# What Did You Do In The War On Terror, Daddy



## red states rule (May 7, 2007)

By Clarice Feldman

Democrats in Congress are insisting that funds budgeted for
intelligence be diverted to the study of global climate warming. 

That was the last thing I read before my head hit the pillow and
probably explains the nightmare that followed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## red states rule (May 7, 2007)

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

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


----------



## Rosotar (May 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Son of a liberal:  What did you do in the War On Terror, Daddy?
> 
> Liberal father:  I fought the Americans, along with all the other liberals.



Son of a Conservative..."What did you do in the war on terror daddy?"

Conservative father "I stuck my head up my arse and let Conservative pundits do my thinking for me!"


----------



## red states rule (May 7, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> Son of a Conservative..."What did you do in the war on terror daddy?"
> 
> Conservative father "I stuck my head up my arse and let Conservative pundits do my thinking for me!"





we are not the appeasers - libs are


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> we are not the appeasers - libs are



No, we're not. You're spouting shit, still. So take your crap and stuff it where the sun never shines, right up there next to your head. We do, however, want to see our troops extricated from a civil war, and brought home so they can, you know...<b>PROTECT THE HOMELAND</b>! We can better prevent the nightmare scenario your right-wing butt-buddy describes if our troops are here and our borders secure than we can if our they are caught in the quagmire of Iraq. 

The intermittent, random contact between the two wires flopping around in your head DOES NOT constitute original thought any more than your cut-and-pastes do. And most of them are lacking any thread of originality as they are simply parroting or repackaging White House talking points.


----------



## red states rule (May 7, 2007)

Appeasers said the same thing in the 1930's about Hitler

and 50 million people died


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Appeasers said the same thing in the 1930's about Hitler
> 
> and 50 million people died



Sorry...that analogy doesn't work anymore. And it was a really crappy one even when the GOP trotted it out for the first time. Bring our troops home and let al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents fight it out amongst themselves. With any luck at all, they'll kill each other off ...problem solved. Our borders will be more secure and we'll have the manpower to deal with a disaster whether it's natural or man-made.


----------



## Alucard (May 7, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> No, we're not. You're spouting shit, still. So take your crap and stuff it where the sun never shines, right up there next to your head. We do, however, want to see our troops extricated from a civil war, and brought home so they can, you know...<b>PROTECT THE HOMELAND</b>! We can better prevent the nightmare scenario your right-wing butt-buddy describes if our troops are here and our borders secure than we can if our they are caught in the quagmire of Iraq.
> 
> The intermittent, random contact between the two wires flopping around in your head DOES NOT constitute original thought any more than your cut-and-pastes do. And most of them are lacking any thread of originality as they are simply parroting or repackaging White House talking points.



Well you got one thing right... "Bring the troops home so they can, You know Protect the homeland".... They cetainly will be doing that, maybe right in your backyard... Why do you libs want to fight this war on our soil?  Because thats what will happen.


----------



## Gunny (May 7, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> No, we're not. You're spouting shit, still. So take your crap and stuff it where the sun never shines, right up there next to your head. We do, however, want to see our troops extricated from a civil war, and brought home so they can, you know...<b>PROTECT THE HOMELAND</b>! We can better prevent the nightmare scenario your right-wing butt-buddy describes if our troops are here and our borders secure than we can if our they are caught in the quagmire of Iraq.
> 
> *The intermittent, random contact between the two wires flopping around in your head DOES NOT constitute original thought any more than your cut-and-pastes do.* And most of them are lacking any thread of originality as they are simply parroting or repackaging White House talking points.



As an electrician, I can appreciate THAT.


----------



## Mariner (May 7, 2007)

nuclear devices, then let's talk Bush: his schedule for securing the loose nuclear material of the former Soviet Union take 20 years, it's so slow. Scientific American ran a piece about a year ago saying it could be done in 2 years for a measly 8 billion dollars. If the writer, and RSR, are so worried about loose nuclear material (which I am, too), write to your President and denounce his current policy.

Mariner.


----------



## red states rule (May 8, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> Sorry...that analogy doesn't work anymore. And it was a really crappy one even when the GOP trotted it out for the first time. Bring our troops home and let al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents fight it out amongst themselves. With any luck at all, they'll kill each other off ...problem solved. Our borders will be more secure and we'll have the manpower to deal with a disaster whether it's natural or man-made.



That is what Clinton said about Somalia - and we got 9-11 in return

Even though Dems are helping them, the terrorists want you dead as well


----------



## red states rule (May 8, 2007)

Alucard said:


> Well you got one thing right... "Bring the troops home so they can, You know Protect the homeland".... They cetainly will be doing that, maybe right in your backyard... Why do you libs want to fight this war on our soil?  Because thats what will happen.



Then they can blame Bush for not fighting the terrorists over there


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> That is what Clinton said about Somalia - and we got 9-11 in return
> 
> Even though Dems are helping them, the terrorists want you dead as well



And just HOW was the debacle in Somalia linked to 9-11? Is it that it's just a convenient foil for you, and your fellow travelers, to falsely blame Goat-boy for 9-11? Of course, none of this was Chimpy McPresident's fault.

It would seem that President Bush is acting more in line with the aims of al Qaeda in vetoing the emergency supplemental. Ayman al Zawahiri did say, after all, that ""We ask Allah that they only get out after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed,". Bush is allowing him to engage in the pursuit of his goal of killing as many American soldiers as he can.


----------



## red states rule (May 8, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> And just HOW was the debacle in Somalia linked to 9-11? Is it that it's just a convenient foil for you, and your fellow travelers, to falsely blame Goat-boy for 9-11? Of course, none of this was Chimpy McPresident's fault.
> 
> It would seem that President Bush is acting more in line with the aims of al Qaeda in vetoing the emergency supplemental. Ayman al Zawahiri did say, after all, that ""We ask Allah that they only get out after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed,". Bush is allowing him to engage in the pursuit of his goal of killing as many American soldiers as he can.



It is a FACT when Bill Clinton turned tail and ran from the fight, OBL believed the US was a paper tiger and started his 9-11 plan

Dems are proving OBL was correct , as far as Dems are concerned


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 8, 2007)

Alucard said:


> Well you got one thing right... "Bring the troops home so they can, You know Protect the homeland".... They cetainly will be doing that, maybe right in your backyard... Why do you libs want to fight this war on our soil?  Because thats what will happen.



Yeah...right..."Fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here"...What bullshit. Like they don't have access to "Map Quest" and "Google"? Like there are going to be boatloads of al Qaeda storm troopers landing in Manhattan. Just more of the Administration's delusional talking points, and you're eating that shit up with a spoon.

Why are you afraid of fighting "this war on our soil" anyways? Why do you want to cower in fear, in the imagined safety of your home while our men and women are dying on foreign shores in a conflict that should never have been started? Why can't you see that the real enemy was allowed to slip out of Afghanistan and rebuild as Bush and Co invaded and occupied a country THAT POSED NO THREAT TO OUR SHORES? Why can't you see that all Bush's invasion of Iraq did was provide al Qaeda, and Islamic fundamentalists of all stripes, a training ground second to none in that benighted country? 

Bloody hell! Wake up and smell the fucking coffee! The Bush administration has not made America, or the world either, safer. They have fanned the flames of Islamic fundamentalists the world over, and have done more to promote the cause of al Qaeda by invading and occupying a Muslim country than al Qaesa could have ever done on its own. Read the fucking news...Terrorist attacks around the world are UP 25% OVER LAST YEAR, and last year was a peak year! 

The ignorance of the innocent and naive are understandable and excusable. The willful ignorance of yourself, and your fellow travelers, shown in your continued and unquestioning support of the Bush administration is a disgrace, and a betrayal of every principle this nation was founded upon.


----------



## red states rule (May 8, 2007)

Desperate libs post desperate things BP


----------



## Rosotar (May 8, 2007)

Alucard said:


> Well you got one thing right... "Bring the troops home so they can, You know Protect the homeland".... They cetainly will be doing that, maybe right in your backyard... Why do you libs want to fight this war on our soil?  Because thats what will happen.



That's just recycled propaganda from Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson said we were "fighting Communists there so we wouldn't have to fight them on our own soil"....he was wrong of course.

The Communists never followed us home to California.

Why do you think this recycled claim would be true now if it wasn't then?


----------



## red states rule (May 8, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> That's just recycled propaganda from Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson said we were "fighting Communists there so we wouldn't have to fight them on our own soil"....he was wrong of course.
> 
> The Communists never followed us home to California.
> 
> Why do you think this recycled claim would be true now if it wasn't then?



But the terrorists have - and will attack us again if Dems surrender to them in Iraq


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It is a FACT when Bill Clinton turned tail and ran from the fight, OBL believed the US was a paper tiger and started his 9-11 plan
> 
> Dems are proving OBL was correct , as far as Dems are concerned



<b>WRONG...! WRONG...! WRONG...!</b> It was congressional Republicans, at the time, who forced Goat-boy's hand in withdrawing troops from Somalia, and I quote:

<blockquote>Mr. Speaker, specifically, I believe the six tests for committing combat forces, as outlined by former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger in a November 28, 1984 speech, must be our guide. Secretary Weinberger said that the following tests should be used to determine whether or not U.S. troops should be sent into combat:

First. Is the situation vital to U.S. or allied national interests?

Second. Have all other options already been considered or used?

Third. Is there a clear commitment, including allocated resources, to achieving victory?

Fourth. Are there clearly defined political and military objectives?

Fifth. Will our commitment of forces change if our objectives change?

Sixth. Will the American people and Congress support the action?

Statement of Republican Policy on U.S. Armed Forces in Somalia, Adopted April 1, 1993
U.S. military forces in Somalia have fulfilled the mission given them by President Bush. Republicans therefore call on President Clinton to bring our troops home. - Bob Dornan(R-CA), 10/06/1993</blockquote>

When are you going to figure it out? Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda, or the 'war on terror' until Bush invaded Iraq under questionable, if not not outright false, justifications. Since then, Chimpy and Co have never ceased in their attempts to conflate Iraq with al Qaeda and the 'war on terror' in order to provide some justification for what is the greatest foreign policy blunder in US history. Give yer ears a good hard tug and po yer head outta yer ass, why don't ya.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 8, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> That's just recycled propaganda from Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson said we were "fighting Communists there so we wouldn't have to fight them on our own soil"....he was wrong of course.
> 
> The Communists never followed us home to California.
> 
> Why do you think this recycled claim would be true now if it wasn't then?



They keep repeating it 'cause they got nothin' else.


----------



## red states rule (May 8, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> They keep repeating it 'cause they got nothin' else.



Libs will always try rewrite history when the facts go against them


Rep. John Murtha Urged Somalia Pullout in '93

After terrorists attacked U.S. troops in Mogadishu, Somalia 12 years ago, anti-Iraq war Democrat, Rep. John Murtha urged then-President Clinton to begin a complete pullout of U.S. troops from the region.

Clinton took the advice and ordered the withdrawal - a decision that Osama bin Laden would later credit with emboldening his terrorist fighters and encouraging him to mount further attacks against the U.S. 

"Our welcome has been worn out," Rep Murtha told NBC's "Today" show in Sept. 1993, a month after 4 U.S. Military Police had been killed in Somalia by a remote-detonated land mine.

The Pennsylvania Democrat announced that President Clinton had been "listening to our suggestions. And I think you'll see him move those troops out very quickly."
Two weeks later, after 18 U.S. Rangers were killed in the battle of Mogadishu, Murtha visited U.S. forces in Somalia.

Upon his return he proclaimed to the world that the Mogadishu defeat had a devastating impact on the Rangers' morale.

"They're subdued compared to normal morale of elite forces," Murtha said. "Obviously, it was a very difficult battle. A lot of Somalis were killed, but it was a brutal battle."

Murtha said the U.S. had to no choice but to pull out now, explaining, "There's no military solution. Some of them will tell you [that] to get [warlord Mohamed Farrah] Aidid is the solution. I don't agree with that."

The comments were eerily similar to Murtha's assessment of U.S involvement in Iraq last week, when he declared, "the U.S. cannot accomplish anything further militarily. It is time to bring [the troops] home."

Taking Murtha's advice back then, however, turned out to have deadly consequences for U.S. security.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/21/100353.shtml


----------



## musicman (May 8, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> That's just recycled propaganda from Vietnam.



Ah, yes - Vietnam - another small, but strategic battle in a larger war we HAD to win (and did, no thanks to the American left). Another shameful example of the Democrat Party, and its lapdogs in academia and the fourth estate, dragging at America's heels in a naked quest for power that cared nothing for American security, interests, or lives. Yeah - I remember Vietnam.



			
				Rosotar said:
			
		

> Lyndon Johnson said we were "fighting Communists there so we wouldn't have to fight them on our own soil"....he was wrong of course.
> 
> The Communists never followed us home to California.



Emboldened by Vietnam, they got a hell of a lot closer than revisionist historians would have you believe. And John Kerry & friends struggled heroically to give the Soviet Union a free hand in the Western Hemisphere - violating the constitutional separation of powers by meeting with Ortega - sympathetically presenting his "proposal" (basically, a call for the opposition to surrender) to Congress - trying, as it were, to SET U.S. foreign policy - and tying the Executive branch's hands with the unconstitutional Boland Amendments. The only thing that halted Soviet expansionism into Central America was a clear-eyed, stout-hearted Chief Executive named Ronald Wilson Reagan.

The American left have been on the wrong side of every national security issue since the advent of the Cold War, and their stance on this small, strategic battle in a larger war we must win should come as a surprise to no one.  



			
				Rosotar said:
			
		

> Why do you think this recycled claim would be true now if it wasn't then?



It was true then, and it is true now.


----------



## red states rule (May 8, 2007)

When facts go againt them. libs will rewrite them to fit thier current aganda


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> When facts go againt them. libs will rewrite them to fit thier current aganda



Let's review the facts, and the historical revisionism of the Republicans.

<blockquote>I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . . Mr. President, it is no small feat for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent option. - Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, 10/06/1993</blockquote>

<blockquote>Mr. President, the mission is accomplished in Somalia. The humanitarian aid has been delivered to those who were starving. The mission is not nation building, which is what now is being foisted upon the American people. The United States has no interest in the civil war in Somalia and as this young soldier told me, if the Somalis are now healthy enough to be fighting us, then it is absolutely time that we go home. . . It is time for the Senate of the United States to get on with the debate, to get on with the vote, and to get the American troops home. - Republican Senator Dirk Kempthorne, 10/06 1993</blockquote>

<blockquote>I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with--I do not know how many Members were there--45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close. . . . - Republican Senator Bob Dole, 10/05/1993</blockquote>

<blockquote>    All of which means that I support the able Senator from West Virginia--who, by the way, was born in North Carolina--Senator Robert C. Byrd, and others in efforts to bring an end to this tragic situation. The United States did its best to deliver aid and assistance to the victims of chaos in Somalia as promised by George Bush last December.

    But now we find ourselves involved there in a brutal war, in an urban environment, with the hands of our young soldiers tied behind their backs, under the command of a cumbersome U.N. bureaucracy, and fighting Somalia because we tried to extend helping hands to the starving people of that far-off land. Mr. President, the United States has no constitutional authority, as I see it, to sacrifice U.S. soldiers to Boutros-Ghali's vision of multilateral peacemaking. Again, I share the view of Senator Byrd that the time to get out is now. - Republican Senator Jesse Helms, 10/06/1993</blockquote>

Republican senators sought to force an immediate withdrawal from Somalia, but finally accepted a compulsory six month time-line for withdrawal. Contrary to the propaganda from the right-wing noise machine, Bill Clinton vigorously fought to keep our troops in Somalia, not wanting to pull out at the first signs of trouble, which would make the US seem weak and panicked. Ironically, that's just what Reagan did in the face of the attack on the US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983.

<blockquote>And make no mistake about it, if we were to leave Somalia tomorrow, other nations would leave, too. Chaos would resume, the relief effort would stop and starvation soon would return. That knowledge has led us to continue our mission. . . .

If we leave them now, those embers will reignite into flames and people will die again. If we stay a short while longer and do the right things, we've got a reasonable chance of cooling off the embers and getting other firefighters to take our place. . .

So, now, we face a choice. Do we leave when the job gets tough or when the job is well done? Do we invite the return of mass suffering or do we leave in a way that gives the Somalis a decent chance to survive? Recently, Gen. Colin Powell said this about our choices in Somalia: "Because things get difficult, you don't cut and run. You work the problem and try to find a correct solution." . . .

So let us finish the work we set out to do. Let us demonstrate to the world, as generations of Americans have done before us, that when Americans take on a challenge, they do the job right. -President Bill Clinton, 10/08/1993</blockquote>

The only re-writing of history here is what the GOP spin machine has done and right wing-nut lick-spittles, such as yourself, greedily lap up and regurgitate with feckless abandon. All the while, the GOP spin-meisters and their slavish lackeys, such as yourself, seem to forget that there are public records and recordings of Congressional proceedings which show their propaganda for the falsehood it truly is. 

The public record DOES NOT support your assertion. That you continue to cling to said assertion reminds me of nothing more than the magical thinking common to children. Just keep wishing hard enough, and it will be so. Or, more sinister, Joseph Goebbels' "Big Lie". Goebbels said, of the English, "They(<i>sic</i> The English)...follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." The same can be said of the Republicans and their noisy, vacuous, fatuous supporters today. Game, set, match. You lose. Dismissed.


----------



## Gunny (May 8, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> That's just recycled propaganda from Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson said we were "fighting Communists there so we wouldn't have to fight them on our own soil"....he was wrong of course.
> 
> The Communists never followed us home to California.
> 
> Why do you think this recycled claim would be true now if it wasn't then?



Communism did seek expansion through aggression, just as militant Islam does now.  Unlike the commies, we WERE attacked on our own soil by Islamofascists.


----------



## Gunny (May 8, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> Let's review the facts, and the historical revisionism of the Republicans.
> 
> <blockquote>I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . . Mr. President, it is no small feat for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent option. - Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, 10/06/1993</blockquote>
> 
> ...



SO do I understand correctly your point is that most people with a mind supported leaving Somalia since our mission was humanitarian and not military to begin with?

If so, I'm not seeing what the point is of making it.  We were there to feed them and provide some medical care.  They wanted to shoot at us, so we left.


----------



## musicman (May 8, 2007)

I'm not being the least bit coy or facetious here, Bully - I'd really like to know: have U.S. troops ever been put in harm's way WHILE UNDER U.N. COMMAND - other than in Somalia? Because that little detail puts the calls for withdrawal in a somewhat different context, I think.


----------



## Gunny (May 8, 2007)

musicman said:


> I'm not being the least bit coy or facetious here, Bully - I'd really like to know: have U.S. troops ever been put in harm's way WHILE UNDER U.N. COMMAND - other than in Somalia? Because that little detail puts the calls for withdrawal in a somewhat different context, I think.



Korea.  Bosnia.  

However, you DO have to take into account the scope of UN involvement.  We bascially were the UN force in Korea.  In Bosnia, we were part of a peacekeeping effort.

Somalia was a humanitarian effort.


----------



## musicman (May 8, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Korea.  Bosnia.
> 
> However, you DO have to take into account the scope of UN involvement.  We bascially were the UN force in Korea.  In Bosnia, we were part of a peacekeeping effort.
> 
> Somalia was a humanitarian effort.



But, were U.S. troops under the command of the U.N. - not the U.S. - in Korea? As in, obeying the orders of the Secretary General, and not the President? I can hardly believe that. This seemed to be Sen. Helms' principal objection to the situation in Somalia.


----------



## Gunny (May 8, 2007)

musicman said:


> But, were U.S. troops under the command of the U.N. - not the U.S. - in Korea? As in, obeying the orders of the Secretary General, and not the President? I can hardly believe that. This seemed to be Sen. Helms' principal objection to the situation in Somalia.



US troops were under the command of Truman.  

IMO, Sen Helms had a legit beef.  It is my opinion US troops should not be placed under UN command unless they are ALL volunteers for the duty.  I didn't sign up to wear a baby-blue helmet and fight for the inept, one world order.

I'm sure Sen Helm's bitch was more aimed at the fact that European commanders are generally more conservative and reserved that US commanders, and might not make the same decisions US commanders would.


----------



## musicman (May 8, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> US troops were under the command of Truman.
> 
> IMO, Sen Helms had a legit beef.  It is my opinion US troops should not be placed under UN command unless they are ALL volunteers for the duty.  I didn't sign up to wear a baby-blue helmet and fight for the inept, one world order.



I'm hip - and I'm not surprised that this state of affairs came about on Clinton's watch. It was either careless or disingenuous of Bully to represent calls for withdrawal from Somalia in any other context but this. Maybe he thinks we're all napping.


----------



## Gunny (May 8, 2007)

musicman said:


> I'm hip - and I'm not surprised that this state of affairs came about on Clinton's watch. It was either careless or disingenuous of Bully to represent calls for withdrawal from Somalia in any other context but this. Maybe he thinks we're all napping.



I'm not sure I understand.  In what context do you think Bully represented the calls for withdrawal?

Maybe I'm missing something here.


----------



## musicman (May 8, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> I'm not sure I understand.  In what context do you think Bully represented the calls for withdrawal?
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something here.



Juging by context, I perceive that Bully would like to portray Republicans - critical of Democrat "surrender legislation" - as hypocrites. "See - Republicans did it, too", he seems to gloat - while conveniently omitting one or two pretty darned important differences in regard to the mission in Somalia.


----------



## Gunny (May 8, 2007)

musicman said:


> Juging by context, I perceive that Bully would like to portray Republicans - critical of Democrat "surrender legislation" - as hypocrites. "See - Republicans did it, too", he seems to gloat - while conveniently omitting one or two pretty darned important differences in regard to the mission in Somalia.



My perception was that Bully was pointing to those who blame Clinton for the US leaving Somalia when at the time, quite a few Republicans supported leaving.

In that regard, which is how I perceived it, I can see his point.  

As far as "surrender legislation" goes, I'm critical of anyone who is stupid enough to post the dates their army is abandoning the field, even if that's what they decide to do.


----------



## musicman (May 8, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> My perception was that Bully was pointing to those who blame Clinton for the US leaving Somalia when at the time, quite a few Republicans supported leaving.
> 
> In that regard, which is how I perceived it, I can see his point.



I gotcha. But, I think some of the Republicans who supported leaving were operating in a context something like this:


The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C., 20500
October 25, 1993

President Clinton:

As a warrior who was disabled in the Vietnam War and as a father of a warrior killed in action in Somalia, I cannot accept your letter of condolence for the death of my son Ranger Corporal James E. Smith. To accept your letter would be contrary to all the beliefs I, my son and the Rangers hold so dear, including: loyalty, courage and tenacity. During the battle for Anzio, in World War II, an inept indecisive field commander sent the Rangers into battle where they were slaughtered. Fifty years later the Rangers again were ordered into battle, where they were surrounded and outgunned. But this time is was not the fault of the field commanders. No -- this time it was the fault of the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. Your failure to provide the requested combat support reveals a lack of loyalty to the troops under your command and an extreme shortage of moral courage.

I had the honor to meet the Rangers who fought along side my son and were with Jamie when he died. I heard of magnificent acts of courage and sacrifice. I had Rangers, with tears in their eyes, apologize for letting my son die or their failure to break through and rescue the trapped Rangers. The failure is not theirs, it is yours. Trucks and Humvees cannot replace the requested tanks, armored personnel carriers and Spectre gunships.

As a combat veteran I know that there are no certainties on the battlefield; however, as an Infantry Officer I will always speculate that significantly less casualties would have resulted if you, as Commander in Chief, provided the Rangers with the requested combat support -- equipment with which Rangers routinely train and for which approval should have been automatic. The Rangers were pinned down for twelve hours -- long hours when the Rangers were fighting for their lives and a Delta Force medic fought to save my son. Jamie bled to death because the requested armor support was not there to break through to the Rangers. Rangers pride themselves on the Ranger Creed. "Driving on to the Ranger objective", or "Surrender is not a Ranger word" are not hollow phrases to the men of the black beret. These soldiers understand the word tenacious and wanted to complete their mission. As Ranger after Ranger told me, they were hitting Aidid's forces and command structure hard. But, the United Nations was actually impeding Ranger missions by offering sanctuary to Aidid's supporters. Your willingness to allow this dangerous situation demonstrates a lack of resolve in supporting the men you sent into battle.

My son is no longer here to "Lead the Way"; however, I am.

Until you as President and Commander in Chief are either willing or able to formulate a clear foreign policy, establish specific objectives and, most important, support the men and women in uniform, I will "Lead the Way" in insuring that you no longer send America's finest to a needless death. When you are capable of meeting these criteria, then I will accept you letter of condolence.

Sincerely,

(signature)
James H. Smith
Captain/Infantry (Retired)

www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ad1e70d77b3.htm

I just think that bears clarification any time the matter of Clintonian foreign policy comes up. If you're not going to do it right...  



			
				GunnyL said:
			
		

> As far as "surrender legislation" goes, I'm critical of anyone who is stupid enough to post the dates their army is abandoning the field, even if that's what they decide to do.



Agreed!


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 9, 2007)

musicman said:


> I gotcha. But, I think some of the Republicans who supported leaving were operating in a context something like this:
> 
> 
> The White House
> ...



Suspicious as I am of anything sourced from freepers, one need but change a few words and names around in the above letter, and it would apply equally well to the Bush administration's policies regarding Iraq. In trying to wage war on the cheap...By ignoring commanders who stated we needed two to three times the number of troops than were sent in...By hiring civilian administrators  in Iraq based on loyalty to party and president rather than competence...The Bush administration laid the foundations for the quagmire we now see I Iraq. The onus for this lies with none other than President Bush and his administration. 

<blockquote>President Bush, 

Until you as President and Commander in Chief are either willing or able to formulate a clear foreign policy, establish specific objectives and, most important, support the men and women in uniform, I will be among those working to ensure that you no longer send America's finest to a needless death. When you are capable of meeting these criteria, I may then accept your qualifications as Commander in Chief. But I won't be holding my breath. - Bullypulpit</blockquote>


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 9, 2007)

musicman said:


> Juging by context, I perceive that Bully would like to portray Republicans - critical of Democrat "surrender legislation" - as hypocrites. "See - Republicans did it, too", he seems to gloat - while conveniently omitting one or two pretty darned important differences in regard to the mission in Somalia.



No, not gloating, never at the expense of human lives which this Administration so recklessly and fecklessly sends into the meat-grinder that is Iraq...A meat-grinder of their own creation. The responsibility for the quagmire of Iraq falls squarely upon him, as the Commander-in-Chief who sent our troops into that beleaguered country. 

As for GOP hypocrisy, well by its fruits ye shall know it.


----------



## red states rule (May 9, 2007)

Libs continue to try and rewrite history

Clinton pulled troops out of Somalia after 18 were murdered

He refused to send them help when they asked for it, and they were killed


----------



## musicman (May 9, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> No, not gloating, never at the expense of human lives which this Administration so recklessly and fecklessly sends into the meat-grinder that is Iraq...A meat-grinder of their own creation. The responsibility for the quagmire of Iraq falls squarely upon him, as the Commander-in-Chief who sent our troops into that beleaguered country.
> 
> As for GOP hypocrisy, well by its fruits ye shall know it.



Bully, you are blinded by hate. Afford that outraged, grieving father the courtesy of a re-read...

*"As Ranger after Ranger told me, they were hitting Aidid's forces and command structure hard. But, the United Nations was actually impeding Ranger missions by offering sanctuary to Aidid's supporters. Your willingness to allow this dangerous situation demonstrates a lack of resolve in supporting the men you sent into battle."*

...and then explain to me how you can possibly equate George Bush's strategic battle in a larger war we MUST WIN - with the unconscionable, uncaring actions of that unspeakable prick, Bill Clinton.


----------



## red states rule (May 9, 2007)

At least Murtha is consistent.

He told Clinton to surrender in Somalia


MURTHA: The thing that disturbed me and worries me about this whole thing is we can't get them to change direction. And I said over and over in debate, if you listen to any of it, in Beirut President Reagan changed direction, in Somalia President Clinton changed direction, and yet here, with the troops out there every day, suffering from these explosive devices, and being looked at as occupiers  80 percent of the people want us out of there  and yet they continue to say, "We're fighting this thing." We're not fighting this. The troops are fighting this thing. That's who's doing the fighting.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/murtha_we_should_change_directions_in_iraq_like_cl/


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 9, 2007)

musicman said:


> Bully, you are blinded by hate. Afford that outraged, grieving father the courtesy of a re-read...
> 
> *"As Ranger after Ranger told me, they were hitting Aidid's forces and command structure hard. But, the United Nations was actually impeding Ranger missions by offering sanctuary to Aidid's supporters. Your willingness to allow this dangerous situation demonstrates a lack of resolve in supporting the men you sent into battle."*
> 
> ...and then explain to me how you can possibly equate George Bush's strategic battle in a larger war we MUST WIN - with the unconscionable, uncaring actions of that unspeakable prick, Bill Clinton.



Tell me, again, just what invading Iraq had to do with Osama bin Laden, 9/11 and radical Islam.

<blockquote>...the unconscionable, uncaring actions of that unspeakable prick, Bill Clinton...</blockquote>

And talk about being "blinded by hate"...Pot...Kettle...Black...

Actually, I don't hate Bush...He's not worth the effort.


----------



## musicman (May 9, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> Tell me, again, just what invading Iraq had to do with Osama bin Laden, 9/11 and radical Islam.



For thirty years, we have been at war with an enemy which transcends borders and nationalities. He understands only one language - force. I give Bush credit for recognizing the fact that we must participate in what shall necessarily be a war of protracted duration and scope - an ideological fight to the death on AT LEAST the order of the Soviet menace - a war we MUST win. I admire him for having the guts to prosecute it though the American left - caring only about its quest for power, and not giving a rat's ass about American security, interests, or lives - drags constantly at his heels, grubbing for political hay in every strategic decision he tries to make, and giving the enemy the same kind of hope the Sixties Counterculture gave to a militarily overmatched North Vietnam. Your party and America's enemies have one thing in common: they are both pinning their hopes for survival on the softness of America's spine. How proud you must be.



			
				Bullypulpit said:
			
		

> <blockquote>...the unconscionable, uncaring actions of that unspeakable prick, Bill Clinton...</blockquote>
> 
> And talk about being "blinded by hate"...Pot...Kettle...Black...



Answer a straight question for me if you can, Bully; no knee-jerk comparisons to "Chimpy McBushhitler" - just a straight answer. As a veteran, what do YOU think of Bill Clinton?



			
				Bullypulpit said:
			
		

> Actually, I don't hate Bush...He's not worth the effort.



The mindset that jumps out of your posts clearly belies your protestations. Your loathing of the man colors your every keystroke.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 9, 2007)

musicman said:


> For thirty years, we have been at war with an enemy which transcends borders and nationalities. He understands only one language - force. I give Bush credit for recognizing the fact that we must participate in what shall necessarily be a war of protracted duration and scope - an ideological fight to the death on AT LEAST the order of the Soviet menace - a war we MUST win. I admire him for having the guts to prosecute it though the American left - caring only about its quest for power, and not giving a rat's ass about American security, interests, or lives - drags constantly at his heels, grubbing for political hay in every strategic decision he tries to make, and giving the enemy the same kind of hope the Sixties Counterculture gave to a militarily overmatched North Vietnam. Your party and America's enemies have one thing in common: they are both pinning their hopes for survival on the softness of America's spine. How proud you must be.



Bush recognizes nothing beyond the range of his narrow, blinkered vision, this a result of his years of ETOH abuse and the cognitive deficits that arise from said abuse and listens to no one beyond the voices in his head. And, SURPRISE!, you still didn't explain what invading Iraq had to do with OBL, 9/11 and radical Islam. And you just can't put down that copy of <i>"Mein Kampf"</i>, can you. Your equivocation of opposition to the misguided, ill-conceived policies of the Bush administration with the goals of "America's enemies" is agit-prop with absolutely no basis in fact to support it...Another exercise in the "Big Lie" that simply doesn't work.




musicman said:


> Answer a straight question for me if you can, Bully; no knee-jerk comparisons to "Chimpy McBushhitler" - just a straight answer. As a veteran, what do YOU think of Bill Clinton?



An adulterous, narcissistic swine.



musicman said:


> The mindset that jumps out of your posts clearly belies your protestations. Your loathing of the man colors your every keystroke.



Loathing lacks the visceral intensity of hatred and springs from reason rather than emotion, as does hatred. So, in this case, you are correct..I do loathe Bush. But hatred...nah. He just makes me wrinkle my nose.


----------



## musicman (May 9, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> Bush recognizes nothing beyond the range of his narrow, blinkered vision, this a result of his years of ETOH abuse and the cognitive deficits that arise from said abuse and listens to no one beyond the voices in his head.



Thank you, Doctor. You're aware, aren't you, that you scuttle your own arguments with claptrap like this?



			
				Bullypulpit said:
			
		

> And, SURPRISE!, you still didn't explain what invading Iraq had to do with OBL, 9/11 and radical Islam.



And this is where your already demonstrably loaded arguments come to die. Focusing on this tree and that, you and the myopic Democrats have lost sight of the forest. Iraq is obviously an effective strategic location from which to carry the fight to the Islamofascists on THEIR soil. Been dodging any airliners recently, Bully?



			
				Bullypulpit said:
			
		

> And you just can't put down that copy of <i>"Mein Kampf"</i>, can you.



The world HAD "Mein Kampf", and is - therefore - without excuse. Hitler explained, in detail, what he intended to do. In like fashion, can there be any doubt about Islamofascism's feelings about - and designs for - Western Civilization? What's OUR excuse?



			
				Bullypulpit said:
			
		

> Your equivocation of opposition to the misguided, ill-conceived policies of the Bush administration with the goals of "America's enemies" is agit-prop with absolutely no basis in fact to support it...Another exercise in the "Big Lie" that simply doesn't work.



On the contrary, the invaluable assistance the American left provided to our enemies in Vietnam is a matter of public record. The parallels to the present day are obvious; the left are on the wrong side - AGAIN.



			
				Bullypulpit said:
			
		

> An adulterous, narcissistic swine.



What do you think the military rank-and-file's opinion of Clinton is - and, why?



			
				Bullypulpit said:
			
		

> Loathing lacks the visceral intensity of hatred and springs from reason rather than emotion, as does hatred. So, in this case, you are correct..I do loathe Bush. But hatred...nah. He just makes me wrinkle my nose.



Very well, then - I'll make that semantic distinction from now on, if you like. Your posts on almost any given matter are informed, and colored, by your LOATHING of George Bush. Any point you argue should be viewed in that context.


----------



## Gunny (May 9, 2007)

musicman said:


> For thirty years, we have been at war with an enemy which transcends borders and nationalities. He understands only one language - force. I give Bush credit for recognizing the fact that we must participate in what shall necessarily be a war of protracted duration and scope - an ideological fight to the death on AT LEAST the order of the Soviet menace - a war we MUST win. I admire him for having the guts to prosecute it though the American left - caring only about its quest for power, and not giving a rat's ass about American security, interests, or lives - drags constantly at his heels, grubbing for political hay in every strategic decision he tries to make, and giving the enemy the same kind of hope the Sixties Counterculture gave to a militarily overmatched North Vietnam. Your party and America's enemies have one thing in common: they are both pinning their hopes for survival on the softness of America's spine. How proud you must be.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We aren't going to win this war, and Iraq is just a perfect example of how we aren't.  Too many people with thier heads stuck in the sand, or up other orifices, oblivious to the intent of the enemy have this retarded, moronic notion that goes directly against the stated goals of the enemy that if we just leave them alone and ignore them, they'll leave us alone.

Kinda like 9/11.


----------



## Annie (May 9, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> We aren't going to win this war, and Iraq is just a perfect example of how we aren't.  Too many people with thier heads stuck in the sand, or up other orifices, oblivious to the intent of the enemy have this retarded, moronic notion that goes directly against the stated goals of the enemy that if we just leave them alone and ignore them, they'll leave us alone.
> 
> Kinda like 9/11.



I think we will win the WOT, but will lose at minimum Iraq, perhaps more down the road, by our choices. But something will happen, sometime, to make it imperative that we win, then we will. Seems 9/11 just wasn't enough. NOT that 9/11 had anything to do with Iraq.


----------



## CSM (May 9, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> I think we will win the WOT, but will lose at minimum Iraq, perhaps more down the road, by our choices. But something will happen, sometime, to make it imperative that we win, then we will. Seems 9/11 just wasn't enough. NOT that 9/11 had anything to do with Iraq.



The danger is that we will be too late at that point....I have great faith in the capability of this country to survive calamity, but even we have our limits. I am not sure we can survive our own politics!


----------



## musicman (May 9, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> We aren't going to win this war, and Iraq is just a perfect example of how we aren't.  Too many people with thier heads stuck in the sand, or up other orifices, oblivious to the intent of the enemy have this retarded, moronic notion that goes directly against the stated goals of the enemy that if we just leave them alone and ignore them, they'll leave us alone.
> 
> Kinda like 9/11.



I fear you may be right, Gunny. We can be a soft and stupid people.


----------



## Annie (May 9, 2007)

CSM said:


> The danger is that we will be too late at that point....I have great faith in the capability of this country to survive calamity, but even we have our limits. I am not sure we can survive our own politics!



I think we will, but what I do think is the cause will result in a realignment of powers, much like WWI resulted in Europe's loss of real power, though they survived. That is the survival I'm speaking of. I can see the US becoming a lesser power. I think in the intellectual sphere it's already underway.


----------



## musicman (May 9, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> I think we will, but what I do think is the cause will result in a realignment of powers, much like WWI resulted in Europe's loss of real power, though they survived. That is the survival I'm speaking of. I can see the US becoming a lesser power. I think in the intellectual sphere it's already underway.



I think it's largely up to us, K. Our nation was founded on sound principles - the best. Will we embrace them - protect them? As CSM asks, "Can we survive our own politics"?


----------



## CSM (May 9, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> I think we will, but what I do think is the cause will result in a realignment of powers, much like WWI resulted in Europe's loss of real power, though they survived. That is the survival I'm speaking of. I can see the US becoming a lesser power. I think in the intellectual sphere it's already underway.



Possibly ... every nation rises and falls ....eventually.


----------



## Gunny (May 9, 2007)

CSM said:


> Possibly ... every nation rises and falls ....eventually.



Time to go buy a couple more boxes of rounds .......


----------



## CSM (May 9, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Time to go buy a couple more boxes of rounds .......



Reload...its cheaper and you can make your own charges...have a few 'super' rounds on hand that way.


----------



## Annie (May 9, 2007)

CSM said:


> Reload...its cheaper and you can make your own charges...have a few 'super' rounds on hand that way.



Will that help? If the majority have lost the will?


----------



## CSM (May 9, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Will that help? If the majority have lost the will?



Only on an individual level and only for a short time. The decline of a nation is based on its folkways and mores in practice collectively as it occurs (my opinion here). The individual has choices that include waiting it out and hoping the decline is gradual enough that it wont effect them personally ( though it may effect any progeny) or leaving to another country and maybe even resorting to political or anti-social behavior in the hope of reversing the trend (in vain, I suspect).


----------



## Gunny (May 9, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Will that help? If the majority have lost the will?



While all the left-wingnuts are poo-pooing it, making condescending remarks, and/or just sticking their heads in the sand, the fact is, when the US leaves the Middle East, it will be only a matter of time that the war comes HERE.

When it does, you better be on my side, or not anwhere near my sights.


----------



## Annie (May 9, 2007)

CSM said:


> Only on an individual level and only for a short time. The decline of a nation is based on its folkways and mores in practice collectively as it occurs (my opinion here). The individual has choices that include waiting it out and hoping the decline is gradual enough that it wont effect them personally ( though it may effect any progeny) or leaving to another country and maybe even resorting to political or anti-social behavior in the hope of reversing the trend (in vain, I suspect).



My tendency is to agree with your assessment. For the same reason, I find myself hoping for an attack that will galvanize the country or perhaps I should say Western world? The attack may not happen here, we are less vunerable, currently. But it only takes a handful, as we found out on the terrible day.


----------



## CSM (May 9, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> My tendency is to agree with your assessment. For the same reason, I find myself hoping for an attack that will galvanize the country or perhaps I should say Western world? The attack may not happen here, we are less vunerable, currently. But it only takes a handful, as we found out on the terrible day.



Such an attack would provide only temporary respite. A culture change of massive porportions would have to occur to reverse the decline which would seem almost draconian to those living in the country at the time. Talk about extremism!


----------



## CSM (May 9, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> While all the left-wingnuts are poo-pooing it, making condescending remarks, and/or just sticking their heads in the sand, the fact is, when the US leaves the Middle East, it will be only a matter of time that the war comes HERE.
> 
> When it does, you better be on my side, or not anwhere near my sights.



The enemy (terrorists) would be silly not to pursue the advantage would they not? Keep yer powder dry Gunny!  As you alluded to before, you get at 500, I'll get the ones that slip through at 200.


----------



## Annie (May 9, 2007)

CSM said:


> Such an attack would provide only temporary respite. A culture change of massive porportions would have to occur to reverse the decline which would seem almost draconian to those living in the country at the time. Talk about extremism!



I agree. Then I look at the most recent elections in Germany and France. I wonder, are many of 'us' starting to get it? The Eastern Europeans, non-Muslim, are way ahead of the curve on us.


----------



## Gunny (May 9, 2007)

CSM said:


> The enemy (terrorists) would be silly not to pursue the advantage would they not? Keep yer powder dry Gunny!  As you alluded to before, you get at 500, I'll get the ones that slip through at 200.



You'll get a bigger buffer than that.  I shoot at 1000, and can acquit myself quite well up to 1500.


----------



## CSM (May 9, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> I agree. Then I look at the most recent elections in Germany and France. I wonder, are many of 'us' starting to get it? The Eastern Europeans, non-Muslim, are way ahead of the curve on us.



I find it interesting that the medievil mentality such as displayed by the jihadists is so easily defeating adherents of the "enlightened" first world countries. Perhaps the Eastern Europeans are doing better because they are not so far removed from that medievil mentality. Historically, there are many precedents where the barbarians conquer the more civilized cultures.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 9, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> We aren't going to win this war, and Iraq is just a perfect example of how we aren't.  Too many people with thier heads stuck in the sand, or up other orifices, oblivious to the intent of the enemy have this retarded, moronic notion that goes directly against the stated goals of the enemy that if we just leave them alone and ignore them, they'll leave us alone.
> 
> Kinda like 9/11.



had the Bush administration not taken taken its eyes of the real enemy...you know the ones who planned, funded and executed the attacks of 9/11...you know, al Qaeda and its numerous franchises around the world we likely wouldn't be have this discussion. Instead, Bush and Co went haring off into Iraq on pretexts that were dubious, at best; thus allowing al Qaeda to rebuild and reconstitute in the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

Had Bush and Co not lost sight of the real enemy, Al Qaeda would likely be but a vague memory, crushed by the weight of the world united in opposition to their brand of extremism. With the full weight and co-operation of the world's intelligence and law enforcement agencies to back it, the hunt for al Qaeda and its spawn would have known no bounds and could have crushed the serpent wherever it reared its poisonous head. Instead, we see terrorist attacks on the rise around the world, 25% higher than last year. 

Had Bush and Co not squandered the good-will of the world in its ill conceived, ill advised campaign of foreign adventurism in Iraq, the Bush administration would have brought to justice all who had dared attack America on 9/11 and the world would have thanked him for it. Instead Bush administration's  image around the world is that of a bully, disdainful of the rule of law, both abroad and at home, with allies quietly falling away. Even long time Bush family friends, the Saudi Royal family is distancing itself from George W. Bush.

George W. Bush and his administration have botched the pursuit of those responsible for the attacks of 9/11. Iraq, which had nothing to do with either 9/11 of al Qaeda, now greedily sucks up our blood and treasure like some obscene monster, and as it does so, America is weakened, her safety made even more precarious....All at the behest of the Bush administration.

Since you seem to be unwilling to see this perhaps you, sir, should be examining just where your head is located.


----------



## CSM (May 9, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> You'll get a bigger buffer than that.  I shoot at 1000, and can acquit myself quite well up to 1500.



Awesome. In truth, I am very effective out to about 800 after that ...well old age and all that...the eyes just aint what they used to be and the steady hand just isn't there anymore.


----------



## Gunny (May 9, 2007)

CSM said:


> I find it interesting that the medievil mentality such as displayed by the jihadists is so easily defeating adherents of the "enlightened" first world countries. Perhaps the Eastern Europeans are doing better because they are not so far removed from that medievil mentality. Historically, there are many precedents where the barbarians conquer the more civilized cultures.



While interesting, not surprising.  The "enlightened ones," such as superlative, think they're above all that while the medievel hordes are willing to use brute force to get what they want.

Our generations that built this nation were strong.  The ones who have come along after are soft and weak and think they're so damned smart they can negotiate with rattlesnakes.


----------



## Gunny (May 9, 2007)

CSM said:


> Awesome. In truth, I am very effective out to about 800 after that ...well old age and all that...the eyes just aint what they used to be and the steady hand just isn't there anymore.



That's why my Remington has a 10x scope on it.


----------



## Annie (May 9, 2007)

CSM said:


> I find it interesting that the medievil mentality such as displayed by the jihadists is so easily defeating adherents of the "enlightened" first world countries. Perhaps the Eastern Europeans are doing better because they are not so far removed from that medievil mentality. Historically, there are many precedents where the barbarians conquer the more civilized cultures.



Yep, a lesson that Vlad taught us, but we refuse to learn?


----------



## CSM (May 9, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> While interesting, not surprising.  The "enlightened ones," such as superlative, think they're above all that while the medievel hordes are willing to use brute force to get what they want.
> 
> Our generations that built this nation were strong.  The ones who have come along after are soft and weak and think they're so damned smart they can negotiate with rattlesnakes.



Exactly. The "moral high ground" will be our undoing.


----------



## CSM (May 9, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> That's why my Remington has a 10x scope on it.



Bad news, when the eyes get bad enough there just isnt enough focus! When I get REALLY old it will be 50 yards and iron sights or else the old pump street sweeper for me but I'll be there!


----------



## CSM (May 9, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Yep, a lesson that Vlad taught us, but we refuse to learn?



Surely. I think as nations grow and bcome prosperous, their citizens tend to grow softer not necessarily a bad thing until it gets to the point that they no longer recognize when it is necessary to bcome a bit more rough...you can tell when your country has reached that point (imo) when the individual citizen is no longer interested in defending his country and leaves that task to others. I have alluded to this before regarding the US...there are many who would love to see this country resort to the UN for providing national security....disband the military or emasculate it (no gender slight intended) and even hand over it's own rule of law to outside organizations (world court?).  The signs are there I am afraid.


----------



## Annie (May 9, 2007)

CSM said:


> Surely. I think as nations grow and bcome prosperous, their citizens tend to grow softer not necessarily a bad thing until it gets to the point that they no longer recognize when it is necessary to bcome a bit more rough...you can tell when your country has reached that point (imo) when the individual citizen is no longer interested in defending his country and leaves that task to others. I have alluded to this before regarding the US...there are many who would love to see this country resort to the UN for providing national security....disband the military or emasculate it (no gender slight intended) and even hand over it's own rule of law to outside organizations (world court?).  The signs are there I am afraid.



Agreed. The later is what I was referring to when I said that intellectually I think we are already heading that way. It not only makes me sad, it makes me scared. (It's at this point that I agree, I'm a sheep looking for good sheepdogs.)


----------



## CSM (May 9, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Agreed. The later is what I was referring to when I said that intellectually I think we are already heading that way. It not only makes me sad, it makes me scared. (It's at this point that I agree, I'm a sheep looking for good sheepdogs.)



s'ok the sheepdogs need sheep too!


----------



## Annie (May 9, 2007)

CSM said:


> s'ok the sheepdogs need sheep too!



Truly, these are frightening times, but so few realize it. Funny thing is, in the midst of the threat, we go about our business. Today was wonderful, but I never take for granted what I'll find on news when I get around to checking it out.


----------



## Gunny (May 9, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> had the Bush administration not taken taken its eyes of the real enemy...you know the ones who planned, funded and executed the attacks of 9/11...you know, al Qaeda and its numerous franchises around the world we likely wouldn't be have this discussion. Instead, Bush and Co went haring off into Iraq on pretexts that were dubious, at best; thus allowing al Qaeda to rebuild and reconstitute in the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
> 
> Had Bush and Co not lost sight of the real enemy, Al Qaeda would likely be but a vague memory, crushed by the weight of the world united in opposition to their brand of extremism. With the full weight and co-operation of the world's intelligence and law enforcement agencies to back it, the hunt for al Qaeda and its spawn would have known no bounds and could have crushed the serpent wherever it reared its poisonous head. Instead, we see terrorist attacks on the rise around the world, 25% higher than last year.
> 
> ...



My head is located firmly atop my shoulders, and not seething with hatred for a man.

Your assumption that had we not invaded Iraq we would have squashed al Qaeda is pure speculation.  We've been sitting at the same Pakistan border since 2002.

Also, the US has been perceived as bullies for decades.  There was no "good will" toward us.  That's dreaming.  Our usual allies were on our side while the others just turned a blind eye not wanting to suffer Afghanistan's fate.

Refering to people as "treasure" is a bit overly-dramatic, and an appeal to emotionalism.

I've said on many an occasion we should not have invaded Iraq.  We did.  DO try to move on past that where you and much of the left seem to be stuck in time.  

I also have no problem with turning the problem over to the government of Iraq.  But I differentiate between that and dumping it upon them based on a Democrat-decreed, arbitrary timetable.

And need I remind you that had Saddam Hussein been actually brought to task for his every-other-week transgressions against a ceasefire agreement HE SIGNED when he should have been, he'd have been taken out back in the mid-90's latest.  I don't believe GWB was President at that time.

The Dems are demanding Bush end Iraq prior to 2008 so they won't inhereit it -- mighty presumptuous of them thinking they're going to be in position to inhereit anything -- when the fact is, Clinton dumped Saddam on Bush.


----------



## CSM (May 9, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Truly, these are frightening times, but so few realize it. Funny thing is, in the midst of the threat, we go about our business. Today was wonderful, but I never take for granted what I'll find on news when I get around to checking it out.



That's one of the individual choices...you can become paralyzed by what MAY be or continue on based on what IS. I prefer to prepare myself for the former and engage in the latter. When the barbarians come knocking on my door, they will have a decision to make...they will have to decide which of them is going out with me or decide to leave me be.


----------



## Annie (May 9, 2007)

CSM said:


> That's one of the individual choices...you can become paralyzed by what MAY be or continue on based on what IS. I prefer to prepare myself for the former and engage in the latter. When the barbarians come knocking on my door, they will have a decision to make...they will have to decide which of them is going out with me or decide to leave me be.



So you do think we are heading back to a Middle Ages era, where the individual is responsible for dealing with the threat?


----------



## Gunny (May 9, 2007)

CSM said:


> That's one of the individual choices...you can become paralyzed by what MAY be or continue on based on what IS. I prefer to prepare myself for the former and engage in the latter. When the barbarians come knocking on my door, they will have a decision to make...they will have to decide which of them is going out with me or decide to leave me be.



That "which of them" sounds too individual.  It's they need to decide there aren't enough of them and leave or they can all die.


----------



## CSM (May 9, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> So you do think we are heading back to a Middle Ages era, where the individual is responsible for dealing with the threat?



No I think we as a people are beginning to accept mediocrity as a safe and acceptable alternative to world power...don't be too powerful, smart or rich. I am uncertain whether this is a 'stage' we go through or a steady state. Western Europe appears to be in that state (despite their attempts at regaining world influence through the European Union, etc.). Individual responsibility only occurs in new and growing nations on their way up, in my opinion. I have seen few examples in history where declining nations valued or encouraged individual enterprise or resposnibility. 

Again, this all mere philisophical speculation on my part....


----------



## CSM (May 9, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> That "which of them" sounds too individual.  It's they need to decide there aren't enough of them and leave or they can all die.



Heh...only one can come through an opening at a time....they may get a chance to re-assess and THEN decide to leave.


----------



## Gunny (May 9, 2007)

CSM said:


> No I think we as a people are beginning to accept mediocrity as a safe and acceptable alternative to world power...don't be too powerful, smart or rich. I am uncertain whether this is a 'stage' we go through or a steady state. Western Europe appears to be in that state (despite their attempts at regaining world influence through the European Union, etc.). Individual responsibility only occurs in new and growing nations on their way up, in my opinion. I have seen few examples in history where declining nations valued or encouraged individual enterprise or resposnibility.
> 
> Again, this all mere philisophical speculation on my part....



Might be speculation, but it sounds spot on to me.


----------



## Annie (May 9, 2007)

CSM said:


> No I think we as a people are beginning to accept mediocrity as a safe and acceptable alternative to world power...don't be too powerful, smart or rich. I am uncertain whether this is a 'stage' we go through or a steady state. Western Europe appears to be in that state (despite their attempts at regaining world influence through the European Union, etc.). Individual responsibility only occurs in new and growing nations on their way up, in my opinion. I have seen few examples in history where declining nations valued or encouraged individual enterprise or resposnibility.
> 
> *Again, this all mere philisophical speculation on my part....*



Well you are speaking to where I reside, philosophical. I must say, when the powers that 'be' fail to take due care and most of the citizenry agree that it's the right move, there is no other option than the individual acting alone. Not a good place to be.


----------



## Gunny (May 9, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Well you are speaking to where I reside, philosophical. I must say, when the powers that 'be' fail to take due care and most of the citizenry agree that it's the right move, there is no other option than the individual acting alone. Not a good place to be.



An individual acting alone who knows what he is doing can do FAR MORE damage than a dozen trying to work together.  

Having said that, likeminded individuals will band together.


----------



## CSM (May 9, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Well you are speaking to where I reside, philosophical. I must say, when the powers that 'be' fail to take due care and most of the citizenry agree that it's the right move, there is no other option than the individual acting alone. Not a good place to be.



True enough. 

Now it is late for me and I am an old guy. Today has been a GREAT day on the message board for me and I thank you, Gunny, MaineMan and Dirt for the thoght provoking discussions. You all have restored my faith in posting thoughts in this venue.

Gnite all!


----------



## Annie (May 9, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> An individual acting alone who knows what he is doing can do FAR MORE damage than a dozen trying to work together.
> 
> Having said that, likeminded individuals will band together.



But what about those that are not trained to do damage? What are we to do with the recognized threat, but lacking the tools and ability to utilize?


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 10, 2007)

CSM said:


> No I think we as a people are beginning to accept mediocrity as a safe and acceptable alternative to world power...don't be too powerful, smart or rich. I am uncertain whether this is a 'stage' we go through or a steady state. Western Europe appears to be in that state (despite their attempts at regaining world influence through the European Union, etc.). Individual responsibility only occurs in new and growing nations on their way up, in my opinion. I have seen few examples in history where declining nations valued or encouraged individual enterprise or resposnibility.
> 
> Again, this all mere philisophical speculation on my part....



Well, George W. Bush IS President, and I can hardly think of a more appropriate standard bearer for mediocrity...at least in the smarts department. The Bush clan's wealth and power have done little but grow, thanks more to Poppy than to Junior. As for encouraging enterprise or responsibility, Junior has show little inclination towards either in  his life. His businesses tanked, and he was always rescued from his blunders by Poppy or Friends of Poppy. The Iraq Study Group, headed by Bush family consiglieri, James Baker was one such attempt. But, having the bit in his teeth, Junior has decided to listen to the voices in his head rather than those cooler, wiser voices of reason.


----------



## red states rule (May 10, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> Well, George W. Bush IS President, and I can hardly think of a more appropriate standard bearer for mediocrity...at least in the smarts department. The Bush clan's wealth and power have done little but grow, thanks more to Poppy than to Junior. As for encouraging enterprise or responsibility, Junior has show little inclination towards either in  his life. His businesses tanked, and he was always rescued from his blunders by Poppy or Friends of Poppy. The Iraq Study Group, headed by Bush family consiglieri, James Baker was one such attempt. But, having the bit in his teeth, Junior has decided to listen to the voices in his head rather than those cooler, wiser voices of reason.





The terrorists are listening to the Dems - and they love what they are hearing

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070510-120705-6975r.htm


----------



## CSM (May 10, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> Well, George W. Bush IS President, and I can hardly think of a more appropriate standard bearer for mediocrity...at least in the smarts department. The Bush clan's wealth and power have done little but grow, thanks more to Poppy than to Junior. As for encouraging enterprise or responsibility, Junior has show little inclination towards either in  his life. His businesses tanked, and he was always rescued from his blunders by Poppy or Friends of Poppy. The Iraq Study Group, headed by Bush family consiglieri, James Baker was one such attempt. But, having the bit in his teeth, Junior has decided to listen to the voices in his head rather than those cooler, wiser voices of reason.



Well this is certainly a stellar contribution to the discussion! You have convinced me for sure....I promise I wont vote for Bush in '08.


----------



## red states rule (May 10, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> Well, George W. Bush IS President, and I can hardly think of a more appropriate standard bearer for mediocrity...at least in the smarts department. The Bush clan's wealth and power have done little but grow, thanks more to Poppy than to Junior. As for encouraging enterprise or responsibility, Junior has show little inclination towards either in  his life. His businesses tanked, and he was always rescued from his blunders by Poppy or Friends of Poppy. The Iraq Study Group, headed by Bush family consiglieri, James Baker was one such attempt. But, having the bit in his teeth, Junior has decided to listen to the voices in his head rather than those cooler, wiser voices of reason.



Yea, and Bush stole the French election as well

Bush Steals French Elections
I return from my annual Yoga Redeployment to find the world crumbling all around me. The Shrub, it seems, has been as busy as a fascist beaver. California is burning, thanks to his refusal to ratify Kyoto. 10,000 inner-city blacks are dead in Kansas because of his illegal and immoral war in Iraq. Bushs Fascist Bureau of Ethnic Cleansing is rounding up former Yugoslavian terrorists in New Jersey (what part of the word former doesnt that stupid Chimp understand?), and to top it all off, my beloved France has now fallen under the jackboot of U.S. hegemony.

In the recent French SE-lections, the beautiful and naturally pungent Segolene Royal, who ran on a strongly I wipe my derriere with the U.S. flag platform, was soundly defeated by Nicolas Sarkozy, a man who was photographed on numerous occasions NOT wiping his derriere with the U.S. flag. Alarming behavior, indeed. Certainly not what youd expect from a French leader. If the world looks to Canada for moral leadership as Al Gore says, then France is a veritible mecca of progressive thinking. Yet like Canada, France has chosen an ultra-conservative lapdog of the Bush junta to lead them down the path to destruction. This doesnt bode well for Europe, nor for our own Presidential elections. After all, if a proud. America-hating socialist cant win in an enlightened nation such as France, then what chance does Hillary have here in the land that time forgot?

http://blamebush.typepad.com/


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 10, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Yea, and Bush stole the French election as well
> 
> Bush Steals French Elections
> I return from my annual Yoga Redeployment to find the world crumbling all around me. The Shrub, it seems, has been as busy as a fascist beaver. California is burning, thanks to his refusal to ratify Kyoto. 10,000 inner-city blacks are dead in Kansas because of his illegal and immoral war in Iraq. Bushs Fascist Bureau of Ethnic Cleansing is rounding up former Yugoslavian terrorists in New Jersey (what part of the word former doesnt that stupid Chimp understand?), and to top it all off, my beloved France has now fallen under the jackboot of U.S. hegemony.
> ...



The "Cut-and-Paste Kid" strikes again. Lacking the intellectual wherewithal to formulate his own replies, he once again whips out his trusty edit functions.


----------



## red states rule (May 10, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> The "Cut-and-Paste Kid" strikes again. Lacking the intellectual wherewithal to formulate his own replies, he once again whips out his trusty edit functions.



Sums up the anti war kook left very well

Rush had you in mind when we wrote it BP


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 10, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Son of a liberal:  What did you do in the War On Terror, Daddy?
> 
> Liberal father:  I fought the Americans, along with all the other liberals.



What did you do in the war on terror, rsr?


----------



## red states rule (May 11, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> What did you do in the war on terror, rsr?



I am not pushing for surrender


----------



## Rosotar (May 11, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I am not pushing for surrender



Once again rsr, whos'e pushing for "surrender?"

The Bushies have been telling us all along about how we're "winning" the WOT. To hear them talk there's an *incredible* amount of progress that's been made that we're just not hearing about through the "librul" media. What you're calling a "surrender" bill is actually a call for Bush to finally show his cards. If what he's been saying all along is true there should be no problem meeting the benchmarks for success that continued war funding will depend upon.

It's interesting that you and your ilk are pushing this "defeatocrat, surrender" propaganda so intensely rsr. We all see through it. It's just a desperate attempt to shield your president from oversight and accountability at all costs!

It's all about the reputation of your political party isn't it?

The real shame is that you don't care how many of our troops have to die as long as you can put off forever having to admit the obvious.....

Your president is an incompetent failure and a liar to boot!


----------



## red states rule (May 11, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> Once again rsr, whos'e pushing for "surrender?"
> 
> The Bushies have been telling us all along about how we're "winning" the WOT. To hear them talk there's an *incredible* amount of progress that's been made that we're just not hearing about through the "librul" media. What you're calling a "surrender" bill is actually a call for Bush to finally show his cards. If what he's been saying all along is true there should be no problem meeting the benchmarks for success that continued war funding will depend upon.
> 
> ...





Dems are pushing for surredner by demanding to include their surrender date in the troops funding bills

You must not be up on current events. Dems have dropped the words "War on Terror" from their documents

This is the libs win the war - they simply do not call it what it is

Dems have a long history of appeasement - the current bunch of Dems are continuing the tradition


----------



## Rosotar (May 11, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Dems are pushing for surredner by demanding to include their surrender date in the troops funding bills



Hey rsr...It appears that the very Iraqi government that our troops have been dying for now want us out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051000387.html?hpid=topnews

What do you say? Surely you would not dishonor the sacrifice of over 3,000 of America's finest by not wanting to honor the wishes of the very government our soldiers died to establish would you?

Of course this will be very hard for you to spin as the fault of the "librul" media or the Democrats. Now we see that it's been the Dems all along that have been in touch with the reality on the ground in Iraq while the Repugs have been in fairy land just making stuff up as they go along.



red states rule said:


> You must not be up on current events. Dems have dropped the words "War on Terror" from their documents
> 
> This is the libs win the war - they simply do not call it what it is



You really can't say you're "fighting a war" on something when your policies are actually working for the enemy like Bush's are.

Liberals didn't invent the "bait and switch, arguing semantics to change the meaning of a thing" game rsr. That's a Repuglican device! If libs are using it now they're simply beating cons at their own game.



red states rule said:


> Dems have a long history of appeasement - the current bunch of Dems are continuing the tradition



Is that what you call it now?

Would we be "appeasing" the Iraqi government by obeying their wishes and pulling our troops out soon?

Or maybe you're talking about the kind of "appeasement" that senile old phony Ronald Reagan practiced in the eighties?

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070510_gops_reaganesque_tall_tales/

Between 1984 and 1986, the Reagan administration tried to free American hostages in Lebanon from their Shiite captors, not by confronting the terrorists militarily but by negotiating with their presumed Iranian sponsors. By then, Reagan had already retreated from Lebanon, withdrawing the Marines after the terrorist bombing of their Beirut barracks had claimed 241 American lives. 

Instead of retaliating against Iran or any of the organizations that claimed responsibility for the Lebanon attack, Reagan approved a secret initiative to improve relations with the Iranian leadership by shipping advanced missiles to them. The immediate objective was to get the Iranians to lean on Hezbollah in Lebanon to release a group of six American hostages. 

Although there was much more to the amazing scandal that nearly ended Reagans presidencyincluding the starring role of neoconservatives who have since masterminded another and worse disasterthe basic outline is clear: Terrorists killed our troops, and Reagan responded by retreating from Lebanon, kowtowing to the terrorists sponsors, meeting their demand for advanced weapons and pleading for the release of our hostages.


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 11, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I am not pushing for surrender



that wasn't my question... I asked what *YOU DID* in the war on terror... and you knew what I meant too... but let me make it perfectly clear...

have *you* taken any active role in the war on terror... *you yourself*...

anything besides typing, that is...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 11, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> Or maybe you're talking about the kind of "appeasement" that senile old phony Ronald Reagan practiced in the eighties?
> 
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070510_gops_reaganesque_tall_tales/
> 
> ...



wow...  

mind if I use this on other boards?


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 11, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Dems are pushing for surredner by demanding to include their surrender date in the troops funding bills
> 
> You must not be up on current events. Dems have dropped the words "War on Terror" from their documents
> 
> ...



Surely you're not calling Gen.  John Baptiste(Ret.), or Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton(Ret.) or Gen. Wesley Clarke(Ret.)  a pack of left wing surrender monkey...Are you? Sure sounds like it to me. Why don't you tell them yourself? I'm sure they'll find your mealy-mouthed accusations amusing, particularly as Baptiste and Eaton both served in Iraq, and Clarke was Commander of NATO.


----------



## musicman (May 11, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> wow...
> 
> mind if I use this on other boards?



I think you should, by all means, because - unless the "other boards" you refer to are DU clones, the article to which Rosotar linked will be exposed for what it is: lies, lies, and more lies; lies of ommission - lies of wild, agenda-driven conjecture masquerading as fact - and good, old-fashioned baldfaced lies.

"Objective, dispassionate journalists" like Joe Conason are always a little fuzzy on the details of Iran-Contra - and with good reason. The Democrats come out of it looking like the shitty little traitors they are.

The constitutional crisis of which Conason speaks was precipitated by the Democrats, with the Boland Amendments. The Supreme Court ultimately struck these down as unconstitutional attempts by the Legislative Branch to usurp the President's conduct of foreign policy. In the meantime, however - and with the tireless support of Democrats like John Kerry - the Soviet Union was mounting an aggressive campaign of expansionism into the Western Hemisphere (the Soviet Union was the principal threat of this time, you see; Islamic terrorism against the U.S. was still very much in its infancy). Had President Reagan waited for the Supreme Court decision, the damage would have been done; Soviet aggression in our hemisphere posed an intolerable threat to our security.

Reagan was able to legally circumvent a treacherous law (arguably conceived and enacted with treasonous intent - and ultimately struck down as unconstitutional), and extinguish the potentially disastrous fire that threatened our very shores - a fire whose flames were being fanned by what could most charitably be called dangerously naive Democrats. That this Party, and its minions in the mainstream press, continue to try to bury the truth of these events makes me view them less than charitably. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, maybe it's just a treacherous, traitorous duck.

If anyone would like to try to bail the Democrats out of THIS mess, then we can move on to the other - secondary - part of Iran-Contra: the supposed "arms for hostages" deal. Here's a little teaser: Joe Conason is lying through his teeth.


----------



## Gunny (May 12, 2007)

musicman said:


> I think you should, by all means, because - unless the "other boards" you refer to are DU clones, the article to which Rosotar linked will be exposed for what it is: lies, lies, and more lies; lies of ommission - lies of wild, agenda-driven conjecture masquerading as fact - and good, old-fashioned baldfaced lies.



Oh .... you mean like everything he posts?


----------



## musicman (May 12, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Oh .... you mean like everything he posts?



I haven't run into this guy very much, Gunny; I'll certainly take your word for it. But, surely his post of that Joe Conason turd has got to be in the running for "Pinnochio Post of the Year"!


----------



## Gunny (May 12, 2007)

musicman said:


> I haven't run into this guy very much, Gunny; I'll certainly take your word for it. But, surely his post of that Joe Conason turd has got to be in the running for "Pinnochio Post of the Year"!



If the left has an unsubstantiated allegation against Republicans, rest assured he's posted it.  Got all the left-wingnut perpetuation of lies into myth down pat.


----------



## musicman (May 12, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> If the left has an unsubstantiated allegation against Republicans, rest assured he's posted it.  Got all the left-wingnut perpetuation of lies into myth down pat.



And the left seems to have an unlimited supply of this garbage. You bust them in an outright lie, and they don't even blink; they'll tell two more to fill the empty space. You have to give them credit for tenacity - kind of like cockroaches - or weeds.


----------



## Gunny (May 12, 2007)

musicman said:


> And the left seems to have an unlimited supply of this garbage. You bust them in an outright lie, and they don't even blink; they'll tell two more to fill the empty space. You have to give them credit for tenacity - kind of like cockroaches - or weeds.



Like I said ... lies perpetuated into myth.  They just keep on telling it until it's so old nobody remembers the truth so they take their word for it.  

My current all-time favorite is "Bush (41) didn't finish the job."  Listened to that bullshit lie for 12 years.  Along comes his son and obliges them, and you'd think those 5 words had never been uttered _ad nauseum _for a dozen years.

And all of sudden "finishing the job" isn't what they REALLY wanted.  They just wanted to sling shit against the wall.


----------



## musicman (May 12, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Like I said ... lies perpetuated into myth.  They just keep on telling it until it's so old nobody remembers the truth so they take their word for it.
> 
> My current all-time favorite is "Bush (41) didn't finish the job."  Listened to that bullshit lie for 12 years.  Along comes his son and obliges them, and you'd think those 5 words had never been uttered _ad nauseum _for a dozen years.
> 
> And all of sudden "finishing the job" isn't what they REALLY wanted.  They just wanted to sling shit against the wall.



I used to have high hopes - believing that, surely, thinking people would recognize these tactics for the cowardice they are, and be repulsed. But, sometimes, the sheer VOLUME of it - the endlessness of it - makes me tired all over. And, I consider myself a fairly hard-nosed scrapper in the old arena of ideas. Maybe I just have bad days from time to time - ha ha!


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 12, 2007)

musicman said:


> I used to have high hopes - believing that, surely, thinking people would recognize these tactics for the cowardice they are, and be repulsed. But, sometimes, the sheer VOLUME of it - the endlessness of it - makes me tired all over. And, I consider myself a fairly hard-nosed scrapper in the old arena of ideas. Maybe I just have bad days from time to time - ha ha!



See post <a href=http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=560945&postcount=98>#98</a>.


----------



## red states rule (May 12, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> Surely you're not calling Gen.  John Baptiste(Ret.), or Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton(Ret.) or Gen. Wesley Clarke(Ret.)  a pack of left wing surrender monkey...Are you? Sure sounds like it to me. Why don't you tell them yourself? I'm sure they'll find your mealy-mouthed accusations amusing, particularly as Baptiste and Eaton both served in Iraq, and Clarke was Commander of NATO.



Not at all

I would pay closer attention if they were offering a way to win and not lose

Of course you have Dems like Motor Mouth Murtha calling Gen Petraeus a political hack and a lier

The Dems also skipped his briefing BEFORE they voted for their surrender bill. Nothing like an open minded liberal


----------



## Psychoblues (May 12, 2007)

I did a lot more than any rEpublican jerk that sat behind a walnut desk asked and me and my friends for our lives to only save his own.




red states rule said:


> By Clarice Feldman
> 
> Democrats in Congress are insisting that funds budgeted for
> intelligence be diverted to the study of global climate warming.
> ...



Or, were you talking about this from a different context?


----------



## red states rule (May 12, 2007)

The post shows the mental process of the left


----------



## Psychoblues (May 12, 2007)

It certainly demonstrated your mental process, rsr.




red states rule said:


> The post shows the mental process of the left



Care to share it's covenents?


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 12, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The post shows the mental process of the left



What...? He simply threw your own post back in your face. Or don't you like being reminded of your past stupidities, denying them as they are presented to you in all their glory? Kinda like Bill O'Reilly, or anyone else on the right, when presented with the evidence of their ignorance and stupidity.


----------



## red states rule (May 12, 2007)

Psychoblues said:


> It certainly demonstrated your mental process, rsr.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Many on the kook left think the US should reason with the terrorists, we need to learn why they hate us, understanding and compassion will melt their bombs and bullets,if anything goes wrong it is Bush's fault and Dems need to start an investagation, and the hysteria over global waming is ignored by libs as they travel in their limos and private jets


----------



## red states rule (May 12, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> What...? He simply threw your own post back in your face. Or don't you like being reminded of your past stupidities, denying them as they are presented to you in all their glory? Kinda like Bill O'Reilly, or anyone else on the right, when presented with the evidence of their ignorance and stupidity.



It it were not for double standards libs would have no standards at all


----------



## musicman (May 12, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> See post <a href=http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=560945&postcount=98>#98</a>.



You appear to have missed my point entirely.


----------



## red states rule (May 12, 2007)

musicman said:


> You appear to have missed my point entirely.



BP seems not want to talk about how the Dems attacked Gen Petraeus yet he thinks Republicans attacked other Generals


----------



## red states rule (May 12, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> What...? He simply threw your own post back in your face. Or don't you like being reminded of your past stupidities, denying them as they are presented to you in all their glory? Kinda like Bill O'Reilly, or anyone else on the right, when presented with the evidence of their ignorance and stupidity.



I see libs still have their priorities


Earth study in intelligence bill
By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 12, 2007 


Republicans, accusing Democrats of caring more about "bugs and bunnies" than hunting for al Qaeda, yesterday failed to strip a global warming study from an intelligence policy bill as lawmakers tacked a similar climate change provision onto a separate defense bill. 
    The Democratic-controlled House on a 230-185 vote defeated Republican efforts to block a major study of how global warming might affect national security, with majority party leaders saying melting ice caps and droughts must be taken into account. 
    "This isn't bugs or bunnies, it is survival or destruction," charged Rep. Jane Harman, California Democrat and the former ranking member on the Intelligence panel. "Droughts affect the stability of governments and stability of governments is one of the few things we need to know about." 
    But Republicans dismissed the study as too "politically correct," and said the call for a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessing climate change's potential affect on national security is redundant because numerous government organizations already study the issue. 
    "With rogue nations pursuing nuclear weapons, conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq and the recent arrest of radical jihadists planning to attack U.S. bases in the Northeast, the intelligence community has more than enough national security challenges without ... forcing global climate change on it as an issue," said Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence panel. 
    He tried to strip the provision from the bill, backed by all but 12 of the chamber's Republicans and three of its Democrats. 
    After voting to keep the NIE in the bill, the House voted 225-197 early yesterday for final approval of the Intelligence Authorization Act. The act sets policy and is a blueprint for spending an estimated $48 billion in 2008 on the nation's intelligence agencies. 
    Senate Republicans last month blocked consideration of that chamber's version of the intelligence bill. It is unclear whether the House and Senate will be able to send a completed measure to President Bush, who is opposed to the climate change study. 
    Backed by key military officials, Democrats have succeeded in adding global warming considerations to the upcoming defense authorization bill. Should the measure pass the House next week, the Army would need to consider potential sea level rise when planning wars, and make sure troops have equipment that can withstand severe weather events. 
    The National Defense Authorization Act sets a framework for spending $645 billion on the military and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008. 
    The bill includes a requirement that the National Defense Strategy and Quadrennial Defense Review consider "the risks posed by climate change to current and future DOD missions." 
    As with crafting the NIE, this move was recommended in a report authored by 11 three- and four-star generals on the Military Advisory Board. 


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070512-121234-1404r.htm


----------



## Rosotar (May 12, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I would pay closer attention if they were offering a way to win and not lose



It's too bad you don't have the same standards for your president that you'd like everyone to believe you have for others.

Bush basically declared the war "won" from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln back on the first of May 2003. Remember that one?

Only now it turns out he was really just talking out of his ass because four years later we have three thousand and counting more dead soldiers.

In other words he didn't have a plan for really winning did he rsr? and we are *LESS SAFE* from future terror attacks then we were back then.

Yet that doesn't seem to bother you at all does it?



red states rule said:


> Of course you have Dems like Motor Mouth Murtha calling Gen Petraeus a political hack and a lier



Because a real war hero like Murtha knows political bullshit when he sees it.

Petraeus is a political hack and a liar. He is little more than a "yes man" for the Bush administration who landed the job only after George Casey, the previous commander refused to lie for them about the real situation in Iraq.



red states rule said:


> The Dems also skipped his briefing BEFORE they voted for their surrender bill. Nothing like an open minded liberal



Who gives a shit?

They've heard it all before. They already knew beforehand what Petraeus' briefing would contain....whatever fresh horseshit he was instructed to repeat by his neocon puppet-masters in the Bush administration!


----------



## Rosotar (May 12, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Many on the kook left think the US should reason with the terrorists, we need to learn why they hate us, understanding and compassion will melt their bombs and bullets,if anything goes wrong it is Bush's fault and Dems need to start an investagation, and the hysteria over global waming is ignored by libs as they travel in their limos and private jets



The consensus among the Iraq Survey Group, the CIA, everyone in the diplomatic community, and our top commanders in Iraq, is that this war will never be won militarily without a *diplomatic *approach.

Are these the people you are calling the "kook left?"


----------



## red states rule (May 12, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> The consensus among the Iraq Survey Group, the CIA, everyone in the diplomatic community, and our top commanders in Iraq, is that this war will never be won militarily without a *diplomatic *approach.
> 
> Are these the people you are calling the "kook left?"



So how do you make nice to people who want you dead?


----------



## maineman (May 12, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> The consensus among the Iraq Survey Group, the CIA, everyone in the diplomatic community, and our top commanders in Iraq, is that this war will never be won militarily without a *diplomatic *approach.
> 
> Are these the people you are calling the "kook left?"



a good question....but don't expect a good answer!

By using creative and forceful and persistent diplomacy with Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran - and peripherally, other arab states, we have a good chance of positively influencing the extent and nature of THEIR role in Iraq.


----------



## red states rule (May 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> a good question....but don't expect a good answer!
> 
> By using creative and forceful and persistent diplomacy with Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran - and peripherally, other arab states, we have a good chance of positively influencing the extent and nature of THEIR role in Iraq.



You woudl serve cake and cookies and say how sorry you were for the US being the words bully


----------



## maineman (May 12, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You woudl serve cake and cookies and say how sorry you were for the US being the words bully



that reply is infantile and insulting.  I would use strong diplomacy to engage arab nations and Iran in our efforts to keep Iraq from boiling over.


----------



## red states rule (May 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> that reply is infantile and insulting.  I would use strong diplomacy to engage arab nations and Iran in our efforts to keep Iraq from boiling over.



So what would be the first thing you would say to those who want you dead?

According to Dems Iraq is a lost cause already.  Which is it?


----------



## maineman (May 12, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So what would be the first thing you would say to those who want you dead?
> 
> According to Dems Iraq is a lost cause already.  Which is it?



I don't think that the syrians and the jordanians and the saudis or even the iranians WANT US DEAD.  I think diplomacy is a viable option for all those nations..... didn't Condi just meet with syrian and iranian foreign ministers?  WHy don't you ask HER what the first thing she said to THEM was?


----------



## red states rule (May 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> I don't think that the syrians and the jordanians and the saudis or even the iranians WANT US DEAD.  I think diplomacy is a viable option for all those nations..... didn't Condi just meet with syrian and iranian foreign ministers?  WHy don't you ask HER what the first thing she said to THEM was?



I thought San Fran nan made Syria all warm and fuzzy - and they were no longer a problem

Diplomacy worked so well with Bill Clinton.  Five terrorists attacks in eight years


----------



## maineman (May 12, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I thought San Fran nan made Syria all warm and fuzzy - and they were no longer a problem
> 
> Diplomacy worked so well with Bill Clinton.  Five terrorists attacks in eight years



if your party is against diplomacy with the arab states, why is Condi pursuing it?

and nowhere did Nancy Pelosi ever say that Syria was warm and fuzzy and not a problem.  DO you have anything other than shopworm one liners?  

The red sox are playing this afternoon...I got my lawn mowed and I decided to give you another chance to debate.... but I see that was a foolish thing to do.

And before you can say it, everyone should know that RSR will claim to have wiped my butt today in intelligent debate.  Look above at his San Fran Nan line as a prime example of RSR's idea of intelligent debate.


----------



## red states rule (May 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> if your party is against diplomacy with the arab states, why is Condi pursuing it?
> 
> and nowhere did Nancy Pelosi ever say that Syria was warm and fuzzy and not a problem.  DO you have anything other than shopworm one liners?
> 
> ...



It was the Washington post that was upset San Fran Nan did not get results from her foreign policy trip last month

I am not opposed to talking to these nations - but I would like Syria to turn over Saddams WMD's they were shipped to them before the war


----------



## maineman (May 12, 2007)

first you say this:



red states rule said:


> So what would be the first thing you would say to those who want you dead?



and then you say this:



red states rule said:


> I am not opposed to talking to these nations.



which is it?  Do we engage them in diplomacy which is what I prior to the first quote, and which you apparently now agree with in the second quote, or do those nations want us dead?


----------



## red states rule (May 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> first you say this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am asking what you would do Mr Liberal? How would you deal with killers who want you dead?


----------



## maineman (May 12, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I am asking what you would do Mr Liberal? How would you deal with killers who want you dead?



I told you...I would engage in vigorous diplomacy with the arab states in the region and with Iran..... so do you support that approach or not?  You seem to want it both ways.


----------



## maineman (May 12, 2007)

and do you notice how I answered YOUR question?

Here.... in the spirit of cooperation, answer two of mine:

1.  Do you still suggest that the surge EVER caused a 60% decrease in American casualties?  yes or no

2.  Do you still believe that persian- shiite Iran is bankrolling arab-sunni AQ?  yes or no?


----------



## red states rule (May 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> and do you notice how I answered YOUR question?
> 
> Here.... in the spirit of cooperation, answer two of mine:
> 
> ...



Still grasping at straws


----------



## maineman (May 12, 2007)

still running away from your own words.

sad really....

Well, I guess another experiment in trying to get RSR to actually debate has proven to be a predictably abysmal failure.

if only he would show the courage of his own convictions and be able to stand by his own statements.

Boston v Baltimore..... here I come!


----------



## maineman (May 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> I told you...I would engage in vigorous diplomacy with the arab states in the region and with Iran..... so do you support that approach or not?  You seem to want it both ways.



??


----------



## red states rule (May 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> still running away from your own words.
> 
> sad really....
> 
> ...



You want a Kleenex?


----------



## maineman (May 12, 2007)

will you ever stand by your own words and defend them?


----------



## red states rule (May 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> will you ever stand by your own words and defend them?



I have

you are trying to change the subject - something you do very often


----------



## maineman (May 12, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I have
> 
> you are trying to change the subject - something you do very often



no...you never have.  Are you standing by your claim that we saw a 60% reduction in casualties because of the success of the surge?  yes or no?

are you standing by your assertoin that Iran is bankrolling Al Qaeda?  yes or no?

you can answer both those questions with just two words.  you waste more time avoiding answering than it takes to just answer them.  two simple words.


----------



## red states rule (May 13, 2007)

It seems more and more vets are speaking out against the Dems

I wonder if these vets will get the same level of coverage as the anti war vets get?

Probably not


VFW appeals for condition-free funding for Iraq 


By Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Friday, May 11, 2007 



WASHINGTON  Members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Wednesday presented Capitol Hill lawmakers with an appeal from more than 2,700 troops urging Congress to drop plans for withdrawal from Iraq.

The Appeal for Courage has been collecting signatures since February, with the goal of lobbying lawmakers to back off plans for withdrawal timetables or funding caveats.

Organizer Lt. Jason Nichols, a 33-year-old naval projects officer who has been in Baghdad since mid-January, said he has been pleased with the response.

This really provides an objective look at how a lot of the troops feel, he said. Were happy to get that message to Congress.

The appeal  available at www.appealforcourage.org  calls for Congress to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat.

It labels the fight in Iraq a necessary and just effort to bring freedom to the Middle East and also asks lawmakers to actively oppose any moves which embolden my enemy while demoralizing American support at home.

In December a group of active-duty troops presented Congress with a similar Appeal for Redress with more than 1,000 signatures calling for an end to operations in Iraq, saying that military operations will not work.

Defense department rules limit active-duty personnel from participating in certain protests and circulating petitions, but do allow servicemembers to directly appeal to lawmakers to air their complaints.

Organizers of the anti-withdrawal group say about 60 percent of their signers have deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East, and nearly a third are E-5s and E-6s.

Were definitely happy with that response, and we plan on continuing to collect names, Nichols said.

In accepting the appeal, House minority leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, called Democrats in Congress reckless for recent plans to tie war funding to troop withdrawals.
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=53334&archive=true


----------



## Rosotar (May 13, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It seems more and more vets are speaking out against the Dems



Not really rsr. The VFW has always been pro-Bush. It's just the same "vets" over and over. Political Hacks for the GOP is what they're called. 



red states rule said:


> I wonder if these vets will get the same level of coverage as the anti war vets get?



I don't see a lot of anti-war vets getting excessive coverage. Do you?

Maybe you can cite an example?


----------



## maineman (May 13, 2007)

you all only honor veterans if they happen to hold your opinion.


----------



## CSM (May 13, 2007)

maineman said:


> you all only honor veterans if they happen to hold your opinion.



Really? Which "you" are you referring to?


----------



## Annie (May 13, 2007)

CSM said:


> Really? Which "you" are you referring to?



Yep, if it were only 'you', I'd assume he meant RSR, however he used 'you all' which gives me pause, too.


----------



## maineman (May 13, 2007)

CSM said:


> Really? Which "you" are you referring to?




RSR and Alucard come to mind


----------



## CSM (May 13, 2007)

maineman said:


> RSR and Alucard come to mind



Good day to you MM!

You know I just couldn't resist, donchya?


----------



## maineman (May 13, 2007)

Absolutely, Command Sergeant Major!

and you know that the two that came to mind fit the description.


----------



## CSM (May 13, 2007)

maineman said:


> Absolutely, Command Sergeant Major!
> 
> and you know that the two that came to mind fit the description.



oh yeah.


----------



## Rosotar (May 13, 2007)

I'm still waiting for rsr to provide a link for all  this "excessive" coverage he claims anti-war vets are getting.

I'm kinda curious becasu I belong to an anti-war veterans group and we don't get squat for coverage! 

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/


----------



## musicman (May 13, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> I'm still waiting for rsr to provide a link for all  this "excessive" coverage he claims anti-war vets are getting.



And, I'm kinda curious as to what constitutes a credible link in "Rosotar World". Is that "truthdig" link to Joe Conason's mile-high stack of lies you gave us in post #95 YOUR definition? If so, I've got to tell you that I'm seriously, seriously not impressed.

And - as for "still waiting" - waiting's a bitch, isn't it? I'm still waiting for you, or anybody else, to take me up on the invitation I presented in post #99. Somebody PLEASE offer some mitigating explanation for the actions of the Democrat Party in the face of Soviet expansionism into the Western Hemisphere.

I certainly don't envy you the task. The best you can do is prove that they were ludicrously, dangerously naive Pollyannas, rather than outright treasonous scum. Talk about "Hobson's Choice"; neither answer really adds up to "fitness to govern" for the Democrats, does it?


----------



## musicman (May 14, 2007)

Based on what I've seen in my lifetime, I've come to an awful conclusion:

The Democrats have never met an enemy of America they wouldn't fellate at high noon in the town square on a Friday, if there were the slightest chance that doing so would hurt the Republican Party.


----------



## musicman (May 14, 2007)

John Kerry got busy on old Ho Chi Minh
And barely had time to wipe off his chin
When Brother Ortega cried, "Come be MY friend"
And Johnny was kneeling and bobbing again.

In like manner, Nancy and sweet Harry Reid
Continue to help their dear Party suck seed
If you hate America, all that you need
Is Democrats' rapt, gobbling faces to feed.


----------



## red states rule (May 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> you all only honor veterans if they happen to hold your opinion.



Were you talking about Rep Murtha who called Gen Petrarus a political hack?


----------



## red states rule (May 14, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> Not really rsr. The VFW has always been pro-Bush. It's just the same "vets" over and over. Political Hacks for the GOP is what they're called.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The military has been pro America - and voted for Pres Bush (twice) by a wide majority

However, the liberal media has always given glowing coverage to any vet and vet group that has gone against the war - since those groups agree with the agenda of the liberal media


----------



## red states rule (May 14, 2007)

musicman said:


> Based on what I've seen in my lifetime, I've come to an awful conclusion:
> 
> The Democrats have never met an enemy of America they wouldn't fellate at high noon in the town square on a Friday, if there were the slightest chance that doing so would hurt the Republican Party.



I wonder if the left will pay attention to this............


If Al Qaeda are Planning a Militant Islamic State in Iraq, Should Media Report It?
Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 13, 2007 - 15:16. 
The Sunday Times published a rather shocking article on May 13 with the headline, Al-Qaeda Planning Militant Islamic State Within Iraq (h/t LGF, emphasis added throughout):

A RADICAL plan by Al-Qaeda to take over the Sunni heartland of Iraq and turn it into a militant Islamic state once American troops have withdrawn is causing alarm among US intelligence officials. 

A power struggle has emerged between the self-styled Islamic State of Iraq, an organisation with ambitions to become a state which has been set up by Al-Qaeda, and more moderate Sunni groups. They are battling for the long-term control of central and western areas which they believe could break away from Kurdish and Shiite-dominated provinces once the coalition forces depart.

In reality, this shouldnt be a huge shock, as the White House announced the following on May 3 in a press release entitled Setting the Record Straight: Iraq is the Central Front of Al Qaedas Global Campaign:


"All Americans are entitled to their own opinions about Iraq, but they are not entitled to their own facts. We all wish al Qaeda were no longer a threat, but the reality is Gen. Petraeus calls them 'probably public enemy number one' in Iraq. It is impossible to completely segregate al Qaeda's attacks in Iraq from sectarian violence because al Qaeda's explicit goal is to create sectarian violence to destabilize the government so they can establish a safe haven within the country. Considering Gen. Petraeus' comments, the National Intelligence Estimate, and news media reports, al Qaeda's role in fomenting violence in Iraq is ignored at our own peril."           White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, 5/3/07

Those familiar with this announcement should be aware that Snow was referring to statements made by General David Petraeus at a special Pentagon briefing on April 26. Those unfamiliar shouldnt feel ignorant, for most media completely ignored Petraeus words.

Fortunately, the Sunday Times appears more interested in reporting the news rather than censoring it like so many press outlets here:

According to an analysis compiled by US intelligence agencies, the Islamic State has ambitions to create a terrorist enclave in the Iraqi provinces of Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala, Salah al-Din, Nineveh and parts of Babil. 

Al-Qaeda are on the way to establish their first stronghold in the Middle East, warned an American official. If they succeed, it will be a catastrophe and an imminent danger to Saudi Arabia and Jordan. 

Is it any wonder why our antiwar press dont want Americans to know about this? After all, such a revelation might change public sentiment concerning the war, and move a decent percentage of citizens to question whether an expeditious and capricious withdrawal is a good idea.

In the end, this isn't about whether there was any connection between al Qaeda and Iraq prior to 9/11, or whether Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the attacks on our nation that day. 

Instead, and significantly more important, if al Qaeda are indeed hoping that they can create such a militant Islamic state within Iraq after we leave, shouldn't that be part of the discussion rather than being buried and/or ignored?

Or, am I being too idealistic in expecting such from our press representatives?

http://newsbusters.org/node/12721


----------



## red states rule (May 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> you all only honor veterans if they happen to hold your opinion.



Shocking Op-Ed: Pro-Iraq War Americans Worse Than Germans Who Backed Nazis
Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 12, 2007 - 11:53. 
Heres something you wouldnt expect to hear from a former Marine: Americans who support the Iraq War -- including those in the military and their families -- are worse than Germans who supported the Nazis in World War II.

Impossible, right?

Well, the progressive website Common Dreams published an article Friday by Scott Ritter, the former adviser to General Norman Schwarzkopf and United Nations weapons inspector-turned antiwar activist.

In it, Ritter made some absolutely extraordinary statements about not only the Administration, but also the military and all those who continue to support our efforts in Iraq.

For a little background, Ritter took issue with an article written by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz critical of Holocaust deniers (emphasis added throughout, h/t Dan Gainor):


I would be curious to know how Dershowitz would judge how the families of German soldiers deployed in combat operations should have viewed the Second World War. What if a mother of a young panzer grenadier fighting on the Russian front was to say, The troops are the mission, and we cannot separate our support for either? Should blind support for the fighting men likewise have blinded the families of German soldiers to the illegitimacy of their cause? Certainly Dershowitz would favor the good German, one who would have sought to deny facilitation of the Holocaust by refusing to support the war which empowered it. Would he so favor the good American, one driven by a sense of moral responsibility to speak out against acts perpetrated in Iraq and elsewhere by American fighting forces ostensibly in support of freedom, but in reality an extension of illegitimate policies reeking of global hegemony and American empire? Or would he choose to explain away Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, the CIAs secret gulag of torture as legitimate acts of bellicose reprisals for the events of Sept. 11, 2001? In Dershowitzs tortured legal brain the events at Haditha and elsewhere, including the Marine massacre of civilians in Afghanistan, likewise assume legitimacy in this newfound legal defense of legitimate bellicose reprisal.

Shocking, wouldnt you agree? Maybe as shocking is that Ritter chose to link to Dershowitzs article at DePaul University professor Norman Finkelsteins website. For those unfamiliar, Finkelstein, currently in the limelight because he is up for tenure, is accused by his critics of being both a Holocaust denier and anti-Israel. 

Regardless, Ritter continued:

The innumerable home movies shot in Iraq and Afghanistan, some immortalized on YouTube, some in documentary film, some simply shared with friends and family, all show the same disturbing trend. Whether it is a Marine singing the lyrics to the self-written Hadji Girl, or soldiers speaking disparagingly about ragheads or sand *******, or any other dehumanizing remark imaginable, the reality is our troops arent in Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people. Were there to kill them and we do an extraordinarily good job.

Shocking, yes? But Ritters vitriol towards Americas soldiers was just beginning:

Every mother and father of every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine deployed in Iraq should reflect on this as well. Little Johnny may write home about what he says is a just war that needs to be fought, but before one embraces the words of someone in harms way in desperate need of self-justification for the things he has seen and done, re-examine the area of operations your loved one is serving in or, worse, has perished in. Are they living among the Iraqi people, as some would have you believe? Or are they sequestered away in base camps or fire bases, forced to conduct patrols out among a population that for the most part hates them and wants them gone from Iraq? Does Johnny himself call the Iraqis ragheads? Does he give a frustrated kick at the Iraqi male he just apprehended, not because of any crime or offense committed, but simply because he was there? Does he point his rifle and scream expletives at the mother or wife or daughter who cries out for a loved one? Does he break a lamp or table to emphasize his point? Or does he do worse, allowing his emotions and frustration to break free as he beats, shoots or rapes those he now hates more than anything else in the world? Freedom? Get real.

Extraordinary. Alas, Ritter was crescendoing to a truly disgraceful conclusion:

The American Legion magazine, in its May 2007 issue, belittles those who speak out against the war. While our forefathers gave us the right and privilege to challenge our leaders, one father of a fallen Marine writes, the manner and method that some people have chosen to use at this time only emboldens the enemy. Reading between the lines, freedom of speech is treasonous if you question the motives and actions of those who got us involved in the Iraq war. Alan Dershowitz can only wish that there had been more good Germans speaking out about the policies of Adolf Hitler before the Holocaust became reality.

I yearn for a time when good Americans will be able to stop and reverse equally evil policies of global hegemony achieved through pre-emptive war of aggression. I know all too well that in this case the enemy will only be emboldened by our silence, since at the end of the day the enemy is ourselves. I can see the Harvard professor shaking an accusatory finger at me for the above statement, chiding me for creating any moral equivalency between the war in Iraq and the Holocaust. Youre right, Mr. Dershowitz. There is no moral equivalency. In America today, we should have known better, since we ostensibly stand for so much more. That we have collectively failed to halt and repudiate the war in Iraq makes us even worse than the Germans.

For some reason, Ritter has forgotten that he resigned as an UNSCOM weapons inspector on August 26, 1998, due to his belief that the United Nations and the Clinton administration werent doing enough to disarm Saddam Hussein and Iraq. As he stated in his resignation letter (emphasis added):

Iraq has lied to the Special Commission and the world since day one concerning the true scope and nature of its proscribed programs and weapons systems.  This lie has been perpetuated over the years through systematic acts of concealment.   It was for the purpose of uncovering Iraq's mechanism of concealment, and in doing so gaining access to the hidden weapons, components and weapons programs, that you created a dedicated capability to investigate Iraq's concealment activities, which I have had the privilege to head.  During the period of time that this effort has been underway, the Commission has uncovered indisputable proof of a systematic concealment mechanism, run by the Presidency of Iraq and protected by the Presidential security forces.  This investigation has led the Commission to the door step of Iraq's hidden retained capability, and yet the Commission has been frustrated by Iraq's continued refusal to abide by its obligations under Security Council resolutions and the Memorandum of Understanding of 23 February 1998 to allow inspections, the Security Council's refusal to effectively respond to Iraq's actions, and now the current decision by the Security Council and the Secretary General, backed at least implicitly by the United States, to seek a "diplomatic" alternative to inspection-driven confrontation with Iraq, a decision which constitutes a surrender to the Iraqi leadership that has succeeded in thwarting the stated will of the United Nations.

As the Washington Posts Jim Hoagland wrote at the time:

Clinton and Albright need to reexamine the tactics they have chosen. The present approach ignores the fundamental point Ritter makes: Saddam was allowed to avoid complete destruction in 1991 by promising the world to give up all his prohibited weapons and to prove he had done so.

Failure to enforce such a commitment on Saddam, the world's most flagrant user and hoarder of the new weapons of terror, will destroy any hope of effective international nonproliferation. It will seriously undermine U.N. credibility with the American public. Failure on Iraq will push the United States onto a solitary, unpredictable and expensive path outside the United Nations to confront these dangers. No one should want that.

How quickly Ritter has forgotten.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12709


----------



## maineman (May 14, 2007)

like I said, you only honor veterans who think like you do and grossly disrespect those who don't.


----------



## red states rule (May 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> like I said, you only honor veterans who think like you do and grossly disrespect those who don't.



so do libs who dare to disagree with them


----------



## maineman (May 14, 2007)

red states rule said:


> so do libs who dare to disagree with them




this conversation is between me and you.

I never dishonor any veterans.  you do.


----------



## red states rule (May 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> this conversation is between me and you.
> 
> I never dishonor any veterans.  you do.



Just pointing out how libs support the troops who disagree with them


----------



## maineman (May 14, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Just pointing out how libs support the troops who disagree with them



and I just pointed out that you only support those veterans who agree with you.  and I pointed out that I support all veterans.

so who supports veterans more?  That is pretty clear.  I support them all...you support those who agree with you.


----------



## red states rule (May 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> and I just pointed out that you only support those veterans who agree with you.  and I pointed out that I support all veterans.
> 
> so who supports veterans more?  That is pretty clear.  I support them all...you support those who agree with you.




I support the vets - I would listen to them more if they offered a plan to win and not to surrender


----------



## maineman (May 14, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I support the vets - I would listen to them more if they offered a plan to win and not to surrender



you do not support all vets.

I do.


----------



## red states rule (May 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> you do not support all vets.
> 
> I do.



You support only those how agree with your surrender plan


----------



## maineman (May 14, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You support only those how agree with your surrender plan




that's not so and the members of my american legion post would stand up and agree with me.


----------



## red states rule (May 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> that's not so and the members of my american legion post would stand up and agree with me.



Well, there is one in every crowd. So they support the surrender bill as well?


----------



## maineman (May 14, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Well, there is one in every crowd. So they support the surrender bill as well?



we have a wide range of opinions about the war in Iraq in my post.... nobody supports a surrender bill, by the way, because no bill was ever presented that suggested America surrender to anyone.


----------



## red states rule (May 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> we have a wide range of opinions about the war in Iraq in my post.... nobody supports a surrender bill, by the way, because no bill was ever presented that suggested America surrender to anyone.



Dems on Capital hill want to surrendner - do they count?


----------



## maineman (May 14, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Dems on Capital hill want to surrendner - do they count?




no they don't 

no bill was ever submitted to anyone that included America surrendering in Iraq to anyone.


----------



## red states rule (May 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> no they don't
> 
> no bill was ever submitted to anyone that included America surrendering in Iraq to anyone.



The surrender bill was Dead Before Arrival, and yet Dems wasted three months and continue to waste time trying to find a way out out of their corner


----------



## maineman (May 14, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The surrender bill was Dead Before Arrival, and yet Dems wasted three months and continue to waste time trying to find a way out out of their corner



no bill submitted contained any provisions for surrender.

the american people supported the democrat's funding bill with withdrawal deadlines.

THAT is a FACT.


----------



## red states rule (May 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> no bill submitted contained any provisions for surrender.
> 
> the american people supported the democrat's funding bill with withdrawal deadlines.
> 
> THAT is a FACT.



The surrender bill showed how Dems will fight the terrorists - and the voters do not like it


----------



## maineman (May 14, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The surrender bill showed how Dems will fight the terrorists - and the voters do not like it



bullshit...the voters LOVED the democrat's funding bill with deadlines.


----------



## red states rule (May 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> bullshit...the voters LOVED the democrat's funding bill with deadlines.



Then why are the Dems still have an approval number close to Pres Bush's?


----------



## maineman (May 14, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Then why are the Dems still have an approval number close to Pres Bush's?



why do you keep asking the same question.... the people are supportive of the democrat's plans.... the democrats do not have veto proof majorities.... the people are upset that congress can't act on this and many other issues.... but their anger with congress is not solely aimed at democrats....their anger with the president is all on him..... and they support the funding plan and did not want the president to veto it.


----------



## red states rule (May 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> why do you keep asking the same question.... the people are supportive of the democrat's plans.... the democrats do not have veto proof majorities.... the people are upset that congress can't act on this and many other issues.... but their anger with congress is not solely aimed at democrats....their anger with the president is all on him..... and they support the funding plan and did not want the president to veto it.



Or could it be the Dems have broken all the promises they made during the campaign?

and now the Dem leaders are showing their true colors

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070507/ap_on_go_co/pelosi_water_project


----------



## maineman (May 14, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Or could it be the Dems have broken all the promises they made during the campaign?
> 
> and now the Dem leaders are showing their true colors
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070507/ap_on_go_co/pelosi_water_project



It COULD be a lot of things....one thing is FACT:  the American people supported the democrat's plan to fund the war and set withdrawal dates.


How do you explain that?

lol


----------



## red states rule (May 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> It COULD be a lot of things....one thing is FACT:  the American people supported the democrat's plan to fund the war and set withdrawal dates.
> 
> 
> How do you explain that?
> ...



I hardly think 37% is a mandate


----------



## CSM (May 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> It COULD be a lot of things....one thing is FACT:  the American people supported the democrat's plan to fund the war and set withdrawal dates.
> 
> 
> How do you explain that?
> ...


The explanation is not ALL the American people supported the Dems plan or withdrawal dates....are you lying?


----------



## red states rule (May 14, 2007)

CSM said:


> The explanation is not ALL the American people supported the Dems plan or withdrawal dates....are you lying?



No

Just spinning


----------



## maineman (May 14, 2007)

CSM said:


> The explanation is not ALL the American people supported the Dems plan or withdrawal dates....are you lying?



of course not all...but a clear majority.


----------



## CSM (May 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> of course not all...but a clear majority.



Hmmm that is a wee bit different then.


----------



## maineman (May 14, 2007)

no more different than saying that the American people elected George Bush as their president in 2004.

the american people supported the democrat's funding bill with deadlines.


----------



## CSM (May 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> no more different than saying that the American people elected George Bush as their president in 2004.
> 
> the american people supported the democrat's funding bill with deadlines.



Oh I agree that it is no different....doesn't make it anymore honest though.


----------



## maineman (May 14, 2007)

CSM said:


> Oh I agree that it is no different....doesn't make it anymore honest though.



wait... are you saying that* "the american people elected George Bush president in 2004" *is a dishonest statement?


----------



## CSM (May 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> wait... are you saying that* "the american people elected George Bush president in 2004" *is a dishonest statement?



Redirect and you know it....

It is about as honest as saying *"the american people supported the democrat's funding bill with deadlines."*


----------



## maineman (May 14, 2007)

CSM said:


> Redirect and you know it....
> 
> It is about as honest as saying *"the american people supported the democrat's funding bill with deadlines."*



considering the fact that the entire population of America has never agreed on ANYTHING, and anytime anyone says that the American people believe something or want something, it goes without saying that SOME Americans do not believe that or want that and that the statement refers to the majority.... I think both statements are completely honest.

the american people love apple pie.

the american people enjoy taking vacations from work.

the american people speak english.

three more honest statements.


----------



## CSM (May 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> considering the fact that the entire population of America has never agreed on ANYTHING, and anytime anyone says that the American people believe something or want something, it goes without saying that SOME Americans do not believe that or want that and that the statement refers to the majority.... I think both statements are completely honest.
> 
> the american people love apple pie.
> 
> ...




Good, then we can agree that the American people support the President...afer all , he is STILL in power.


----------



## mattskramer (May 14, 2007)

CSM said:


> Good, then we can agree that the American people support the President...afer all , he is STILL in power.



That is a simple non sequitur.  Just because a US president is in power does not necessarily prove that the American people support him.   

The US does not have public no confidence votes agaist a president during his term.  

Bush does not get a third term as president. 

Look, again, at http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm and see Bushs low approval rating.


----------



## musicman (May 14, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> That is a simple non sequitur.  Just because a US president is in power does not necessarily prove that the American people support him.
> 
> The US does not have public no confidence votes agaist a president during his term.
> 
> ...



Hell, matts - you missed his point.


----------



## Gunny (May 14, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> That is a simple non sequitur.  Just because a US president is in power does not necessarily prove that the American people support him.
> 
> The US does not have public no confidence votes agaist a president during his term.
> 
> ...



Good point.  So we can conclude that:

Just because Congressional Democrats are pushing legislation that includes a rider attempting to usurp the President's authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of this nation does not necessarily prove that the American people support it.


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Good point.  So we can conclude that:
> 
> Just because Congressional Democrats are pushing legislation that includes a rider attempting to usurp the President's authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of this nation does not necessarily prove that the American people support it.



Dems have been trying to assume the powers of the CIC since they took over in January


----------



## Rosotar (May 15, 2007)

CSM said:


> Good, then we can agree that the American people support the President...afer all , he is STILL in power.



Apparently you haven't seen his poll numbers lately. He's tied with Jimmy Carter as the worst president ever.

Do you think the American people were behind Carter when his poll numbers were at rock bottom?


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> Apparently you haven't seen his poll numbers lately. He's tied with Jimmy Carter as the worst president ever.
> 
> Do you think the American people were behind Carter when his poll numbers were at rock bottom?



Dems are not doing much better in the polls


----------



## Rosotar (May 15, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Good point.  So we can conclude that:
> 
> Just because Congressional Democrats are pushing legislation that includes a rider attempting to usurp the President's authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of this nation does not necessarily prove that the American people support it.



The American people voted in Democrats who were promising to end this war period. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

BTW the Legislative and Executive branches of government are *co-equal. *Bush doesn't have any more power than Congress.

It appears you'd be happier Gunny in a dictatorship or monarchy. Maybe you're just not cut out to be an American.

There are countries in the world where you can live under such a system.

Maybe you should check on one way transportation.


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> The American people voted in Democrats who were promising to end this war period. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
> 
> BTW the Legislative and Executive branches of government are *co-equal. *Bush doesn't have any more power than Congress.
> 
> ...



Voters went with Dems because Dems said they would stand up to terrorists - not surrender to them


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Voters went with Dems because Dems said they would stand up to terrorists - not surrender to them



the fact that you keep running away from is that the funding bill is NOT a surrender bill and the AMerican people were supportive of it and were not supportive of the president's veto of it.  America thought funding the troops but setting deadlines made sense.

sucks to be you, eh?


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> the fact that you keep running away from is that the funding bill is NOT a surrender bill and the AMerican people were supportive of it and were not supportive of the president's veto of it.  America thought funding the troops but setting deadlines made sense.
> 
> sucks to be you, eh?



It is a surrender bill plain and simple

the terrorists support the Dems in this venture - tells you something about the Dems


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It is a surrender bill plain and simple
> 
> the terrorists support the Dems in this venture - tells you something about the Dems



no.  it is not.  and your repeatedly calling it that won't change what it is:  a funding bill with non-binding deadlines that the American people supported.  

they do not support you or your president in this war anymore.


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> no.  it is not.  and your repeatedly calling it that won't change what it is:  a funding bill with non-binding deadlines that the American people supported.
> 
> they do not support you or your president in this war anymore.



It is a surrender bill

If you support surrender and appeasing terrorists - that is your right


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It is a surrender bill
> 
> If you support surrender and appeasing terrorists - that is your right



it is not a surrender bill.  period.

please show me the language in the bill where we surrender any encampments or military assets to any enemy.

and you cannot escape the fact that the AMerican people were solidly behind the democrat's funding bill....they realize that Bush and his administration don't know what the fuck they are doing.


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> it is not a surrender bill.  period.
> 
> please show me the language in the bill where we surrender any encampments or military assets to any enemy.
> 
> and you cannot escape the fact that the AMerican people were solidly behind the democrat's funding bill....they realize that Bush and his administration don't know what the fuck they are doing.



Keep telling that to the 37.5&#37; of people who support the surrender Congress


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Keep telling that to the 37.5% of people who support the surrender Congress



the polling question is quite clear.  Did you miss it in my quinnipiac thread?  you should go back and read it.  but I think, instead of addressing it, you will continue to ignore it like you do everything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions of the world


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> the polling question is quite clear.  Did you miss it in my quinnipiac thread?  you should go back and read it.  but I think, instead of addressing it, you will continue to ignore it like you do everything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions of the world



I see the 37.5% approval for the Dem Congress - that speaks lound


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I see the 37.5% approval for the Dem Congress - that speaks lound



and you are aware, are you not, that congress is made up of nearly equal numbers of democrats and republicans.  the polling data is clear:  Americans supported the democrat's war funding bill..... all you seem to be able to do is to run away from that.  here it is again, in case you missed it:

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"As you may know, President Bush vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would have provided additional funds for the war in Iraq and would have set a specific date for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from that country. *Do you approve or disapprove of Bush's decision to veto that bill?"*
Approve 44
*Disapprove 54 *
Unsure 2 

"One proposal would provide additional funds for U.S. troops in Iraq and would require the U.S. to start withdrawing all its troops from Iraq by a specific date. *Would you favor or oppose this bill?"*

*Favor 57 *
Oppose 41
Unsure 2


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> and you are aware, are you not, that congress is made up of nearly equal numbers of democrats and republicans.  the polling data is clear:  Americans supported the democrat's war funding bill..... all you seem to be able to do is to run away from that.  here it is again, in case you missed it:
> 
> CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
> 
> ...





I saw the poll - then I see their low approval numbers


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I saw the poll - then I see their low approval numbers



approval numbers don't address the fact that the people support the democrat's funding bill...approval ratings questions are not asked about the democrats in congress, but about congress, which, as we know, is nearly 50/50.  Now address the poll questions.  What do you think they mean about America's support for the war and the fact that they like the democrat's funding bill with deadlines?


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> approval numbers don't address the fact that the people support the democrat's funding bill...approval ratings questions are not asked about the democrats in congress, but about congress, which, as we know, is nearly 50/50.  Now address the poll questions.  What do you think they mean about America's support for the war and the fact that they like the democrat's funding bill with deadlines?



The folks do not support surrender MM


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The folks do not support surrender MM



I agree...and your calling the democrat's funding bill a surrender bill is not fooling Americans.  They know it is not and that is why they DO support it.


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> I agree...and your calling the democrat's funding bill a surrender bill is not fooling Americans.  They know it is not and that is why they DO support it.



Then why are they not speaking up and gving Dems higher approval ratings?

They know the Dems are pushing a surrender bill  not a funding bill


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Then why are they not speaking up and gving Dems higher approval ratings?
> 
> They know the Dems are pushing a surrender bill  not a funding bill



they support the bill.  that is fact.  I posted the polling data...you run away from it.  why is that?


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"As you may know, President Bush vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would have provided additional funds for the war in Iraq and would have set a specific date for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from that country. Do you approve or disapprove of Bush's decision to veto that bill?"

Approve 44
Disapprove 54 
Unsure 2 

"One proposal would provide additional funds for U.S. troops in Iraq and would require the U.S. to start withdrawing all its troops from Iraq by a specific date. Would you favor or oppose this bill?"

Favor 57 
Oppose 41
Unsure 2


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
> 
> "As you may know, President Bush vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would have provided additional funds for the war in Iraq and would have set a specific date for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from that country. Do you approve or disapprove of Bush's decision to veto that bill?"
> 
> ...





MM is spamming

I saw the poll - but I also see where the Dems Congress is only a few points ahead of Pres Bush in approval


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> MM is spamming
> 
> I saw the poll - but I also see where the Dems Congress is only a few points ahead of Pres Bush in approval



YOU see it, but you never discuss it!!!


why not comment on the poll that shows that American support the democrat's funding bill?  

why not acknowledge that the congressional poll numbers were not taken about the democratic leadership of congress, but about congress itself which is nearly evenly divided between the two parties?


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> YOU see it, but you never discuss it!!!
> 
> 
> why not comment on the poll that shows that American support the democrat's funding bill?
> ...



I am looking at your poll and I see the approval rating for DEMOCRAT Congress

You are the one who wants it both ways


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I am looking at your poll and I see the approval rating for DEMOCRAT Congress
> 
> You are the one who wants it both ways



the poll question about congress does not mention party.  Congress is nearly equally divided.  the poll question about the funding bill proposed by the democrats is pretty clear.... the people support it...and you have no answer for that.


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> the poll question about congress does not mention party.  Congress is nearly equally divided.  the poll question about the funding bill proposed by the democrats is pretty clear.... the people support it...and you have no answer for that.



Dems are not getting support for their surrender bill and their poll numbers show they voters do not like the job they are doing


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Dems are not getting support for their surrender bill and their poll numbers show they voters do not like the job they are doing



voters like the funding bill and wish that Bush had not vetoed it....or did you miss that part?


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> voters like the funding bill and wish that Bush had not vetoed it....or did you miss that part?



He vetoed a surrebder bill - not a funding bill


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> He vetoed a surrebder bill - not a funding bill



the bill he vetoed the American people supported and disagreed with his veto thereof.

If you want to continue referring to it as a surrender bill and never once show me where in the bill we surrender anything to any enemy.... then we should move on to other issues


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> the bill he vetoed the American people supported and disagreed with his veto thereof.
> 
> If you want to continue referring to it as a surrender bill and never once show me where in the bill we surrender anything to any enemy.... then we should move on to other issues



First it was White Flag Harry - now it is White Flag Mainman


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

so...I take it that you cannot show me where in the bill we surrender anything to any enemy.  Is that correct?


----------



## mattskramer (May 15, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Good point.  So we can conclude that:
> 
> Just because Congressional Democrats are pushing legislation that includes a rider attempting to usurp the President's authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of this nation does not necessarily prove that the American people support it.



I agree. I wish that there were a polling service that would poll citizens on their views on particular bills.  Then you could get a clear indication about public views.


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> I agree. *I wish that there were a polling service that would poll citizens on their views on particular bills.*  Then you could get a clear indication about public views.



some polls do.  For example:

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007

_"As you may know, President Bush vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would have provided additional funds for the war in Iraq and would have set a specific date for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from that country. *Do you approve or disapprove of Bush's decision to veto that bill?*"

     .

Approve  44% 
*Disapprove  54%* 
Unsure   2%    _


----------



## Rosotar (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> approval numbers don't address the fact that the people support the democrat's funding bill...approval ratings questions are not asked about the democrats in congress, but about congress, which, as we know, is nearly 50/50.  Now address the poll questions.  What do you think they mean about America's support for the war and the fact that they like the democrat's funding bill with deadlines?



This is interesting MM. 

You asked RSR a *direct* question and rather than respond to the *specifics* in the question he derails the entire question with this....

The folks do not support surrender MM

which takes you full circle right back to where you started.

This is the same twisted logic and manipulative wordplay used by the Bush administration to not answer questions.

I think there's an epidemic of stupidity going on!


----------



## maineman (May 15, 2007)

He *never* answers questions.  He makes silly statements... and then when called on them, deliberately avoids answering them over and over again until his questioner get frustrated at punching the tarbaby and leaves... and then, RSR claims that he has "won" yet another "debate".  




If I were a republican on this board, I would be sending him PMs begging him to STFU.  He gives conservatives everywhere a bad name.


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> so...I take it that you cannot show me where in the bill we surrender anything to any enemy.  Is that correct?



When you tell the enemy when you are leaving and they will be able to spread their terror unchecked - that is surrender


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> He *never* answers questions.  He makes silly statements... and then when called on them, deliberately avoids answering them over and over again until his questioner get frustrated at punching the tarbaby and leaves... and then, RSR claims that he has "won" yet another "debate".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Silly statements to a lib like yiou is the truth that derails your rants


----------



## Gunny (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> He *never* answers questions.  He makes silly statements... and then when called on them, deliberately avoids answering them over and over again until his questioner get frustrated at punching the tarbaby and leaves... and then, RSR claims that he has "won" yet another "debate".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Okay ... let's spell this out.

The bill is funding for the troops.  Democrats attached a rider attempting usurp the authority of the President, and has NOTHING to do with funding.

What is the end result of those timelines being signed into law?  They announce to the enemy the dates we are going to abandon the field to them.  

That may not be surrendering one's army, but it IS surrendering the field.


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Okay ... let's spell this out.
> 
> The bill is funding for the troops.  Democrats attached a rider attempting usurp the authority of the President, and has NOTHING to do with funding.
> 
> ...





BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Annie (May 15, 2007)

10:10 CST Silence is deafening.


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> 10:10 CST Silence is deafening.



Do you think they want to surrender?


----------



## Annie (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Do you think they want to surrender?



I wouldn't presume to speak for the appeasing asses.


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> I wouldn't presume to speak for the appeasing asses.




Like a bad case of hemroids they will be back soon


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> I wouldn't presume to speak for the appeasing asses.



If the Dems don't defund this war soon, Soros will be pissed.


----------



## Annie (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Like a bad case of hemroids they will be back soon



I like you RSR, but you really need to know when to be quiet.


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

listen to these soldiers and then tell me none of them could ever think they weren't being set up to fail or denied support from the anti-war propoganda machine.

If you're not going to listen to it in full, and really listen, don't bother opening the link or responding, please.

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

~S


----------



## Annie (May 15, 2007)

red states rule said:


> listen to these soldiers and then tell me none of them could ever think they weren't being set up to fail or denied support from the anti-war propoganda machine.
> 
> If you're not going to listen to it in full, and really listen, don't bother opening the link or responding, please.
> 
> ...


Oookaaayyy, that was unbiased. NOT.


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Oookaaayyy, that was unbiased. NOT.



It is truthful and we heard from some of the troops who are trying to do their job


----------



## red states rule (May 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> voters like the funding bill and wish that Bush had not vetoed it....or did you miss that part?



 The war in Iraq is not lost.  We've done good things over there and accomplished a majority of our objectives.  Our men and women of the Armed Forces deserve our unwavering support in completing the mission that so many have already given their lives to achieve.  They do NOT deserve to be told their bravery, courage and belief in freedom was all for nothing and forced to return home as "failures" simply because it benefits the Democrats politically.  The Dems need to stop betraying our troops and get behind them, really believe in their ability to complete the mission they've put their hearts and souls into for the past many years and not brutally take their pride and dignity from them simply so they can say George Bush failed.

Get over it.  Hate Bush all you want.  Impeach him.  File lawsuits.  Investigate.  Publically humiliate him.  But, enough is enough with the backstabbing of our troops and spitting on the graves of those who died via the anti-war insistence on clinging to ignorance.


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> the fact that you keep running away from is that the funding bill is NOT a surrender bill and the AMerican people were supportive of it and were not supportive of the president's veto of it.  America thought funding the troops but setting deadlines made sense.
> 
> sucks to be you, eh?



Dems don't have to lose the war...Dems are ready to just pick up and run away...there is a difference between losing and quitting. This war will not end when we leave Iraq...it will simply be fought on different ground and by civilians..

Dems are a tower of Jello when it comes to fighting terrorists


----------



## Rosotar (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> When you tell the enemy when you are leaving and they will be able to spread their terror unchecked - that is surrender



How many terror attacks occured in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion?

ZERO!

Are you starting to get it RSR?


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> How many terror attacks occured in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion?
> 
> ZERO!
> 
> Are you starting to get it RSR?



Iraq was run by a terrorist


----------



## Rosotar (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Silly statements to a lib like yiou is the truth that derails your rants



Show me ANYTHING you have ever posted that even remotely relates to "truth" RSR.


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> Show me ANYTHING you have ever posted that even remotely relates to "truth" RSR.



Pick any post at random


----------



## Rosotar (May 16, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Okay ... let's spell this out.
> 
> The bill is funding for the troops.  Democrats attached a rider attempting usurp the authority of the President, and has NOTHING to do with funding..



Are you saying Bush should continue receiving a blank check with no oversight into what he's doing with the money?

Here's the deal. Congress is willing to give Bush the $ he wants but there are conditions on it. That's not unusual. Nobody is "usurping" his authority. Congress has the authority to fund and monitor that funding. It's called "checks and balances" on government. Bush doesn't like it because he's a spoiled brat and he's not used to being held accountable.



GunnyL said:


> What is the end result of those timelines being signed into law?  They announce to the enemy the dates we are going to abandon the field to them.
> 
> That may not be surrendering one's army, but it IS surrendering the field.



Remember when Bush proposed this assinine "surge" in troop levels?

We were told that we should know whether or not it was going to work within six months. Congress has given Bush plenty of time for his surge to work or not.  

What's the problem? If the deadline comes and goes something different needs to be done anyway.


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> When you tell the enemy when you are leaving and they will be able to spread their terror unchecked - that is surrender



no...when you turn over your encampments and positions to the legitimate government that you helped to establish and that you fully support, that is not surrender.  Go read the definition of the word.  You are misusing it. 

I ask again:  Did Britain surrender Palestine in the spring of 1948?  Can you answer that question?


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> Are you saying Bush should continue receiving a blank check with no oversight into what he's doing with the money?
> 
> Here's the deal. Congress is willing to give Bush the $ he wants but there are conditions on it. That's not unusual. Nobody is "usurping" his authority. Congress has the authority to fund and monitor that funding. It's called "checks and balances" on government. Bush doesn't like it because he's a spoiled brat and he's not used to being held accountable.
> 
> ...



Fioe well over a year Dems like San Fran Nan and White Flag Reid wanted more troops sent to Iraq

Then, when Pres Bush wants to send more troops - they are suddenly against it

Not great surprise


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...when you turn over your encampments and positions to the legitimate government that you helped to establish and that you fully support, that is not surrender.  Go read the definition of the word.  You are misusing it.
> 
> I ask again:  Did Britain surrender Palestine in the spring of 1948?  Can you answer that question?



It is surrender MM - learn to accept the truth


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Okay ... let's spell this out.
> 
> The bill is funding for the troops.  Democrats attached a rider attempting usurp the authority of the President, and has NOTHING to do with funding.
> 
> ...



surrendering the field to whom?  to sunni and shiite militias at war with one another? Whenever we leave we will do that.  Are you suggesting that America annex Iraq and just stay there forever?


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> surrendering the field to whom?  to sunni and shiite militias at war with one another? Whenever we leave we will do that.  Are you suggesting that America annex Iraq and just stay there forever?



surrendering to terrorists and Iran


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It is surrender MM - learn to accept the truth



learn to speak the english language.  Can you answer my question?


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> learn to speak the english language.  Can you answer my question?



If you don't like surrneder, how about give up or submit?


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> surrendering to terrorists and Iran



are you still trying to sell that bullshit that Iran is funding Al Qaeda, by the way?

when we leave, the shiites will eventually prevail.  It is no great secret that the shiites of Iraq are and will continue to be closely aligned with the shiites of Iran.  We should have been smart enough to see that coming before we invaded in the first place.  We will be unable to stop an elected shiite government in Iraq from creating close ties to the shiite government in Iran.


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

I ask again:  did Britain surrender, or give up or submit to any enemy power when they left Palestine in the spring of 1948?


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you still trying to sell that bullshit that Iran is funding Al Qaeda, by the way?
> 
> when we leave, the shiites will eventually prevail.  It is no great secret that the shiites of Iraq are and will continue to be closely aligned with the shiites of Iran.  We should have been smart enough to see that coming before we invaded in the first place.  We will be unable to stop an elected shiite government in Iraq from creating close ties to the shiite government in Iran.



Al Qaeda is in Iraq and are being assisted by Iran

I am not the only one calling the surrdender plan what it is

The voters are starting to see it as well - the Gallup poll has Dems at 27%


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Al Qaeda is in Iraq and are being assisted by Iran
> 
> I am not the only one calling the surrdender plan what it is
> 
> The voters are starting to see it as well - the Gallup poll has Dems at 27%




oh, please provide some non-partisan link that would show that persian shiite Iran was providing assistance to sunni arab AQ.

Answer the question about Britain if you dare.

the Gallup poll has congress at that number....not democrats.

my guess is, if congress were all democrats, we wouldn't have this sort of mess.


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> oh, please provide some non-partisan link that would show that persian shiite Iran was providing assistance to sunni arab AQ.
> 
> Answer the question about Britain if you dare.
> 
> ...



I have and being a good little liberal - you dismiss them

Surrender is surender MM - if you won;t accept the truth - that is your problem


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I have and being a good little liberal - you dismiss them
> 
> Surrender is surender MM - if you won;t accept the truth - that is your problem




you have never provided anything that states that Iran would fund Al Qaeda...and the mere fact that you continue to suggest such idiocy is proof of your total lack of understanding about the various factions in this conflict.

Will you answer my question about Britain, please?

did Britain surrender, or give up or submit to any enemy power when they left Palestine in the spring of 1948?


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> you have never provided anything that states that Iran would fund Al Qaeda...and the mere fact that you continue to suggest such idiocy is proof of your total lack of understanding about the various factions in this conflict.
> 
> Will you answer my question about Britain, please?
> 
> did Britain surrender, or give up or submit to any enemy power when they left Palestine in the spring of 1948?



Leep living in your fantasy world of Liberalville


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

keep running away from the debate..... your cowardice is overwhelming.


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> keep running away from the debate..... your cowardice is overwhelming.



You are the one running away - all that is left is the vapor trail from your yellow streak


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

you have never provided anything that states that Iran would fund Al Qaeda...and the mere fact that you continue to suggest such idiocy is proof of your total lack of understanding about the various factions in this conflict.

Will you answer my question about Britain, please?

did Britain surrender, or give up or submit to any enemy power when they left Palestine in the spring of 1948?

*no tapdancing.... no posturing...no ridiculous victory claims.... just answer the questions or shut the fuck up.  I really grow tired of your complete refusal to back up your own statements.*


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

Iran's Secret Plan For Mayhem
By ELI LAKE
Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 3, 2007


WASHINGTON  Iran is supporting both Sunni and Shiite terrorists in the Iraqi civil war, according to secret Iranian documents captured by Americans in Iraq.

The news that American forces had captured Iranians in Iraq was widely reported last month, but less well known is that the Iranians were carrying documents that offered Americans insight into Iranian activities in Iraq.

An American intelligence official said the new material, which has been authenticated within the intelligence community, confirms "that Iran is working closely with both the Shiite militias and Sunni Jihadist groups." The source was careful to stress that the Iranian plans do not extend to cooperation with Baathist groups fighting the government in Baghdad, and said the documents rather show how the Quds Force  the arm of Iran's revolutionary guard that supports Shiite Hezbollah, Sunni Hamas, and Shiite death squads  is working with individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sunna.

Another American official who has seen the summaries of the reporting affiliated with the arrests said it comprised a "smoking gun." "We found plans for attacks, phone numbers affiliated with Sunni bad guys, a lot of things that filled in the blanks on what these guys are up to," the official said.

One of the documents captured in the raids, according to two American officials and one Iraqi official, is an assessment of the Iraq civil war and new strategy from the Quds Force. According to the Iraqi source, that assessment is the equivalent of " Iran's Iraq Study Group," a reference to the bipartisan American commission that released war strategy recommendations after the November 7 elections. The document concludes, according to these sources, that Iraq's Sunni neighbors will step up their efforts to aid insurgent groups and that it is imperative for Iran to redouble efforts to retain influence with them, as well as with Shiite militias.

http://www.nysun.com/article/46032


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

this makes four, I believe.


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> this makes four, I believe.



still have a phobia with the truth I see


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

I searched the web,and the only place such a bizarre claim was made was in the New York SUN.  Do you consider that PROOF?  If so, let me ask you a question:  if I posted an article written by a New York Times staff writer and tried to suggest that the article was proof of anything, what would be your response?


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> I searched the web,and the only place such a bizarre claim was made was in the New York SUN.  Do you consider that PROOF?  If so, let me ask you a question:  if I posted an article written by a New York Times staff writer and tried to suggest that the article was proof of anything, what would be your response?



You asked for a credible source. It lists names, dates, and are give the details

Keep thinking there is no threat from Iran

I have a thread on the case for bombing Iran - jump in if you like


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You asked for a credible source. It lists names, dates, and are give the details
> 
> Keep thinking there is no threat from Iran
> 
> I have a thread on the case for bombing Iran - jump in if you like



_ I do not consider the NY Sun to be a credible source anymore than you consider the NY Times to be a credible source.  And why do you purposely misstate my position?  I have never said there is no threat from Iran.  I know that the Iranian support for the Madhi militia and Sadr's efforts are bad for stability in Iraq.  I have *NEVER* said otherwise._


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> _ I do not consider the NY Sun to be a credible source anymore than you consider the NY Times to be a credible source.  And why do you purposely misstate my position?  I have never said there is no threat from Iran.  I know that the Iranian support for the Madhi militia and Sadr's efforts are bad for stability in Iraq.  I have *NEVER* said otherwise._



Little Adolf in Iran is a big a threat as the other Adolf was in Germany


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Little Adolf in Iran is a big a threat as the other Adolf was in Germany



I have NEVER said he wasn't a threat.  I have only questioned why a shiite nation would provide support to a sunni group that was engaged in killing shiites in Iraq.


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> I have NEVER said he wasn't a threat.  I have only questioned why a shiite nation would provide support to a sunni group that was engaged in killing shiites in Iraq.



Iran is funding them and sending weapons to defeat the US


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

why would Iran fund a group of people who were killing shiites in Iraq?


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> why would Iran fund a group of people who were killing shiites in Iraq?



As the article stated, iran is trying to start a civil war knowing the yellow Dems will push harder for surrender

Then Iran move in and takes over with the terrorists


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> As the article stated, iran is trying to start a civil war knowing the yellow Dems will push harder for surrender
> 
> Then Iran move in and takes over with the terrorists



so persian shiite Iran is going to move in and take over Iraq with a group of sunni arabs?  is that right?  how do you think that will work out for them?


----------



## Gunny (May 16, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> Are you saying Bush should continue receiving a blank check with no oversight into what he's doing with the money?
> 
> Here's the deal. Congress is willing to give Bush the $ he wants but there are conditions on it. That's not unusual. Nobody is "usurping" his authority. Congress has the authority to fund and monitor that funding. It's called "checks and balances" on government. Bush doesn't like it because he's a spoiled brat and he's not used to being held accountable.
> 
> ...



On the specific issue of funding the troops, I don't think it should be tied to any partisan games.  

I'm ALL FOR some non-partisan, objective people sitting down and assessing the situation and coming to the most feasible plan.  The Dems are NOT the group to do that because partisanship comes first with them.


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> I'm ALL FOR some non-partisan, objective people sitting down and assessing the situation and coming to the most feasible plan.  The Dems are NOT the group to do that because partisanship comes first with them.



Isn't that EXACTLY who the Iraq Study Group was and what they did?  Bush told them to go fuck off!


----------



## Gunny (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> surrendering the field to whom?  to sunni and shiite militias at war with one another? Whenever we leave we will do that.  Are you suggesting that America annex Iraq and just stay there forever?



If we leave Iraq before the government can stand on its own and provide physical security for its Nation, we are surrendering Iraq to militant Islamic fundamentalists from BOTH sides.  

If we leave there having gradually replaced our troops with theirs, we at least leave them no worse off without us.  

I will also point out that since Congress proposed this bill with attached rider, the government of Iraq has voted to do just as I suggest, setting their own timeline.  IMO, it is THEIR place to do that, not US Congressional Democrats, and it provides the most hope on this issue there is.

And I would think you liberal-types would be all for it, because if Bush refuses to support the Iraqi government's timeline for taking over the physical security of their own nation, he's going to find himself REAL short of support.  I for one, will not support his refusing them, as circmustances stand now.


----------



## maineman (May 16, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> If we leave Iraq before the government can stand on its own and provide physical security for its Nation, we are surrendering Iraq to militant Islamic fundamentalists from BOTH sides.
> 
> If we leave there having gradually replaced our troops with theirs, we at least leave them no worse off without us.
> 
> ...



The Iraqi government can't decide on squat....do you really expect them to ever get their act together before the conflagration and actually stop it?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I am not pushing for surrender



no, by supporting it, you are pushing for americans to be killed in Iraq fighting *FOR* you... *FOR YOU* because you aren't brave enough to enlist and help out with it...

so rsr? why do you hate american troops?


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> no, by supporting it, you are pushing for americans to be killed in Iraq fighting *FOR* you... *FOR YOU* because you aren't brave enough to enlist and help out with it...
> 
> so rsr? why do you hate american troops?



I see another proud member of the angry left has joined the discussion

Dems are pushing for surrender and defeat


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> The Iraqi government can't decide on squat....do you really expect them to ever get their act together before the conflagration and actually stop it?



Dems are having a hard time making up their minds on what they want to do as well - except on the surrender bill


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 16, 2007)

musicman said:


> I think you should, by all means, because - unless the "other boards" you refer to are DU clones, the article to which Rosotar linked will be exposed for what it is: lies, lies, and more lies; lies of ommission - lies of wild, agenda-driven conjecture masquerading as fact - and good, old-fashioned baldfaced lies.
> 
> "Objective, dispassionate journalists" like Joe Conason are always a little fuzzy on the details of Iran-Contra - and with good reason. The Democrats come out of it looking like the shitty little traitors they are.
> 
> ...



sure... uh huh... right... what ever you say...


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> sure... uh huh... right... what ever you say...



If it is not "reported" on Dead Air America, PSMNBC, or the Clinton News Netowrk - it never happened as far as the left is concerned


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 16, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Like I said ... lies perpetuated into myth.  They just keep on telling it until it's so old nobody remembers the truth so they take their word for it.
> 
> My current all-time favorite is "Bush (41) didn't finish the job."  Listened to that bullshit lie for 12 years.



Lies continually repeated can fool the masses into believing they are the truth... bush used that when he went on and on and on about saddam's WMD... remember?

so? where are they?

and obtw, I supported Bush 1's war on Iraq AND also the fact that he didn't go on to Baghdad...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Not at all
> 
> I would pay closer attention if they were offering a way to win and not lose
> 
> ...




Got a link to this allegation? Or are you just passing gas again?


----------



## Gunny (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> The Iraqi government can't decide on squat....do you really expect them to ever get their act together before the conflagration and actually stop it?



They voted on and made a statement.  That's making a decision.  I say give them a chance.


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> They voted on and made a statement.  That's making a decision.  I say give them a chance.



It took the US about 13 years to write and ratify the US Constitution


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 16, 2007)

Psychoblues said:


> I did a lot more than any rEpublican jerk that sat behind a walnut desk asked and me and my friends for our lives to only save his own.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



sitting on their fat asses, typing away, is what republican "patriots" like rsr do, Psychoblues... they won't actually serve in the military... heaven's no... they just like to write all tough like... 

When did you serve P-blues?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Many on the kook left think the US should reason with the terrorists, we need to learn why they hate us, understanding and compassion will melt their bombs and bullets,if anything goes wrong it is Bush's fault and Dems need to start an investagation, and the hysteria over global waming is ignored by libs as they travel in their limos and private jets




Many on the left would love to see the big talking, faux patriotic right enlist so they can actually be a part of the war on terror... faux patriots like you, rsr... so tell me again, what did YOU do during the war on terror besides hide under your desk?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It it were not for double standards libs would have no standards at all



If it weren't for tennis balls, you wouldn't have any at all...

When will you be enlisting, rsr? when hell freezes over?


----------



## Gunny (May 16, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> Lies continually repeated can fool the masses into believing they are the truth... bush used that when he went on and on and on about saddam's WMD... remember?
> 
> so? where are they?
> 
> and obtw, I supported Bush 1's war on Iraq AND also the fact that he didn't go on to Baghdad...



You tell me where they are.  Last I saw, there are a couple of tons of WMDs and/or their percursors unaccounted for by the UN, KNOWN to be in Saddam's possession.  Assuming they didn't just vanish into thin air, they have to exist somehwere.

And to that extent, Buhs did not lie about WMDs.  Saddam had them.  He used them.  He could not account for them.  

I sure took a lot of anthrax shots for nothing when Clinton was President if only Bush believed Saddam had WMDs.


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 16, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> It's too bad you don't have the same standards for your president that you'd like everyone to believe you have for others.
> 
> Bush basically declared the war "won" from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln back on the first of May 2003. Remember that one?
> 
> ...



Good post, but I think it will be totally lost on rsr... maybe the lurkers will see your points...


----------



## Gunny (May 16, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> sitting on their fat asses, typing away, is what republican "patriots" like rsr do, Psychoblues... they won't actually serve in the military... heaven's no... they just like to write all tough like...
> 
> When did you serve P-blues?



Depends on which story you want.  From the time I joined this board to date, he has served in every branch of the service from the Korean War through the First Gulf War.  He also claimed to have been in ground combat, but when the truth came out, he was in the AFNG.  

So your guess is as good as anyone's.


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 16, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> The consensus among the Iraq Survey Group, the CIA, everyone in the diplomatic community, and our top commanders in Iraq, is that this war will never be won militarily without a *diplomatic *approach.
> 
> Are these the people you are calling the "kook left?"



of course, anyone that doesn't tow bush's line is a leftie...


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> Many on the left would love to see the big talking, faux patriotic right enlist so they can actually be a part of the war on terror... faux patriots like you, rsr... so tell me again, what did YOU do during the war on terror besides hide under your desk?



So only the 4% of the population who have served are the only ones who can voice an opinion on the war

Seems that is NOT what you defended when you served

Or is that what you call free speech?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It was the Washington post that was upset San Fran Nan did not get results from her foreign policy trip last month
> 
> I am not opposed to talking to these nations - but I would like Syria to turn over Saddams WMD's they were shipped to them before the war



why don't you go get them for us... you seem to know where they are.


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> If it weren't for tennis balls, you wouldn't have any at all...
> 
> When will you be enlisting, rsr? when hell freezes over?



Are you always this obnoxious or are you having a good day?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> I told you...I would engage in vigorous diplomacy with the arab states in the region and with Iran..... so do you support that approach or not?  You seem to want it both ways.



rsr likes it both ways? what would falwell say?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Still grasping at straws



still evading the questions... nice dance steps, rsr, and you've got that bobbin chicken head part down pat...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 16, 2007)

CSM said:


> Really? Which "you" are you referring to?



rsr... surely you aren't defending rsr, are you CSM...


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> still evading the questions... nice dance steps, rsr, and you've got that bobbin chicken head part down pat...



MM always has a problem with facts - much as you seem to do


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 16, 2007)

CSM said:


> Good day to you MM!
> 
> You know I just couldn't resist, donchya?



whew... I hoped you weren't defending that chickenhawk, but I haven't been here long enuff to be able to tell when you're joshin...


----------



## red states rule (May 16, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> Good post, but I think it will be totally lost on rsr... maybe the lurkers will see your points...



What is lost on me is how Americans can push for defeat of the US military in Iraq


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> What is lost on me is how Americans can push for defeat of the US military in Iraq



You dumb bastard. Even the Iraq Study Group, headed by Bush Family consiglieri James Baker, concluded that a military victory wasn't possible in Iraq. POlitics has to come to the forefront to quell the nascent Sunni/Shi'ia civil war before it spreads beyond Iraq's borders. 

Just how is removing our troops from the cross-fire of this proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran "surrender"? It's not...It's simple common sense. Get our troops out of the way, let the Sunni and Shi'ia settle this amongst themselves, and deal with the real enemy...Osama bin Laden and his ideological spawn. Remember...? "Git 'im dead or alive...?" Well, he's still alive, and we haven't gotten him and it was him and his followers that planned and executed the attacks of 9/11, not anybody who was in Iraq then or now. So grab your ears, give 'em a good...hard...tug and pop your head outta your ass, why doncha.


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> You dumb bastard. Even the Iraq Study Group, headed by Bush Family consiglieri James Baker, concluded that a military victory wasn't possible in Iraq. POlitics has to come to the forefront to quell the nascent Sunni/Shi'ia civil war before it spreads beyond Iraq's borders.
> 
> Just how is removing our troops from the cross-fire of this proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran "surrender"? It's not...It's simple common sense. Get our troops out of the way, let the Sunni and Shi'ia settle this amongst themselves, and deal with the real enemy...Osama bin Laden and his ideological spawn. Remember...? "Git 'im dead or alive...?" Well, he's still alive, and we haven't gotten him and it was him and his followers that planned and executed the attacks of 9/11, not anybody who was in Iraq then or now. So grab your ears, give 'em a good...hard...tug and pop your head outta your ass, why doncha.




Keep pushing for surrender BP

The approval rating for the Dems have gone from 44% in January to 29% today

Dems now have a lower number then Pres Bush


----------



## Rosotar (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Keep pushing for surrender BP
> 
> The approval rating for the Dems have gone from 44% in January to 29% today
> 
> Dems now have a lower number then Pres Bush



Nice spin RSR.

Since Congress is about 50/50 Reps and Dems that approval rating is more a reflection on GOP obstructionism than it is a reflection on Democrats.


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

musicman said:


> Based on what I've seen in my lifetime, I've come to an awful conclusion:
> 
> The Democrats have never met an enemy of America they wouldn't fellate at high noon in the town square on a Friday, if there were the slightest chance that doing so would hurt the Republican Party.



Funny, the democrats in congress have a better record for serving their country than the republicans do... so who do you think better fits the bill for fellating the enemy? those that actually served in the military or those that didn't bother.

how about you, what did you do in the *war on terror,* mm? besides type, that is...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The military has been pro America - and voted for Pres Bush (twice) by a wide majority
> 
> However, the liberal media has always given glowing coverage to any vet and vet group that has gone against the war - since those groups agree with the agenda of the liberal media



Link? or are you just passing gas again?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> like I said, you only honor veterans who think like you do and grossly disrespect those who don't.



well, as the deployments get longer and longer and the time spent at home gets shorter and shorter, there won't be quite so many troopers that think like rsr... people like rsr want the troops in Iraq, in harms way and we want them home with their families... if you were in the military now which camp would you think had YOUR best interests at heart?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Just pointing out how libs support the troops who disagree with them



link? or are you just passing more gas?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I support the vets - I would listen to them more if they offered a plan to win and not to surrender



sure you do... you want them in Iraq...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The surrender bill showed how Dems will fight the terrorists - and the voters do not like it



link? you sure make a lot of claims but never substantiate any of them. why is that?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Then why are the Dems still have an approval number close to Pres Bush's?



link?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> It COULD be a lot of things....one thing is FACT:  the American people supported the democrat's plan to fund the war and set withdrawal dates.
> 
> 
> How do you explain that?
> ...



he can't... all he can do is run off at the keyboard with unsubstantiated claims... typical winger...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I hardly think 37% is a mandate




beats 28%...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

CSM said:


> The explanation is not ALL the American people supported the Dems plan or withdrawal dates....are you lying?



he didn't say all... he said americans... I'm an american and I supported the bill that funded the troops and set a deadline for the *beginning of a phased withdrawal*... the one that bush vetoed... so the blame for the troops not being funded lies at his feet... cuz he's the one that vetoed it.


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> no more different than saying that the American people elected George Bush as their president in 2004.
> 
> the american people supported the democrat's funding bill with deadlines.



sayyyyyyyy... more americans voted for Gore than voted for bush in 2000... I'm talking popular vote, not electoral college.


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

CSM said:


> Oh I agree that it is no different....doesn't make it anymore honest though.



then what's your beef?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

CSM said:


> Good, then we can agree that the American people support the President...afer all , he is STILL in power.




we can agree that 28% of the people approve of him... if that's a majority to you... well...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Good point.  So we can conclude that:
> 
> Just because Congressional Democrats are pushing legislation that includes a rider attempting to usurp the President's authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of this nation does not necessarily prove that the American people support it.



The congress holds the purse strings and they are tired of bush's promises that if his plans are given just a few more months that everything will be fine... we've heard that over and over and over and it keeps getting worse...

Do you always stick with failed plans? Had any success with that?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> Apparently you haven't seen his poll numbers lately. He's tied with Jimmy Carter as the worst president ever.
> 
> Do you think the American people were behind Carter when his poll numbers were at rock bottom?



nope... I didn' like Jimmy "I have no big money ties" Carter... did you?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Dems are not doing much better in the polls



again you make this claim and as of yet haven't posted anything to substantiate your claims. Got a link?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Voters went with Dems because Dems said they would stand up to terrorists - not surrender to them



Terrorists sure... but we're fighting insurgents in Iraq... we're in the middle of the Iraqi civil war... 

do you like it when american troops are killed? are you a ghoul?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It is a surrender bill plain and simple
> 
> the terrorists support the Dems in this venture - tells you something about the Dems




link?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I see the 37.5% approval for the Dem Congress - that speaks lound



lound? 

how loud is bush's 28%?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> they support the bill.  that is fact.  I posted the polling data...you run away from it.  why is that?



because it doesn't support his opinion... right wingers do it all the time, and I'm sure you've seen it as often as I.


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> MM is spamming
> 
> I saw the poll - but I also see where the Dems Congress is only a few points ahead of Pres Bush in approval



rsr is whining... again.

why do you keep backing bush with only a 28% approval? do you like losers?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> This is interesting MM.
> 
> You asked RSR a *direct* question and rather than respond to the *specifics* in the question he derails the entire question with this....
> 
> ...



BINGO!

passes Rosotar a ceeeeeeegar... bubble gum of course...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Okay ... let's spell this out.
> 
> The bill is funding for the troops.  Democrats attached a rider attempting usurp the authority of the President, and has NOTHING to do with funding.
> 
> ...



so you'd rather that the troops just stay there forever? is that your solution?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> 10:10 CST Silence is deafening.




some people sleep at night, you know... 

I do... how about you?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> I like you RSR, but you really need to know when to be quiet.



I tried to give you rep for this but the server says I've been too generous with my repping... oh well... I tried...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The war in Iraq is not lost.  We've done good things over there and accomplished a majority of our objectives.



what is this "we" shit? have you served in Iraq? or in the military?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Dems don't have to lose the war...Dems are ready to just pick up and run away...there is a difference between losing and quitting. This war will not end when we leave Iraq...it will simply be fought on different ground and by civilians..
> 
> Dems are a tower of Jello when it comes to fighting terrorists



Dems want the troops home with their families... you want them dying in Iraq... why do you hate the american military?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Iraq was run by a terrorist



no he wasn't, he was a dictator.


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> Show me ANYTHING you have ever posted that even remotely relates to "truth" RSR.



well, he has *cut and pasted *other people's truths... but that doesn't really count, does it?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> surrendering the field to whom?  to sunni and shiite militias at war with one another? Whenever we leave we will do that.  Are you suggesting that America annex Iraq and just stay there forever?



yep... that's what I hear him saying, too...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> surrendering to terrorists and Iran



how do you surrender to a country that isn't involved in the conflict?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you still trying to sell that bullshit that Iran is funding Al Qaeda, by the way?
> 
> when we leave, the shiites will eventually prevail.  It is no great secret that the shiites of Iraq are and will continue to be closely aligned with the shiites of Iran.  We should have been smart enough to see that coming before we invaded in the first place.  We will be unable to stop an elected shiite government in Iraq from creating close ties to the shiite government in Iran.



why not? They're neighbors.


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Al Qaeda is in Iraq and are being assisted by Iran
> 
> I am not the only one calling the surrdender plan what it is
> 
> The voters are starting to see it as well - the Gallup poll has Dems at 27%




link?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> oh, please provide some non-partisan link that would show that persian shiite Iran was providing assistance to sunni arab AQ.
> 
> Answer the question about Britain if you dare.
> 
> ...




correct, they would have overridden bush's veto of the bill funding the troops... bush is the one that is holding up their money...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> keep running away from the debate..... your cowardice is overwhelming.




that's all he does...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Iran's Secret Plan For Mayhem
> By ELI LAKE
> Staff Reporter of the Sun
> January 3, 2007
> ...



credible sources... got any?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> I searched the web,and the only place such a bizarre claim was made was in the New York SUN.  Do you consider that PROOF?  If so, let me ask you a question:  if I posted an article written by a New York Times staff writer and tried to suggest that the article was proof of anything, what would be your response?




He'd dismiss it because it came from the "liberal media" but ohhhhhh, it's a different story when the article is from a right winger site. Then it's the gospel...

typical winger tactic.


----------



## maineman (May 17, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> credible sources... got any?



of course not...just the new york sun..... 

isn't that the same paper that claimed that Hillary's lovechild was fathered by an extra-terrestrial?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> I have NEVER said he wasn't a threat.  I have only questioned why a shiite nation would provide support to a sunni group that was engaged in killing shiites in Iraq.




cmon, MaineMan, you know as well as I, logic isn't going to faze rsr...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Iran is funding them and sending weapons to defeat the US



link?


----------



## Truthmatters (May 17, 2007)

https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20051010&s=lake101005

he also writes for the new republic


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> As the article stated, iran is trying to start a civil war knowing the yellow Dems will push harder for surrender
> 
> Then Iran move in and takes over with the terrorists



are you calling the shiites terrorists now, too? You know, Shiites control the government of Iraq, so are you saying that the government of Iraq are terrorists too?

If that's the case, why are we supporting them?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> On the specific issue of funding the troops, I don't think it should be tied to any partisan games.
> 
> I'm ALL FOR some non-partisan, objective people sitting down and assessing the situation and coming to the most feasible plan.  The Dems are NOT the group to do that because partisanship comes first with them.



where are you going to find those *non-partisan* republicans? I haven't seen any of them anywhere. You complain about partisan democrats... what about the partisans in your own party? Or is that ok because they are of your own party?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> Isn't that EXACTLY who the Iraq Study Group was and what they did?  Bush told them to go fuck off!



yep, yep and yep...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> If we leave Iraq before the government can stand on its own and provide physical security for its Nation, we are surrendering Iraq to militant Islamic fundamentalists from BOTH sides.
> 
> If we leave there having gradually replaced our troops with theirs, we at least leave them no worse off without us.
> 
> ...




Do you think the Iraqi government be allowed to take 2 months off this summer?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I see another proud member of the angry left has joined the discussion
> 
> Dems are pushing for surrender and defeat



that's right, rsr, angry because spineless morons go on and on and on about how much they support the war... all the while just sitting on their fat asses, stuffing their fat faces with junk food, drooling over their keyboards...

if you have so much patriotism, why don't you push yourself away from the keyboard, and waddle down to the recruiter's office... 

enlist... be a man... for once.


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> If it is not "reported" on Dead Air America, PSMNBC, or the Clinton News Netowrk - it never happened as far as the left is concerned



I bet you listen to rush, savage and oreilly... they're just like you... all three of them are chickenhawks...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> They voted on and made a statement.  That's making a decision.  I say give them a chance.



How long should we give them? How many americans will die while you're giving them a chance? How many more will be wounded? When will it be enough?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It took the US about 13 years to write and ratify the US Constitution




so? that was over 200 years ago... they didn't have computers.


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> You tell me where they are.  Last I saw, there are a couple of tons of WMDs and/or their percursors unaccounted for by the UN, KNOWN to be in Saddam's possession.  Assuming they didn't just vanish into thin air, they have to exist somehwere.
> 
> And to that extent, Buhs did not lie about WMDs.  Saddam had them.  He used them.  He could not account for them.
> 
> I sure took a lot of anthrax shots for nothing when Clinton was President if only Bush believed Saddam had WMDs.



they were destroyed... back in the 90s... if they weren't, then where are they?

sorry about those shots, better safe than sorry, right? where were you that you were getting them?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Depends on which story you want.  From the time I joined this board to date, he has served in every branch of the service from the Korean War through the First Gulf War.  He also claimed to have been in ground combat, but when the truth came out, he was in the AFNG.
> 
> So your guess is as good as anyone's.




Well. I haven't heard any of those tales... but I can tell you that the AFNG served in Viet Nam...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So only the 4% of the population who have served are the only ones who can voice an opinion on the war
> 
> Seems that is NOT what you defended when you served
> 
> Or is that what you call free speech?



I didn't say you couldn't speak or have an opinion, I say since you are so gung ho for the war that you should walk your talk... 

so? why haven't you signed up? are you afraid?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Are you always this obnoxious or are you having a good day?




I'm always this way with chickenhawkscum and rsr? I'm just getting warmed up.


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> MM always has a problem with facts - much as you seem to do



I haven't presented any yet, just commenting on you and MaineMan's conversation, but I have asked you numerous times for links to the drivel that comes off your keyboard... I doubt that they will be forth coming.


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> What is lost on me is how Americans can push for defeat of the US military in Iraq



what is lost on me is how many chickenhawks continue to wish for americans to die in Iraq... how is your blood lust coming, rsr... sated yet?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> You dumb bastard. Even the Iraq Study Group, headed by Bush Family consiglieri James Baker, concluded that a military victory wasn't possible in Iraq. POlitics has to come to the forefront to quell the nascent Sunni/Shi'ia civil war before it spreads beyond Iraq's borders.
> 
> Just how is removing our troops from the cross-fire of this proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran "surrender"? It's not...It's simple common sense. Get our troops out of the way, let the Sunni and Shi'ia settle this amongst themselves, and deal with the real enemy...Osama bin Laden and his ideological spawn. Remember...? "Git 'im dead or alive...?" Well, he's still alive, and we haven't gotten him and it was him and his followers that planned and executed the attacks of 9/11, not anybody who was in Iraq then or now. So grab your ears, give 'em a good...hard...tug and pop your head outta your ass, why doncha.



great post, Bully... and I'm truly sorry that my rep pointing day is done...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> Nice spin RSR.
> 
> Since Congress is about 50/50 Reps and Dems that approval rating is more a reflection on GOP obstructionism than it is a reflection on Democrats.



math and logic are lost on rsr...

now the lurkers, they're a different sort... they understand...

waves to the lurkers...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> of course not...just the new york sun.....
> 
> isn't that the same paper that claimed that Hillary's lovechild was fathered by an extra-terrestrial?



laffs... no clue... I don't read super market tabloids...


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> sayyyyyyyy... more americans voted for Gore than voted for bush in 2000... I'm talking popular vote, not electoral college.



We do not elect the President by the popular vote

Once again the US Constitution gets in the way of your rants


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> rsr is whining... again.
> 
> why do you keep backing bush with only a 28% approval? do you like losers?



Dems have a LOWER approval in the Gallop poll

Pres Bush beat the Dems in three elections - the only losers are the ones who voted for the Dems in 06

They were lied to and played for suckers


----------



## Gunny (May 17, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> where are you going to find those *non-partisan* republicans? I haven't seen any of them anywhere. You complain about partisan democrats... what about the partisans in your own party? Or is that ok because they are of your own party?



You don't see "Republicans" ANYWHERE in that statement.  I said non-partisan, objective *people*.  If they can put aside their partisanship and make an objective analysis, I could really care less WHERE they come from.

I wasn't suggesting anyone to bring back a politically-biased analysis.  I want a TRUTHFUL one.


----------



## red states rule (May 17, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> what is lost on me is how many chickenhawks continue to wish for americans to die in Iraq... how is your blood lust coming, rsr... sated yet?



So wanting the US to win this war is now blood lust?


----------



## Gunny (May 17, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> Do you think the Iraqi government be allowed to take 2 months off this summer?



IMO, they're just trying to be a Western-style Democracy in the spitting image of the US Congress. 

However, considering the state of affairs, in all seriousness I would say they have more pressing matters to attend.


----------



## Gunny (May 17, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> How long should we give them? How many americans will die while you're giving them a chance? How many more will be wounded? When will it be enough?



You don't need to lay the "how many Americans will die" appeal to emotionalism on me.  I've faced off with Iraqi's before, and would gladly do so again.  

Those Americans are not draftees.  Each and every one is a volunteer.  NONE can be on their first enlistment having elisted before we were at war.  They knew the deal before they walked into it.

They've got a job to do and they're doing it.  I can totally relate.

Now, are we going to compare the progress and speed of the Iraq government to the US government when it comes to doing their job?  If so, I've been waiting upwards of two decades and counting for ours to do something -- ANYTHING.


----------



## Gunny (May 17, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> they were destroyed... back in the 90s... if they weren't, then where are they?
> 
> Assuming they were destroyed in the 90s is an assumption while stating he possessed and used them and tons are unaccounted for is factual.
> 
> ...



Every WESTPAC deployment I was on after the First Gulf War up until I retired in 2000 went to the ME, and we manned the Kuwait-Iraq border for a month or so.  

Other than the fact they were shots, I didn't care about getting them.  I'd rather be stabbed with a KaBar than get a shot.


----------



## Care4all (May 17, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> they were destroyed... back in the 90s... if they weren't, then where are they?
> 
> sorry about those shots, better safe than sorry, right? where were you that you were getting them?




intelligence reports 93&#37; of saddam's aresenol destroyed by end of gulf war 1, and another 5% were accounted for in proceeding inspections and bombings....  i can try to find the link for this info, if you would like...

i read this BEFORE we went to war in iraq, this is one reason why i was against the war, saddam was not a major threat, we destroyed his arsenel and destroyed his army and military capabilities....  a true mission accomplished.

care


----------



## Psychoblues (May 18, 2007)

Why do you keep harping on "intelligence"?




Care4all said:


> intelligence reports 93% of saddam's aresenol destroyed by end of gulf war 1, and another 5% were accounted for in proceeding inspections and bombings....  i can try to find the link for this info, if you would like...
> 
> i read this BEFORE we went to war in iraq, this is one reason why i was against the war, saddam was not a major threat, we destroyed his arsenel and destroyed his army and military capabilities....  a true mission accomplished.
> 
> care



You will find little of that in this bullshit conversation!!!!!!

That's OK!!!  Have a good time anyway!!!!!!!


----------



## musicman (May 18, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> {Post #282} sure... uh huh... right... what ever you say...



WOW, Stripey - what a devastatingly brilliant, incisive takedown of my post! I should probably count myself lucky that you've displayed the forebearance not to obliterate me completely, with an expertly-placed, "Oh, yeah?", or - horror of horrors - a pithy "Sez you!"

If you have nothing of substance to say, why the hell even reply at all?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

musicman said:


> WOW, Stripey - what a devastatingly brilliant, incisive takedown of my post! I should probably count myself lucky that you've displayed the forebearance not to obliterate me completely, with an expertly-placed, "Oh, yeah?", or - horror of horrors - a pithy "Sez you!"
> 
> If you have nothing of substance to say, why the hell even reply at all?



He is on a roll - ins't he?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

Care4all said:


> intelligence reports 93% of saddam's aresenol destroyed by end of gulf war 1, and another 5% were accounted for in proceeding inspections and bombings....  i can try to find the link for this info, if you would like...
> 
> i read this BEFORE we went to war in iraq, this is one reason why i was against the war, saddam was not a major threat, we destroyed his arsenel and destroyed his army and military capabilities....  a true mission accomplished.
> 
> care





You were also against the war because you are an appeaser when it comes to terrorists


----------



## Care4all (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You were also against the war because you are an appeaser when it comes to terrorists




I am a DOVE, and going to war should ONLY occur when we are in an imminent threat, Our soldiers should NOT have to die for us Americans in an unnecessary war of choice...

that is immoral, under any rules!

Care


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

Care4all said:


> I am a DOVE, and going to war should ONLY occur when we are in an imminent threat, Our soldiers should NOT have to die for us Americans in an unnecessary war of choice...
> 
> that is immoral, under any rules!
> 
> Care



being a dove will do nothing to stop the terrorists and funny how many of the troops are speaking out how they want to stay and finish the job


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

are you suggesting that we run our foreign policy based upon polls taken of the wishes of military personnel?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you suggesting that we run our foreign policy based upon polls taken of the wishes of military personnel?



They are there fighting the war - the Surrendercrats are not


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

Read and comment MM

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=48632


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Read and comment MM
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=48632



OK...here is the deal.  I am going to answer this question....right here and now....and then you are going to answer some of mine.  OK?

I understand completely the desires of the troops in Iraq to stay and win this battle they have been waging.  If I were there, I am sure that I would feel exactly the same way.

As a career military man, however, I realized early on that my opinion as to my mission was really irrelevant to the process.  The national command authority makes decisions as to where the troops go, what they do and how long they stay. The only variable in play for the troops is how well they do their mission.  When the NMCC changes the mission, the uniformed services salute and say "aye aye sir" and march off and do the next mission.  It is unprofessional for military personnel to gripe about being pulled off a job and sent to a new job.  

Now.  You asked me to read and comment.  I did.  your turn.  

Will you explain to me how we have seen a 60% reduction in American casualties due to the success of the surge as you have claimed when DoD casualty figures show an increase?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

At one time the casualites were down 60%

I posted the link to prove it

Now, the terrorists have stepped up attacks knowing with each attack the Dems will push harder for surrender

The plan is working


As far as the troops wanting to stay - it is more then obeying orders. They do beliee they are making a difderence and they will win the fight

If only the left in this country would support them and back them - it would make a difference
__________________


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> At one time the casualites were down 60%
> 
> I posted the link to prove it
> 
> ...




no...as I said...you posted a british press office press release.  you did not post any facts.  I posted facts that show that we never had any decrease in casualties.... that casualties have been rising for months and months now.....


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...as I said...you posted a british press office press release.  you did not post any facts.  I posted facts that show that we never had any decrease in casualties.... that casualties have been rising for months and months now.....



The US deaths were going down - much to the dismay of the anti war left

The surge is continuing to show signs of progress - also much to the dismay of the anti war left

When troops speak out - the anti war left either ignores them or tries to dimmiss their comments

You are doing both from what I can see


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The US deaths were going down



no...they weren't...all you have is one british press release.  I have DoD figures which disprove it.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...they weren't...all you have is one british press release.  I have DoD figures which disprove it.



and you are so giddy over those numbers aren't you?


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> and you are so giddy over those numbers aren't you?



no...not at all.  I merely see them as sad facts that disprove your idiotic assertion that the surge caused a 60% decrease in American casualties.  Are you ready to retract that or provide some other source beyond a six week old british press release?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...not at all.  I merely see them as sad facts that disprove your idiotic assertion that the surge caused a 60% decrease in American casualties.  Are you ready to retract that or provide some other source beyond a six week old british press release?



The post was accurate - much to your dismay

Why are you so hyper to have the troops surrender? Is this what you call supporting them?


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The post was accurate - much to your dismay
> 
> Why are you so hyper to have the troops surrender? Is this what you call supporting them?




no it was a press release - a british press release - and it was inaccurate.... we have *never* seen a 60% decrease in casualties because of the success of the surge.  Do I really need to post the monthly figures for you again to show you that?  Do I really need to show you how American casualties have been steadily rising?  How the past eight months have seen 53% MORE Americans die?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> no it was a press release - a british press release - and it was inaccurate.... we have *never* seen a 60% decrease in casualties because of the success of the surge.  Do I really need to post the monthly figures for you again to show you that?  Do I really need to show you how American casualties have been steadily rising?  How the past eight months have seen 53% MORE Americans die?



and Dems like you are more then happy to seem them so you can push for surrender and appeasement


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> and Dems like you are more then happy to seem them so you can push for surrender and appeasement




no....I merely threw up the bullshit flag when you claimed a 60% decrease in casualties.  And you know it is bullshit...and has been since the minute you asserted it...and you do not have the balls to admit when you are wrong.

Every american death in Iraq saddens me.... I am curious why they do not sadden you?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> no....I merely threw up the bullshit flag when you claimed a 60% decrease in casualties.  And you know it is bullshit...and has been since the minute you asserted it...and you do not have the balls to admit when you are wrong.
> 
> Every american death in Iraq saddens me.... I am curious why they do not sadden you?



I saddnes me and I want the troops to fight back harder and kill the bastards

You smile and think how the Dems will benefit in 08


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I saddnes me and I want the troops to fight back harder and kill the bastards
> 
> You smile and think how the Dems will benefit in 08




no... I do not smile....

and I wonder when you say that you want the troops to fight back harder, are you suggesting that they are not fighting as hard as they possibly can already?  Are you suggesting that our troops aren't trying to win?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> no... I do not smile....
> 
> and I wonder when you say that you want the troops to fight back harder, are you suggesting that they are not fighting as hard as they possibly can already?  Are you suggesting that our troops aren't trying to win?



Everytime the troops take on the terrorists we have libs ranting about their conduct

Did they torture, did they kill innocent civilians, did they have to kill the terrorists, ect, ect


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Everytime the troops take on the terrorists we have libs ranting about their conduct
> 
> Did they torture, did they kill innocent civilians, did they have to kill the terrorists, ect, ect



not me...you are the one who said they weren't fighting as hard as they could.

and you call that supporting the troops?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> not me...you are the one who said they weren't fighting as hard as they could.
> 
> and you call that supporting the troops?



Libs smear the troops on a daily basis and attack everything they do and every move they make

That way they can say with pride they think about the troops constantly


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Libs smear the troops on a daily basis and attack everything they do and every move they make
> 
> That way they can say with pride they think about the troops constantly



I have never ever suggested that our troops were not trying as hard as they possibly could.... like you did.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> I have never ever suggested that our troops were not trying as hard as they possibly could.... like you did.



Yea, you are to busy sliming them and demanding they surrender


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Yea, you are to busy sliming them and demanding they surrender




I have never slimed our troops.  I ahve never demanded that they surrender to anyone.  and I CERTAINLY have NEVER suggested that they were loafing in the field and not trying as hard as they could to win..... LIKE YOU DID.


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> I have never slimed our troops.  I ahve never demanded that they surrender to anyone.  and I CERTAINLY have NEVER suggested that they were loafing in the field and not trying as hard as they could to win..... LIKE YOU DID.



You have smiled them by defending those in your party who have insulted them 

You want them to surrender and come home beaten

All Dems care about is their political power and the troops are a stepping stone to that goal


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You have smiled them by defending those in your party who have insulted them
> 
> You want them to surrender and come home beaten
> 
> All Dems care about is their political power and the troops are a stepping stone to that goal



That is your opinion of my position...I disagree.

YOUR position on the efforts put forth by our troops is certainly a position I disagree with.  I certainly do not think they are dogging it and slacking off. I certainly do not wish they would get off their lazy asses and start fighting harder...LIKE YOU DO


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> That is your opinion of my position...I disagree.
> 
> YOUR position on the efforts put forth by our troops is certainly a position I disagree with.  I certainly do not think they are dogging it and slacking off. I certainly do not wish they would get off their lazy asses and start fighting harder...LIKE YOU DO



You have constantly kissed the asses of the Dems who slimed the troops. You have ignored it when your Dems called them uneducated, terrorists, murderers, Nazi's, compared them to Pol Pot, and operaters of torture chambers

Yes, this is how MM supports the troops

Like a true blue liberal


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

YOUR position on the efforts put forth by our troops is certainly a position I disagree with. I certainly do not think they are dogging it and slacking off. I certainly do not wish they would get off their lazy asses and start fighting harder...LIKE YOU DO


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> YOUR position on the efforts put forth by our troops is certainly a position I disagree with. I certainly do not think they are dogging it and slacking off. I certainly do not wish they would get off their lazy asses and start fighting harder...LIKE YOU DO



Libs are always ready to smear the troops - it makes their kook base very happy

No wonder you have been in good mood lately


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Libs are always ready to smear the troops - it makes their kook base very happy
> 
> No wonder you have been in good mood lately



I don't smear the troops...and I certainly don't sit back in the comfort provided by servicemen and veterans for decades and suggest that our troops are lazy.  Like you do.

that is really despicable behavior for a yellow bellied chickenhawk like you.


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> You don't see "Republicans" ANYWHERE in that statement.  I said non-partisan, objective *people*.  If they can put aside their partisanship and make an objective analysis, I could really care less WHERE they come from.
> 
> I wasn't suggesting anyone to bring back a politically-biased analysis.  I want a TRUTHFUL one.




IF all you were looking for were non partisan *people*, why did you lament all the while about partisan democrats? with no mention of your own party's partisan members?

Which party was in control congress for the last 6 years? *Yours.* Did they vote along party lines rubber stamping everything bush wanted without *ANY* oversight? *Yes.* 

Partisans... they are the bane of our political system. It would be nice if they set their partisanship aside but, don't count on one party doing it while the other doesn't...

Non-partisanship is a two way street.

Do you think there is a chance that your side will see that?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So wanting the US to win this war is now blood lust?



when you aren't lifting a finger to help out, all the while talking big about winning... yes... you have blood lust.... How many Iraqis have to die before your blood lust is sated? How many Americans?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> IMO, they're just trying to be a Western-style Democracy in the spitting image of the US Congress.
> 
> However, considering the state of affairs, in all seriousness I would say they have more pressing matters to attend.




After they've had democracy for as long as we have, then they can take 2 month vacations... and also AFTER our troops are no longer dying to give them a chance. 

If they want to go on vacation, we ought to leave while they do it.


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> You don't need to lay the "how many Americans will die" appeal to emotionalism on me.  I've faced off with Iraqi's before, and would gladly do so again.
> 
> Those Americans are not draftees.  Each and every one is a volunteer.  NONE can be on their first enlistment having elisted before we were at war.  They knew the deal before they walked into it.
> 
> ...




you, gunny, aren't the only one reading these words... catch my drift? 

*waves to the lurkers... *

How much time should we give the Iraqi government to get their act together? the answer should be in the form of a number followed by a time increment... 
How many americans will die during that time? this answer should only be a number... hopefully a number that does not include anyone you know.

when did you fight the Iraqis, gunny?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Every WESTPAC deployment I was on after the First Gulf War up until I retired in 2000 went to the ME, and we manned the Kuwait-Iraq border for a month or so.
> 
> Other than the fact they were shots, I didn't care about getting them.  I'd rather be stabbed with a KaBar than get a shot.



I don't like shots either...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

Care4all said:


> intelligence reports 93% of saddam's aresenol destroyed by end of gulf war 1, and another 5% were accounted for in proceeding inspections and bombings....  i can try to find the link for this info, if you would like...
> 
> i read this BEFORE we went to war in iraq, this is one reason why i was against the war, saddam was not a major threat, we destroyed his arsenel and destroyed his army and military capabilities....  a true mission accomplished.
> 
> care



too bad bush isn't a trekkie... everyone who is knows that the clingons say...

there is no honor in defeating an inferior foe...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

musicman said:


> WOW, Stripey - what a devastatingly brilliant, incisive takedown of my post! I should probably count myself lucky that you've displayed the forebearance not to obliterate me completely, with an expertly-placed, "Oh, yeah?", or - horror of horrors - a pithy "Sez you!"
> 
> If you have nothing of substance to say, why the hell even reply at all?




If the purpose of this reply was to show how smart YOU are, then you failed... But I bet you're good at failure... aren't ya?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> He is on a roll - ins't he?



yeah, I enjoy kicking chickenhawk ass... and chickenhawk enablers' asses  too... as you both  will no doubt see in the coming months...

  heh heh heh heh heh...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

Care4all said:


> I am a DOVE, and going to war should ONLY occur when we are in an imminent threat, Our soldiers should NOT have to die for us Americans in an unnecessary war of choice...
> 
> that is immoral, under any rules!
> 
> Care



not to chickenhawks with insatiable blood lust... cuz they don't care who dies in wars as long as it isn't them.


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> being a dove will do nothing to stop the terrorists and funny how many of the troops are speaking out how they want to stay and finish the job



link? do you have any or are you making this shit up?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> They are there fighting the war - the Surrendercrats are not



neither are the chickenhawks... let's see... the democrats and lefties want the troops home safe and the right winger chickenhawks want them in harms' way, being killed and maimed just to appease their hatred.

sick bastards aren't they?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The US deaths were going down - much to the dismay of the anti war left
> 
> The surge is continuing to show signs of progress - also much to the dismay of the anti war left
> 
> ...



link? or are you just making up shit again?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> and you are so giddy over those numbers aren't you?



He's trying to help end the war and reduce the level of american casualties to 0, *you* are the one that wants them to remain in Iraq so you can vicariously satisfy your own sick blood lust. How many Iraqis have to die before you will say enough? ALL OF THEM? How many americans?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> no it was a press release - a british press release - and it was inaccurate.... we have *never* seen a 60% decrease in casualties because of the success of the surge.  Do I really need to post the monthly figures for you again to show you that?  Do I really need to show you how American casualties have been steadily rising?  How the past eight months have seen 53% MORE Americans die?



Do it... but don't do it for rsr, do it for the lurkers...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> no....I merely threw up the bullshit flag when you claimed a 60% decrease in casualties.  And you know it is bullshit...and has been since the minute you asserted it...and you do not have the balls to admit when you are wrong.
> 
> Every american death in Iraq saddens me.... I am curious why they do not sadden you?




perhaps it is his insatiable blood lust... or it's how he gets his vicarious thrills...


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I saddnes me and I want the troops to fight back harder and kill the bastards




IF you think they aren't fighting hard enough, why don't you enlist and go show them how it's done?

Are you too afraid to actually walk your BIG talk?


----------



## TheStripey1 (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Everytime the troops take on the terrorists we have libs ranting about their conduct
> 
> Did they torture, did they kill innocent civilians, did they have to kill the terrorists, ect, ect




Are you in favor of killing innocent civilians? What if those innocent civilians were members of *your family*? Would you still be inclined to help the occupiers? Or would you join up with the insurgents?


----------



## red states rule (May 18, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> Are you in favor of killing innocent civilians? What if those innocent civilians were members of *your family*? Would you still be inclined to help the occupiers? Or would you join up with the insurgents?



Since you claim to have served if the enemy hides among civilians - they can be killed as well

Libs like you will never miss a chance to blame the military for anything they can - real or not


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

you've got as lot of room to talk about the troops...YOu are the one who claimed you like to see them work harder than they do.... all from the comfort of your trailer.  fucking chickenhawk coward.


----------



## mattskramer (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Since you claim to have served if the enemy hides among civilians - they can be killed as well
> 
> Libs like you will never miss a chance to blame the military for anything they can - real or not



Too bad for these people.  War is hell.  Let's bring out the nukes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre


----------



## musicman (May 18, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> If the purpose of this reply was to show how smart YOU are, then you failed... But I bet you're good at failure... aren't ya?



You possess an amazing gift, Stripey. You can appear to be replying to a post - without actually having SAID anything. And you haven't, you know. You practically messed yourself, fawning over Rosotar's post of a Joe Conason article in which he purportedly "explains" Iran-Contra. I called Joe Conason a fucking liar, and then explained why. And all I get from you is, "Since I don't understand what you're talking about, you must be crazy", or "You're just trying to show everybody how smart you are". Look - I'm not saying I'm the smartest thing to ever come out of the flyover states. But, I know when someone's pissing in my pocket and trying to tell me it's raining. I'll say it again: Joe Conason is a fucking liar.

Thoughts?


----------



## Gunny (May 18, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> IF all you were looking for were non partisan *people*, why did you lament all the while about partisan democrats? with no mention of your own party's partisan members?
> 
> One, you are incorrect in that I do not bitch about blind partisanship among Republicans.  However, I am one of those used-to-be-a-Democrat, moderate liberals who had a political party stolen out from under me by extremsits.  The evidence is I used to be called a liberal, hippy, etc, and while my views haven't changed, my label has, just as you are labelling me.
> 
> ...



Again, I'm on MY side, and I can easily rise above partisanship to do what's right.  Why does it never occur to you that maybe I disagree with today's liberals because what they want to do is wrong?

The really funny thing to me in all this is Bush was about as bipartisan a Governor as one could be.  You don't get to be Governor of Texas for two consecutive terms if you don't cater to the Dems.  You'll be out on your ear.  He went to Washington with that mentality, and the first time he told Dem's no, it was on.

So yeah, it's a two-way street -- something your party left back in the 60s with it's common sense and moderation.


----------



## Gunny (May 18, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> After they've had democracy for as long as we have, then they can take 2 month vacations... and also AFTER our troops are no longer dying to give them a chance.
> 
> If they want to go on vacation, we ought to leave while they do it.



That's what I said.  I just wasn't so ornery about it.


----------



## Gunny (May 18, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> you, gunny, aren't the only one reading these words... catch my drift?
> 
> *waves to the lurkers... *
> 
> ...



I have no problem with the President and/or the military having a plan that includes withdrawal timelines.  I have a problem with the media and the enemy having those plans.  In the President's position, if I DID have a plan, YOU and everyone else wouldn't be privvy to it so it could be broadcast to every corner and crevice in the world.  

That's not the way to do business, and being a bet, you KNOW that.

I was in the First Gulf War.  What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## Gunny (May 18, 2007)

TheStripey1 said:


> Are you in favor of killing innocent civilians? What if those innocent civilians were members of *your family*? Would you still be inclined to help the occupiers? Or would you join up with the insurgents?



Innocent civilians die in war.  That's just a fact.  Regrettable, but fact.  

Now if you were to as "Are you in favor of "targetting" innocent civilians?" then I would have to say HELL NO.  That's wrong, not to mention illegal.  

It is also a BIG difference between us and our current enemy who does.


----------



## Gunny (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Since you claim to have served if the enemy hides among civilians - they can be killed as well
> 
> Wrong.  The target must be determined to be valuable to warrant the death of X number of noncombatants.  You cannot just walk into a house where gunfire was coming from after killing the sniper and murder everyone else.
> 
> Libs like you will never miss a chance to blame the military for anything they can - real or not



Unless, I miss my guess, he isn't blaming the military.  He is blaming war itself.


----------



## Gunny (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> you've got as lot of room to talk about the troops...YOu are the one who claimed you like to see them work harder than they do.... all from the comfort of your trailer.  fucking chickenhawk coward.



WHO the fuck said THAT?  Troops don't work hard enough?

Somebody needs their head twisted off.


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I saddens me and I want the troops to fight back harder



as if they are not fighting back hard enough now?

you want an awful lot from guys and gals who are doing what you, yourself, have never had the courage to do!


----------



## Gunny (May 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> as if they are not fighting back hard enough now?
> 
> you want an awful lot from guys and gals who are doing what you, yourself, have never had the courage to do!



I take personal offense to that statement.  Troops fight when and where told.  They don't create orders, they carry them out.  And minus the ten percent of dirtbags that exist in all walks of society, I have NEVER seen one give less than 110%.

I expect an apology.


----------



## maineman (May 18, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> I take personal offense to that statement.  Troops fight when and where told.  They don't create orders, they carry them out.  And minus the ten percent of dirtbags that exist in all walks of society, I have NEVER seen one give less than 110%.
> 
> I expect an apology.



let me get this straight, my jarheaded friend...you expect an apology from RSR?

I KNOW you are smarter than that.  newsbots cannot apologize!


----------



## red states rule (May 19, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> I take personal offense to that statement.  Troops fight when and where told.  They don't create orders, they carry them out.  And minus the ten percent of dirtbags that exist in all walks of society, I have NEVER seen one give less than 110&#37;.
> 
> I expect an apology.



You should know by now NEVER depend on MM for facts. 

Here is the post

Originally Posted by maineman  
no....I merely threw up the bullshit flag when you claimed a 60% decrease in casualties. And you know it is bullshit...and has been since the minute you asserted it...and you do not have the balls to admit when you are wrong.

Every american death in Iraq saddens me.... I am curious why they do not sadden you? 

I saddnes me and I want the troops to fight back harder and kill the bastards

You smile and think how the Dems will benefit in 08





I want the US government to take the handcuffs off the troops and turn them loose on the terrorists

I want the US to win in Iraq

MM wants them to surrender and come home defeated


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

no....you clearly say you want them to "fight harder" which equally clearly shows that you do not think there are presently fighting as hard as they could.  

easy to say from the comforts of hiome...easy to say for someone who has never served.


----------



## red states rule (May 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> no....you clearly say you want them to "fight harder" which equally clearly shows that you do not think there are presently fighting as hard as they could.
> 
> easy to say from the comforts of hiome...easy to say for someone who has never served.



and you left out the fact I wanted the to kill the terrorists

Meanewhile you want them to surrender - you would probably be happy to sign the surrender papers for the US


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

red states rule said:


> and you left out the fact I wanted the to kill the terrorists
> 
> Meanewhile you want them to surrender - you would probably be happy to sign the surrender papers for the US




well...I certainly don't think you want them to kill the doctors and nurses....of course you want them to kill the terrorists....I would never suggest otherwise...But also...you clearly think they need to fight harder than they are fighting.  Who they are fighting is immaterial to the fact that you think they are relatively lazy and need to, somehow, fight harder.

and again....who are we surrendering to? WHo are these "terrorists" - these handful of deadenders in their final throes - that are capable of taking over the country of Iraq from an AMerican trained armed force?


----------



## red states rule (May 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> well...I certainly don't think you want them to kill the doctors and nurses....of course you want them to kill the terrorists....I would never suggest otherwise...But also...you clearly think they need to fight harder than they are fighting.  Who they are fighting is immaterial to the fact that you think they are relatively lazy and need to, somehow, fight harder.
> 
> and again....who are we surrendering to? WHo are these "terrorists" - these handful of deadenders in their final throes - that are capable of taking over the country of Iraq from an AMerican trained armed force?



Being the arrogrant lib that you are - you pick one word out of the post and lie about it

I am use to it with you and others of your ilk

It is surrender - and you have no problem running from the enemy.  If that is what your party is for - so are you

Even if it hurts your country


----------



## Gunny (May 19, 2007)

Plain and simple ... the mightiest armed forces in the history of the World can be rendered ineffective by piss-poor tactics and strategy, and being used outside its primary role.

The finger gets pointed at the civilian leadership who don't know a damned thing about how to use a weapon properly.


----------



## red states rule (May 19, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Plain and simple ... the mightiest armed forces in the history of the World can be rendered ineffective by piss-poor tactics and strategy, and being used outside its primary role.
> 
> The finger gets pointed at the civilian leadership who don't know a damned thing about how to use a weapon properly.



I agree mistakes have been made

I say turn the US military loose and let them do their job


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

you didn't answer this:

*and again....who are we surrendering to? WHo are these "terrorists" - these handful of deadenders in their final throes - that are capable of taking over the country of Iraq from an AMerican trained armed force?*


----------



## red states rule (May 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> you didn't answer this:
> 
> *and again....who are we surrendering to? WHo are these "terrorists" - these handful of deadenders in their final throes - that are capable of taking over the country of Iraq from an AMerican trained armed force?*



You want the US to surrender to the terrorists and Iran

Whatever your party dictates  you obey without question


----------



## Gunny (May 19, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I agree mistakes have been made
> 
> I say turn the US military loose and let them do their job



I say turn Iraq over to the Iraqis and let them fight for their own damned freedom.  Our staying long enough to get the Iraq forces up to speed in, IMO, a rather generous assist.  

While I don't agree with publicly announced withdrawal timetables, I DO think the Iraqi government has allowed us to carry its burden long enough with no real effort put forth to shoulder their own load.  

If they continue down this same path, there WILL come a time when I say "screw 'em."

The only real viable option a foreign military force has at this point is to divide Iraq into three states and enforce each border by armed force.  Anything else is just going to amount to the Saudi's and Persians at war to divy the place up while the kurds sti and watch, hoping they kill each other off.  

If we aren't going to conquer, occupy and keep Iraq, we don't belong sitting between two Middle Eastern forces fighting over Arab soil.


----------



## red states rule (May 19, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> I say turn Iraq over to the Iraqis and let them fight for their own damned freedom.  Our staying long enough to get the Iraq forces up to speed in, IMO, a rather generous assist.
> 
> While I don't agree with publicly announced withdrawal timetables, I DO think the Iraqi government has allowed us to carry its burden long enough with no real effort put forth to shoulder their own load.
> 
> ...



Gunny - there is progress being made and the iraqis are stepping up

http://www.elpasotimes.com/military/ci_5858869


----------



## Gunny (May 19, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Gunny - there is progress being made and the iraqis are stepping up
> 
> http://www.elpasotimes.com/military/ci_5858869




Cool.  Then the Iraqi's and I have no problem.  However, they need to assume ALL responsibility,  The sooner the better.


----------



## red states rule (May 19, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Cool.  Then the Iraqi's and I have no problem.  However, they need to assume ALL responsibility,  The sooner the better.



As soon as they are ready to protect their country from terrorists and Iran - I will be ahead of you saying lets get out

If we leave to ealry - little Adolf from Iran will be running things in Iraq and we will have more problems then we have now


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You want the US to surrender to the terrorists and Iran
> 
> Whatever your party dictates  you obey without question



did you notice that you didn't answer my question?

*who are we surrendering to? WHo are these "terrorists" - these handful of deadenders in their final throes - that are capable of taking over the country of Iraq from an AMerican trained armed force?*

Are you saying that a handful of deadender Al Qaeda terrorists will overwhelm the Iraqi army and take over the entire country of Iraq against the will of the Iraqis?  Is that really what you suggest??

Or are you suggesting that, after the dust settles and the shiites win the civil war that they aren't a dead certain lock to align themselves way more closely with their brethren in Tehran than they ever will to America?

If we spend five more years and ten thousand more lives to see a stable Iraqi government and military force.... that government will be predominately shi'ite because the shi'ites are the majority sect in Iraq.... and when we finally do leave, Iran will be a major influence on that government and their strongest ally.  

That doesn't sound too much like the vibrant multicultural jeffersonian democracy blossoming on the banks of the Euphrates that we were supposed to be creating.


----------



## Truthmatters (May 19, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Cool.  Then the Iraqi's and I have no problem.  However, they need to assume ALL responsibility,  The sooner the better.




I thought you wouldnt just accept one article on a subject for it to be proven true?

Gunny is this applying different standards to what you want to believe and what is true?


----------



## red states rule (May 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> did you notice that you didn't answer my question?
> 
> *who are we surrendering to? WHo are these "terrorists" - these handful of deadenders in their final throes - that are capable of taking over the country of Iraq from an AMerican trained armed force?*
> 
> ...




I have numbnuts - and others have tried to explain it to you

You just ignore the facts and keep repeating the liberal talking points

Leaving Iraq will open the door for the terrorists and Iran to take over - slaughter millions - and take the oil money

Then you can rant and blame Bush for everything - as you do now


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I have numbnuts - and others have tried to explain it to you
> 
> You just ignore the facts and keep repeating the liberal talking points
> 
> ...



RSR...all you ever do is spew talking points...you are iincapable of carrying on a simple conversation.  I am asking you who these terrorists are.  Are they sunnis? are they shiites?  I am asking you who do you think will eventually control the Iraqi government?  SHiites , as they are the predominant majority of the populatoin?  And if shiites control the governmetn of Iraq, why do you think they won't align themselves with Iran whenever they get power?  Answer my questions.  SHow me what you know about this complex situation.  My GOD, man...you know so little, you think that persian shiites would bankroll sunni arabs as they kill Iraqi shiites.  That makes no sense.  YOu cannot explain yourself about this situation, because, clearly, you don't really know what you are talking about.

Now you can either prove me wrong, by answering my questions and carrying on a debate about the issues, or you can prove me right - again - by avoiding those questions.

your pick.


----------



## red states rule (May 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> RSR...all you ever do is spew talking points...you are iincapable of carrying on a simple conversation.  I am asking you who these terrorists are.  Are they sunnis? are they shiites?  I am asking you who do you think will eventually control the Iraqi government?  SHiites , as they are the predominant majority of the populatoin?  And if shiites control the governmetn of Iraq, why do you think they won't align themselves with Iran whenever they get power?  Answer my questions.  SHow me what you know about this complex situation.  My GOD, man...you know so little, you think that persian shiites would bankroll sunni arabs as they kill Iraqi shiites.  That makes no sense.  YOu cannot explain yourself about this situation, because, clearly, you don't really know what you are talking about.
> 
> Now you can either prove me wrong, by answering my questions and carrying on a debate about the issues, or you can prove me right - again - by avoiding those questions.
> 
> ...





Keep using the talking points MM - that is really all you have left

The terrosrists (AQ) are there and being backed by Iran

Your hate prevents you from admitting it - meanwhile, being a loyal lib, you opush for surrender and defeat of the US military


----------



## Gunny (May 19, 2007)

Truthmatters said:


> I thought you wouldnt just accept one article on a subject for it to be proven true?
> 
> Gunny is this applying different standards to what you want to believe and what is true?



Pitiful and just a bit desperate.  Dude, give it up.  There are no inconsistencies in my statements.  I make sure there are not for just such petty attempts as yours.  Not to mention the ass-backwardness of your attempt.

If you wish to refute what RSR has posted, then your issue is with HIM and/or the source of his post, not with me.  My response to RSR is merely the quite obvious supposition that if he is correct, then he has nothing to worry about, but neither accept nor reject his post.

Before you presume to engage me in a game of semantics, I suggest a few more years of schooling are in order for you.  I was educated by the best left-wing journalism and English compostion minds of the day.  I know your game better than you.


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Keep using the talking points MM - that is really all you have left
> 
> The terrosrists (AQ) are there and being backed by Iran
> 
> Your hate prevents you from admitting it - meanwhile, being a loyal lib, you opush for surrender and defeat of the US military



can you explain to me why a persian shi'ite country who is pumping a lot of money and weapons into Iraq to support Muqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi militia, would also provide assistance to a group of sunni arabs who was killing shi'ites in Iraq?

Talk to me about that.  Explain to me why Iran would do something so detrimental to the shi'ites in Iraq?


----------



## red states rule (May 19, 2007)

Iran's Secret Plan For Mayhem
By ELI LAKE
Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 3, 2007



WASHINGTON  Iran is supporting both Sunni and Shiite terrorists in the Iraqi civil war, according to secret Iranian documents captured by Americans in Iraq.

The news that American forces had captured Iranians in Iraq was widely reported last month, but less well known is that the Iranians were carrying documents that offered Americans insight into Iranian activities in Iraq.

An American intelligence official said the new material, which has been authenticated within the intelligence community, confirms "that Iran is working closely with both the Shiite militias and Sunni Jihadist groups." The source was careful to stress that the Iranian plans do not extend to cooperation with Baathist groups fighting the government in Baghdad, and said the documents rather show how the Quds Force  the arm of Iran's revolutionary guard that supports Shiite Hezbollah, Sunni Hamas, and Shiite death squads  is working with individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sunna.

Another American official who has seen the summaries of the reporting affiliated with the arrests said it comprised a "smoking gun." "We found plans for attacks, phone numbers affiliated with Sunni bad guys, a lot of things that filled in the blanks on what these guys are up to," the official said.

One of the documents captured in the raids, according to two American officials and one Iraqi official, is an assessment of the Iraq civil war and new strategy from the Quds Force. According to the Iraqi source, that assessment is the equivalent of " Iran's Iraq Study Group," a reference to the bipartisan American commission that released war strategy recommendations after the November 7 elections. The document concludes, according to these sources, that Iraq's Sunni neighbors will step up their efforts to aid insurgent groups and that it is imperative for Iran to redouble efforts to retain influence with them, as well as with Shiite militias.

http://www.nysun.com/article/46032


----------



## red states rule (May 19, 2007)

MM - before you dismiss this out of hand

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

red states rule said:


> MM - before you dismiss this out of hand
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501




I completely concur with this article.

Cut and paste the sentence from this article which supports your assertion that Iran is arming AQ or any other sunni group, for that matter.

It is YOUR link.  I'll wait.


----------



## red states rule (May 19, 2007)

U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

I say again:  *Cut and paste the sentence from this article which supports your assertion that Iran is arming AQ or any other sunni group, for that matter.*

to which you offer:

_U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006._

your cut and paste paragraph says nothing about AQ and nothing about sunnis.  The entire article talks about Iran's support for shi'ite in Iraq.

try again.


----------



## red states rule (May 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> I say again:  *Cut and paste the sentence from this article which supports your assertion that Iran is arming AQ or any other sunni group, for that matter.*
> 
> to which you offer:
> 
> ...



Keep trying to spin there are no terrorists in Iarq

To libs (like John Kerry) the only terrorists in Iraq are US troops


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

ah, what the hell...sunnis...shi'ites...who gives a fuck, they are all just ragheads to you, RSR, ain't they?


----------



## red states rule (May 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> ah, what the hell...sunnis...shi'ites...who gives a fuck, they are all just ragheads to you, RSR, ain't they?



terrorists are terrorists

unless you are John Kerry and other Dems - then the US troops are the real terrorists


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Keep trying to spin there are no terrorists in Iarq
> 
> To libs (like John Kerry) the only terrorists in Iraq are US troops



I have never suggested that there are no terrorists in Iraq.  I have only pointed out that Iran would certainly have no reason to support sunni terrorists and your own link backs me up on that.



you were the one who posted the ABC news link as proof, somehow, that Iran was funding AQ or any other sunni organization.  

Just show me where or admit you fucked up.


----------



## Gunny (May 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> I say again:  *Cut and paste the sentence from this article which supports your assertion that Iran is arming AQ or any other sunni group, for that matter.*
> 
> to which you offer:
> 
> ...



Am I lost here, or what?  Why would anyone suppose Iran would support the Sunni when Iran is Shia?


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Am I lost here, or what?  Why would anyone suppose Iran would support the Sunni when Iran is Shia?



That is what I have been trying to get RSR to address ever since he first made his claim that Iran was funding AQ in Iraq.

I really think that it boils down to the fact that RSR really does not understand the difference between sunnis and shiites...they are really all just raghead in his infantile world.

I ask him to please provide some evidence that Iran is supporting sunnis and he proudly posts an ABC News article which specifically talks about Iran supporting Sadr and shiites.....I ask him what the fuck he is talking about and to please cut and paste the portion of the ABC news article which supports his idiotic contention that Iran is supporting sunnis and he posts a sentence which talks about Iran supporting terrorists in Iraq...the rest of the article speaks in great detail about how all of the support goes to shiites, but RSR is just too fucking stupid to understand how he posted a link that proves he is an idiot in his feeble attempt to prove that he is not an idiot.


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

to RSR, "Al Qaeda" is synonymous with "terrorist"....

to RSR, all terrorists belong to Al Qaeda..... that is the only way he can keep things straight and the only way he can keep blindly supporting this war.... Al Qaeda attacked us..... Iraq is filled with terrorist sectarian violence... therefore every antagonist in Iraq is Al Qaeda and therefore every antagonist in Iraq is part of the same organization that attacked us....we HAVE to stay there and keep killing them...they are all part of the same group that flew airplanes into the WTC..... it makes this messy entanglement in an Iraqi civil war seem so much more righteous and noble, somehow.


----------



## Gunny (May 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> That is what I have been trying to get RSR to address ever since he first made his claim that Iran was funding AQ in Iraq.
> 
> I really think that it boils down to the fact that RSR really does not understand the difference between sunnis and shiites...they are really all just raghead in his infantile world.
> 
> I ask him to please provide some evidence that Iran is supporting sunnis and he proudly posts an ABC News article which specifically talks about Iran supporting Sadr and shiites.....I ask him what the fuck he is talking about and to please cut and paste the portion of the ABC news article which supports his idiotic contention that Iran is supporting sunnis and he posts a sentence which talks about Iran supporting terrorists in Iraq...the rest of the article speaks in great detail about how all of the support goes to shiites, but RSR is just too fucking stupid to understand how he posted a link that proves he is an idiot in his feeble attempt to prove that he is not an idiot.



I would think the Sunni would be getting support from Saudi Arabia via wahabbis, and unless I am wrong, isn't the Iraq verison of AQ wahabbi?


----------



## maineman (May 19, 2007)

to the best of my knowledge, Al Qaeda was, and continues to be a radical wahabbist movement.  For the most part, all of the sectarian violence in the middle east are proxy wars between Iran and Saudi Arabia.


----------



## CSM (May 20, 2007)

maineman said:


> to the best of my knowledge, Al Qaeda was, and continues to be a radical wahabbist movement.  For the most part, all of the sectarian violence in the middle east are proxy wars between Iran and Saudi Arabia.



Now that is an intriguing idea and worthy of real discussion, imo.


----------



## red states rule (May 20, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Am I lost here, or what?  Why would anyone suppose Iran would support the Sunni when Iran is Shia?



Iran wants the US out of Iraq - they will do whatever they can to do it.  

Knowing the Dems want to surrender the war - Iran gets what they want

Iran is providing money and arms to increase attacks knowing with each bomb blast and US troop death - the US inches closer to surrender


----------



## red states rule (May 20, 2007)

Islamic Legal Scholar Says Iraq Needs American Presence for Stability and Defense
Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 19, 2007 - 18:17. 
If you believe what you see from our news media, everybody in the Middle East with the exception of Israelis wants American military forces out of Iraq as soon as possible, and thinks suicide bombers are martyrs to be revered.

Well, meet Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, the former dean of Islamic Law at Qatar University. He was interviewed by Al-Arabiya TV on May 11 during which he made some statements that folks in our media wouldnt want you to hear (video available here courtesy of MemriTV).

First, Al-Ansari came out strongly against suicide bombers:

Should I respond by sending my children to commit suicide and blow themselves up? Let's say we accept that a certain person is anti-American  who are the civilians, children and women in Algeria to blame? Are they Americans? I ask you, who are most of the victims of suicide operations and terrorism - the Muslims or the non-Muslims? They are Muslims. The number of people killed by Muslims carrying out suicide operations is far greater than those killed by the Americans or the Israelis.

Amazing. Yet, Al-Ansari was just getting warmed up:

There has never been in Islam  not in the raids of the Prophet, or of his companions, or of other Muslims  anybody who blew himself up among the enemy or anybody else. Whoever gave the green light to suicide operations against Israeli civilians, and said that the dialogue with the Jews would take place through human bombs, did so out of political, ideological motives, in support of a certain political group. It has nothing to do with religion. All the religious scholars, especially the Salafi scholars, have said that whoever blows himself up, even among the enemy, is killing himself, and will be punished in hell.

This is all the more true when we are talking about innocent civilians. According to the teachings of Jihad, we must not kill the children, even among the enemy. Some talk about quid pro quo. They say that since the enemy kills our children, we should kill... quid pro quo is not allowed in this case, because our deeds should be restricted by virtue by virtue. We have a [divine] message. If I compete with the barbaric deeds of the enemy, this means I am like him.

In addition, the claim that we have no other means except human bombs is not true. This is self-destruction. We live in an era in which we are destroying ourselves. 

Allow me to ask you a question. Have suicide operations, throughout their long history here and elsewhere, achieved any political goal? Never. Suicide operations have never achieved any political goal or benefited the Muslims.

for the complete article and to watch the video
http://newsbusters.org/node/12874


----------



## red states rule (May 20, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Am I lost here, or what?  Why would anyone suppose Iran would support the Sunni when Iran is Shia?



More Evidence of Saddam-al Qaeda Ties
By Ray Robison
An al Qaeda document newly released by the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) of the United States Military Academy provides an extraordinary new connection to a previously reported order by Saddam Hussein to support al Qaeda attacks upon US forces in Somalia.  It corresponds with other documents that show Saddam Hussein was using Islamic terrorists as proxies to attack US interests. The document was part of a US Army report on al Qaeda in Africa. That study contends that although al Qaeda managed to train other Islamic fighters in Africa, it did the organization no long term good, as it failed to bend the region to al Qaeda doctrine.


The al Qaeda document is entitled The Ogaden File: Operation Holding (Al-Msk). Its' name refers to a tribal region of Ethiopia extending into Somalia (Ogaden) and al-Msk' is an acronym for the Mission to hold Somalia and Kenya. The file is a personal log about a group of al Qaeda terrorists sent to Somalia in 1993 to provide military training to local Islamic militants. Islamic fighters trained by al Qaeda would later kill 18 Army Special Forces soldiers in what has become know as the Battle of Mogadishu which was portrayed in the popular movie Black Hawk Down. The US government confirmed the involvement of al Qaeda and Usama bin Laden in a 1998 indictment against him for the Somali attacks. 


The al Qaeda document itself provides a fascinating look at training operations of an expeditionary nature in hostile territory. It lists several terrorists who subsequently became high ranking al Qaeda leaders (most were later killed or captured by US forces). Many of them were Egyptians with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) terror group led by al Qaeda number two man Ayman al Zawahiri. The log was written by an al Qaeda terrorist named Saif al-Islam al Masri who was known to be a leader of al Qaeda in Somalia and an EIJ leader. He is now in US custody. 


Saif writes that on the 20th of January, 1993 he and his men were ordered to drop everything (marriage plans, travel) and report to a man named Abu Hafs in Peshawar, Pakistan. This deployment to Somalia heralded a major escalation of al Qaeda activities in Africa. Abu Hafs is also known as Mohammed Atef. Mohammed Atef was the number two man in the EIJ under Ayman al Zawahiri and also part of Usama bin Laden's inner circle. He was included in the 1998 indictment for attacking US forces in Somalia and was considered the number three man in al Qaeda. He was killed by US forces shortly after 9/11. 


Saif describes how he and his men were ordered by Atef to go Somalia and set up training camps. The fighters they trained would ultimately grab power in Somalia, only to be driven out by Ethiopian and American Special Forces action last year. 


The date of Atef's order for them to go to Somalia is very significant because it corresponds with an order by Saddam Hussein to do just that. A different set of documents, provided by the Cyber News Service (CNS) in 2004 and reported on here, are purported to be from a cache of documents captured in Iraq. CNS stated they were given to them by a member of the Iraqi Survey Group. Those documents - which have not yet been verified by the US government but do match secret information from other known Saddam documents and have been confirmed by several experts - are memorandums between Saddam and his intelligence service. 


Saddam Hussein ordered his intelligence service to "hunt the Americans" in Somalia via Afghan mujahideen proxies including the EIJ on January 18th, 1993 just two days before EIJ leader Atef ordered his best men to Somalia. The CNS memoranda also show that Saddam's intelligence service was meeting with the leader of the EIJ (almost certainly Ayman al Zawahiri) to give him the assignment. 


Saddam wanted his intelligence service to work with mujahideen (Islamic fighters) displaced from Afghanistan in 1992, which likely also included Usama bin Laden's followers, the EIJ (the two groups would officially merge together to become al Qaeda) and another associated terror leader, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The order provided funding to the mujahideen and drew precedent from operations with the EIJ against the Egyptian government because it sided with the UN coalition against Iraq in the Gulf War. 


This new al Qaeda document, when combined with the CNS documents, provides a sequential timeframe for the events and the human linkages to carry out the order from Saddam to his intelligence service to Ayman al Zawahiri to Mohammed Atef and then to his terror trainers. 


The revelation about Mohammed Atef comes just days after former CIA Director George Tenet caused a political and media stir with the release of his new book At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA. Tenet devotes a portion of the book to discussing al Qaeda-Saddam ties. In it he writes about the case of Ibn Sheikh al Libi, "a senior military trainer for al-Qa'ida in Afghanistan." Al Libi told his interrogators that 


"a militant known as Abu Abudullah had told him that...al-Qa'ida leader Mohammed Atef had sent Abu Abdullah to Iraq to seek training in poisons and mustard gas." 


Al Libi would later recant his testimony and become a flash point in the debate over pre-war intelligence. Tenet notes the controversy and says it is unclear if al Libi was lying with the initial report or his recantation. Tenet writes, 


"Another senior al-Qa'ida detainee told us that Mohammed Atef was interested in expanding al-Qa'ida's ties to Iraq, which, in our eyes, added credibility to [al-Libi's initial] reporting." 


This new evidence may provide more insight into why Saddam was making his military officers watch Black Hawk Down just prior to the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He may have been shoring up their courage by reminding them of what he considered his previous defeat of the American army.


Ray Robison is a former army officer, a former member of the ISG, and co-author of the new ebook Both In One Trench: Saddam's support to the Global Islamic Jihad Movement and International Terrorism  

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


----------



## maineman (May 20, 2007)

that long winded quote did not ever come close to answering GUnny's question.....


----------



## red states rule (May 20, 2007)

maineman said:


> that long winded quote did not ever come close to answering GUnny's question.....



I knew you would ignore the Iran influence


----------



## maineman (May 20, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I knew you would ignore the Iran influence




ummm RSR...the link you just pasted does not even have the word "Iran" in it.  I think you are the one who is ignoring sometihing!


----------



## Gunny (May 20, 2007)

CSM said:


> Now that is an intriguing idea and worthy of real discussion, imo.



Our presence notwithstanding, that what the sectarian violence is all about, IMO.  Wahabbism was created by Saudi's after WWII in an attempt to counter the rising influence of Shi'ism from Iran.  Iraq, standing squarely between Iran and Saudi Arabia, are where the two opposing forces come together.

The Ba'athist regime in Iraq was the wedge between those two forces.  Removing that wedge created a power vaccuum between two factions battling for domination of the region.


----------



## Gunny (May 20, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Iran wants the US out of Iraq - they will do whatever they can to do it.
> 
> Knowing the Dems want to surrender the war - Iran gets what they want
> 
> Iran is providing money and arms to increase attacks knowing with each bomb blast and US troop death - the US inches closer to surrender



Your view is rather simplistic.  Of course Iran wants us out of Iraq.  

Does Iran want us out of Iraq badly enough to supply a faction they are at war with?  We are sitting right in the center of an ideological war between Sunni and Shia.  Iran supports the Shia, while Saudi Arabia supports the Sunni/wahabbi.  

Neither is going to support their enemy just to get us out.  They already know we'll leave sooner or later anyway.


----------



## maineman (May 20, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Your view is rather simplistic.  Of course Iran wants us out of Iraq.
> 
> Does Iran want us out of Iraq badly enough to supply a faction they are at war with?  We are sitting right in the center of an ideological war between Sunni and Shia.  Iran supports the Shia, while Saudi Arabia supports the Sunni/wahabbi.
> 
> Neither is going to support their enemy just to get us out.  They already know we'll leave sooner or later anyway.



Gunny:  RSR's view of this conflict is so uninformed, so simplistic that it really is no more complex to him than: America - Good.  Ragheads - Bad.


----------



## maineman (May 20, 2007)

show me again RSR where your link even MENTIONS Iran!


----------



## red states rule (May 20, 2007)

maineman said:


> Gunny:  RSR's view of this conflict is so uninformed, so simplistic that it really is no more complex to him than: America - Good.  Ragheads - Bad.



It is simple MM

Good VS evil

The only question is who you consider evil


----------



## Gunny (May 20, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It is simple MM
> 
> Good VS evil
> 
> The only question is who you consider evil



Okay RSR .... you tell me ....

Of the different factions in Iraq ... which is good and which is evil, and why?


----------



## maineman (May 20, 2007)

*Gunny asks you a question*



GunnyL said:


> I would think the Sunni would be getting support from Saudi Arabia via wahabbis, and unless I am wrong, isn't the Iraq verison of AQ wahabbi?



*you respond*



red states rule said:


> Iran wants the US out of Iraq - they will do whatever they can to do it.
> 
> Knowing the Dems want to surrender the war - Iran gets what they want
> 
> Iran is providing money and arms to increase attacks knowing with each bomb blast and US troop death - the US inches closer to surrender



*and you provide a link from American thinker*



red states rule said:


> http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/05/more_evidence_of_saddamal_qaed.html



*I make an observation:*



maineman said:


> that long winded quote did not ever come close to answering GUnny's question.....



*To which you reply:*



red states rule said:


> I knew you would ignore the Iran influence



*I ask you again...please cut and paste something from that link that would support your inane suggestion that the shiites in Iran and funding the sunnis in Iraq as they battle the shiites in Iraq.  It really ISN'T as simple as good versus evil....and only moronic buffoons like you continue to think so.*


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Okay RSR .... you tell me ....
> 
> Of the different factions in Iraq ... which is good and which is evil, and why?



The ones who are working with the government to make changes are the good guys

The ones who are killing civilians and US troops are the evil ones

Is that to difficult to understand?

Iran is funding the killing so the Dems will make the troops leave


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The ones who are working with the government to make changes are the good guys
> 
> The ones who are killing civilians and US troops are the evil ones
> 
> ...



It is not that simple.  Again... you posted the article which supposedly proves this cockamamie idea of yours that Iran is funding Al Qaeda and the article does not even MENTION Iran.  You clearly do not have a fucking clue what you are talking about.


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> It is not that simple.  Again... you posted the article which supposedly proves this cockamamie idea of yours that Iran is funding Al Qaeda and the article does not even MENTION Iran.  You clearly do not have a fucking clue what you are talking about.



I have posted articles showing Iraq is funding terrorist activites in Iraq. You are so hyper to surrender and run away - you ignore them


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I have posted articles showing Iraq is funding terrorist activites in Iraq. You are so hyper to surrender and run away - you ignore them




I have never denied that Iran is funding terrorist activities in Iraq.  I* have denied that Iran would EVER fund Al Qaeda in Iraq or anywhere else. * That was your statement: that Iran was funding Al Qaeda. ANd you, of course, cannot back that up with anything. 

For you to say that and then argue as you have here is proof that, to you, the term Al Qaeda and terrorist are total synonyms and that you do not understand the players.


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

Iranian involvement with al-Qaeda and other Sunni jihadis groups is nothing new, however the conventional wisdom in media and some intelligence circles is Shia Iran could never cooperate with Sunni al-Qaeda due to ideological differences. This ignores a mountain of evidence to the contrary, such as Iran's sheltering of over 100 al-Qaeda leaders, including Said bin Laden, Osama's son, and Saif al-Adel, al-Qaeda's strategic planner, or Iranian support of Somalia's Sunni Islamic Courts by providing arms and training.

The 9-11 Commission Report was explicit about Iran's connections with al-Qaeda. "The relationship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations." Contacts between Iran, Hezbollah 
and al-Qaeda were established in Sudan in the early 1990s. "Al Qaeda members received advice and training from Hezbollah," according the the 9-11 Commission report. Many of al-Qaeda's 9-11 hijackers transited through Iran. "After 9/11, Iran and Hezbollah wished to conceal any past evidence of cooperation with Sunni terrorists associated with al Qaeda."

Iranian involvement in Iraq with the Sunni terrorists has been an open secret in military and intelligence circles since the Fallujah uprising in March of 2004. Iranian mines and weapons were funneled to Zarqawi's terrorists in Fallujah and elsewhere throughout Sunni dominated Anbar province. 

http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/01/iran_and_alqaeda_in.php


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

billroggio.com?  LOL  

Now THERE is an unimpeachable nonpartisan source!

fact:  Iran is a shi'ite nation.  They are supporting Shi'ite groups in Iraq.  No one has ever denied that.  Al Qaeda is a sunni group with teams operating in Iraq.  Those teams are stirring the pot by killing Iraqis on both sides and killing Americans.  Iran funding the operations of Al Qaeda in Iraq is foolish on its face.  It makes no sense.... but then, you rarely do.


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> billroggio.com?  LOL
> 
> Now THERE is an unimpeachable nonpartisan source!
> 
> fact:  Iran is a shi'ite nation.  They are supporting Shi'ite groups in Iraq.  No one has ever denied that.  Al Qaeda is a sunni group with teams operating in Iraq.  Those teams are stirring the pot by killing Iraqis on both sides and killing Americans.  Iran funding the operations of Al Qaeda in Iraq is foolish on its face.  It makes no sense.... but then, you rarely do.



Keep avoiding the facts MM - he posted links to his statements, or did you ignore them?

Answer - yes


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

no links


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> no links




Keep denying your defeatest attitude


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Keep avoiding the facts MM - he posted links to his statements, or did you ignore them?



there are no links posted in the billroggio.com page you posted.


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

and pointing out the idiocy of Iran supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq as they kill shiites there is NOT a defeatist attitude.

I have stipulated that I agree completely that Iran is supporting Sadr and other shiite groups in Iraq.... I only took issue with your suggestion that they are funding AQ there.


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> and pointing out the idiocy of Iran supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq as they kill shiites there is NOT a defeatist attitude.
> 
> I have stipulated that I agree completely that Iran is supporting Sadr and other shiite groups in Iraq.... I only took issue with your suggestion that they are funding AQ there.



Your support for surrender is defeatest


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Your support for surrender is defeatest



now if you could only find a single sentence I have ever written that supports surrender, you might have something.

If you say that you support, for example, the New York Yankees, and I turn around and claim - without your agreement - that the New York Yankees are babykillers..... you would take issue with me trumpeting that RSR supports babykillers.  same deal.

I do NOT support surrender.....you, on the other hand, have real difficulties with the english language.


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> now if you could only find a single sentence I have ever written that supports surrender, you might have something.
> 
> If you say that you support, for example, the New York Yankees, and I turn around and claim - without your agreement - that the New York Yankees are babykillers..... you would take issue with me trumpeting that RSR supports babykillers.  same deal.
> 
> I do NOT support surrender.....you, on the other hand, have real difficulties with the english language.



You have supported the Dems surrender bill - does that count?


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You have supported the Dems surrender bill - does that count?



no.  because, as you well know, the democratic funding bill did not have America surrendering to our enemies, and that bill was supported by 57% of the American people.  No surrender....


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> no.  because, as you well know, the democratic funding bill did not have America surrendering to our enemies, and that bill was supported by 57% of the American people.  No surrender....



It is a surrender bill palin and simple


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

no...it is not...and just because illiterate morons like you say it is, does not make is so.

I have asked you time and time again to show me where, in that bill, we ever "surrender" anything to any enemy.  You cannot.


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...it is not...and just because illiterate morons like you say it is, does not make is so.
> 
> I have asked you time and time again to show me where, in that bill, we ever "surrender" anything to any enemy.  You cannot.



It is surredner to pull the troops out and let the terrorists score a win


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It is surredner to pull the troops out and let the terrorists score a win



how does pulling our troops out let terrorists score a win...and who are we surrendering to?  what are we surrendering?  show me in the bill where we surrender anything to anyone.  In fact, we will turn over military encampments to the legitimate government of Iraq... that is definitely not surrender.

I ask you again:  Did Britain surrender Palestine in 1948?  yes or no?


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> how does pulling our troops out let terrorists score a win...and who are we surrendering to?  what are we surrendering?  show me in the bill where we surrender anything to anyone.  In fact, we will turn over military encampments to the legitimate government of Iraq... that is definitely not surrender.
> 
> I ask you again:  Did Britain surrender Palestine in 1948?  yes or no?



Ah, back to the talking points


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Ah, back to the talking points



ah...back to never answering questions.


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> ah...back to never answering questions.



Keep pushing for surrender and watch the Dems crash and burn


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

and even if they WERE talking points, you'd think Rush or Sean or the RNC would have fed you the answer to them by now!


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> and even if they WERE talking points, you'd think Rush or Sean or the RNC would have fed you the answer to them by now!



No talking points here - surrender is surrender. That is what Dems want in Iraq


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> No talking points here - surrender is surrender. That is what Dems want in Iraq



no surrender.  fund the troops...demand a withdrawal schedule.  57% of America supports that plan.


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> no surrender.  fund the troops...demand a withdrawal schedule.  57% of America supports that plan.



all that with a 37% approval rating


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> all that with a 37% approval rating



amazing, isn't it?  even though America is unhappy with the overall performance of congress, they are solidly behind the democrat's plans for Iraq.  It must suck to watch the support for your silly war crumble like that, eh?


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> amazing, isn't it?  even though America is unhappy with the overall performance of congress, they are solidly behind the democrat's plans for Iraq.  It must suck to watch the support for your silly war crumble like that, eh?



So if Dems are pushing for surrender, which the voters want, they have only a 37% approval rating?


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So if Dems are pushing for surrender, which the voters want, they have only a 37% approval rating?




democrats are not pushing for surrender.  democrats are pushing for funding the troops with withdrawal deadlines.... and America supports that.  why is that so hard for you to admit?

America has had a shitty view of congress for a long time.... years and years and it has never been very high at all..... democrats are not worried about overall congressional approval.... why are YOU running away from the 57% number like it was a ghost?


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> democrats are not pushing for surrender.  democrats are pushing for funding the troops with withdrawal deadlines.... and America supports that.  why is that so hard for you to admit?
> 
> America has had a shitty view of congress for a long time.... years and years and it has never been very high at all..... democrats are not worried about overall congressional approval.... why are YOU running away from the 57% number like it was a ghost?



By leaving and turning over the country to the terrorists - it is surrender


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> By leaving and turning over the country to the terrorists - it is surrender




please show me in the democrat's bill where we turn anything over to terrorists.  And by "terrorists" do you mean Al Qaeda, or Iraqi sunni insurgents or Iraqi shiite insurgents?  The bill would turn over the country to the legitimate government of Iraq.... and they are not terrorists.


----------



## red states rule (May 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> please show me in the democrat's bill where we turn anything over to terrorists.  And by "terrorists" do you mean Al Qaeda, or Iraqi sunni insurgents or Iraqi shiite insurgents?  The bill would turn over the country to the legitimate government of Iraq.... and they are not terrorists.



By telling the enemy when we will leave 

By leaving the Iraq government unable to defend their government

Terrorists and Iran will take over

It is surrender


----------



## maineman (May 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> By telling the enemy when we will leave
> 
> By leaving the Iraq government unable to defend their government
> 
> ...



Who will the government not be able to defend itself against?  the sunni insurgents, the shiite insurgents, or AQ?  

and you are saying that terrorists AND Iran will take over?  So I guess, by terrorists, you mean Iraqi shiite insurgents, because it is hard to believe that Iran would chose sides against Iraqi shiites, right?

and if we left someday WITHOUT telling them, don't you think they could figure out that we'd gone?


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> Who will the government not be able to defend itself against?  the sunni insurgents, the shiite insurgents, or AQ?
> 
> and you are saying that terrorists AND Iran will take over?  So I guess, by terrorists, you mean Iraqi shiite insurgents, because it is hard to believe that Iran would chose sides against Iraqi shiites, right?
> 
> and if we left someday WITHOUT telling them, don't you think they could figure out that we'd gone?



Since libs want to appease, in addition to telling the date we will surrender - why not give them the date and time?

Hell, the NY Times can publish the escape route as well

Should make you burst with pride MM


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

More good news MM can ignore

http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1193127.html


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

RSR.... these are some specific questions that you failed to address:



maineman said:


> 1.  Who will the government not be able to defend itself against?  the sunni insurgents, the shiite insurgents, or AQ?
> 
> 2.  and you are saying that terrorists AND Iran will take over?  So I guess, by terrorists, you mean Iraqi shiite insurgents, because it is hard to believe that Iran would chose sides against Iraqi shiites, right?
> 
> 3.  and if we left someday WITHOUT telling them, don't you think they could figure out that we'd gone?


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

MM is still ignoring the good news


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> More good news MM can ignore
> 
> http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1193127.html



an opinion piece.  I understand the writer's point of view.  I share his joy at the successes in areas of Baghdad and Anbar.  I am not ignoring anything RSR....how about stop ignoring my questions for a change?


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> an opinion piece.  I understand the writer's point of view.  I share his joy at the successes in areas of Baghdad and Anbar.  I am not ignoring anything RSR....how about stop ignoring my questions for a change?



First Lt. Pete Hegseth served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division, and reports of the progres he SAW - of course you dismiss him since he wants to win the war and not surrender like the Dems want to do


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> First Lt. Pete Hegseth served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division, and reports of the progres he SAW - of course you dismiss him since he wants to win the war and not surrender like the Dems want to do



I don't dismiss the young officer at all.  I said that I shared his joy at the successes in Anbar and parts of Baghdad.

now answer  MY questions, or quit asking ME any.


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> I don't dismiss the young officer at all.  I said that I shared his joy at the successes in Anbar and parts of Baghdad.
> 
> now answer  MY questions, or quit asking ME any.



Perhaps now the San Fran Nan And White Flag Harry will agree with him - and stop trying to surrender


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

OK....now it's your turn to answer a few questions.  Try these three on for size and see what you come up with:



maineman said:


> 1.  Who will the government not be able to defend itself against?  the sunni insurgents, the shiite insurgents, or AQ?
> 
> 2.  and you are saying that terrorists AND Iran will take over?  So I guess, by terrorists, you mean Iraqi shiite insurgents, because it is hard to believe that Iran would chose sides against Iraqi shiites, right?
> 
> 3.  and if we left someday WITHOUT telling them, don't you think they could figure out that we'd gone?


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> OK....now it's your turn to answer a few questions.  Try these three on for size and see what you come up with:



We surrender now like the appeasers on the left want

!) Iran and AQ will move it

2) They will slaugher millions

3) They will have oil wealth to finance their terrorist operations

4) They wil have the country as their base of operations


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> We surrender now like the appeasers on the left want
> 
> !) Iran and AQ will move it
> 
> ...





the "THEY" to which you refer is this supposed alliance between Al Qaeda and Iran.  Have I got that right?

And if Iran already has a country, why do they need another country to be the base of their operations?


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> the "THEY" to which you refer is this supposed alliance between Al Qaeda and Iran.  Have I got that right?
> 
> And if Iran already has a country, why do they need another country to be the base of their operations?



To expand their power and influence - sort of like what Dems want to do here in America


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

so my questions were:

1. Who will the government not be able to defend itself against? the sunni insurgents, the shiite insurgents, or AQ? 

*and you seem to indicate that the Iranians will join forces with Al Qaeda and slaughter millions of - shiites?  sunnis?  you don't really say*

2. and you are saying that terrorists AND Iran will take over? So I guess, by terrorists, you mean Iraqi shiite insurgents, because it is hard to believe that Iran would chose sides against Iraqi shiites, right?

*and you never did answer that question at all... never did explain why Iran would brutalize the majority shiite polpulation of Iraq*

3. and if we left someday WITHOUT telling them, don't you think they could figure out that we'd gone?

*and you never did answer this question in the least!*


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

you missed this:

*the "THEY" to which you refer is this supposed alliance between Al Qaeda and Iran. Have I got that right?*


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> so my questions were:
> 
> 1. Who will the government not be able to defend itself against? the sunni insurgents, the shiite insurgents, or AQ?
> 
> ...



Keep trying to convince the rest of us the terrorists and Iran will have no influence on Iraq if the US surrenders - it is a losing battle


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> you missed this:
> 
> *the "THEY" to which you refer is this supposed alliance between Al Qaeda and Iran. Have I got that right?*



Correct


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Correct




so you are suggesting that persian shiites will ally themselves with sunni-wahabbist arabs to take over Iraq?  really?

where does Muktada al Sadr play in all of this?


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> so you are suggesting that persian shiites will ally themselves with sunni-wahabbist arabs to take over Iraq?  really?
> 
> where does Muktada al Sadr play in all of this?



I have posted many links showing Iran is providing weapons to both sides. If Dems get their way, and the Us surrenders, Iran will move in witrh AQ and take over

Is that to logical for you to understand?


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

Iranian persian shiites will "move in" with arab wahabbist sunnis to rule Iraq?

and where does Sadr play in all of that?


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> Iranian persian shiites will "move in" with arab wahabbist sunnis to rule Iraq?
> 
> and where does Sadr play in all of that?



It seems you have a mental  block from accepting Iran is helping the terrorists

Of course, you have a mental block from anything that does not fit your agenda


----------



## maineman (May 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It seems you have a mental  block from accepting Iran is helping the terrorists
> 
> Of course, you have a mental block from anything that does not fit your agenda



it seems you do not read what I write.  I have said over and over and over again that I am certain that Iran is helping terrorist organizations inside Iraq - *SHI'ITE TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS!!!* 

AQ is not one of those types of organizations.  AQ is busy killing indigenous Iraqis both sunni and shiite and killing Americans as well.  Iran has no reason to support them if they are killing shiites..... nor would Sadr stand for such support.


----------



## red states rule (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> it seems you do not read what I write.  I have said over and over and over again that I am certain that Iran is helping terrorist organizations inside Iraq - *SHI'ITE TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS!!!*
> 
> AQ is not one of those types of organizations.  AQ is busy killing indigenous Iraqis both sunni and shiite and killing Americans as well.  Iran has no reason to support them if they are killing shiites..... nor would Sadr stand for such support.



Sadr is a terrorists as well  - he is wanted for murder

Little Adolph in Iran cares nothing about his power and destroying Amercia

Sort of like the Dems here


----------



## Annie (May 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> Iranian persian shiites will "move in" with arab wahabbist sunnis to rule Iraq?
> 
> and where does Sadr play in all of that?



I found this related and interesting. Looks like from this, everyone gets to be a bit right: 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2085195,00.html



> Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq
> 
> 
> Simon Tisdall
> ...


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

Lets hear again how the war in Iraq is not the war on terror................


White House says bin Laden ordered Iraq plots

WASHINGTON, May 22 (Reuters) - Osama bin Laden ordered al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to form a cell in 2005 to plot attacks outside of Iraq and make the United States his main target, a senior U.S. official said on Tuesday.

Citing newly declassified intelligence, Fran Townsend, President George W. Bush's adviser for homeland security, said the information backs the administration's assertion that U.S. troops must stay in Iraq for now to prevent it from becoming a "terrorist sanctuary."

Mindful of its trouble selling its war strategy to the American public, the White House is trying to put the spotlight on bin Laden's connections to Zarqawi, the head of Iraq's al Qaeda wing who was killed in a U.S. air strike in June 2006.

Bush's critics accuse him of trying to de-emphasize the role of sectarian fighting in Iraq's chaos and justify an unpopular war by focusing on links to bin Laden and al Qaeda, the authors of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

The administration has abandoned earlier charges that al Qaeda had ties to the government of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein before he was toppled in a 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

Townsend spoke to reporters on the eve of a Bush speech at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy to give an update on the war on terrorism, and as congressional Democrats backed off for now on demands Iraq war funding be tied to a troop pullout timetable.

Townsend said U.S. intelligence officials had pieced together accounts of some of Zarqawi's dealings with bin Laden, who has eluded U.S.-led efforts to track him down.

"The intelligence community tells us that in January 2005 bin Laden tasked Zarqawi ... to form a cell to conduct attacks outside Iraq and that frankly America should be his number one priority," she said.

"We know from the intelligence community that Zarqawi welcomed the tasking, claimed he already had some good proposals."

She declined, however, to specify any potential targets and would not say whether the plotters had advanced beyond the discussion stage. Al Qaeda has been behind some of the bloodiest bombings in Iraq since the invasion.

Townsend said that in the spring of 2005 bin Laden also told Hamza Rabia, then al Qaeda's top operations man, to brief Zarqawi on the group's "external operations planning, including homeland plots (targeting the United States)."

She said she could go public with the information now because Zarqawi and Rabia are dead and several other key al Qaeda operatives are in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Townsend said it was "safe to assume" detainees involved in the alleged plot had been interrogated but declined to say what methods were used and whether it yielded useful information. 
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N22479981.htm


----------



## Rosotar (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Lets hear again how the war in Iraq is not the war on terror................
> 
> 
> White House says bin Laden ordered Iraq plots
> ...



Sure RSR.

We All know we can trust what the White House says huh? (LOL!)


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> Sure RSR.
> 
> We All know we can trust what the White House says huh? (LOL!)



Can you prove otherwise?

I know alot of libs believe the ONLY terrorists in the world are Pres Bush and those who support him


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> it seems you do not read what I write.  I have said over and over and over again that I am certain that Iran is helping terrorist organizations inside Iraq - *SHI'ITE TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS!!!*
> 
> AQ is not one of those types of organizations.  AQ is busy killing indigenous Iraqis both sunni and shiite and killing Americans as well.  Iran has no reason to support them if they are killing shiites..... nor would Sadr stand for such support.



White Flag Harrys and San fran Nan can tell their grandkids they surrendered to Pres Bush during the war on terror.


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> White Flag Harrys and San fran Nan can tell their grandkids they surrendered to Pres Bush during the war on terror.



does that tired old one liner ever get old?

you KNOW that this war is killing not only American servicemembers, but also killing your party's chances for '08.  A large majority of the people wanted the President to sign the democrat's funding bill with deadlines.  Those republicans who voted to sustain that veto are going to have to go back and explain to their constituents why they did the wrong thing.  

You can run away from that all day long..... but the war will make the '08 elections a trainwreck for the GOP.


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> does that tired old one liner ever get old?
> 
> you KNOW that this war is killing not only American servicemembers, but also killing your party's chances for '08.  A large majority of the people wanted the President to sign the democrat's funding bill with deadlines.  Those republicans who voted to sustain that veto are going to have to go back and explain to their constituents why they did the wrong thing.
> 
> You can run away from that all day long..... but the war will make the '08 elections a trainwreck for the GOP.



But it is a true statement


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> But it is a true statement



no it's not.... surrender is the wrong word and you use it repeatedly and incorrectly, because you are a hack.... and a not very bright hack at that.

If you had any real intellect, you would be more nimble with your thoughts and your words...but, alas, you are dull and thick and very repetitive and predictable.


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> no it's not.... surrender is the wrong word and you use it repeatedly and incorrectly, because you are a hack.... and a not very bright hack at that.
> 
> If you had any real intellect, you would be more nimble with your thoughts and your words...but, alas, you are dull and thick and very repetitive and predictable.



The surrender bill failed because President Bush will not accept defeat in Iraq. The dems want fdefeat and are willing to lose the war - they think it helps them politically


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The surrender bill failed because President Bush will not accept defeat in Iraq. The dems want fdefeat and are willing to lose the war - they think it helps them politically



the democratic funding bill failed because the democrats do not have a veto proof majority.... but there is no doubt that the majority of Americans were behind it, and that the veto will hurt your party.

sucks to be you.


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> the democratic funding bill failed because the democrats do not have a veto proof majority.... but there is no doubt that the majority of Americans were behind it, and that the veto will hurt your party.
> 
> sucks to be you.



The surrender failed because your party are a bunch of gutless cowards who do not have the balls to cut off funding

If they are so convinced the war is lost - why not cut off the money?


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The surrender failed because your party are a bunch of gutless cowards who do not have the balls to cut off funding
> 
> If they are so convinced the war is lost - why not cut off the money?



why would we cut off money for troops in the field?


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> why would we cut off money for troops in the field?



Yea, why would Dems do anything to back up what they say?


----------



## Gunny (May 23, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> Sure RSR.
> 
> We All know we can trust what the White House says huh? (LOL!)



Why the kneejerk reaction?  I'm more than sure Congress will be all over this looking for flaws.  If and when they find any, THEN it's time to call foul.  Otherwise, it is what it is.


----------



## maineman (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Yea, why would Dems do anything to back up what they say?



we said we wanted to end the war, not cut off funds for troops in the field.  America was behind our funding bill.  Bush vetoed it, republicans in congress voted to uphold that veto and will pay in '08.  that is fine with me


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Why the kneejerk reaction?  I'm more than sure Congress will be all over this looking for flaws.  If and when they find any, THEN it's time to call foul.  Otherwise, it is what it is.



Gunny, to him, Pres Bush is the only terrorist the US has to worry about


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> we said we wanted to end the war, not cut off funds for troops in the field.  America was behind our funding bill.  Bush vetoed it, republicans in congress voted to uphold that veto and will pay in '08.  that is fine with me



So the Dems break a promise. It would not be the first one they have forgotten about


----------



## Gunny (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The surrender failed because your party are a bunch of gutless cowards who do not have the balls to cut off funding
> 
> If they are so convinced the war is lost - why not cut off the money?



This couldn't possibly be a serious question.  

I also not that at first Democrats were traitors for trying to cut off funding.  Now they're gutless cowards for not doing it.  You are as bad as ANY left-wingnut attacking Bush -- no matter what he does, it's wrong.

The fact is, the troops were GOING TO BE funded, period.  They'd have just been drawing against monies not yet appropriated.


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> This couldn't possibly be a serious question.
> 
> I also not that at first Democrats were traitors for trying to cut off funding.  Now they're gutless cowards for not doing it.  You are as bad as ANY left-wingnut attacking Bush -- no matter what he does, it's wrong.
> 
> The fact is, the troops were GOING TO BE funded, period.  They'd have just been drawing against monies not yet appropriated.



Gunny, if Dems actually believe the war is lost - why not cut off the money and force the troops to come home?

I am serious. It is a logical question


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> does that tired old one liner ever get old?
> 
> you KNOW that this war is killing not only American servicemembers, but also killing your party's chances for '08.  A large majority of the people wanted the President to sign the democrat's funding bill with deadlines.  Those republicans who voted to sustain that veto are going to have to go back and explain to their constituents why they did the wrong thing.
> 
> You can run away from that all day long..... but the war will make the '08 elections a trainwreck for the GOP.



Even the liberal media is getting pissed


Matt Lauer Hits John Edwards from the Left on Democratic 'Cave-In'
Posted by Geoffrey Dickens on May 23, 2007 - 10:59. 
Updated with video below fold.

NBC's Matt Lauer spared no punches when he interviewed John Edwards on this morning's Today show, trouble is they were mostly left jabs. After a David Gregory report on the war funding bill, the Today co-host didn't waste any time launching into Edwards as he demanded to know why his fellow Democrats had to "cave-in."

Lauer: "David calls it a compromise, whatever we call it, let's talk about this deal that was struck in Congress. They, basically, the supplemental funding bill has 18 benchmarks the Iraqis have to hit on political progress, security, economic progress. Reports from the White House to Congress, July 15th, September 15th. But, and this is a big but, the headline here is no deadline for U.S. troops. Why did the Democrats cave-in?"

http://newsbusters.org/node/12951


----------



## Gunny (May 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Gunny, if Dems actually believe the war is lost - why not cut off the money and force the troops to come home?
> 
> I am serious. It is a logical question



It is NOT a logical question.  You cannot just "cut funding" for troops in the field.  I doubt ANYONE actually believes you can.

The Democrats proposed a bill to which they attached a rider proposing troop downsizing on a gradual basis.  They are quite aware that no matter what, the troops have to be funded.

The President accepts or rejects the bill, not Congress.  When Congress got the bill the President was willing to sign, he signed.  That's the way it works.

There is a law in place signed by Ronald Reagan called a "Continuing Authority."  All operational expenses will be met pending the authorization bill.

Your scenario just isn't going to happen.


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Why the kneejerk reaction?  I'm more than sure Congress will be all over this looking for flaws.  If and when they find any, THEN it's time to call foul.  Otherwise, it is what it is.



The liberal media already on the attack

CNN Reporters Skeptical of al Qaeda Intel in Bush Speech
Posted by Matthew Balan on May 23, 2007 - 17:28. 
Today, President Bush gave an address at the Coast Guard Academy's commencement, in which he revealed specific details about Osama bin Laden's personal involvement in the creation of a terror cell in Iraq that sought to commit terrorist attacks in the U.S. 

Yet several hours before the speech, "American Morning" host John Roberts and CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux questioned the timing of the President's speech. 

In his first question to Malveaux, Roberts asked, "what's the reason that he's declassifying part of this and trotting it out in his speech? The information is two years old." Malveaux attributed the release to President Bush "using any kind of power that he has to make his case to justify the Iraq war."

Bin Laden and other top al Qaeda officials have expressed their desire to commit terrorist attacks inside the United States on numerous occasions. Malveaux herself admitted that "we have heard this general story before" about the coordination between bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq group, "but the specifics we have not heard." Even with all of this, both Roberts and Malveaux expressed more than a healthy amount of skepticism about the recently declassified material and the Bush administration's motives for releasing it. 

This skepticism hit its peak towards the end of the segment:

ROBERTS: Now, Suzanne, we've seen this before. As you said, that the president selectively declassifies this information. People are rather skeptical about it because they remember one of the big declassifications was -- which was that national intelligence estimate back in 2002, which didn't turn out so well for the White House.


MALVEAUX: Well, you're absolutely right, because, I mean, it really is an act of faith here. We don't know, viewers don't know, really, the full body of intelligence here. Just a select group of people in the administration know, including the president here. So, yes, critics have pointed out to the fact that, look, you know, the whole thing with weapons of mass destruction, selective declassification, all of it turned out to be wrong. So, you know, we'll have to wait and see on that.

Even though bin Laden and al Qaeda conclusively want to strike America again, and are actively trying to use Iraq as a base of operations to do so, CNN would rather that its viewers dismiss any intelligence that is released by the Bush administration that further drives this point home. 

http://newsbusters.org/node/12960


----------



## red states rule (May 23, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> It is NOT a logical question.  You cannot just "cut funding" for troops in the field.  I doubt ANYONE actually believes you can.
> 
> The Democrats proposed a bill to which they attached a rider proposing troop downsizing on a gradual basis.  They are quite aware that no matter what, the troops have to be funded.
> 
> ...



I did not say it would happen

I said the Dems are gutless and lacked the political guts to do it

The point is, IF Dems believe the war is lost, and the troops are being slaughtered - the right thing to do is to cut of funding


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So the Dems break a promise. It would not be the first one they have forgotten about




the democrats never promised that they would be able to override a presidential veto


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> the democrats never promised that they would be able to override a presidential veto



Dems promised not to raise taxes, not to cut and run from Iraq, they would stand up to terrorists, they would work with Republicans, they would reduce pork, they would "drain the swamp", and they would reduce Congressional perks

So far they are 0 - 8


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Dems promised not to raise taxes, not to cut and run from Iraq, they would stand up to terrorists, they would work with Republicans, they would reduce pork, they would "drain the swamp", and they would reduce Congressional perks
> 
> So far they are 0 - 8



and doesn't it just piss you off that Americans STILL think that congressional democrats are doing a better job than congressional republicans????

lol


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> and doesn't it just piss you off that Americans STILL think that congressional democrats are doing a better job than congressional republicans????
> 
> lol



Not according to the latest polls to come out

IN BOTH of them, Pres Bush has a higher number then the Dem Congress

Your party always steps in it when they are in power

Time to rant and rave MM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Not according to the latest polls to come out
> 
> IN BOTH of them, Pres Bush has a higher number then the Dem Congress
> 
> ...



nope...I am right on this one..the lastest polls that ask voters ro differentiate between congressional democrats and congressional republicans give the democrats a solid 13% lead over republicans....time to tap dance and run away RSR!


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> nope...I am right on this one..the lastest polls that ask voters ro differentiate between congressional democrats and congressional republicans give the democrats a solid 13% lead over republicans....time to tap dance and run away RSR!



Spin and ignore - MM's way of dealing with the falling poll numbers


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Spin and ignore - MM's way of dealing with the falling poll numbers




I do not ignore poll numbers.  People are unhappy with washington right now....people wanted the democrats to stop the war and we've been unable to do that.  people are deeply divided on many social issues...that has always been the case.... the fact that you continue to ignore is that, regardless of the people's overall view of the effectiveness of the nation's legislature, a solid majority of the people were totally supportive of the democrat's plans for funding the war with withdrawal deadlines.... a solid majority of the people were against the president's veto of that bill..... and a solid majority of the people were upset at congressional republicans for sustaining that veto against the wishes of the electorate.

The only answer you have ever given to the quinnipiac poll question that I quoted two weeks ago was that "maybe they polled more democrats" which, as we both know, is a total cop out because polling methodology removes party bias from the calculations.  

The only other answer you pose for that problem of that 57% number is to suggest _"how can 57% of Americans approve of something that the democrats in congress do if only 30% of the people have a positive opinion of congress in general"?  _

That is kinda like saying, *"how can 57% of the people like the hat that the Queen of England wore to the Kentucky Derby when only 30% of the people approve of the british monarchy?"*


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> I do not ignore poll numbers.  People are unhappy with washington right now....people wanted the democrats to stop the war and we've been unable to do that.  people are deeply divided on many social issues...that has always been the case.... the fact that you continue to ignore is that, regardless of the people's overall view of the effectiveness of the nation's legislature, a solid majority of the people were totally supportive of the democrat's plans for funding the war with withdrawal deadlines.... a solid majority of the people were against the president's veto of that bill..... and a solid majority of the people were upset at congressional republicans for sustaining that veto against the wishes of the electorate.
> 
> The only answer you have ever given to the quinnipiac poll question that I quoted two weeks ago was that "maybe they polled more democrats" which, as we both know, is a total cop out because polling methodology removes party bias from the calculations.
> 
> ...



If Dems REALLY wanted to stop the war - they could cut off funding

They do not have the political guts to do that - and they know surrender is NOT what the voters want


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

why do you continue to run away from that 57% number?

what are you SO afraid of?


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> why do you continue to run away from that 57% number?
> 
> what are you SO afraid of?



If the Dems are doing the will of the people why does Pres Bush have a higher number then the Dems

These makes four polls in a row that show the Dems tanking


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> If the Dems are doing the will of the people why does Pres Bush have a higher number then the Dems
> 
> These makes four polls in a row that show the Dems tanking



why do you keep twisting the polling about congress to imply that it is solely about democrats....i showed you the harris poll numbers that differentiate.

do you have any other cogent arguement or is repeating a false statement about democrat (versus congressional) approval rating all you have?


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> why do you keep twisting the polling about congress to imply that it is solely about democrats....i showed you the harris poll numbers that differentiate.
> 
> do you have any other cogent arguement or is repeating a false statement about democrat (versus congressional) approval rating all you have?



MM - Your pol is  month old

The CURRENT polls show the Dems klower then Pres Bush

Get over it


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> MM - Your pol is  month old
> 
> The CURRENT polls show the Dems klower then Pres Bush
> 
> Get over it




no the poll shows congress lower than the president.... congress...many of whom pissed off at least 57% of their constituents by voting against the democrat's funding bill and voting to sustain bush's veto of it.  No wonder so many folks are pissed at congress!


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> MM - Your pol is  month old
> 
> The CURRENT polls show the Dems klower then Pres Bush
> 
> Get over it



my poll is a month old, but you cannot explain away the 13% disparity between D's and R's.


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> my poll is a month old, but you cannot explain away the 13% disparity between D's and R's.



The current polls show Pres Bush with higher numbers the your Dems

If it upsets you so much - see your shrink


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The current polls show Pres Bush with higher numbers the your Dems
> 
> If it upsets you so much - see your shrink



no...it doesn't.  it shows him with slightly better numbers than congress.

If you have a more recent Harris poll or any other poll that differentiates democrats versus republicans in congress, now would be a good time to produce it because THAT whould show whether President Bush was higher than congressional democrats and not just higher than congress.

I can see why you would run away from that disparity.


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...it doesn't.  it shows him with slightly better numbers than congress.
> 
> If you have a more recent Harris poll or any other poll that differentiates democrats versus republicans in congress, now would be a good time to produce it because THAT whould show whether President Bush was higher than congressional democrats and not just higher than congress.
> 
> I can see why you would run away from that disparity.



I have current polls MM - you have old ones

Get over the facts - your party is sinking son


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I have current polls MM - you have old ones
> 
> Get over the facts - your party is sinking son



show me the current polls that ask the respondents their opinions of congressional democrats versus the president.

I'll wait.  numbnuts


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> show me the current polls that ask the respondents their opinions of congressional democrats versus the president.
> 
> I'll wait.  numbnuts



I posted the link

Damn how thsoe pesky facts keep getting in your way MM


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I posted the link
> 
> Damn how thsoe pesky facts keep getting in your way MM



no...you posted a link to a poll about congressional approval ratings.  I asked you for the latest polling data that differentiated between democrats and republicans in congress. and democrats in congress versus the president.

No link of yours has provided such a poll.

I'll wait.


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...you posted a link to a poll about congressional approval ratings.  I asked you for the latest polling data that differentiated between democrats and republicans in congress. and democrats in congress versus the president.
> 
> No link of yours has provided such a poll.
> 
> I'll wait.



Dems are lower in the polls thenPres Bush

My how that must piss you off

Makes my day!!


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Dems are lower in the polls thenPres Bush
> 
> My how that must piss you off
> 
> Makes my day!!



I await the link that shows democrats lower  in the polls than Bush.

is that coming soon?  democrats versus bush?  polling data?


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> I await the link that shows democrats lower  in the polls than Bush.
> 
> is that coming soon?  democrats versus bush?  polling data?



I lead a jackass to the facts

but I cannot make him accept them


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

_*FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. May 15-16, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.* 
"If you were a member of Congress, which one of the following proposals on Iraq would you vote for? Setting a specific deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Setting benchmarks for Iraq to meet to receive continued help from the U.S., but without a deadline for withdrawal. Giving the troop surge time to work before setting any benchmarks or deadlines." 

*Specific Deadline   39*
Benchmarks  32
Give Surge Time to Work  24
Unsure  6_

how do you spin this, by the way?


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> _*FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. May 15-16, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE &#177; 3.*
> "If you were a member of Congress, which one of the following proposals on Iraq would you vote for? Setting a specific deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Setting benchmarks for Iraq to meet to receive continued help from the U.S., but without a deadline for withdrawal. Giving the troop surge time to work before setting any benchmarks or deadlines."
> 
> *Specific Deadline   39*
> ...




Surrender got 39&#37; of the vote

Your point is?

Bush has a higher number then the Dems

I see you left that one out of your post


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I lead a jackass to the facts
> 
> but I cannot make him accept them



when have you ever shown me a poll that asked people's opinions of democrats in congress versus the president?

did I miss that?


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> when have you ever shown me a poll that asked people's opinions of democrats in congress versus the president?
> 
> did I miss that?



You "miss" any facts that go against your talking points


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Surrender got 39% of the vote
> 
> Your piint is?



less than one in four want to even wait to give the surge time to work.  YOUR point is?

7 out of 10 Americans want deadlines or mandatory benchmarks.....no more open ended...when they stand up we'll stand down bullshit.


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You "miss" any facts that go against your talking points



no...I just don't fall for your spin.  If you had anything that showed DEMOCRATS in congress with a lower approval rating than Bush you would have paraded it by now.  As it is, you run away from the Harris Poll...you run away from the quinnipiac poll... you run away from the rasmussen poll and you cannot produce a single poll that backs up your claim that DEMOCRATS poll lower than Bush.


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> less than one in four want to even wait to give the surge time to work.  YOUR point is?
> 
> 7 out of 10 Americans want deadlines or mandatory benchmarks.....no more open ended...when they stand up we'll stand down bullshit.



39&#37; want surrender (and who says Fox polls do not inculde Dems?)


61% want something other then surrender - they want to win the war


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> 39&#37; want surrender (and who says Fox polls do not inculde Dems?)
> 
> 
> 61% want something other then surrender - they want to win the war



39% want deadlines for troop withdrawal.  YOu cannot extrapolate from that the the other 61% want to "win the war".... that is clearly not the case....hell of that 61%, less than half of THAT group wants to wait for the surge to work!


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> 39% want deadlines for troop withdrawal.  YOu cannot extrapolate from that the the other 61% want to "win the war".... that is clearly not the case....hell of that 61%, less than half of THAT group wants to wait for the surge to work!



If they do not want to surrender they want to win

I understand being a surrender guy you will not grasp that fact


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> If they do not want to surrender they want to win
> 
> I understand being a surrender guy you will not grasp that fact



no one wants to surrender.... I understand that being a bullheaded talking points moron, you will not grasp that fact.


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> no one wants to surrender.... I understand that being a bullheaded talking points moron, you will not grasp that fact.



Dems do and that is why they are sinking in the polls


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Dems do and that is why they are sinking in the polls



you keep spinning the same old shit. 

explain why 57% of Americans supported the democrat's funding bill.


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> you keep spinning the same old shit.
> 
> explain why 57% of Americans supported the democrat's funding bill.



They supported a funding bill not the surrender bill

You keep running around in circles MM much like your party


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> They supported a funding bill not the surrender bill
> 
> You keep running around in circles MM much like your party



no.  57% of Americans supported the democrat's funding bill *that included withdrawal deadlines*...it is the bill you like to inaccuratelycall the "surrender bill".  57% supported it and were PISSED that Bush vetoed it.  How do you explain that?


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> no.  57% of Americans supported the democrat's funding bill *that included withdrawal deadlines*...it is the bill you like to inaccuratelycall the "surrender bill".  57% supported it and were PISSED that Bush vetoed it.  How do you explain that?



Then why are Dems numbers tanking if they are doing what the people want?


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Then why are Dems numbers tanking if they are doing what the people want?



congress's numbers are tanking because they did not pass the war funding bill that 57% of Americans suppported....and that is on you guys.

don't worry...after this recess, the republicans will get an earful from their constituents and the surge will have until september to work miracles or it's lights out...  republicans will start abandoning Bush and this dumbass war like rats from a sinking ship


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> congress's numbers are tanking because they did not pass the war funding bill that 57% of Americans suppported....and that is on you guys.
> 
> don't worry...after this recess, the republicans will get an earful from their constituents and the surge will have until september to work miracles or it's lights out...  republicans will start abandoning Bush and this dumbass war like rats from a sinking ship



So the Dems are doing the will of the people by passing the surredner bill - yet the same people give the Dems a LOWER approval number then Pres Bush


Nothing like logic and reason MM style


----------



## Annie (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> congress's numbers are tanking because they did not pass the war funding bill that 57% of Americans suppported....and that is on you guys.
> 
> don't worry...after this recess, the republicans will get an earful from their constituents and the surge will have until september to work miracles or it's lights out...  republicans will start abandoning Bush and this dumbass war like rats from a sinking ship



Actually what they are all hearing about and will when they get home is the idiotic immigration action.


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

This is shaping up to be another Harriet Myers for Pres Bush

and another House Bank scandal for Dems


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

I agree Kathianne.... the immigration bill will be huge...but the war will not slip to second place.  the war and the threat of islamic extremists is more pressing that the threat of mexicans.

and it would be interesting to see whether Americans would be so adamant against migrant working aliens if they were to all of a sudden go away and the food supply dried up and the housing construction market dried up and no dishes got washed in restaurants.... 

when lettuce costs 15$ a head, my guess is, folks won't think that illegal aliens are all that bad.


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> I agree Kathianne.... the immigration bill will be huge...but the war will not slip to second place.  the war and the threat of islamic extremists is more pressing that the threat of mexicans.
> 
> and it would be interesting to see whether Americans would be so adamant against migrant working aliens if they were to all of a sudden go away and the food supply dried up and the housing construction market dried up and no dishes got washed in restaurants....
> 
> when lettuce costs 15$ a head, my guess is, folks won't think that illegal aliens are all that bad.




Amercians are against ILLEGALS - both sides are catching hell for this insane amnesty bill


----------



## maineman (May 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Amercians are against ILLEGALS - both sides are catching hell for this insane amnesty bill



I am curious:  what do you think the immigration status is of 95% of the workers who harvest our vegetable crops here in America?


----------



## red states rule (May 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am curious:  what do you think the immigration status is of 95% of the workers who harvest our vegetable crops here in America?



It is about 25% illegal I believe

If they are, breaking our laws, they need to go


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 29, 2017)

red states rule said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > does that tired old one liner ever get old?
> ...


Notice Matt never called him a pervert?


----------

