maybe Bush should have known a little more about what he was getting into before he got into it. He should have known that invading Iraq was not going to be the cakewalk he thought it was. Actually people like Colin Powell and Eric Shenseki tried to tell him but he wouldn't listen so the whole thing is really his fault. He should have known that the majority of Americans were not going to continue supporting failed policy and loosing wars forever. Don't blame the public, the media, or liberals for this failure of Bush's. The entire thing is on his shoulders alone. He got in way over his head and now his apologists will try to blame his mistakes on anybody but him. Everyday though the public gets a little wiser to this ruse as was demonstrated in last fall's elections.



Not "getting close" I have stated, on this board, consistently that I am against undeclared wars.  Yet I do realize moral obligations.  We made a promise, if we do not keep it we are morally in the wrong as well as leaving behind valid reason for mistrust.  If we do not keep our promise the next time we are forced to enter Iraq will just be even harder.



> Who says brotherhood and love will prevail. It's going to be a bloodbath. There will be civil war, ethnic cleansing, ect. It is inevitable now and only a matter of time though. Bush and his Neocon puppet handlers have let the genie out of the bottle and they can't put it back in no matter how long we stay. This blood is and will be on George Bush's head no matter how hard he tries to spin it otherwise.



Not true.  We should do now what should have been done in the beginning, get enough boots on the ground to provide these people security within which they can grow without the reality of being forced into groups that they hope to "protect" them as the US is not trusted to keep their promise.



> Ha! Ha!
> 
> Good one!
> 
> The Iraqi's didn't invite us. We invaded on the premise of WMD....remember?
> 
> The "promise" that you speak of was just invented after the fact to keep Bush's goose from being thoroughly cooked for lying about his reasons for launching a war after it became apparent it wasn't going to be as easy as he thought.
> 
> The Iraqi's never "trusted" us with anything to begin with!


When did I say they invited us?  That is a strawman argument.  The regular Iraqi on the street doesn't want to be part of the sectarian violence yet believe that the US will leave before there is security and that the only chance they have is by joining one of the groups that will be waging such atrocities.  They do not believe that the US has the will to do what was promised, and I fear that they are right.


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> The weird thing about that is that when Bush "wins" our country looses.
> 
> So do our troops in harms way.



Reid should learn to keep his mouth shut. When he smiled and said how Dems were to win a huge number of House and Senate seats ot showed Dems are only thinking how this will benefit them politically

Troops a secondary consideration to the Dems


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> Reid should learn to keep his mouth shut. When he smiled and said how Dems were to win a huge number of House and Senate seats ot showed Dems are only thinking how this will benefit them politically
> 
> Troops a secondary consideration to the Dems



If you could just get over your blinding hatred of Democrats you might be able to think clearly.

I'm noticing that you have a hard time discussing issues. Everything for you degenerates into Demo bashing!

You're obsessed!


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> If you could just get over your blinding hatred of Democrats you might be able to think clearly.
> 
> I'm noticing that you have a hard time discussing issues. Everything for you degenerates into Demo bashing!
> 
> You're obsessed!



Reid did make the comment

Is Demo bashing now posting what Dems actually say?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I read the link
> 
> *If Republicans are losing - why are the Dems giving up?*
> The anti war kook left are going to shit pants when they see Pres Bush wins this one



I go away fro two days and you are asking the same questions.  I answered that question for you before I left.  Why do you continue to ask it?  Are you just too fucking thick to read what ANYONE writes in response to you?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Reid did make the comment
> 
> Is Demo bashing now posting what Dems actually say?



how does his comment show that democrats do not care about the troops?  As I have said on many occasions, I am a committed democrat but would LOVE to see a multicultural jeffersonian democracy spring up on the banks of the euphrates.... I would LOVE to see Iraq turn into our biggest and bestest buddy in the whole world, even though that would mean that your party and your president would be seen as "winning" something.  The fact that Harry points out that democrats will pick up seats in congress if the war continues to go as poorly as it has to date is not political opportunism or a demonstration of any lack of support for our troops.  It is a statement of fact.

And you need to understand - as if that were possible - that there is a distinct difference between supporting the troops and supporting the mission that the administration sends them on.


----------



## Rosotar

maineman said:


> how does his comment show that democrats do you care about the troops?  As I have said on many occasions, I am a committed democrat but would LOVE to see a multicultural jeffersonian democracy spring up on the banks of the euphrates.... I would LOVE to see Iraq turn into our biggest and bestest buddy in the whole world, even though that would mean that your party and your president would be seen as "winning" something.  The fact that Harry points out that democrats will pick up seats in congress if the war continues to go as poorly as it has to date is not political opportunism or a demonstration of any lack of support for our troops.  It is a statement of fact.
> 
> And you need to understand - as if that were possible - that there is a distinct difference between supporting the troops and supporting the mission that the administration sends them on.



Good job MM.

I'd rep you if I could but I'm still trying to figure out how to do it.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I go away fro two days and you are asking the same questions.  I answered that question for you before I left.  Why do you continue to ask it?  Are you just too fucking thick to read what ANYONE writes in response to you?



I see the kook left of the party (you) are getting upset the Dems are not standing firm on their surrender bill


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> how does his comment show that democrats do not care about the troops?  As I have said on many occasions, I am a committed democrat but would LOVE to see a multicultural jeffersonian democracy spring up on the banks of the euphrates.... I would LOVE to see Iraq turn into our biggest and bestest buddy in the whole world, even though that would mean that your party and your president would be seen as "winning" something.  The fact that Harry points out that democrats will pick up seats in congress if the war continues to go as poorly as it has to date is not political opportunism or a demonstration of any lack of support for our troops.  It is a statement of fact.
> 
> And you need to understand - as if that were possible - that there is a distinct difference between supporting the troops and supporting the mission that the administration sends them on.




The number one thing Dems are most concerned about is their political power. The troops, national security, national defense be damned.

Only what Dems gain politically matters to them - and it would seem - to you as well MM


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> Good job MM.
> 
> I'd rep you if I could but I'm still trying to figure out how to do it.



To MM a simple bow and ass kiss wil do


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> To MM a simple bow and ass kiss wil do



Whatever.

I've noticed that you've conspicuously avoided commenting on this little ditty I pulled off of your own link.

SOME REPUBLICANS "BEGINNING TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE": Distressed by the violence in Iraq and worried about tying their political fate to an unpopular president, some Republicans on Capitol Hill are beginning to move away from the White House to stake out a more critical position on the U.S. role in the war. These lawmakers are advocating proposals that would tie the U.S. commitment in the war to the Iraqi government's ability to demonstrate that it is working to quell the sectarian conflict. As Democrats start work on a new war spending bill to replace the one President Bush vetoed, at least three Republican senators who opposed the Democratic withdrawal plan said Wednesday that the new bill should include so-called benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet. Los Angeles Times: Some Republicans split with Bush on the war 

So what about it ditto-boy? How does this fit in with your "Democrats surrender" theory?


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> Whatever.
> 
> I've noticed that you've conspicuously avoided commenting on this little ditty I pulled off of your own link.
> 
> SOME REPUBLICANS "BEGINNING TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE": Distressed by the violence in Iraq and worried about tying their political fate to an unpopular president, some Republicans on Capitol Hill are beginning to move away from the White House to stake out a more critical position on the U.S. role in the war. These lawmakers are advocating proposals that would tie the U.S. commitment in the war to the Iraqi government's ability to demonstrate that it is working to quell the sectarian conflict. As Democrats start work on a new war spending bill to replace the one President Bush vetoed, at least three Republican senators who opposed the Democratic withdrawal plan said Wednesday that the new bill should include so-called benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet. Los Angeles Times: Some Republicans split with Bush on the war
> 
> So what about it ditto-boy? How does this fit in with your "Democrats surrender" theory?



When haven't RINO's turned against the war. Some have this fantasy about being President


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The number one thing Dems are most concerned about is their political power. The troops, national security, national defense be damned.
> 
> Only what Dems gain politically matters to them - and it would seem - to you as well MM



when will you EVER move beyond tossing out one liner talking points and begin to talk about issues?

Will you explain to me how turning over encampments to the armed forces of the country of Iraq is an act of surrender?

Why would we want to assume political power of a country with no troops, no national security and no national defense?  that is just another meaningless flatulent one liner.  Please stop it and try to debate me on the issues.  You have asked me numerous questions and I ALWAYS try to answer them.  You NEVER answer any of my questions nor back up ANY of your assertions.

Iran backing Al Qaeda?  bullshit

60% decrease in American casualties?  bullshit.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> when will you EVER move beyond tossing out one liner talking points and begin to talk about issues?
> 
> Will you explain to me how turning over encampments to the armed forces of the country of Iraq is an act of surrender?
> 
> Why would we want to assume political power of a country with no troops, no national security and no national defense?  that is just another meaningless flatulent one liner.  Please stop it and try to debate me on the issues.  You have asked me numerous questions and I ALWAYS try to answer them.  You NEVER answer any of my questions nor back up ANY of your assertions.
> 
> Iran backing Al Qaeda?  bullshit
> 
> 60% decrease in American casualties?  bullshit.



The only bullshit is your putting your party ahead of your country


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> when will you EVER move beyond tossing out one liner talking points and begin to talk about issues?
> 
> Will you explain to me how turning over encampments to the armed forces of the country of Iraq is an act of surrender?
> 
> Why would we want to assume political power of a country with no troops, no national security and no national defense?  that is just another meaningless flatulent one liner.  Please stop it and try to debate me on the issues.  You have asked me numerous questions and I ALWAYS try to answer them.  You NEVER answer any of my questions nor back up ANY of your assertions.
> 
> Iran backing Al Qaeda?  bullshit
> 
> 60% decrease in American casualties?  bullshit.



I do not love anything more than country.  answer MY questions.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I do not love anything more than country.  answer MY questions.



You have a very starange way of showing it


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> You have a very starange way of showing it



not so...YOU have a strange way of avoiding answering questions.  Why IS that?

why can't you answer simple questions?  why can't you have the courage to stand by your assertions or the grace to retract them?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> not so...YOU have a strange way of avoiding answering questions.  Why IS that?
> 
> why can't you answer simple questions?  why can't you have the courage to stand by your assertions or the grace to retract them?



Only libs would smear the troops, want to surrender to terrorists, and say the are patriotic


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Only libs would smear the troops, want to surrender to terrorists, and say the are patriotic


I have never smeared the troops.

Will you ever retract your claim that America has seen a 60% decrease in casualties as a result of the success of the surge?

will you ever retract your assertion that Iran is supporting Al Qaeda?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I have never smeared the troops.
> 
> Will you ever retract your claim that America has seen a 60% decrease in casualties as a result of the success of the surge?
> 
> will you ever retract your assertion that Iran is supporting Al Qaeda?



You continue to support the party that has smeared the troops


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> You continue to support the party that has smeared the troops



answer the questions:  

Will you ever retract your claim that America has seen a 60% decrease in casualties as a result of the success of the surge?

will you ever retract your assertion that Iran is supporting Al Qaeda?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> answer the questions:
> 
> Will you ever retract your claim that America has seen a 60% decrease in casualties as a result of the success of the surge?
> 
> will you ever retract your assertion that Iran is supporting Al Qaeda?



MM is busted - time to change the subject


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> MM is busted - time to change the subject




busted?  HOW?

 

And change the subject?  the subject IS the surge.... the subject is this stupid assertion of yours that we have seen a 60% decrease in casualties.

YOU are the one who changes the subject.   YOU are the one who can't back up your own bullshit.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> busted?  HOW?
> 
> 
> 
> And change the subject?  the subject IS the surge.... the subject is this stupid assertion of yours that we have seen a 60&#37; decrease in casualties.
> 
> YOU are the one who changes the subject.   YOU are the one who can't back up your own bullshit.



and the terrorists are backing the Dems

Congrats - your are expanding your base

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=48476


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> and the terrorists are backing the Dems
> 
> Congrats - your are expanding your base
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=48476



why can't you just back up your own assertions?

why can't you show me how we have seen a 60% decrease in casualties?


why can't you show me how Iran is supporting AQ?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> why can't you just back up your own assertions?
> 
> why can't you show me how we have seen a 60% decrease in casualties?
> 
> 
> why can't you show me how Iran is supporting AQ?



MM busted again so he changes the subject


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> MM busted again so he changes the subject



you have not busted me...the subject of this thread IS the surge.  you are the one who is running from it.

please explain how we have seen a 60% decrease in casualties as you previously asserted.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you have not busted me...the subject of this thread IS the surge.  you are the one who is running from it.
> 
> please explain how we have seen a 60% decrease in casualties as you previously asserted.



Keep giving aid and comfort MM

It is so typical of the support the left shows the troops


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Keep giving aid and comfort MM
> 
> It is so typical of the support the left shows the troops



keep running away from your own lies....you are really quite a pitiful coward.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> keep running away from your own lies....you are really quite a pitiful coward.



and your party is running away from terrorists for politcal gain

and screwing the troops at the same time


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> and your party is running away from terrorists for politcal gain
> 
> and screwing the troops at the same time




Why won't you defend  your OWN words?

Why won't you show us how we saw a 60% decrease in casualties when the DoD data clearly shows that Casualties over the last seven months are 52% HIGHER than the previous seven months?

Why don't you  EXPLAIN why Iran would fund the sunni arab organization that is killing its brethren shiites in Iraq?


----------



## Rosotar

maineman said:


> Why won't you defend  your OWN words?
> 
> Why won't you show us how we saw a 60% decrease in casualties when the DoD data clearly shows that Casualties over the last seven months are 52% HIGHER than the previous seven months?
> 
> Why don't you  EXPLAIN why Iran would fund the sunni arab organization that is killing its brethren shiites in Iraq?



He can't do it MM!

All he has is offal like this to offer

and your party is running away from terrorists for politcal gain
and screwing the troops at the same time 

This is just ditto-head bullshit but he thinks he's actually making a point here.

He really believes in what he's saying....that's the saddest part.

People like RSR are really no different from the terrorists that attacked us on 9-11. If I had my way I'd have all of them shot!

But there's really nothing we can do about them but cater to their delusional, candy-asses and try to change their minds through debate before they allow their myth of a president to send our country straight to hell.

Hang in there brother and keep speaking the truth to ignorance!


----------



## red states rule

So now the libs way to debate is to have the other side shot

It is nice to see the real side of liberals come to the surface

and libs compare Conservatives to Hitler


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> So now the libs way to debate is to have the other side shot
> 
> It is nice to see the real side of liberals come to the surface
> 
> and libs compare Conservatives to Hitler



Boo! Hoo!

Quit yer whining RSR!

You shouldn't dish it out if you can't take it! 

BTW....did you intend to make some kind of point in this post?


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> Boo! Hoo!
> 
> Quit yer whining RSR!
> 
> You shouldn't dish it out if you can't take it!
> 
> BTW....did you intend to make some kind of point in this post?



So the truth about how libs see their political opponents is bugging you?

Get over it son


----------



## maineman

*Why won't you defend your OWN words?*
Why won't you show us how we saw a 60% decrease in casualties when the DoD data clearly shows that Casualties over the last seven months are 52% HIGHER than the previous seven months?

Why don't you EXPLAIN why Iran would fund the sunni arab organization that is killing its brethren shiites in Iraq?


----------



## red states rule

I see you are still upset your surrender bill is stalled and your Dems are starting to weaken


----------



## maineman

it is a political reality...we don't have a veto proof majority.

not yet.

so let's try this again:

*Why won't you defend your OWN words?*

Why won't you show us how we saw a 60% decrease in casualties when the DoD data clearly shows that Casualties over the last seven months are 52% HIGHER than the previous seven months?

Why don't you EXPLAIN why Iran would fund the sunni arab organization that is killing its brethren shiites in Iraq?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> it is a political reality...we don't have a veto proof majority.
> 
> not yet.
> 
> so let's try this again:
> 
> *Why won't you defend your OWN words?*
> 
> Why won't you show us how we saw a 60% decrease in casualties when the DoD data clearly shows that Casualties over the last seven months are 52% HIGHER than the previous seven months?
> 
> Why don't you EXPLAIN why Iran would fund the sunni arab organization that is killing its brethren shiites in Iraq?





Make your excuses to your your base and the idiots who fund your party

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=48493


----------



## maineman

still trying to get you to stand by your own assertions.



maineman said:


> so let's try this again:
> 
> *Why won't you defend your OWN words?*
> 
> Why won't you show us how we saw a 60% decrease in casualties when the DoD data clearly shows that Casualties over the last seven months are 52% HIGHER than the previous seven months?
> 
> Why don't you EXPLAIN why Iran would fund the sunni arab organization that is killing its brethren shiites in Iraq?


----------



## red states rule

I am enjoying watching you evade the pending implosion of your party MM


----------



## maineman

I am evading NOTHING.  I am sitting here waiting for you to show some balls and back up your previous remarks.  will that happen any time soon?


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> I am enjoying watching you evade the pending implosion of your party MM



Meanwhile you still can't back up your claim.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/w...273ecb847&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> Meanwhile you still can't back up your claim.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/w...273ecb847&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss



Dems wants to surrender - what is to back up?


----------



## red states rule

What do the troops have to say?

http://www.nmatv.com/flvplayer.swf?...ideo/39.flv&autostart=false&showfsbutton=true


----------



## maineman

how's that 60% reduction in American casualties due to the success of the surge workin' out for ya, RSR?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> how's that 60% reduction in American casualties due to the success of the surge workin' out for ya, RSR?



The surge is showing progrese - that is why Dems want to surredner and get out


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The surge is showing progrese - that is why Dems want to surredner and get out



you SAID that the surge had caused a 60% decrease in American casualties.  Do you still stand behind that statement or are you ready to retract it?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you SAID that the surge had caused a 60% decrease in American casualties.  Do you still stand behind that statement or are you ready to retract it?



The surge is having good results and libs are worried the US military might actually win in Iraq


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The surge is having good results and libs are worried the US military might actually win in Iraq



is one of those "good results" a 60% decrease in American casualties as you previously claimed?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> is one of those "good results" a 60% decrease in American casualties as you previously claimed?



Interim report on the surge
By Michael O'Hanlon
May 11, 2007 


Viewing trends through April, it is possible to be a bit more specific now about what is and what is not with the surge-based strategy so far. That said, it must be underscored that with only three of the five additional planned U.S. brigades in place, and only about half of all "joint security stations" established throughout Iraq's neighborhoods, results must be viewed as provisional. 
    On the positive side, extrajudicial killings are down substantially in Iraq, with official U.S. data showing a two-thirds reduction relative to January levels. This reflects a broader reality -- much of the civil warfare that characterized Iraq in 2006 has been suppressed, at least temporarily. This is largely due to the willingness of the major Shia militias, including the Mahdi Army of Sheikh Moqtada al-Sadr, to lie low for the time being. However any such restraint may prove just temporary. 
    There are some additional good signs. Most notably, the willingness of Sunni tribal leaders in Al Anbar Province to collaborate with each other as well as U.S. and Iraqi authorities in opposing al Qaeda in that region has been very heartening. Correspondingly, violence is down in the region, with reported daily attack rates in and around Ramadi declining from 25 to just four over recent weeks. 
    That said, on balance it is hard to view the surge as a success to date. Two major problems stand out. As a result of these two unfavorable trends, many derivative problems and challenges remain largely intractable thus far. 
    The first major enduring problem is the continued resilience of al Qaeda and related terrorist elements. Their use of vehicle bombs and vest bombs has been extensive enough that overall fatality rates in Iraq have not declined since the surge began, at least according to the best available data. A corollary is that the Shia in Iraq are suffering a disproportionately high share of the casualties. (Not all bombings are aimed at them, but many are, and with the Shia militias showing restraint in their extrajudicial killings, the dominant form of violence is in fact most affecting Shia.) 
    Second, Iraqi political compromise remains very limited. All American officials including Gen. David Petraeus underscore the degree to which the surge cannot succeed based on a narrow military logic. At best, it can create political space for compromise that has often proved elusive during Iraq's periods of most intensive violence. Unfortunately, there is little sign of progress along such lines to date. While the hydrocarbon law that would ensure fair sharing of oil revenues among all Iraqis has made some progress in its journey through parliament, little has happened over the last month, and the bill is still far from becoming law. Other areas where reconciliation and compromise are needed, such as reforming the de-Ba'athification process to allow lower-level Ba'athists to rejoin public life and compete again for jobs, are not showing much progress. 
    As the Pentagon's special investigator has just confirmed in his latest quarterly report, Iraq's economy remains mediocre at best. The combination of oil revenue and foreign aid, together with last year's wise reforms of overly generous consumer subsidies, mean that federal coffers are in good shape. But even if there is money to spend, it is not being spent, and certainly not being spent well. A combination of violence, corruption, and federal interference in the efficient flow of some funds straight to provincial governments is impeding progress. 
    Utility performance remains stuck around Saddam Hussein levels at best, for most things (besides telephone and internet access, which are way up). Schools are not functioning well and health infrastructure is in even worse shape. Unemployment remains mired in the 30-plus percent range. None of this is surprising in light of the security picture, but it is disheartening nonetheless. 
    On balance, the picture in Iraq has some signs of hope, but continues to present more grounds for worry than for confidence. Unless things improve steadily and substantially in the coming months, it will be hard to believe the new surge-based strategy can succeed. 
    Afterword: National Security Adviser Steven Hadley has recently come under criticism for wanting -- and being unable to quickly find -- a prominent "czar" to help him with Iraq policy at the National Security Council. I think his idea is a good one and expect he will be able to find the right person soon, but it will not be a czar. That term implies a person to rethink the fundamentals of the policy. 
    Should such rethinking happen again, as may be necessary in coming months if the surge fails, I am confident Mr. Hadley will indeed coordinate that effort, as his job requires. Meanwhile, the administration needs someone to crack heads within the bureaucracy and deliver to Gen. Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker the resources and people they request as quickly and completely as possible. It is appropriate that Mr. Hadley ask for help with such tasks, which involve the mechanics of government more than high policy, and therefore are appropriate for him to delegate. 

    Michael O'Hanlon is senior fellow at Brookings Institution.


http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070510-092026-5150r.htm


----------



## maineman

I don't see anything in there about a 60% reduction in American casualties.  Care to explain how that particular cut and paste answers the question that was asked of you?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I don't see anything in there about a 60% reduction in American casualties.  Care to explain how that particular cut and paste answers the question that was asked of you?



The surge is showing progress so I understand your dismay and depression


----------



## maineman

either back up your assertion that American casualties are down by 60% due to the success of the surge....or retract it.... or shut the fuck up.

take your pick....any one of the three options will be fine with me.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> either back up your assertion that American casualties are down by 60% due to the success of the surge....or retract it.... or shut the fuck up.
> 
> take your pick....any one of the three options will be fine with me.



Ah, getting testy over the truth again


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Ah, getting testy over the truth again




so you are claiming that the statement "American casualties are down 60% due to the success of the surge" is the TRUTH????

prove it.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> so you are claiming that the statement "American casualties are down 60% due to the success of the surge" is the TRUTH????
> 
> prove it.



Libs just can't get get over the surge is showing signs of progress

Sad when when people put their party ahead of their country


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Libs just can't get get over the surge is showing signs of progress
> 
> Sad when when people put their party ahead of their country



I have never denied that the surge is not showing signs of progress.  I only doubt your assertion that it has resulted in a 60% decrease in American casualties.  can you either back that up, or retract it or shut up?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I have never denied that the surge is not showing signs of progress.  I only doubt your assertion that it has resulted in a 60% decrease in American casualties.  can you either back that up, or retract it or shut up?



the why do you support the surrender bill


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> the why do you support the surrender bill



you have to learn to start answering a few questions before you can ask anymore..... or certainly before you get any answers from me, you need to provide me with a bunch of answers to get us back to somewhere near even.


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> I have never denied that the surge is not showing signs of progress.  I only doubt your assertion that it has resulted in a 60% decrease in American casualties.  can you either back that up, or retract it or shut up?



try again.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you have to learn to start answering a few questions before you can ask anymore..... or certainly before you get any answers from me, you need to provide me with a bunch of answers to get us back to somewhere near even.



I undestand why you can't answer the question

It would require you to tell the truth


----------



## maineman

no...the *only* reason I am done answering your questions is that you never answer any of mine.  when you do, then I will.

Let me know when you are ready to start doing that.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no...the *only* reason I am done answering your questions is that you never answer any of mine.  when you do, then I will.
> 
> Let me know when you are ready to start doing that.



Fear is something you may overcome someday MM


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Fear is something you may overcome someday MM



we know you can bluster and obfuscate...but can you support your own words?  that is the question.

Let me know when you find yourself ready to try that.

I'll wait patiently.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> we know you can bluster and obfuscate...but can you support your own words?  that is the question.
> 
> Let me know when you find yourself ready to try that.
> 
> I'll wait patiently.



The last thing any Bush hating lib wants to hear is any good news from Iraq

They are already in a state of hysteria over the growing Bush economy

There is only so much good news libs can handle


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> The last thing any Bush hating lib wants to hear is any good news from Iraq
> 
> They are already in a state of hysteria over the growing Bush economy
> 
> There is only so much good news libs can handle



Jesus!

Where do they teach you people to talk like this?


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> Jesus!
> 
> Where do they teach you people to talk like this?



By reading and watching the liberal media "report" the news


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> By reading and watching the liberal media "report" the news



Why don't you tell me about a news story you've seen lately that has been slanted to the left by the "librul" media.


----------



## maineman

Rosotar said:


> Why don't you tell me about a news story you've seen lately that has been slanted to the left by the "librul" media.



oh you know.... there are hardly ever any human interest news stories about American GIs helping little Iraqi children get their kittens down from trees....there are hardly ever any stories about the US building schools... there are just those pesky articles about car bombs blowing up in crowded marketplaces killing scores of civilians and IED's  along the roadside killing  American GI's as they drive through the mean streets of Baghdad with figurative targets on the sides of their humvees.

RSR seems to think *"if it bleeds, it leads"* is a uniquely "liberal" news media practice.


----------



## trobinett

Mainman posts:



> RSR seems to think "if it bleeds, it leads" is a uniquely "liberal" news media practice.



And YOU think it isn't?  What cave have you been living in?


----------



## maineman

trobinett said:


> Main*e*man posts:
> 
> 
> 
> And YOU think it isn't?  What cave have you been living in?



I do not think it is a uniquely *liberal* practice, no.  I think ALL news organizations in ALL media of ALL philosophical persuasions operate under that exact same principle.  Are you suggesting that you disagree with that premise, caveman?


----------



## Truthmatters

Good news from Iraq?

wow haw can one be so completely full of shit?


----------



## Rosotar

maineman said:


> oh you know.... there are hardly ever any human interest news stories about American GIs helping little Iraqi children get their kittens down from trees....there are hardly ever any stories about the US building schools... there are just those pesky articles about car bombs blowing up in crowded marketplaces killing scores of civilians and IED's  along the roadside killing  American GI's as they drive through the mean streets of Baghdad with figurative targets on the sides of their humvees.
> 
> RSR seems to think *"if it bleeds, it leads"* is a uniquely "liberal" news media practice.



Yeah not only that but I don't think we get much credit for rebuilding shit that we blew up in the first place.


----------



## Rosotar

maineman said:


> I do not think it is a uniquely *liberal* practice, no.  I think ALL news organizations in ALL media of ALL philosophical persuasions operate under that exact same principle.  Are you suggesting that you disagree with that premise, caveman?



This is the only way conservatives can live with themselves anymore. They lie to themselves that all the bad news they've created can't be trusted.


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> Yeah not only that but I don't think we get much credit for rebuilding shit that we blew up in the first place.



By all means, blame America

That is what the kook left does best


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> This is the only way conservatives can live with themselves anymore. They lie to themselves that all the bad news they've created can't be trusted.



The liberal media has a long history of pushing fake news stories and staged photos to slant the news to fit their agenda


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> By all means, blame America
> 
> That is what the kook left does best



Well Duh!

Who else am I going to blame?

Those bombs certainly weren't dropped on Iraq by Palau or New Zealand were they?

Who else should get the blame for destroying Iraq RSR?


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> Well Duh!
> 
> Who else am I going to blame?
> 
> Those bombs certainly weren't dropped on Iraq by Palau or New Zealand were they?
> 
> Who else should get the blame for destroying Iraq RSR?



Try the terrorists and Saddam

Or does that make to much sense for you to understand?


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> The liberal media has a long history of pushing fake news stories and staged photos to slant the news to fit their agenda



And the kook "Right" has a long history of blaming it's fuck-ups on everybody but themselves.

In this case they blame the librul media for the fact that the consequences of the policies they support produce a lot of bad news.

Instead of admitting to themselves "I'm responsible for all this bad news" they simply deny that the news is real. They make up this myth about a "left-wing librul media conspiracy" to soothe their consciences and help themselves sleep at night.

Denial is a powerful drug isn't it RSR?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> By all means, blame America
> 
> That is what the kook left does best



are you suggesting that we didn't blow a whole bunch of shit up with "shock and awe"?


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> And the kook "Right" has a long history of blaming it's fuck-ups on everybody but themselves.
> 
> In this case they blame the librul media for the fact that the consequences of the policies they support produce a lot of bad news.
> 
> Instead of admitting to themselves "I'm responsible for all this bad news" they simply deny that the news is real. They make up this myth about a "left-wing librul media conspiracy" to soothe their consciences and help themselves sleep at night.
> 
> Denial is a powerful drug isn't it RSR?



One the better examples of liberal spin I have read in awhile

Your party is tanking in the polls - is that Rush's fault?


----------



## maineman

the Harris Poll shows congressional democrats with a 13% lead over congressional republicans.  Who's tanking and who's REALLY tanking?


lol


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> the Harris Poll shows congressional democrats with a 13% lead over congressional republicans.  Who's tanking and who's REALLY tanking?
> 
> 
> lol



May 15, 2007
Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%
Both ratings are slightly lower than 2007 averages

by Joseph Carroll

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> May 15, 2007
> Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%
> Both ratings are slightly lower than 2007 averages
> 
> by Joseph Carroll
> 
> GALLUP NEWS SERVICE



that takes congress as a whole.  i showed you Harris polling data which asks the question about democrats separate from republicans.  When asked that way, republicans in congress score 13% points lower than democrats....can you respond to that point or will you continue to run away from it?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> that takes congress as a whole.  i showed you Harris polling data which asks the question about democrats separate from republicans.  When asked that way, republicans in congress score 13% points lower than democrats....can you respond to that point or will you continue to run away from it?



Dems are the one running things

Dems are the one who cannot accomplish anything

Dems are the ones who are pushing for surrender

The voters see Dems as total fuck ups

That is why the approval rating for Congress is LOWER then Pres Bush's


----------



## trobinett

Except for RARE exceptions, the media, world wide, has been controlled by SOMEONE, or some group.

Right now, the media in this country, and for the most part around the world is controlled by the left.

They spin EVERY war connected story, or political slanted story to their liking.

Now, those of you on this board, that have made it your duty to defend such reporting may not like such statements, but they are true.

Let the spin begin.


----------



## red states rule

trobinett said:


> Except for RARE exceptions, the media, world wide, has been controlled by SOMEONE, or some group.
> 
> Right now, the media in this country, and for the most part around the world is controlled by the left.
> 
> They spin EVERY war connected story, or political slanted story to their liking.
> 
> Now, those of you on this board, that have made it your duty to defend such reporting may not like such statements, but they are true.
> 
> Let the spin begin.



No spin

The Gallup poll is a fact


----------



## maineman

trobinett said:


> Except for RARE exceptions, the media, world wide, has been controlled by SOMEONE, or some group.
> 
> Right now, the media in this country, and for the most part around the world is controlled by the left.
> 
> They spin EVERY war connected story, or political slanted story to their liking.
> 
> Now, those of you on this board, that have made it your duty to defend such reporting may not like such statements, but they are true.
> 
> Let the spin begin.



they are TRUE because YOU say they are?  bullshit. 

who the fuck are you, the Delphic Oracle????


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> No spin
> 
> The Gallup poll is a fact



and is the Harris poll NOT a fact?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> and is the Harris poll NOT a fact?



All the polls show the Dems have lower numbers then they did in January

Before they broke all their promises


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> All the polls show the Dems have lower numbers then they did in January
> 
> Before they broke all their promises



no...the poll shows that democrats have a 13% point better approval rating than YOUR party.... and 2% better than the president.

Can you address that 13% disparity?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no...the poll shows that democrats have a 13&#37; point better approval rating than YOUR party.... and 2% better than the president.
> 
> Can you address that 13% disparity?



The numbers are still lower then they were in January

Hey, if you think the Dems are doing good - tell them to keep it up

They lose, America wins - and you owe me $500


----------



## maineman

can you address the 13% disparity?  

or will you run away from it on this thread too?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> can you address the 13% disparity?
> 
> or will you run away from it on this thread too?



I am not running away

Dems numbers have been going down hill since they started overplaying their hand


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I am not running away
> 
> Dems numbers have been going down hill since they started overplaying their hand



of course you are.  If you were not running, you would have addressed the 13% disparity between congressional democrats and republicans.  You don't address them because you are running away from them.  If you want to show me that you are not running, stop and answer the question.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> of course you are.  If you were not running, you would have addressed the 13% disparity between congressional democrats and republicans.  You don't address them because you are running away from them.  If you want to show me that you are not running, stop and answer the question.



Maybe the Harris poll had a bigger sample of Dems

The numbers for the Dems have been tanking for months sicne they showed their real intentions of higher taxes and surrender


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Maybe the Harris poll had a bigger sample of Dems
> 
> The numbers for the Dems have been tanking for months sicne they showed their real intentions of higher taxes and surrender



so...the Harris poll is now partisan?  I suppose that those other polls that showed the public supporting the democrat's funding bill with withdrawal deadlines are partisan as well?  So you just dismiss any poll that doesn't paint your side in a glowing light as partisan?

We're done here.  But I would never bring up a poll again, if I were you.... like the one you keep bringing up about democrats in congress tanking.  I think that is a partisan poll as well...


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> so...the Harris poll is now partisan?  I suppose that those other polls that showed the public supporting the democrat's funding bill with withdrawal deadlines are partisan as well?  So you just dismiss any poll that doesn't paint your side in a glowing light as partisan?
> 
> We're done here.  But I would never bring up a poll again, if I were you.... like the one you keep bringing up about democrats in congress tanking.  I think that is a partisan poll as well...



I did not say that

I said perhaps they had a bigger sample of Dems

This congress is well on its way to being the worst congress in the history of the country. It just goes to show you how gullible the llibs on this board are. Remember their GRAND STATEMENTS last November?

 DUPED LEMMINGS


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I did not say that
> 
> I said perhaps they had a bigger sample of Dems
> 
> This congress is well on its way to being the worst congress in the history of the country. It just goes to show you how gullible the llibs on this board are. Remember their GRAND STATEMENTS last November?
> 
> DUPED LEMMINGS



if they had a bigger sample of democrats, then the poll would take that into consideration.  The data is normalized.... 

the data shows that however bad the public views democrats in congress, they view republicans much worse.  

I am pretty sure that I would rather have the a 35% approval rating than a 22% approval rating.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> if they had a bigger sample of democrats, then the poll would take that into consideration.  The data is normalized....
> 
> the data shows that however bad the public views democrats in congress, they view republicans much worse.
> 
> I am pretty sure that I would rather have the a 35% approval rating than a 22% approval rating.



Your number is still much lower then what it was in January


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Your number is still much lower then what it was in January



*and 13% higher than YOUR number.  what does that say about the public's view of YOUR party?*


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> *and 13% higher than YOUR number.  what does that say about the public's view of YOUR party?*



No, Dems numbers are much LOWER then they were in January

Your party of surrender is starting to feel the heat from the voters

So now San Fran Nan is having a temper tantrum and changing the rules

That should take another 5 points of their approval mumbers


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> *and 13% higher than YOUR number.  what does that say about the public's view of YOUR party?*



answer the question.  Harris shows the democrats with a 13% lead over congressional republicans.  besides suggesting that Harris is a partisan biased poll, how else do you plan on addressing that 13% disparity?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> answer the question.  Harris shows the democrats with a 13% lead over congressional republicans.  besides suggesting that Harris is a partisan biased poll, how else do you plan on addressing that 13% disparity?



Look stupid I have

The poll probably had a bigger Dem sample

It's going to get worse..the leadership in the congress has absolutely no idea what the people of this country expect of them..except what they get from the moveon.. Sheehan, Soros camps...and that IS NOT the majority of the voters of this country...


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Look stupid I have
> 
> *The poll probably had a bigger Dem sample*




and I ask you if you think that the sample sizes are not normalized in national polls so that any disparity in sample size is removed?  For you to suggest that Harris is a partisan poll is just a coward's way of avoiding discussing the 13% disparity.  

For you to suggest "the poll probably had a bigger Dem sample" as your explanation for the disparity is laughable.

Now...when will you really answer the question?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> and I ask you if you think that the sample sizes are not normalized in national polls so that any disparity in sample size is removed?  For you to suggest that Harris is a partisan poll is just a coward's way of avoiding discussing the 13% disparity.
> 
> For you to suggest "the poll probably had a bigger Dem sample" as your explanation for the disparity is laughable.
> 
> Now...when will you really answer the question?



CBS and the NY Times have ben busted for having a bigger sample of Dems to get the results they wanted


----------



## maineman

you are calling the Harris poll a partisan poll.

I think that about says it all.  I rest my case.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you are calling the Harris poll a partisan poll.
> 
> I think that about says it all.  I rest my case.



Did I say they were partisan?

If they intentionaly has a higher sample - yes they are

But they may not have set out to have a higher Dem sample

The FACT is MM -the numbers for your beloved party have been going down -and I suspect they will continue top go down


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Did I say they were partisan?
> 
> If they intentionaly has a higher sample - yes they are
> 
> But they may not have set out to have a higher Dem sample
> 
> The FACT is MM -the numbers for your beloved party have been going down -and I suspect they will continue top go down



non-partisan polls normalize their data to account for variation in sample sizes between parties..... partisan polls do not.  For you to suggest that the Harris poll is inaccurate because thie MAY have had a highter Dem sample is a pathetic spin job and just another instance of you running away from questions that are uncomfortable to you.

Like I said before...when you grow a set, let me know.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> non-partisan polls normalize their data to account for variation in sample sizes between parties..... partisan polls do not.  For you to suggest that the Harris poll is inaccurate because thie MAY have had a highter Dem sample is a pathetic spin job and just another instance of you running away from questions that are uncomfortable to you.
> 
> Like I said before...when you grow a set, let me know.



When the Dems put their country ahead of their party - their numbers may go up

I have a pair MM - go find your own


----------



## maineman

no you don't you run away from every question.

coward....

run away.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no you don't you run away from every question.
> 
> coward....
> 
> run away.



I anyone is a coward - it would be you

You hide from the truth on a dialy basis


----------



## maineman

no...RSR...the record is pretty clear.  If you were anything other than a coward, you would not continue to run away from every single question I ask you.  

Like I said.... when you grow a set.... you let me know.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no...RSR...the record is pretty clear.  If you were anything other than a coward, you would not continue to run away from every single question I ask you.
> 
> Like I said.... when you grow a set.... you let me know.



You twist, turn, and shift positons better then a Bill Clinton intern


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> You twist, turn, and shift positons better then a Bill Clinton intern



not so...I ask you simple questions.  you run from them... today and every day.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> not so...I ask you simple questions.  you run from them... today and every day.



Judging from your daily temper tantrums - I answer them and you do not like the answers

They are based on facts


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Judging from your daily temper tantrums - I answer them and you do not like the answers
> 
> They are based on facts



no.... that's not true...you never answer any questions.

Would you like me to list them?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no.... that's not true...you never answer any questions.
> 
> Would you like me to list them?



Whatever floats your boat

Confronting the truth is not one of strong points


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Whatever floats your boat
> 
> Confronting the truth is not one of strong points



why should I bother to list them, you never will stop running away long enough to stand and answer any of them.  you never do.

run away...run away


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> why should I bother to list them, you never will stop running away long enough to stand and answer any of them.  you never do.
> 
> run away...run away



Being an angry lib - you are totally oblivious to what is really happening


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Being an angry lib - you are totally oblivious to what is really happening




blah blah blah.... you never answer any questions.... you say stupid shit and when called on it, spin and bullshit.... it gets so old.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> blah blah blah.... you never answer any questions.... you say stupid shit and when called on it, spin and bullshit.... it gets so old.



This is your usual reaction when you nothing left to offer


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> This is your usual reaction when you nothing left to offer



I have "offered" you several questions.... and you refuse to answer them.

run away again.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I have "offered" you several questions.... and you refuse to answer them.
> 
> run away again.



I have answered them

You still do not like the answers


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I have answered them
> 
> You still do not like the answers



no...you have not answered them.  Please give me thread title and post number for your "answers".

YOu NEVER answer any questions.

you just run away.... little girlie man.... fly fly......fly fly...


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no...you have not answered them.  Please give me thread title and post number for your "answers".
> 
> YOu NEVER answer any questions.
> 
> you just run away.... little girlie man.... fly fly......fly fly...



Still stuck in your temper tantrum I see


----------



## maineman

no temper tantrum at all...

I see you are still a girlieman who runs away from every single question ever posed to you.

will you EVER grow a set of balls?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no temper tantrum at all...
> 
> I see you are still a girlieman who runs away from every single question ever posed to you.
> 
> will you EVER grow a set of balls?



You seem to be obsessed with them

Are you one of those type?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> You seem to be obsessed with them
> 
> Are you one of those type?



quit changing the subject. either answer the questions posed to you or run away.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> quit changing the subject. either answer the questions posed to you or run away.



You are the one who have mentioned them in about a dozen posts

MM, you will have to accept the fact your surrender party is going down in the polls and in public opinion


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> You are the one who have mentioned them in about a dozen posts
> 
> MM, you will have to accept the fact your surrender party is going down in the polls and in public opinion




you continue to run away from simple questions.

you are a coward.  that is quite clear to everyone by now.


----------



## maineman

now just run away...fly fly


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you continue to run away from simple questions.
> 
> you are a coward.  that is quite clear to everyone by now.



You are on the verge of a nervous breakdown - that is what is clear to everyone


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> You are on the verge of a nervous breakdown - that is what is clear to everyone




I am not nervous about anything.  I am bored and annoyed by your continual refusal to address any questions posed to you..... 


keep running away.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I am not nervous about anything.  I am bored and annoyed by your continual refusal to address any questions posed to you.....
> 
> 
> keep running away.



More like you are annoyed with the constant stream of facts coming at you and you unable to disprove them


----------

