# Bad News for the we lost dems.



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 26, 2008)

Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost - Yahoo! News

What ever will Obama do now? Pretend he and his buddies did not preach we had lost and had no chance of winning? I suspect he will pretend he never said any of that and go on about bring the troops home, even though he is going to send some of them to Afghanistan.

How does it feel you liberals? Telling us over and over the war was lost. There was no hope, we should cut and run? Wonder how you will now spin the Surge you opposed into being all your idea. How you never preached doom and gloom.

Such news just before an election. I can see it now, you will claim cause the war is being won it is no longer an issue and pretend you were never so sure it would fail. Looking for an escape by abandoning those pesky Iraqis that you claimed could never shoulder the load.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 26, 2008)

I don't ever remember Obama saying we lost and had no chance of winning, could you link to that, Wow?

Cut and run is actually a valid naval concept, but you wouldn't know that because you served where? The Boy Scouts?

Oh, and can you please explain to me how taking out Saddam and killing millions of innocent Iraqis was more important than catching bin laden...thanks.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 26, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Oh, and can you please explain to me how taking out Saddam and killing millions of innocent Iraqis was more important than catching bin laden...thanks.



Millions of innocent Iraqis??

Link please


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 26, 2008)

Cool.. we won .. I guess the troops can head home in say.... 16mnths... Unfortunately that plays right into Obamas hands... I can understand why you cats are pissed...


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 26, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Cool.. we won .. I guess the troops can head home in say.... 16mnths... Unfortunately that plays right into Obamas hands... I can understand why you cats are pissed...



I personally am not pissed at all about it, It is great that we can finally get out of there, with out it being a loss.

What does irk me is as you pointed it out it plays right into Obama's hands, when he was one of those who opposed the surge that helped make this all possible in the first place.

So if that makes me a pissed of cat, then MEOW!!


----------



## Diuretic (Jul 26, 2008)

Is it a war or is it an occupation force involved in suppression of insurgents?


----------



## Red Dawn (Jul 26, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost - Yahoo! News
> 
> What ever will Obama do now? Pretend he and his buddies did not preach we had lost and had no chance of winning? I suspect he will pretend he never said any of that and go on about bring the troops home, even though he is going to send some of them to Afghanistan.
> 
> ...



It must really hack you off that McCain is reduced to saying now that Obama's 16-month pull out plan is just about right.   

We haven't "won" anything.  Violence is down, which is good.  But, that's a tactical metric.  Its not a measure of "victory".   Iraq is going to have a nominally pro-Iranian government, and sporadic violence will continue for years to come.  Did we really spend a trillion dollars to go on a ghost hunt for WMD, and replace an anti-iranian dictator, with a pro-iranian Shia government?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 26, 2008)

The war isnt going to be a  big issue. its going to be drilling and the economy. And as long as Obama keeps opposing domestic energy expansion,  i think he is in trouble.


----------



## JimH52 (Jul 26, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Cut and run is actually a valid naval concept, but you wouldn't know that because you served where? The Boy Scouts?



cruel...


----------



## Gunny (Jul 26, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I don't ever remember Obama saying we lost and had no chance of winning, could you link to that, Wow?
> 
> Cut and run is actually a valid naval concept, but you wouldn't know that because you served where? The Boy Scouts?
> 
> Oh, and can you please explain to me how taking out Saddam and killing millions of innocent Iraqis was more important than catching bin laden...thanks.



The Marine Corps is part of the US Navy.  We do the man's work for them.  Cut and run as a Naval tactic has no bearing on the land.  

You have a lot more options in land warfare than you do on the open seas where it's cut and dried he who has the best firepower and most armor wins.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 26, 2008)

JimH52 said:


> cruel...



Not.


----------



## Chris (Jul 26, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost - Yahoo! News
> 
> What ever will Obama do now? Pretend he and his buddies did not preach we had lost and had no chance of winning? I suspect he will pretend he never said any of that and go on about bring the troops home, even though he is going to send some of them to Afghanistan.
> 
> ...



What did we win?


----------



## CA95380 (Jul 26, 2008)

What part of - _Iraq does not want US troops in Iraq _ -confusing   




> WASHINGTON, July 26 (UPI) -- Iraqi leaders oppose an "open-ended presence" of the U.S. military in their country and want the troops shipped out, U.S. Sen. Jack Reed says.



Reed: Iraq against undefined U.S. presence - UPI.com


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 26, 2008)

Avatar4321 said:


> The war isnt going to be a  big issue. its going to be drilling and the economy. And as long as Obama keeps opposing domestic energy expansion,  i think he is in trouble.



yep, the slogan this time will be "it's the economy, and gas prices stupid".

IMO McCain wins on both. Obama's tax and spend polices will only harm the economy more, not help it, and his opposition of Drilling will really hurt him.

Maybe that is why, despite how great everyone says he is, and how much the Media loves him. He is not pulling away from McCain. Not even close.


----------



## busara (Jul 26, 2008)

yay! an opinion piece on yahoo says we won the war!! 

what was the cost of this unofficial victory? 
$800 billion
4,122 US military dead
313 non military killed
30,409 military wounded
30% of troops have serious mental health problems (i personally know 1. he smothered his wife with a pillow. used to be a nice guy)
8,461 iraqi soldiers and police dead
50,000 - 600,000 iraqi civilians killed (no actual data available)
55,000 insurgents killed
2,255,000 iraqis displaced

Iraq War Results & Statistics as of July 16, 2008

but its finally over! woohooo!


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 26, 2008)

busara said:


> yay! an opinion piece on yahoo says we won the war!!
> 
> what was the cost of this unofficial victory?
> $800 billion
> ...



HMM ravi said it was Millions of Iraqis Dead.

LOL


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 26, 2008)

Still waiting for that link on how we have killed millions of Civilians in Iraq ravi.


Frankly while up to 600,000 Iraqis have been killed, it was not us who have Killed most of them. Yes we killed some however It was terrorists, and Iraqis who killed Most them. By the hundreds a day.


----------



## busara (Jul 26, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> HMM ravi said it was Millions of Iraqis Dead.
> 
> LOL



yeah, anything less than a million is acceptable. 600,000? we lost that many in the civil war. no biggie. they are just iraqi's after all


----------



## CA95380 (Jul 26, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> HMM ravi said it was Millions of Iraqis Dead.
> 
> LOL





> 2,255,000 iraqis displaced



*News Alert*  Watch for the opening of new 7-11's in your neighborhood!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 26, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Still waiting for that link on how we have killed millions of Civilians in Iraq ravi.
> 
> 
> Frankly while up to 600,000 Iraqis have been killed, it was not us who have Killed most of them. Yes we killed some however It was terrorists, and Iraqis who killed Most them. By the hundreds a day.



There were not 600k killed. That is a fantasy number made up by an anti war group bent on spinning their crap. The Iraqi Government does in fact have numbers. Why? Well cause they issue death certificates and the hospitals report to them. When they were claiming 200k had died the Iraqi Government said 20 k. So you do the math.

As for Ravi, she is so full of shit her eyes are brown. And the next time she calls me Wow she will find out just how nasty I can be. She is a political hack, partisan piece of Garbage that routinely lies and distorts, she never backs up her claims because her claims are all fabricated in her pea brain. She uses her head as a hat rack and thinks with emotions. She "feels" things. Typical brain dead Liberal turd for brains. She "feels" it is right. She "feels" that her position is correct. She "feels" that we failed. Get the idea? If she had to think her head would explode because it is full of fumes from her ass and the spark of two brain cells rubbing together would ignite the gas and blow her head off.

The only difference between Ravi and Wow is she is a liberal and a female. She is a refined Sealybobo. Full of ignorance and passing it off as intelligence. They took her IQ and it failed to register. She is a walking talking brain dead medical miracle. The medical staff found no brain wave activity at all and would have declared her dead except she uses her ass to keep going.


----------



## Voltaire (Jul 26, 2008)

These little news snippets about "winning" and "losing" make great talking points, but ignore the bigger issue that has been plaguing United States foreign policy for a century or so.

I was watching a little msnbc the other morning when I got ready (I know, what was I thinking), and they of course had their obligatory Democrat and Republican campaign proxies come on and give their little spiel about how to "solve the problem" of the war in Iraq.  The most telling thing was when the anchor asked the spokespeople about how long they thought we would be in Iraq.

Obama's spokesperson did the typical cop-out response of, "We should never have been there in the first place."

McCain's spokesperson went the equally repulsive and thoughtless route of saying, "Probably forever.  We didn't leave Korea after that war, we didn't leave Japan or Europe after WWII, so I don't see what the problem is.  We need a foothold in the Middle East."

Rather amazing that Obama is apparently running for President of the World, after his little European escapade, and McCain is content to simply continue business as usual, steadily increasing the number of sovereign nations around whom this country has its tentacles wrapped.

Both sides sound like loonies...I think Lewis Black said it best, when he said the Democrats are party of No Ideas, and the Republicans are the part of Bad Ideas.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 27, 2008)

After much looking for Iraqi Death Statistics, because the media virtually never reports it, here's what I've found:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/wo...asualties.html

The only NY Times article to cover Iraqi deaths by stating an actual number total. 600,000 estimated- and that was almost 2 years ago. Though the article doesn't say it, the research was presented in the independent science journal The Lancet (one of the oldest academic journals in the world, f. 1823) the numbers as of 2006 were also in the range ~400,000-800,000. Secondly, the independent polling agency Opinion Research Business (based in London), made a study in September 2007 and updated in January 2008 which put the casualties at a range of 946,000 to 1,120,000, with an estimate of about 1m.

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf (First Lancet Report)

http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf (Second Lancet Report)

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Documents/TABLES.pdf (ORB Research Tables)

ORB - Opinion Business Research - Newsroom (ORB Newsroom)

ORB - Opinion Business Research - Newsroom (ORB Update, with revised causality data link at the bottom)

For comparison, here's a list of "insurgent" casualties:

List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Puts the range at ~17,000-23,000.

Regardless of the death toll (which is obviously brutal and tragic, but nothing can be done now about it), the largest problem now is the astounding number of Iraqi REFUGEES, which including exiles and interally displaced comes out to about 4 or 5 million people. *4 or 5 million out of 30 million*. These numbers are pretty much universally agreed on:

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees pretty much has all the bases covered on this one: UNHCR | Iraq .




			
				UNHCR said:
			
		

> UNHCR estimates more than 4.7 million Iraqis have left their homes, many in dire need of humanitarian care. Of these, more than 2.7 million Iraqis are displaced internally, while more than 2 million have fled to neighbouring states, particularly Syria and Jordan. Many were displaced prior to 2003, but the largest number has fled since. In 2006, Iraqis became the leading nationality seeking asylum in Europe.



Refugees International is pretty covered on the issue as well: 

http://www.refugeesinternational.org...le/detail/9679




			
				Refugees International said:
			
		

> According to the UN Refugee Agency and the International Organization for Migration in 2007, almost 5 million Iraqis had been displaced by violence in their country, the vast majority of which had fled since 2003. Over 2.8 million vacated their homes for safer areas within Iraq, while 2 million were living in Syria, Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey and Gulf States. Most Iraqis are determined to be resettled to Europe or North America, and few consider return to Iraq an option. Iraqis have no legal work options in most host countries and are increasingly desperate and in need of humanitarian assistance. [...] The U.S. fell far short of its promise to permanently resettle 7,000 vulnerable Iraqis in the 2007 fiscal year. (~1600 resettled).



That's what I've got. Just in case, the "Iraqi Body Count" figures are only a compilation of deaths exclusively reported by the English-speaking media, so even imagining that it covers all or even most Iraqi deaths resulting from the conflict would be ridiculous. Either way nobody 'wins' in war, except the rich. Bah, even callings this a war at all is ludicrious. 5,000 dead to over 5 million dead, exiled, or internally displaced? It's more of a massacre.


----------



## CA95380 (Jul 27, 2008)

> Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi .......
> 
> .........and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War.
> 
> An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Hussein's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.



Saddam Hussein killer file

_I can copy and paste too. _


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 27, 2008)

Hey, you wanna know something cool about all the deaths Saddam Hussein was responsible during his tenure as a mass murderer?

_He was a darling of the US government_. Isn't it funny how nobody ever said that? Saddam gassed his own people! [While we supported him!] Saddam killed thousands and thousands Iranians! [While we cheered for him!] Saddam crushed revolutionary attempts to end his brutal rule! [And we just let it happen even while we could've stopped it!] 



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> According to Said Aburish, Saddam made a visit to Amman in the year 1979, before the Iran-Iraq war, where he met three senior CIA agents. He discussed with them his plans to invade Iran.[5]
> 
> In 1980, Iraq started the war with a blitzkrieg attack, the tide had turned by 1982 in favor of much larger Iran, and the Ronald Reagan administration was afraid Iraq might lose. Reagan chose Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Saddam, whom he visited in December 1983 and March 1984.[2]
> 
> ...



Saddam Hussein - United States relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exclusive: Saddam key in early CIA plot - UPI.com



			
				United Press International said:
			
		

> But the agency quickly moved into action. Noting that the Baath Party was hunting down Iraq's communist, the CIA provided the submachine gun-toting Iraqi National Guardsmen with lists of suspected communists who were then jailed, interrogated, and summarily gunned down, according to former U.S. intelligence officials with intimate knowledge of the executions.



And just to remind you about the little incident of the 1991 Intifadas against Saddam, which might have been successfull in finally overthrowing the murderers. George the First even made a great magnanimous call to action on February 15th of that year to force out the tyrant. What happened? Despite the fact that the US was totally capable of enforcing the no-fly zone in order to severely cripple Saddam's response to the uprising, it simply allowed him to go right over and absolutely crush the rebellion. Yay for the great magnanimity of talk and no action when it is most reasonable and necessary. 



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> The Administration did sternly warn Iraqi authorities on March 7 against the use of chemical weapons during the unrest, but equivocated about Iraq's use of helicopter gunships against civilians. President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker stated in mid-March that helicopter gunships should not be used, but other Administration officials gave conflicting signals. The question of helicopters was ignored in the March 3 cease-fire agreement, which clearly prohibited Iraq's use of fixed-wing aircraft. In the end, the aircraft were employed with impunity to attack rebels and civilians alike, and proved instrumental in quelling the insurrection.



1991 uprisings in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yay! Thanks guys, for killing the bad guy. Next time, try not supporting him through his worse attrocities. K? thx.


----------



## CA95380 (Jul 27, 2008)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Hey, you wanna know something cool about all the deaths Saddam Hussein was responsible during his tenure as a mass murderer?
> 
> -snip- To get rid of dead text -snip-
> 
> Yay! Thanks guys, for killing the bad guy. Next time, try not supporting him through his worse attrocities. K? thx.



I assume by this statement that you do not live in the United States?  Because if you do .....  





> Yay! Thanks guys,


 .... includes yourself?  If you do not live in the USA - where do you live?


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 27, 2008)

Uhhh, does it make a difference?


----------



## CA95380 (Jul 27, 2008)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Uhhh, does it make a difference?



Uh .... like yeah!  Because if you live in the USA ... you are part of the problem.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 27, 2008)

Oh, ok. Sorry, I get kinda paranoid since Wow started going off on me for not being American. Granted, that was before I realized he was nuts.

Either way, I'm not sure about pinning the problem on the American people _per se_. It's not like there was a big vote on whether to sell weapons and dangerous technology to a brutal dictator, or sell weapons to Iran, or train terrorists in Nicaragua, or depose democracies to install military governments, etc. etc. etc. Especially considering all of this type of information is always so conviniently absent from any media outlets. 

To answer your question, I'm a Costa Rican national, but I live most of the year in Montreal, Quebec.


----------



## CA95380 (Jul 27, 2008)

Epsilon Delta said:


> To answer your question, I'm a Costa Rican national, but I live most of the year in Montreal, Quebec.



Ok, fair enough.  Thanks for answering my question about where you live.


----------



## Voltaire (Jul 27, 2008)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Oh, ok. Sorry, I get kinda paranoid since Wow started going off on me for not being American. Granted, that was before I realized he was nuts.
> 
> Either way, I'm not sure about pinning the problem on the American people _per se_. It's not like there was a big vote on whether to sell weapons and dangerous technology to a brutal dictator, or sell weapons to Iran, or train terrorists in Nicaragua, or depose democracies to install military governments, etc. etc. etc. Especially considering all of this type of information is always so conviniently absent from any media outlets.
> 
> To answer your question, I'm a Costa Rican national, but I live most of the year in Montreal, Quebec.



Oh no, Epsilon Delta, you're spot on... the majority of the American people may not have malicious intent, but our apathy is criminal.  Does silence imply consent?  I think the government has decided that for us...

By the way, I just did a little perusing of Costa Rican history on the old "series of tubes," and I'm very interested in the constitutional term-limits for delegates to the national Legislative Assembly.  I figure that's one of the main problems leading to the sheeple mentality in America:  Since there's more or less a career politician caste here because of the difficulty in unseating an incumbent, it's a lot easier to just sit back and let the "pros" handle it.  Or maybe I'm idealizing the Costa Rican system, I wouldn't know since I've never lived there  .


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 27, 2008)

Voltaire said:


> These little news snippets about "winning" and "losing" make great talking points, but ignore the bigger issue that has been plaguing United States foreign policy for a century or so.
> 
> I was watching a little msnbc the other morning when I got ready (I know, what was I thinking), and they of course had their obligatory Democrat and Republican campaign proxies come on and give their little spiel about how to "solve the problem" of the war in Iraq.  The most telling thing was when the anchor asked the spokespeople about how long they thought we would be in Iraq.
> 
> ...



If you want us out of Iraq and, indeed, out of the rest of the world, you need to be advocating energy independence. Until we have energy independence we have to act and interfere in other nations. Otherwise, our economy collapses and millions of americans die of starvation, heat, and cold. 

But I suppose doing everything for energy independence, drilling for oil, coal, nuclear, solar, wind, more efficient technology, etc is just another one of those bad Republican ideas.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 27, 2008)

CA95380 said:


> Ok, fair enough.  Thanks for answering my question about where you live.



No problem.



Voltaire said:


> Oh no, Epsilon Delta, you're spot on... the majority of the American people may not have malicious intent, but our apathy is criminal.  Does silence imply consent?  I think the government has decided that for us...
> 
> By the way, I just did a little perusing of Costa Rican history on the old "series of tubes," and I'm very interested in the constitutional term-limits for delegates to the national Legislative Assembly.  I figure that's one of the main problems leading to the sheeple mentality in America:  Since there's more or less a career politician caste here because of the difficulty in unseating an incumbent, it's a lot easier to just sit back and let the "pros" handle it.  Or maybe I'm idealizing the Costa Rican system, I wouldn't know since I've never lived there  .



Yeah, I'd say the term limits were a good idea, but it arose due to historical necessity. If delegates (basically congressmen) here didn't have term limits it'd just be an open door to the most flagrant corruption, which is a huuuge problem in Costa Rica as it is in _all_ of Latin America. I guess it has it's ups and downs, though. On the one hand, having no term limits could be a good incentive for the representative to do better. But on the other, if elections are based on who's got the backing of the wealthiest special interests/donors, or on image and not on actual issues, then no term limits can get pretty abusive. I guess it's good to have 'new blood' every four years though, so that's a pro. When all is said and done, though, we still have a pretty rotten and generally good-for-nothing 'political caste' here, and I'm pretty sure you'd get a statement like that virtually anywhere in the world. Really, the only unique or interesting thing about our government is that it was the first in the world to constitutionally abolish the army, back in 1948.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 27, 2008)

The US has Term Limits. It is called the People, we vote them in or not. Personally I am against the Presidential term limits as well as it violates the intent of the Constitution. I would rather have suffered through 4 terms of Clinton then have that amendment.

The Country is supposed to be for the people by the people, Term limits curtail the ability of the people to elect whom they CHOSE. Good or BAD. Term limits are simply an attempt to make people NOT responsible for their choices. It is like the ZERO tolerance mentality or 3 strikes your out Court system. All bad ideas that breed ignorance and apathy, that lead into the " it is not my fault" mentality that is so prevalent in this Country.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 27, 2008)

Sweet!

Sorry, Charles, an exaggeration. I don't actually know how many are dead, but if we hadn't invaded, more than likely each dead civilian would still be alive. So even if they were killed by us, terrorists, or their fellow citizens, we lit the match.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 27, 2008)

Eh, to each his own, I'd say. As I said, the reasons for term limits here relate to some flagrant abuses of power that had been prevalent throughout the region, especially because voter fraud was so widespread until 1948 [voting fraud was much easier for a president/party already in power], and the 1949 Constitution made controls for that [the real possibility of a dictatorship establishing itself through unending presidential terms]. Conditions have changed, so I personally wouldn't really be frightened by the prospect of a change, but on the other hand congressmen can run after sitting out a term and presidents after two terms, so it's kinda good to have that little space to see how it's going. AISHDOPSDIAHsPOISD.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 27, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There were not 600k killed. That is a fantasy number made up by an anti war group bent on spinning their crap. The Iraqi Government does in fact have numbers. Why? Well cause they issue death certificates and the hospitals report to them. When they were claiming 200k had died the Iraqi Government said 20 k. So you do the math.
> 
> As for Ravi, she is so full of shit her eyes are brown. And the next time she calls me Wow she will find out just how nasty I can be. She is a political hack, partisan piece of Garbage that routinely lies and distorts, she never backs up her claims because her claims are all fabricated in her pea brain. She uses her head as a hat rack and thinks with emotions. She "feels" things. Typical brain dead Liberal turd for brains. She "feels" it is right. She "feels" that her position is correct. She "feels" that we failed. Get the idea? If she had to think her head would explode because it is full of fumes from her ass and the spark of two brain cells rubbing together would ignite the gas and blow her head off.
> 
> The only difference between Ravi and Wow is she is a liberal and a female. She is a refined Sealybobo. Full of ignorance and passing it off as intelligence. They took her IQ and it failed to register. She is a walking talking brain dead medical miracle. The medical staff found no brain wave activity at all and would have declared her dead except she uses her ass to keep going.



Wow? My eyes are blue. And are you telling me it's possible for you to be nastier?


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 27, 2008)

Anyone else speak russian... Might come in handy if the russians decide to take back the northwest... A minimal landing party could launch from cuba and secure Miami for a nice little russian vacation spot.. woo. at least we won in Iraq... Vat Ochen Xopowo..


----------



## Ninja (Jul 27, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Anyone else speak russian... Might come in handy if the russians decide to take back the northwest... A minimal landing party could launch from cuba and secure Miami for a nice little russian vacation spot.. woo. at least we won in Iraq... Vat Ochen Xopowo..



Sounds like a sequel to Red Dawn. Go take another hit and write the screenplay.


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 27, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Sounds like a sequel to Red Dawn. Go take another hit and write the screenplay.



You did hear that the ruskys are putting missiles in Cuba right...


----------



## editec (Jul 27, 2008)

_Great news!_

Now, when do the troops come home?


----------



## busara (Jul 27, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There were not 600k killed. That is a fantasy number made up by an anti war group bent on spinning their crap. The Iraqi Government does in fact have numbers. Why? Well cause they issue death certificates and the hospitals report to them. When they were claiming 200k had died the Iraqi Government said 20 k. So you do the math.
> 
> As for Ravi, she is so full of shit her eyes are brown. And the next time she calls me Wow she will find out just how nasty I can be. She is a political hack, partisan piece of Garbage that routinely lies and distorts, she never backs up her claims because her claims are all fabricated in her pea brain. She uses her head as a hat rack and thinks with emotions. She "feels" things. Typical brain dead Liberal turd for brains. She "feels" it is right. She "feels" that her position is correct. She "feels" that we failed. Get the idea? If she had to think her head would explode because it is full of fumes from her ass and the spark of two brain cells rubbing together would ignite the gas and blow her head off.
> 
> The only difference between Ravi and Wow is she is a liberal and a female. She is a refined Sealybobo. Full of ignorance and passing it off as intelligence. They took her IQ and it failed to register. She is a walking talking brain dead medical miracle. The medical staff found no brain wave activity at all and would have declared her dead except she uses her ass to keep going.



so lets say the number was completely made up (source?), and _only_ 20,000 innocent people have been killed. is that not still a tragedy? nothing is worse than the loss of human life. especially when it probably could have largely been avoided through better planning


----------



## Red Dawn (Jul 27, 2008)

Kirk said:


> What did we win?


----------



## Orange_Juice (Jul 27, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Cool.. we won .. I guess the troops can head home in say.... 16mnths... Unfortunately that plays right into Obamas hands... I can understand why you cats are pissed...



Exactly. And Oil can pay for the war, too. 

Why did we invade this shithole in the first place? Mobile weapons labs? Drone aircraft that were seriously going to fly the Atlantic and drop anthrax on us? 

Mission Accomplished


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 27, 2008)

Orange_Juice said:


> Exactly. And Oil can pay for the war, too.
> 
> Why did we invade this shithole in the first place? Mobile weapons labs? Drone aircraft that were seriously going to fly the Atlantic and drop anthrax on us?
> 
> Mission Accomplished



I am sure glad you dumb as rocks Liberals are NOT running our security. Until that magical Mushroom cloud DOES appear over some US city you dip sticks will be saying "No threat" Hell most of you do not even approve of the Afghanistan war.

My favorite line is , " it is a police problem", so Einstein, remind me how the cops arrest someone in a foreign Country that won't even let us in?

Bush NEVER said Iraq was going to directly attack us, but you idiots wouldn't know that cause your military abilities are on par with a 2 year old. The threat was that he would find or make a terror organization and use chemicals, biological or eventually Nuclear weapons in a terror attack, in the hopes we couldn't pin it on him later.

And Guess what? The papers we captured AFTER the fall of the regime PROVE that is EXACTLY what he was planning. But you dumb fuckers keep saying " where are the WMD's" makes for a good sound bite for the dumb as rocks crowd.


----------



## Orange_Juice (Jul 27, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I am sure glad you dumb as rocks Liberals are NOT running our security. Until that magical Mushroom cloud DOES appear over some US city you dip sticks will be saying "No threat" Hell most of you do not even approve of the Afghanistan war.
> 
> My favorite line is , " it is a police problem", so Einstein, remind me how the cops arrest someone in a foreign Country that won't even let us in?
> 
> ...



Ya, ya, sure they did

We are now back a couple trillion dollars--including future costs in veterans benefits--our government has lost all kinds of credibility and we have lost 4,000 troops and thousands more wounded. And for what? To create a shaky little, shithole country? 

The money could have been better spent


----------



## busara (Jul 27, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I am sure glad you dumb as rocks Liberals are NOT running our security. Until that magical Mushroom cloud DOES appear over some US city you dip sticks will be saying "No threat" Hell most of you do not even approve of the Afghanistan war.
> 
> My favorite line is , " it is a police problem", so Einstein, remind me how the cops arrest someone in a foreign Country that won't even let us in?
> 
> ...



source?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 27, 2008)

busara said:


> source?



It is public Domain. A review of it was provided by Lay on his report to Congress in 2004 I believe. Look it up your self. Why waste my time posting what is on this board already when you are just going to ignore it anyway?


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 27, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Why waste my time posting what is on this board already when you are just going to ignore it anyway?



That's a good question.


----------



## busara (Jul 27, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> It is public Domain. A review of it was provided by Lay on his report to Congress in 2004 I believe. Look it up your self. Why waste my time posting what is on this board already when you are just going to ignore it anyway?



necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit. 
it is YOUR responsibility to prove any allegations you make. if you cant back up a claim, dont make it. and you assume a lot about me in saying i'll ignore it. you know what assuming does. now please, show me a source because i am curious if this is true or not


----------



## CA95380 (Jul 27, 2008)

*WARNING*   *WARNING*

~~~~ Cat Fight Ahead ~~~~~

 Dontcha just love America? 

I love it!!!!  


  I love a good cat fight in the morning! ​




> Originally Posted by RetiredGySgt
> 
> As for Ravi, she is so full of shit her eyes are brown. And the next time she calls me Wow she will find out just how nasty I can be.
> The only difference between Ravi and Wow is she is a liberal and a female. She is a refined Sealybobo. Full of ignorance and passing it off as intelligence. They took her IQ and it failed to register. She is a walking talking brain dead medical miracle. The medical staff found no brain wave activity at all and would have declared her dead except she uses her ass to keep going.






Ravi said:


> Wow? My eyes are blue. And are you telling me it's possible for you to be nastier?


----------



## Ravi (Jul 27, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> It is public Domain. A review of it was provided by Lay on his report to Congress in 2004 I believe. Look it up your self. Why waste my time posting what is on this board already when you are just going to ignore it anyway?



As for RGS, he is so full of shit his eyes are brown. He is a political hack, partisan piece of Garbage that routinely lies and distorts, he never backs up his claims because his claims are all fabricated in his pea brain. He uses his head as a hat rack and thinks with emotions. He "feels" things. Typical brain dead Con turd for brains. He "feels" it is right. He "feels" that his position is correct. He "feels" that Bush is God. Get the idea? If he had to think his head would explode because it is full of fumes from his ass and the spark of two brain cells rubbing together would ignite the gas and blow his head off.

The only difference between RGS and Wow is he is a Bush lover and a male. He is a refined Sealybobo. Full of ignorance and passing it off as intelligence. They took his IQ and it failed to register. He is a walking talking brain dead medical miracle. The medical staff found no brain wave activity at all and would have declared him dead except he uses his ass to keep going.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 27, 2008)

Ohh look Sealybobo's female half posted again.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 27, 2008)

Ravi said:


> As for RGS, he is so full of shit his eyes are brown. He is a political hack, partisan piece of Garbage that routinely lies and distorts, he never backs up his claims because his claims are all fabricated in his pea brain. He uses his head as a hat rack and thinks with emotions. He "feels" things. Typical brain dead Con turd for brains. He "feels" it is right. He "feels" that his position is correct. He "feels" that Bush is God. Get the idea? If he had to think his head would explode because it is full of fumes from his ass and the spark of two brain cells rubbing together would ignite the gas and blow his head off.
> 
> The only difference between RGS and Wow is he is a Bush lover and a male. He is a refined Sealybobo. Full of ignorance and passing it off as intelligence. They took his IQ and it failed to register. He is a walking talking brain dead medical miracle. The medical staff found no brain wave activity at all and would have declared him dead except he uses his ass to keep going.


Wow what a wonderful pile of insults and jokes, with no substance at all! You ever think of going after Lettermens job?

Speaking of posting lies and distortions. Did you ever provide that link I asked for to prove you claim that the US has killed "millions of innocent Iraqis"?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 27, 2008)

Ravi said:


> As for RGS, he is so full of shit his eyes are brown. He is a political hack, partisan piece of Garbage that routinely lies and distorts, he never backs up his claims because his claims are all fabricated in his pea brain. He uses his head as a hat rack and thinks with emotions. He "feels" things. Typical brain dead Con turd for brains. He "feels" it is right. He "feels" that his position is correct. He "feels" that Bush is God. Get the idea? If he had to think his head would explode because it is full of fumes from his ass and the spark of two brain cells rubbing together would ignite the gas and blow his head off.
> 
> The only difference between RGS and Wow is he is a Bush lover and a male. He is a refined Sealybobo. Full of ignorance and passing it off as intelligence. They took his IQ and it failed to register. He is a walking talking brain dead medical miracle. The medical staff found no brain wave activity at all and would have declared him dead except he uses his ass to keep going.



As I've stated before and will likewise state many times into the future, I find it amusing that people who do nothing but insult and attack others consider themselves the intelligent ones when they cant even respond to a coherent argument.


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Jul 27, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> It must really hack you off that McCain is reduced to saying now that Obama's 16-month pull out plan is just about right.
> 
> We haven't "won" anything.  Violence is down, which is good.  But, that's a tactical metric.  Its not a measure of "victory".   Iraq is going to have a nominally pro-Iranian government, and sporadic violence will continue for years to come.  Did we really spend a trillion dollars to go on a ghost hunt for WMD, and replace an anti-iranian dictator, with a pro-iranian Shia government?



Just because the largest ethnic group in Iraq is Shia does not mean that they will be anywhere near "pro-Iran"  It was Iraqi Shia that bore the largest losses of all in the Iran-Iraq war.  Iranians are Persians, not Arabs and that alone trumps the Shia label and ensures there is no love lost between Iraqi Arab Shia and their Persian Shiite neighbors.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 27, 2008)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Just because the largest ethnic group in Iraq is Shia does not mean that they will be anywhere near "pro-Iran"  It was Iraqi Shia that bore the largest losses of all in the Iran-Iraq war.  Iranians are Persians, not Arabs and that alone trumps the Shia label and ensures there is no love lost between Iraqi Arab Shia and their Persian Shiite neighbors.




Careful Zoomie you are using far to much LOGIC for many liberal Democrat Partisans to grasp. You are in danger of losing them


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 27, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Did you ever provide that link I asked for to prove you claim that the US has killed "millions of innocent Iraqis"?



Well, she didn't, but I think I put some of that research on the previous page, if you're actually interested.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 27, 2008)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Well, she didn't, but I think I put some of that research on the previous page, if you're actually interested.



Yeah I believe I saw it, and the high estimate was 600k dead Iraqi Civilians. Unless that was not your post. Besides, blaming all those on us is being pretty unfair. It makes it sound like US troops killed them all, when the truth is the VAST majority of them were killed by their own countrymen and Foreign terrorists.

Ravi and several others on this board are always asking people to provide links for their claims, yet seem to think they do not have to!!


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 27, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> It makes it sound like US troops killed them all, when the truth is *the VAST majority of them were killed by their own countrymen and Foreign terrorists*.
> 
> Ravi and several others on this board are always asking people to provide links for their claims, yet seem to think they do not have to!!



I'd like a source for that claim. 

But regardless of source or not, the discussion here is how many Iraqi deaths the *invasion *has caused, not exclusively how many Iraqis have been personally killed directly by US military personnel. 

BTW, the highest estimate in the sources of my post was over 1,000,000 dead iraqis.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 27, 2008)

Epsilon Delta said:


> I'd like a source for that claim.



Come on man you need a source after hearing daily for years about 100 plus a day Iraqis killed by terrorist attacks in Iraq? Do you think we were carrying out those terrorist attacks?

Besides, Ravi said the US have killed millions of Iraqi Civilians, she did not say we "Caused" their deaths. Bit of a difference there I would say.

Up to 1 million is not the same as Millions now is it. Millions implys 2 million or more does it not?


----------



## Ravi (Jul 28, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Wow what a wonderful pile of insults and jokes, with no substance at all! You ever think of going after Lettermens job?
> 
> Speaking of posting lies and distortions. Did you ever provide that link I asked for to prove you claim that the US has killed "millions of innocent Iraqis"?



http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/55897-bad-news-for-the-we-lost-dems-2.html#post729698


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 28, 2008)

Ravi said:


> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/55897-bad-news-for-the-we-lost-dems-2.html#post729698



Look Sealybobo has posted again. How is it going Sealybobo? That name change help you any?


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 28, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Come on man you need a source after hearing daily for years about 100 plus a day Iraqis killed by terrorist attacks in Iraq? Do you think we were carrying out those terrorist attacks?
> 
> Besides, Ravi said the US have killed millions of Iraqi Civilians, she did not say we "Caused" their deaths. Bit of a difference there I would say.
> 
> Up to 1 million is not the same as Millions now is it. Millions implys 2 million or more does it not?



Alright, well she can say what she likes. I usually try saying that millions of lives have been destroyed. Even if it had been half a million, it is no trivial matter, especially considering the *5 MILLION REFUGEES*. I just don't think it's a matter that ought to be taken so lightly, whether it'd be millions or hundreds of thousands, or even tens of thousands. You just have to look at the scope of it. Let's say it was "just" 500,000. That's 1 out of every 60 iraqis. With 1,000,000, that's 1 out of 30. One out of every thirty people you've ever met is dead. That could include your family, people you live with, people in your neighborhood, people you went to school with, people you worked with. If they're 'lucky', they've forced themselves into exile. Exile is no trivial matter either. Internally displaced? Well, if that is trivial, then I guess Katrina was of no importance either. The effect of the refugees is probably even more devastating than that of the dead, in either case, both for Iraq and for the whole region. 

As for the VAST majority, again, I don't know what percentage have been directly responsible for which, so I wouldn't make a claim. One of the sources I posted put the causes of death at 6% for both car bombs and aerial bombardments, but by far the major bulk was gunshot wounds, which could be from either side.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 28, 2008)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Alright, well she can say what she likes. I usually try saying that millions of lives have been destroyed. Even if it had been half a million, it is no trivial matter, especially considering the *5 MILLION REFUGEES*. I just don't think it's a matter that ought to be taken so lightly, whether it'd be millions or hundreds of thousands, or even tens of thousands. You just have to look at the scope of it. Let's say it was "just" 500,000. That's 1 out of every 60 iraqis. With 1,000,000, that's 1 out of 30. One out of every thirty people you've ever met is dead. That could include your family, people you live with, people in your neighborhood, people you went to school with, people you worked with. If they're 'lucky', they've forced themselves into exile. Exile is no trivial matter either. Internally displaced? Well, if that is trivial, then I guess Katrina was of no importance either. The effect of the refugees is probably even more devastating than that of the dead, in either case, both for Iraq and for the whole region.
> 
> As for the VAST majority, again, I don't know what percentage have been directly responsible for which, so I wouldn't make a claim. One of the sources I posted put the causes of death at 6% for both car bombs and aerial bombardments, but by far the major bulk was gunshot wounds, which could be from either side.



Except 600k did not die. That is made up by a report already trashed by serious science. It was a political hit piece. Just as the first report a couple years before claimed 200k had died was a political hit piece.

Also last I checked wars tend to disrupt lives. We should not fight them because people may be forced to flee? Ok let's melt down all our weapons and surrender to the next despot that demands anything from anyone.


----------



## Reality (Jul 28, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There were not 600k killed. That is a fantasy number made up by an anti war group bent on spinning their crap. The Iraqi Government does in fact have numbers. Why? Well cause they issue death certificates and the hospitals report to them. When they were claiming 200k had died the Iraqi Government said 20 k. So you do the math.
> 
> As for Ravi, she is so full of shit her eyes are brown. And the next time she calls me Wow she will find out just how nasty I can be. She is a political hack, partisan piece of Garbage that routinely lies and distorts, she never backs up her claims because her claims are all fabricated in her pea brain. She uses her head as a hat rack and thinks with emotions. She "feels" things. Typical brain dead Liberal turd for brains. She "feels" it is right. She "feels" that her position is correct. She "feels" that we failed. Get the idea? If she had to think her head would explode because it is full of fumes from her ass and the spark of two brain cells rubbing together would ignite the gas and blow her head off.
> 
> The only difference between Ravi and Wow is she is a liberal and a female. She is a refined Sealybobo. Full of ignorance and passing it off as intelligence. They took her IQ and it failed to register. She is a walking talking brain dead medical miracle. The medical staff found no brain wave activity at all and would have declared her dead except she uses her ass to keep going.



Anti war group? I know brain surgeons like you think education is bad, but for the rest of the planet.... 


BBC NEWS | Politics | Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust'

Hack... ignorance.... failing to register intelligence.... you fit in well.


----------



## Reality (Jul 28, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Except 600k did not die. That is made up by a report already trashed by serious science. It was a political hit piece. Just as the first report a couple years before claimed 200k had died was a political hit piece.



I don't know about the 200k, but John Hopkins School of Public Health is reputable school and their work had the British govt's scientists telling the govt that the project was conducted under tried and true methodology. 



> Also last I checked wars tend to disrupt lives. We should not fight them because people may be forced to flee? Ok let's melt down all our weapons and surrender to the next despot that demands anything from anyone.



Thats right you mental midget, this war is all wars. Every issue that involves violence is exactly the same. 

And, who the fuck is "them."


----------



## busara (Jul 28, 2008)

RGS, i'm still waiting for you to backup your claim that saddam was making a terror organization to attack the US. i would like to know if it's true or not


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 28, 2008)

busara said:


> RGS, i'm still waiting for you to backup your claim that saddam was making a terror organization to attack the US. i would like to know if it's true or not



I never said that, but do lie. Read it again, I said we have documantation he was shopping around for a terror group, that he was going to ramp up production on chemical and biological weapons and return to Nuclear research as soon France, Russia and China managed to get his embargo lifted.

Which leads to, if he couldn't find one, he would probably make one.


----------



## busara (Jul 28, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I never said that, but do lie. Read it again, I said we have documantation he was shopping around for a terror group, that he was going to ramp up production on chemical and biological weapons and return to Nuclear research as soon France, Russia and China managed to get his embargo lifted.
> 
> Which leads to, if he couldn't find one, he would probably make one.





> *RGS: *The threat was that he would *find or make *a terror organization and use chemicals, biological or eventually Nuclear weapons in a terror attack, in the hopes we couldn't pin it on him later.



dont accuse me of lying. now, as much as you must enjoy dancing around the issue and not backing it up, i grow tired of it. *give a source*


----------



## Chris (Jul 28, 2008)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Just because the largest ethnic group in Iraq is Shia does not mean that they will be anywhere near "pro-Iran"  It was Iraqi Shia that bore the largest losses of all in the Iran-Iraq war.  Iranians are Persians, not Arabs and that alone trumps the Shia label and ensures there is no love lost between Iraqi Arab Shia and their Persian Shiite neighbors.




Iran, Iraq Herald 'New Chapter' in Shiite-Led Alliance


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 28, 2008)

busara said:


> dont accuse me of lying. now, as much as you must enjoy dancing around the issue and not backing it up, i grow tired of it. *give a source*



Already did, Lay provided a report to Congress, it is public domain , common knowledge to anyone that is not around 12 , old news from 2004. How old were you then? 5? To young to have seen it on TV, read it in the paper, or seen it on the internet? I am not your lap dog. Next you will be asking me to prove Lincoln was ever elected to office.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 28, 2008)

Yeah, it's also public domain that Bush invaded Iraq because Saddam didn't want to be his lover any more. But don't ask me to link you to that information, it was in all the papers.


----------



## busara (Jul 28, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Already did, Lay provided a report to Congress, it is public domain , common knowledge to anyone that is not around 12 , old news from 2004. How old were you then? 5? To young to have seen it on TV, read it in the paper, or seen it on the internet? I am not your lap dog. Next you will be asking me to prove Lincoln was ever elected to office.



wow, insults. who saw that coming? youre the one acting like an infant, refusing to post a link. and why did i not hear about it in '04? simple. i wasnt interested in politics then. 

i'm not asking for a lapdog, nor am i asking for anything unreasonable. i simply want you to substantiate this claim because i genuinely want to know. now stop acting like one of the many partisan hacks around here and back up your claim. if it is such a common fact, it shouldnt take you long. 

and i know you want me to do your work for you, but heres the simple truth. too many people make bogus claims on this board, and that needs to stop. i wont take the time to check every claim because that would be a huge waste of time. but i will check their sources. 

now, i'll say it again. act like a mature adult and please give a viable source.


----------



## Orange_Juice (Jul 28, 2008)

Reality said:


> Anti war group? I know brain surgeons like you think education is bad, but for the rest of the planet....
> 
> 
> BBC NEWS | Politics | Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust'
> ...



[Snerk] 

Good one!!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 28, 2008)

Ahh got the name wrong, it is David Kay.

He admitted at the time he resigned we never found the weapons we believed existed in Iraq, but that the reason was not because anyone lied, rather that the intelligence we had lead everyone to believe they existed, including France and germany, both of whom did not invade.

In one report he provided information from captured documents that clearly indicated Saddam Hussein maintained the teams, equipment and base stock to return to production of Chemical and Biological weapons, and that he maintained the team to return to research n Nuclear weapons.

He has stated every time he has been questioned or provided an interview that Saddam Hussein was in serious breach of resolutions to report and identify his activities and that he did so ON PURPOSE.

He report on records that indicated Saddam Hussein had numerous contacts with terror organizations in a search for a partner. Including Osama Bin Laden.

Even the final report from his boss states that if sanctions had been lifted with Saddam Hussein still in power he would have clearly returned to production, research and capability of Chemical and Biological weapons and probably Nuclear as well.

I am not going to link shit for you, your finger work fine or you wouldn't be typing here. It was common Knowledge in the press in 2004 and again in 2005. Should I link you to who won the 2004 election too?

You don't want information, if you did you would look it up yourself, it is all available from the major press sources. You are hoping I will link to some site you can claim is biased. Or your hoping to convince people that what happened did notcause YOU were to busy those years to pay attention.

If you give a guy a fish he eats for one day, if you teach him to fish, he can eat as long as there are fish in the water around him. Look it up your self.


----------



## busara (Jul 28, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ahh got the name wrong, it is David Kay.
> 
> He admitted at the time he resigned we never found the weapons we believed existed in Iraq, but that the reason was not because anyone lied, rather that the intelligence we had lead everyone to believe they existed, including France and germany, both of whom did not invade.
> 
> ...



wow, you really know me. i only was looking to try and embaress you. you really figured out this independent registered moderate.


all i did was ask for you to give a source. thats it. i even said please. and you make it out to be extreme and unnecessary. 



pathetic. 

if you cant back up a claim you make, dont make it. in refusing you only make yourself out to be a jackass


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 28, 2008)

busara said:


> wow, you really know me. i only was looking to try and embaress you. you really figured out this independent registered moderate.
> 
> 
> all i did was ask for you to give a source. thats it. i even said please. and you make it out to be extreme and unnecessary.
> ...




Don't feel bad, he is all mad at me, because I refuse to ignore Bushes role in our massive deficits!


----------



## busara (Jul 28, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Don't feel bad, he is all mad at me, because I refuse to ignore Bushes role in our massive deficits!



i think he's mad at anyone who doesnt believe everything he says without proof


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 28, 2008)

busara said:


> i think he's mad at anyone who doesnt believe everything he says without proof



Once again you turd, it is PUBLIC knowledge. I suppose if I told you Custer and a third of the 7th Cavalry were killed at Little Bighorn in 1876 you would demand proof? If I told you Kerry ran against Bush in 2004, you would want proof? If I told you thousand die every year in car acidents, do I have to link to a source for that?

You are a lazy turd. It was all over the news in 2004 and 2005. Look it up your self. Or are you admitting you are an incompetent boob that can not navigate the internet?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 28, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Don't feel bad, he is all mad at me, because I refuse to ignore Bushes role in our massive deficits!



You keep claiming he is MOSTLY responsible when the President does not EVER create a Budget, Congress does that. But do go on about how you know how our Government works.


----------



## busara (Jul 28, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again you turd, it is PUBLIC knowledge. I suppose if I told you Custer and a third of the 7th Cavalry were killed at Little Bighorn in 1876 you would demand proof? If I told you Kerry ran against Bush in 2004, you would want proof? If I told you thousand die every year in car acidents, do I have to link to a source for that?
> 
> You are a lazy turd. It was all over the news in 2004 and 2005. Look it up your self. Or are you admitting you are an incompetent boob that can not navigate the internet?



ooooo, calling me names over the internet. what a big man. 

stop making meaningless comparisons. what was all over the news was the ties between saddam and al queda which have since been disproven. it also was shown how he gave some rewards to palestinian terrorists who attacked israel. but i dont remember ANYTHING about him actively trying to ally with a a terrorist organization to attack the united states. now show me otherwise. prove that i have a bad memory or simply missed the story. i dont get why that is so hard. i already told you why i wont find it myself. are you admitting you cant or dont read the posts here? show that youre better than the people on here you always complain about for not properly citing sources or making stupid claims. come on RGS, you can do it. 

and if it is such common knowledge, why isnt everyone here rushing to your side to defend you? i'm just looking for some verification of information here, as i do with everybody when they post something which needs to be proven.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 29, 2008)

Busara, what I believe he is referring to is Saddam's dream diary, it turned out that most of Saddam's dreams (after heavily imbibing whiskey) were that one day the rest of the world would leave him alone and he'd have the time and capability to take over the world.


----------



## Diuretic (Jul 29, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again you turd, it is PUBLIC knowledge. I suppose if I told you Custer and a third of the 7th Cavalry were killed at Little Bighorn in 1876 you would demand proof? If I told you Kerry ran against Bush in 2004, you would want proof? If I told you thousand die every year in car acidents, do I have to link to a source for that?
> 
> You are a lazy turd. It was all over the news in 2004 and 2005. Look it up your self. Or are you admitting you are an incompetent boob that can not navigate the internet?



But was Custer a dickhead?  That would require proof I think.


----------



## editec (Jul 29, 2008)

FYI: Source Rueters 11 Jul 2008 1609 GMT





> Following are the latest figures for soldiers and civilians killed since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003:
> 
> U.S.-LED COALITION FORCES:
> 
> ...


 


_*One man's death is a tragedy.  One million people's deaths are a statistic.*_


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 29, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Cool.. we won .. I guess the troops can head home in say.... 16mnths... Unfortunately that plays right into Obamas hands... I can understand why you cats are pissed...



Personally, I figured it would take ten years from when we breached the berm. If they say we can start the draw down after the 45 day pause and we end up out of there 16 months (which sounds VERY logistically aggressive to me), we would be running up on 8 years. My guess is that the minimum would be 18 months anyway probably more like 24 months (remember this is a Government operation). 

So, we'll end up out of there between about 8 and 9 years after we went in. Sounds like we did a damned fine job all you instant gratification fuckers notwithstanding.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 29, 2008)

editec said:


> FYI: Source Rueters 11 Jul 2008 1609 GMT
> 
> 
> 
> _*One man's death is a tragedy.  One million people's deaths are a statistic.*_



Displaced Iraqi's forced out of their own country 2 million.

And the number of dead Iraqi's, on the very high side, could be 1 million.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 29, 2008)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Alright, well she can say what she likes. I usually try saying that millions of lives have been destroyed. Even if it had been half a million, it is no trivial matter, especially considering the *5 MILLION REFUGEES*. I just don't think it's a matter that ought to be taken so lightly, whether it'd be millions or hundreds of thousands, or even tens of thousands. You just have to look at the scope of it. Let's say it was "just" 500,000. That's 1 out of every 60 iraqis. With 1,000,000, that's 1 out of 30. One out of every thirty people you've ever met is dead. That could include your family, people you live with, people in your neighborhood, people you went to school with, people you worked with. If they're 'lucky', they've forced themselves into exile. Exile is no trivial matter either. Internally displaced? Well, if that is trivial, then I guess Katrina was of no importance either. The effect of the refugees is probably even more devastating than that of the dead, in either case, both for Iraq and for the whole region.
> 
> As for the VAST majority, again, I don't know what percentage have been directly responsible for which, so I wouldn't make a claim. One of the sources I posted put the causes of death at 6% for both car bombs and aerial bombardments, but by far the major bulk was gunshot wounds, which could be from either side.



I'm sorry. Is there a point to all this hand-wringing? It's a fucking war. People die. There it is.

In the end, the only question is did we achieve our national policy objective by prosecuting the war and enforcing the peace? If the answer is yes (and we won't really know until we have withdrawn and the government holds), then we've accomplished what we set out to do. 

Will that make them love us or hate us? Who fucking cares? We've never been successful at "winning hearts and minds" it is a complete waste of time and a mind-fuck to even attempt it. We have successfully gone into countries completely blown them utterly apart, occupied their countries for 60 years and made them love us. So, you pick, the failed "hearts and minds" policy or the successful "blow the bastards to hell" policy.

That slightly overstates it, but really the sniveling was out of control!


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 29, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> I'm sorry. Is there a point to all this hand-wringing? It's a fucking war. People die. There it is.
> 
> In the end, the only question is did we achieve our national policy objective by prosecuting the war and enforcing the peace? If the answer is yes (and we won't really know until we have withdrawn and the government holds), then we've accomplished what we set out to do.
> 
> ...


ahh.. the compassionate conservative argument... 

Go read the inscription on the fucking statue of liberty you fucking idiot... When this country gets attacked because we are seen as weak and over extended I hope to hell its your ass that takes a laser guided missle... no better yet... I hope to hell you survive to be a heart and mind that gets trampled by the uncaring occupying army...


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 29, 2008)

Ah liberal hate at it's finest.


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 29, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Ah liberal hate at it's finest.



Please explain... while youre at it feel free to explain why you agree with Techs anti responsibility rant...


----------



## Ravi (Jul 29, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> I
> 
> In the end, the only question is did we achieve our national policy objective by prosecuting the war and enforcing the peace?



It'd be easier to answer that question if anyone knew what the national policy objective was.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 29, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Please explain... while youre at it feel free to explain why you agree with Techs anti responsibility rant...




Why would I explain agreeing with something I never said I agree with? I was simply referring to Jeepers post. Which was filled with his normal seething hate for all things Repubican, or anyone who holds opinions contrary to his own. For gods sake he used the F word twice in the first sentence then went on to say he hoped bad things would happen to the poster, and I call that Hate


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 29, 2008)

What are you fucking dense.. look at the context.. christ I feel like I am talking to idiots here... he said he gives two shits about us winning the hearts and minds... I am presenting an argument that he mind find a little closer to home...


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 29, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> What are you fucking dense.. look at the context.. christ I feel like I am talking to idiots here... he said he gives two shits about us winning the hearts and minds... I am presenting an argument that he mind find a little closer to home...



There you go again, proving my point. I do not care who is presenting what argument. Your words speak for themselves. Try debating with out using the F word, and calling people idiots, and I wont say you are hateful.


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 29, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> There you go again, proving my point. I do not care who is presenting what argument. Your words speak for themselves. Try debating with out using the F word, and calling people idiots, and I wont say you are hateful.



Fuck that... I've been dealing with dolts for way too long... if you present a worthy statement then my language will change, if you attack my style when I am speaking to someone that mocks everything thing that makes this country great then it is you sir that has the problem.. not me... I'll ask you again do you condone this statement?



> I'm sorry. Is there a point to all this hand-wringing? It's a fucking war. People die. There it is.
> In the end, the only question is did we achieve our national policy objective by prosecuting the war and enforcing the peace? If the answer is yes (and we won't really know until we have withdrawn and the government holds), then we've accomplished what we set out to do.
> Will that make them love us or hate us? Who fucking cares? We've never been successful at "winning hearts and minds" it is a complete waste of time and a mind-fuck to even attempt it. We have successfully gone into countries completely blown them utterly apart, occupied their countries for 60 years and made them love us. So, you pick, the failed "hearts and minds" policy or the successful "blow the bastards to hell" policy.
> That slightly overstates it, but really the sniveling was out of control!


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 29, 2008)

Ravi said:


> It'd be easier to answer that question if anyone knew what the national policy objective was.



Want to hear something horrible?

Rachel Maddow on Air Americ and Race For The White House msnbc tells what is really going on in Iraq.  She's one reason I know these people on these boards don't know what they are talking about.

Anyways, there are these 2 oil men that have donated millions to bush's presidential library.  They have both struck oil deals with the kurds.  That means essentially the al malaki government will receive nothing from those oil dollars.  Do I need to explain how damaging that is to the iraqi central government?  

so iraq will ultimately be divided in three.  and who's going to get screwed ultimately?  the sunnis.  So they will be the future terrorst problem in iraq.  This civil war is not over.  

But you don't hear these details in the media.


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Jul 29, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> Personally, I figured it would take ten years from when we breached the berm. If they say we can start the draw down after the 45 day pause and we end up out of there 16 months (which sounds VERY logistically aggressive to me), we would be running up on 8 years. My guess is that the minimum would be 18 months anyway probably more like 24 months (remember this is a Government operation).
> 
> So, we'll end up out of there between about 8 and 9 years after we went in. Sounds like we did a damned fine job all you instant gratification fuckers notwithstanding.


Actually, in the last 200 years the average length of time it takes to quell an insurgency is in the neighborhood of 15 years.  And that is with a much higher percentage of troops/population than we have had in Iraq.

It took us nine years and over 1,000,000 troops to finish the job in Japan.

We will end up with about 20,000 permanent troops in Iraq, similar to S. Korea.  Most Americans forget we still have over 5000 troops and support personnel still in the Balkans.  About 35,000 in Korea and another 30,000 in Okinawa.  And those have been there for upwards 60 years now.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 29, 2008)

Ravi said:


> It'd be easier to answer that question if anyone knew what the national policy objective was.



Want to hear something horrible?

Rachel Maddow on Air Americ and Race For The White House msnbc tells what is really going on in Iraq.  She's one reason I know these people on these boards don't know what they are talking about.

Anyways, there are these 2 oil men that have donated millions to bush's presidential library.  They have both struck oil deals with the kurds.  That means essentially the al malaki government will receive nothing from those oil dollars.  Do I need to explain how damaging that is to the iraqi central government?  

so iraq will ultimately be divided in three.  and who's going to get screwed ultimately?  the sunnis.  So they will be the future terrorst problem in iraq.  This civil war is not over.  

But you don't hear these details in the media.


----------



## Chris (Jul 29, 2008)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Actually, in the last 200 years the average length of time it takes to quell an insurgency is in the neighborhood of 15 years.  And that is with a much higher percentage of troops/population than we have had in Iraq.
> 
> It took us nine years and over 1,000,000 troops to finish the job in Japan.
> 
> We will end up with about 20,000 permanent troops in Iraq, similar to S. Korea.  Most Americans forget we still have over 5000 troops and support personnel still in the Balkans.  About 35,000 in Korea and another 30,000 in Okinawa.  And those have been there for upwards 60 years now.



Nice bit of perspective. The problem is the Sunnis and the Shia hate each other. Iraq is more like Northern Ireland. How long have the British been there? A hundred years?


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Jul 29, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Nice bit of perspective. The problem is the Sunnis and the Shia hate each other. Iraq is more like Northern Ireland. How long have the British been there? A hundred years?



Iraq may split into three countries, eventually, but that is largely irrelevant.  The main strategic goal in Iraq was to gain leverage on two sides of Iran, one in Afghanistan in the east and the other in west, by establishing a permanent military land base presence in easy striking range of not only Iran, but Central Asia as well.  Mostly to counterbalance Russian, Chinese and Indian influence in the largest remaining untapped oil and gas reserves left in the World, the Caspian-Aral Sea region of south central Asia.  

And THAT is the unspoken, uncovered REAL strategic reason for invading Iraq.  So if we end up with that permanent presence then we have fully achieved our objectives in the region.


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 30, 2008)

> Iraq may split into three countries, eventually, but that is largely irrelevant.


 Once again the west goes into Persia to draw more lines on a map... Thats the kind of irrelevance that can topple towers... or skyscrapers as that case may be.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 30, 2008)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Iraq may split into three countries, eventually, but that is largely irrelevant.  The main strategic goal in Iraq was to gain leverage on two sides of Iran, one in Afghanistan in the east and the other in west, by establishing a permanent military land base presence in easy striking range of not only Iran, but Central Asia as well.  Mostly to counterbalance Russian, Chinese and Indian influence in the largest remaining untapped oil and gas reserves left in the World, the Caspian-Aral Sea region of south central Asia.
> 
> And THAT is the unspoken, uncovered REAL strategic reason for invading Iraq.  So if we end up with that permanent presence then we have fully achieved our objectives in the region.



So is it true then that PNAC said we would need another Pearl Harbor incident to push these radical plans?  And then did the Bush Administration then let 9-11 happen so they could start the process?  Because they would have never convinced us to war with Iraq or Afganistan if it weren't for 9-11.  And are you admitting Bush lie about WMD's so he could take over Iraq?  So then we are stealing oil.  

We could have instead just figured out alternative energy solutions and let them swim in their oil.  

And it is going to be very difficult to convince Shiite Iraq that we want a base there so we can wage war against their brothers in Iran.   I believe the Iraqi's want us to leave.  So does that mean it was all a failure?  

Now that we turned over Iraq to the Shiites, we sort of created an ally to Iran, didn't we?  


Saddam kept Iran in check.  We shouldn't have outted him.  

And wasn't Saddam selling us oil really cheap?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 30, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> ahh.. the compassionate conservative argument...
> 
> Go read the inscription on the fucking statue of liberty you fucking idiot... When this country gets attacked because we are seen as weak and over extended I hope to hell its your ass that takes a laser guided missle... no better yet... I hope to hell you survive to be a heart and mind that gets trampled by the uncaring occupying army...



If we are weak and over extended, its by choice not necessity. If we are weak and over extended it's because we were made so by people like you.

What the fuck does the inscription on the Statue of Liberty have to do with this discussion? Don't think every other country in the world wouldn't pull the trigger on that laser guided missile if they thought they could get away with it. That's the point moron.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> It'd be easier to answer that question if anyone knew what the national policy objective was.



I suppose you could be that stupid. I don't see any need to try, in vain, to get you up to speed.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 30, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> I suppose you could be that stupid. I don't see any need to try, in vain, to get you up to speed.



Does that mean you don't know either?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 30, 2008)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Actually, in the last 200 years the average length of time it takes to quell an insurgency is in the neighborhood of 15 years.  And that is with a much higher percentage of troops/population than we have had in Iraq.
> 
> It took us nine years and over 1,000,000 troops to finish the job in Japan.
> 
> We will end up with about 20,000 permanent troops in Iraq, similar to S. Korea.  Most Americans forget we still have over 5000 troops and support personnel still in the Balkans.  About 35,000 in Korea and another 30,000 in Okinawa.  And those have been there for upwards 60 years now.



What can I say, I'm a natural optimist. (Not that you could tell that by the reaction of the sniveling hand-wringers on here).


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 30, 2008)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Iraq may split into three countries, eventually, but that is largely irrelevant.  The main strategic goal in Iraq was to gain leverage on two sides of Iran, one in Afghanistan in the east and the other in west, by establishing a permanent military land base presence in easy striking range of not only Iran, but Central Asia as well.  Mostly to counterbalance Russian, Chinese and Indian influence in the largest remaining untapped oil and gas reserves left in the World, the Caspian-Aral Sea region of south central Asia.
> 
> And THAT is the unspoken, uncovered REAL strategic reason for invading Iraq.  So if we end up with that permanent presence then we have fully achieved our objectives in the region.



Finally, someone who gets it! 

If you don't understand why what Zoomie says is true, you need to really go educate yourselves on International Relations in theory and practice.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 30, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> What are you fucking dense.. look at the context.. christ I feel like I am talking to idiots here... he said he gives two shits about us winning the hearts and minds... I am presenting an argument that he mind find a little closer to home...



This is exactly what I was talking about. You are so emotional about this that you will continue failed policy after failed policy because you think "it's the right thing to do." Here's the clue, if it is a FAILED policy, that means IT FAILED!!!

It doesn't work. It doesn't matter how much you believe it's right, IT DOESN'T WORK. That's why I don't care about it. I would rather pursue the policy that does work. The proven policy. The policy that continues to work when it is used, every time. 

Perhaps you would feel better about my favoring the pursuit of that policy if I was apologetic about it. Well, too bad. I'm not. This political correct bullshit has to stop someplace. I am unabashedly in favor of the unconditional surrender of the enemy, using whatever means is *required* to get there. If you don't agree with the fact that we are fighting the war, the voting booth will be open to you when it's time to vote. See ya then.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 30, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> So is it true then that PNAC said we would need another Pearl Harbor incident to push these radical plans?  And then did the Bush Administration then let 9-11 happen so they could start the process?  Because they would have never convinced us to war with Iraq or Afganistan if it weren't for 9-11.  And are you admitting Bush lie about WMD's so he could take over Iraq?  So then we are stealing oil.
> 
> We could have instead just figured out alternative energy solutions and let them swim in their oil.
> 
> ...



Muddled .... just really muddled thinking. (and I use the term loosely).


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Does that mean you don't know either?



Nope, I've pretty much mastered the basics of this discussion. I hear there is an environmental argument going on on a different thread, you might want to look in on that.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 30, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> Muddled .... just really muddled thinking. (and I use the term loosely).



Here is your homework assignment.  Watch the Utube interview of Howard Stern and Jesse the Body Ventura July 29, 2008 and then get back to me with your analysis.

He isn't a liberal.  He's a member of the Reform Party.  

Don't watch it, then you don't want to know the truth.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 30, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Here is your homework assignment.  Watch the Utube interview of Howard Stern and Jesse the Body Ventura July 29, 2008 and then get back to me with your analysis.
> 
> He isn't a liberal.  He's a member of the Reform Party.
> 
> Don't watch it, then you don't want to know the truth.



Well, at least I understand why your thinking is muddled. You understand that HS is an entertainer right? And despite JV's stint as governor of MN, he's a "wrestler" another entertainer. 

In my parlance entertainers are known as clowns. Their purpose is to entertain you. If they had the ability to be serving a higher purpose in life, they would be. You should watch them clown for you. You should laugh and cry and clap when they do a good job. But you should never, NEVER listen to what they have to say much less take it seriously.

Sorry, I know I just wasted my time, but you seem to desperately need that advice. No, I'm not going to listen to the Utube you didn't link and I would not listen to Beavis and Butthead explaining their views on the topic either.


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 30, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> This is exactly what I was talking about. You are so emotional about this that you will continue failed policy after failed policy because you think "it's the right thing to do." Here's the clue, if it is a FAILED policy, that means IT FAILED!!!
> 
> It doesn't work. It doesn't matter how much you believe it's right, IT DOESN'T WORK. That's why I don't care about it. I would rather pursue the policy that does work. The proven policy. The policy that continues to work when it is used, every time.
> 
> Perhaps you would feel better about my favoring the pursuit of that policy if I was apologetic about it. Well, too bad. I'm not. This political correct bullshit has to stop someplace. I am unabashedly in favor of the unconditional surrender of the enemy, using whatever means is *required* to get there. If you don't agree with the fact that we are fighting the war, the voting booth will be open to you when it's time to vote. See ya then.



.........2
E= MC

Theres your solution douchebag... this is the practical application of your theory...


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 30, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> .........2
> E= MC
> 
> Theres your solution douchebag... this is the practical application of your theory...



Sorry you're a hater. We used it twice to great effect. Not as great an effect as the fire bombing of Tokyo or Dresden, but greater symbolism don't you think? In these cases though, it is far better to give than receive. N'est pas?


----------



## editec (Jul 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> It'd be easier to answer that question if anyone knew what the national policy objective was.


 
Bingo!

There is one, but we're not really privy to the details of it, that's for damned sure


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 30, 2008)

editec said:


> Bingo!
> 
> There is one, but we're not really privy to the details of it, that's for damned sure



That's a smarter analysis.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 30, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> That's a smarter analysis.


Smarter than your snarky reply to me, absolutely.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 30, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> Well, at least I understand why your thinking is muddled. You understand that HS is an entertainer right? And despite JV's stint as governor of MN, he's a "wrestler" another entertainer.
> 
> In my parlance entertainers are known as clowns. Their purpose is to entertain you. If they had the ability to be serving a higher purpose in life, they would be. You should watch them clown for you. You should laugh and cry and clap when they do a good job. But you should never, NEVER listen to what they have to say much less take it seriously.
> 
> Sorry, I know I just wasted my time, but you seem to desperately need that advice. No, I'm not going to listen to the Utube you didn't link and I would not listen to Beavis and Butthead explaining their views on the topic either.



Arnold and Reagan are 2 clowns?

You can't google search the interview?  

This is why the GOP continues to dupe America.

We get rid of our bad leaders.  You don't until its too late. stevens, delay, foley, gonzo, rumsfeld, abramoff, bush, chaney, vetter, craig, hastert and boehner.

Why do you think the gop is losing seats?  because i'm right.  so why are you still loyal?  because you are brainwashed.

no way i'd call myself a democrat if they did what the gop did to america.  

2000?  fine  04?  maybe.  08?  you must be insane.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 30, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Arnold and Reagan are 2 clowns?
> 
> You can't google search the interview?
> 
> ...



Sorry, not a repub. Care to reload?


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 31, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> Sorry, not a repub. Care to reload?



Fair Weather Repub maybe?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 31, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Fair Weather Repub maybe?



Nope not for years. I was hard core about 15 years ago, even VP of the College Republicans for a while. But, much as people who had been Democrats for their whole lives watched as their party moved and left them behind. I've watched as the Republicans left me behind. Since I've never been a "social conservative" so once the fiscal conservatism was dropped by the current administration, there was very little to hold me. So, for the last 4 years or so I would describe myself as a hawkish Libertarian.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 31, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Fair Weather Repub maybe?




LOL, the the word you are searching for is Conservative my freind. If the Dems suddenly started embrassing all sorts of normally conservative Values, and policies would you just stick with them, or would you say to hell with them?


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Aug 1, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> I'm sorry. Is there a point to all this hand-wringing? It's a fucking war. People die. There it is.
> 
> In the end, the only question is did we achieve our national policy objective by prosecuting the war and enforcing the peace? If the answer is yes (and we won't really know until we have withdrawn and the government holds), then we've accomplished what we set out to do.
> 
> ...



Yeah, Tech, it's a war. People die. Who cares? Who cares when it's not YOUR people? As long as you're the absolute hammer of the world, who cares if war is hell? As long as YOU are doing the pounding, war is a great big laugh. I'm glad you still think that way. You would've fit right in Nazi Germany, you know? Who cares if 6 million Poles die? It's a WAR people! So what if it was totally unprovoked? And before anyone jumps in to declare the enormous difference between the great magnanimous commitment to 'freedom' of the American Army and the evil holocaust-cheering Germans, remember that the ONLY reason that WWII started, the ONLY reason that the Allied Powers jumped in, was becasue Hitler committed the "Supreme International Crime" against Poland according to the Nuremberg terminology, which is a War of Aggression, an unprovoked attack, which is EXACTLY what the United States did to Iraq. Put aside the fairy tale that the Holocaust had anything to do with it. If Hitler had not annexed Austria, devoured Czechoslovakia, and most importantly INVADED Poland, nobody would've given a bloody shit about the mass displacement and genocide of the German Jews (Incredibly sad, but true. Not for Tech though, it was a war, so people die). 

It's in "OUR" interest, so we can exterminate the Jews. It is in "OUR" interest, so we can annihilate the Poles. It is in "OUR" interests, so we can rape Nanking. It is in "OUR" interest so we will demolish Armenia. It is in "OUR" interest, so we will crush Hungary, and then Czechoslovakia. It is in "OUR" interest, so "we" will do it, because "we" can. 

It is in "OUR" interest, so we will blow up the towers. So what if 3,000 people die? It's a war. People die.


----------



## Diuretic (Aug 1, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> Nope not for years. I was hard core about 15 years ago, even VP of the College Republicans for a while. But, much as people who had been Democrats for their whole lives watched as their party moved and left them behind. I've watched as the Republicans left me behind. Since I've never been a "social conservative" so once the fiscal conservatism was dropped by the current administration, there was very little to hold me. So, for the last 4 years or so I would describe myself as a hawkish Libertarian.



"Hawkish Libertarian".  That's interesting.  Is it a contradiction in terms though?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 1, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> "Hawkish Libertarian".  That's interesting.  Is it a contradiction in terms though?



Well since Libertarians are isolationist Ya.


----------



## Diuretic (Aug 1, 2008)

I take it they're not collectivists?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 1, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> I take it they're not collectivists?



A General idea about Libertarians, would be almost no Central Government, let Magistrates handle everything, sue rather then arrest, The highest Government effecting people would be around the County level.


----------



## Diuretic (Aug 1, 2008)

Thank you.  I can see this going off on a tangent but that seems to be a step towards anarchism (anarchism as no government rather than bomb throwingP.


----------

