# Troops Want to Stay In Iraq



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

Dave Thul: In Iraq as in football, defense is crucial
American troops may miss home, but many want Congress to stop calling for retreat.
Dave Thul
Published: March 18, 2007


As the debate over the war in Iraq rages, it is easy for many to forget what a big stake Minnesota has in the war right now. As we close out the fourth year since the invasion, another milestone is here that hits very close to home.
March is the month that many of the almost 3,000 Minnesota National Guardsmen were scheduled to come home. But after 12 months in Iraq, and a year and a half since we left home, our deployment has been extended by up to another four months. This also puts us right in the middle of the debate of the day, the surge plan to secure Baghdad. As Congress consumes itself with nonbinding resolutions and appropriations bills with just the right mix of carrots and sticks, one of the most important opinions is being overlooked -- that of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines serving here in Iraq.

I won't pretend to speak for everyone in uniform over here, and in fact no one ever could. There are as many opinions in the military as there are in the civilian world. But I can tell you that a majority of U.S. troops want to stay in Iraq and finish the mission. How do I know this? Two ways.

The first is anecdotally, from the men and women I work with and talk to every day. I have yet to meet someone who thinks the long-term good of the United States and the Middle East would be served by an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Many of us are tired and frustrated and miss our families and just want to go home. But we want to go home after transferring our area of responsibility to another unit, whether it is U.S. or Iraqi. We don't want to abandon our posts.

The second way I know that my fellow soldiers want to stay is that they have been saying so in a petition to Congress. At the AppealForCourage.org website, more than 1,500 service members in less than a month have signed an appeal for redress, the officially authorized method for the military to ask Congress to right a wrong, asking Congress to stop calling for retreat and to support our mission. 

Day after day we see and hear our elected leaders in Washington telling us that the war is already lost or that it is not winnable. Nothing could be further from the truth. The essence of the military mission here is really quite simple. Train the Iraqi army and police to do the job that we are currently doing, give them the reins, and then take our leave. It is a slow job, but steady progress is being made. Already entire provinces of Iraq are under Iraqi military control. In more than 70 percent of the country, the Iraqi army and police are in the lead.

My dad, a lifelong Vikings fan who raised me the same way, once shared a bit of wisdom about football that I find remarkably pertinent to the situation in Iraq today. He told me that offense sells tickets, but defense wins games. 

When we were invading Iraq, the media gave us nonstop coverage of every city that was secured and every Republican Guard unit that was destroyed or that surrendered. Great headlines about the offensive were everywhere. But over the past few years, we have settled into the day-to-day job of building up the Iraqi military -- the slow defensive work of keeping the peace and wearing down the terrorists. Boring to the media, yet crucial to victory. 

There can be no compromises in Iraq, no negotiated peace. The enemy here is radical Islam, whether in the sectarian violence in Baghdad that seeks to draw all of the Middle East into open war, or the terrorists of Al-Qaida here in the Anbar province who are looking for a new home base since we kicked them out of Afghanistan. If we pull out before the job is done, we will face not only the same chaos and genocide that we saw after pulling out of Vietnam, but we will leave Iraq in a power vacuum with greedy and ambitious neighbors on all sides. 

I've now been deployed 2½ years of the 3½ years since my daughter was born. I would love nothing more than to be at home sharing in her young life and enjoying a Minnesota summer. But I want to come home with honor, knowing that I have helped to make the world she will live in a little safer. 


Sgt. Dave Thul is a Chaska resident serving in Al Asad, Iraq. 
http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1060383.html


----------



## maineman (Mar 21, 2007)

_"This message is hidden because *red states rule* is on your ignore list."_ 

I am now going to do my "Amazing Kreskin" imitation....

even without being able to see this post, I am going to say that it is a multi-paragraph cut and paste from newsmax or perhaps the washington times or some other conservative rag and the thread's originator, the inimitable red states rule, has added, at best, a sentence of his own thought to the end of it. Am I right or not?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> _"This message is hidden because *red states rule* is on your ignore list."_
> 
> I am now going to do my "Amazing Kreskin" imitation....
> 
> even without being able to see this post, I am going to say that it is a multi-paragraph cut and paste from newsmax or perhaps the washington times or some other conservative rag and the thread's originator, the inimitable red states rule, has added, at best, a sentence of his own thought to the end of it. Am I right or not?



Wrong as usual - Starr Tribune

MM is the usual brain dead lib responding with the usual liberal talking points


----------



## ErikViking (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> _"This message is hidden because *red states rule* is on your ignore list."_
> 
> I am now going to do my "Amazing Kreskin" imitation....
> 
> even without being able to see this post, I am going to say that it is a multi-paragraph cut and paste from newsmax or perhaps the washington times or some other conservative rag and the thread's originator, the inimitable red states rule, has added, at best, a sentence of his own thought to the end of it. Am I right or not?




No prize goes to you anyway - he always does that!
But admit it: You are a bit curious, aren't you? FMI: Why do you have people on 'ignore'?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

ErikViking said:


> No prize goes to you anyway - he always does that!
> But admit it: You are a bit curious, aren't you? FMI: Why do you have people on 'ignore'?



Because he cannot debate the issues and counter the truth

Libs do not care about facts and truth - even when it comes from the troops they claim to support


----------



## maineman (Mar 21, 2007)

ErikViking said:


> No prize goes to you anyway - he always does that!
> But admit it: You are a bit curious, aren't you? FMI: Why do you have people on 'ignore'?



no...I really am not.  If I wanted to subscribe to a neoconservative clipping service, I would just do so.  If I want to engage others in debate using my own words and going up against someone else's own words, I have learned that putting red states rule on ignore makes that infinitely easier to accomplish.... my reply to this thread was just a little joke made partly in response to the taunting thread about me last night that was nothing but:

This message is hidden because glockmail is on your ignore list. 
This message is hidden because red states rule is on your ignore list.
This message is hidden because glockmail is on your ignore list. 
This message is hidden because red states rule is on your ignore list. 
This message is hidden because glockmail is on your ignore list. 
This message is hidden because red states rule is on your ignore list. 

so I was fairly certain that the two of them were trying to outdo one another in childish insults.... kind of like a circle jerk between two adolescent sociopaths...  

so... it's kind of fun to poke a stick at one or both of them once in a while and not give them the satisfaction of reading their replies.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...I really am not.  If I wanted to subscribe to a neoconservative clipping service, I would just do so.  If I want to engage others in debate using my own words and going up against someone else's own words, I have learned that putting red states rule on ignore makes that infinitely easier to accomplish.... my reply to this thread was just a little joke made partly in response to the taunting thread about me last night that was nothing but:
> 
> This message is hidden because glockmail is on your ignore list.
> This message is hidden because red states rule is on your ignore list.
> ...



This proves my point MM is scared of a debate - much like his fellow peace niks.

He ignores the letter from a man fighing in Iraq who expresses his deisre to finish the job

Remember, MM also supports the elected Dems who have insulted and smeared these same troops


----------



## ErikViking (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...I really am not.  If I wanted to subscribe to a neoconservative clipping service, I would just do so.  If I want to engage others in debate using my own words and going up against someone else's own words, I have learned that putting red states rule on ignore makes that infinitely easier to accomplish.... my reply to this thread was just a little joke made partly in response to the taunting thread about me last night that was nothing but:
> 
> This message is hidden because glockmail is on your ignore list.
> This message is hidden because red states rule is on your ignore list.
> ...



Okay... I know then.
I must admit I don't read everything. It would take me forever.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

ErikViking said:


> Okay... I know then.
> I must admit I don't read everything. It would take me forever.



I love the open mindednes of liberals


----------



## ErikViking (Mar 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> This proves my point MM is scared of a debate - much like his fellow peace niks.
> 
> He ignores the letter from a man fighing in Iraq who expresses his deisre to finish the job
> 
> Remember, MM also supports the elected Dems who have insulted and smeared these same troops



Yes, but actually he just seems unintrested in two users posts! 
As I said, I can't read everything you post, translation alone would make it take for ever. Cross-posts are swiftly bypassed too. But to me a lot of input is valuable.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

ErikViking said:


> Yes, but actually he just seems unintrested in two users posts!
> As I said, I can't read everything you post, translation alone would make it take for ever. Cross-posts are swiftly bypassed too. But to me a lot of input is valuable.



MM is your typical liberal mmonbat. He has the same condescending attitude toward anyone who disagrees with him

So like a child he ignores those who destroy his defeatest talking points


----------



## ErikViking (Mar 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> MM is your typical liberal mmonbat. He has the same condescending attitude toward anyone who disagrees with him
> 
> So like a child he ignores those who destroy his defeatest talking points



I am not going to discuss MM with you! Ha ha! 

Edit: 
I regret I brought the subject up!


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

ErikViking said:


> I am not going to discuss MM with you! Ha ha!



Then why not respomd to the thread?  Most of the troops so want to saty in Iraq and finish the job


----------



## maineman (Mar 21, 2007)

ErikViking said:


> Yes, but actually he just seems unintrested in two users posts!
> As I said, I can't read everything you post, translation alone would make it take for ever. Cross-posts are swiftly bypassed too. But to me a lot of input is valuable.



exactly erik...
I am anything but afraid of debating the issues....I just have no desire to "debate" the entire conservative wing of America's editorial press corps.  All red states rule EVER does is post voluminous words of others with a oneliner of his own - at best - tacked on.  Like I said...if I wanted to subscribe to a neocon press clipping service, I would just do that.  I am not on this board for that reason, so ignoring this immature, unintelligent, inarticulate little troll is an easy option.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> exactly erik...
> I am anything but afraid of debating the issues....I just have no desire to "debate" the entire conservative wing of America's editorial press corps.  All red states rule EVER does is post voluminous words of others with a oneliner of his own - at best - tacked on.  Like I said...if I wanted to subscribe to a neocon press clipping service, I would just do that.  I am not on this board for that reason, so ignoring this immature, unintelligent, inarticulate little troll is an easy option.





Translation - RSR and Glock kick my wrinkled ass everytime so I run like hell


----------



## ErikViking (Mar 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Then why not respomd to the thread?  Most of the troops so want to saty in Iraq and finish the job



Good. back on track.

Well, I think it is not so surprising. With the progression comes also a pride of your work. To most of them serving in Iraq there is probably more and more turning to a question of caring for the people living there. And less about killing terrorists.

I am guessing of course.
But some guys probably enlisted with Hollywood war movie action before their eyes. Now they perhaps find the reallity much bigger. If you earn the trust of one single sole there you will probably carry that with you for life.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

ErikViking said:


> Good. back on track.
> 
> Well, I think it is not so surprising. With the progression comes also a pride of your work. To most of them serving in Iraq there is probably more and more turning to a question of caring for the people living there. And less about killing terrorists.
> 
> ...





Many times the troops have said they are sick of the Dems trying to end the war and making the US leave in defeat

Also, I would not underestimate the intelligence of the US military. I do not think for a minute anyone goes into the military with visions of Hollywood. They enlist to defend the US and nothing else


----------



## ErikViking (Mar 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Many times the troops have said they are sick of the Dems trying to end the war and making the US leave in defeat
> 
> Also, I would not underestimate the intelligence of the US military. I do not think for a minute anyone goes into the military with visions of Hollywood. They enlist to defend the US and nothing else



Alright, reasons for enlisting might vary, but at the same time, they might have gone there to defend America - and I think some want to stay to defend Iraq.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

ErikViking said:


> Alright, reasons for enlisting might vary, but at the same time, they might have gone there to defend America - and I think some want to stay to defend Iraq.



In the US, libs usually say those who enlist cannot find any jobs, or as John Kerry said - they are uneducated and go to Iraq

If libs really did care about the troops they would want them to win the war - instead libs have put party ahead of the country


----------



## ErikViking (Mar 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> If libs really did care about the troops they would want them to win the war - instead libs have put party ahead of the country



How do you reason around that?
Isn't the war won? Is it a war you are fighting in Iraq? (Terminology-issue)


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

ErikViking said:


> How do you reason around that?
> Isn't the war won? Is it a war you are fighting in Iraq? (Terminology-issue)



You have elected Dems insulting and smearing the US military

You have Dems in DC trying to find a back door way of cutting off funding for the war

You have polls (libs love polls when it supports their views) the people of Iraq want the US to stay and finish the job

You have troops speaking out saying they want to stay

Meanwhile, the Dems do nothing but undermine the President and the troops


----------



## ErikViking (Mar 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You have elected Dems insulting and smearing the US military
> 
> You have Dems in DC trying to find a back door way of cutting off funding for the war
> 
> ...



I didn't mean that! Sorry.
I ment the war. Is Iraq still considered as a war?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

ErikViking said:


> I didn't mean that! Sorry.
> I ment the war. Is Iraq still considered as a war?



I was NOT talking about you - moonbats like MM are the underminers

We are no longer fighting the army of Iraq, now we are fighting terrorists who want to take over Iarq and take orders from Iran

To libs, their are no terrorists in Iraq only freedom fighters (Unless you listen to John Kerry who called the US troops terrorists)


----------



## CTRLALTDEL (Mar 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> They enlist to defend the US and nothing else




Then I guess you don't know much about the military than you think.  I know people who joined the marines/army because they have NO WHERE else to go.  To them it's mainly FINANCIAL.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

CTRLALTDEL said:


> Then I guess you don't know much about the military than you think.  I know people who joined the marines/army because they have NO WHERE else to go.  To them it's mainly FINANCIAL.



Spoken like a true lib. Next, you will agree with John "I served in Viet Nam" Kerry that they are uneducated as well

With a 4.5% unemployment rate the economy is doing great - much to your dismay

If you are not to busy protesting against them - try asking them why they serve


----------



## maineman (Mar 21, 2007)

CTRLALTDEL said:


> Then I guess you don't know much about the military than you think.  I know people who joined the marines/army because they have NO WHERE else to go.  To them it's mainly FINANCIAL.



I disagree.... I found that most folks join the military for a mixture of reasons....patriotism.... educational opportunities... the chance to learn a trade....the chance to travel and see the world... a pretty great career with great benefits and a kickass retirement package.... but patriotism tops the list.

Having said that, being patriotic about the overall mission of any one of our armed forces does not mean that the service member is or even needs to be fully supportive of any one particular mission that they find themselves participating in.... it is their job to go do what the suits in DC tell them to do.  Doing their job well...whatever it is...gives them a sense of pride even when they may personally disagree with the foreign policy that drives that mission.


----------



## CSM (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> I disagree.... I found that most folks join the military for a mixture of reasons....patriotism.... educational opportunities... the chance to learn a trade....the chance to travel and see the world... a pretty great career with great benefits and a kickass retirement package.... but patriotism tops the list.
> 
> Having said that, being patriotic about the overall mission of any one of our armed forces does not mean that the service member is or even needs to be fully supportive of any one particular mission that they find themselves participating in.... it is their job to go do what the suits in DC tell them to do.  Doing their job well...whatever it is...gives them a sense of pride even when they may personally disagree with the foreign policy that drives that mission.



Yup. There are even missions they DO agree withand WANT to do, even when they may personally disagree with the media and anti war bunch....it truly does work both ways.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

You seldom hear from those troops in the liberal media. 

If you see them on Fox News or hear them on Fox News - they are dismissed as being plants or right wing hacks


----------



## maineman (Mar 21, 2007)

CSM said:


> Yup. There are even missions they DO agree withand WANT to do, even when they may personally disagree with the media and anti war bunch....it truly does work both ways.



no doubt... the military is not some monolithic group think organization of uniformly homogenous political philosophy...

but the troops - regardless of whether they think the mission is smart or not, PERFORM that mission with pride and professionalism - because that is what being a sailor (or a soldier or an airman or a marine) is all about


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> no doubt... the military is not some monolithic group think organization of uniformly homogenous political philosophy...
> 
> but the troops - regardless of whether they think the mission is smart or not, PERFORM that mission with pride and professionalism - because that is what being a sailor (or a soldier or an airman or a marine) is all about



Then why are elected Dems undermining the mission and constantly insulting them?


----------



## CSM (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> no doubt... the military is not some monolithic group think organization of uniformly homogenous political philosophy...
> 
> At least no the US military
> 
> but the troops - regardless of whether they think the mission is smart or not, PERFORM that mission with pride and professionalism - because that is what being a sailor (or a soldier or an airman or a marine) is all about ... that is what an all volunteer, professional military gets you.



I agree with this too. Keep it up and you'll be a right wing radical before the night is out.


----------



## maineman (Mar 21, 2007)

CSM said:


> I agree with this too. Keep it up and you'll be a right wing radical before the night is out.




I'll never be a right wing radical...but I will always be a professional naval officer


----------



## CSM (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> I'll never be a right wing radical...but I will always be a professional naval officer



There was a day not so very long ago that just by wearing said uniform you were automatically labelled as a warmongering baby killer....and it didn't matter what your political persuasion may have been. Just thought I would point that out. As you well know there are some posters on this board who still think that way...


----------



## CSM (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> I'll never be a right wing radical...but I will always be a professional naval officer



By the way...that was supposed to be some light humor. Hemerroids bothering ya?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

CSM said:


> There was a day not so very long ago that just by wearing said uniform you were automatically labelled as a warmongering baby killer....and it didn't matter what your political persuasion may have been. Just thought I would point that out. As you well know there are some posters on this board who still think that way...



It was not very long ago Sen Kennedy said they were running torture chambers; Sen Durbin called them Nazi's

Some things never change


----------



## maineman (Mar 21, 2007)

CSM said:


> By the way...that was supposed to be some light humor. Hemerroids bothering ya?



only naval aviators get those!  I appreciated your humor.... I suppose I should have added a ROFLMFAO for emphasis


----------



## maineman (Mar 21, 2007)

CSM said:


> There was a day not so very long ago that just by wearing said uniform you were automatically labelled as a warmongering baby killer....and it didn't matter what your political persuasion may have been. Just thought I would point that out. As you well know there are some posters on this board who still think that way...



and as I hope you well know, I would disagree with those who would think that way.


----------



## CSM (Mar 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It was not very long ago Sen Kennedy said they were running torture chambers; Sen Durbin called them Nazi's
> 
> Some things never change



True enough...but they are politicians....what the heck do they know?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

CSM said:


> True enough...but they are politicians....what the heck do they know?



as well as liberal Professors who call for troops to shoot their officers. They TEACH our kids how to be liberals


----------



## maineman (Mar 21, 2007)

CSM said:


> True enough...but they are politicians....what the heck do they know?




the fact that neither of them said that needn't stem your fervor


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> the fact that neither of them said that needn't stem your fervor



still spinning and defending your beloved libs


----------



## CSM (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> the fact that neither of them said that needn't stem your fervor



We will start with this....

The torture and other sadistic abuses of prisoners in Iraq have done 
immense damage already to America's reputation in the world, and 
the worst may be yet to come. Shamefully, we now learn that 
Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management  
U.S. management.

These incidents have stained our military and stained our country. 
.....Source:http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/04/05/2004511B42.html

Guess you missed that part. Or do you think there is some other 'secret' military over there ?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

CSM said:


> We will start with this....
> 
> The torture and other sadistic abuses of prisoners in Iraq have done
> immense damage already to America's reputation in the world, and
> ...



I have posted the quotes of the Dems many times - MM will bellow how they were taken out context and/or distorted by the right wing attack machine


----------



## CSM (Mar 21, 2007)

Durbins remarks are in the Congressional record:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2005_record&page=S6594&position=all

this must have been
done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags,
or some mad regime&#8212;Pol Pot or others&#8212;
that had no concern for human
beings. Sadly, that is not the case.

I guess he doesn't outright call them Nazis, but the comparison is there.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

Kerry: You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you dont, you get stuck in Iraq.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

CSM said:


> Durbins remarks are in the Congressional record:
> 
> http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2005_record&page=S6594&position=all
> 
> ...



and Pol Pot

nothing like the "support" libs give the troops


----------



## Annie (Mar 21, 2007)

CSM said:


> Durbins remarks are in the Congressional record:
> 
> http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2005_record&page=S6594&position=all
> 
> ...



Certainly is and was. Durbin is a fuktard, there is no doubt on that. He comes from a state with an enormously large record of such. Present and past, more sadly in all likelihood, future...


----------



## maineman (Mar 21, 2007)

the fact of the matter is that Abu Ghraib did damage our reputation in the world and in the arab world in particular... would you disagree with that??


and yes...he did not call them nazis..that is also correct.


----------



## CSM (Mar 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Kerry: You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you dont, you get stuck in Iraq.



Obviously he meant that before he didn't mean that....or is it the other way around?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Certainly is and was. Durbin is a fuktard, there is no doubt on that. He comes from a state with an enormously large record of such. Present and past, more sadly in all likelihood, future...



and these are the assholes who then rant when their patrioitism is questioned


----------



## Annie (Mar 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> and these are the assholes who then rant when their patrioitism is questioned



Who? Me? I'm a 'citizen' of Illinois.


----------



## maineman (Mar 21, 2007)

CSM said:


> Obviously he meant that before he didn't mean that....or is it the other way around?




come on...he meant it as a cut against Bush...there is no worse ad libber in politics than kerry.....


all three of those politicians made statements that were aimed at the administration's policies.... and were intentionally and willfully misconstrued -and continue to be so - by the right because it suits your political purposes


----------



## maineman (Mar 21, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Who? Me? I'm a 'citizen' of Illinois.




I just buried my dad in illinois soil...and accepted the flag from the american legion at the gravesite


----------



## Annie (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> I just buried my dad in illinois soil...and accepted the flag from the american legion at the gravesite



I've offered my condolences, my mother, sister, aunts, uncles, grandparents are all buried here. Which has what to do with my post?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> I've offered my condolences, my mother, sister, aunts, uncles, grandparents are all buried here. Which has what to do with my post?



Nothing


----------



## CSM (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> come on...he meant it as a cut against Bush...there is no worse ad libber in politics than kerry.....
> 
> 
> all three of those politicians made statements that were aimed at the administration's policies (so you admit the Dems were using the troops to get to Bush?).... and were intentionally and willfully misconstrued (Durbin maybe; not so Kenedy) -and continue to be so - by the right because it suits your political purposes



Not that the Dems would EVER do such a thing! As I said...politicians...what the heck do they know?


----------



## maineman (Mar 21, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> I've offered my condolences, my mother, sister, aunts, uncles, grandparents are all buried here. Which has what to do with my post?



not yours but the one yours quoted


----------



## maineman (Mar 21, 2007)

CSM said:


> Not that the Dems would EVER do such a thing! As I said...politicians...what the heck do they know?



I don't think they were using the TROOPS, they were using the news - current events - embarrassments - to get to the president....as if that is a singularly democratic practice.


----------



## CSM (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> come on...he meant it as a cut against Bush...there is no worse ad libber in politics than kerry.....
> 
> Kerry 'means' a lot of things. Ad libbing is not the only thing he is bad at.
> 
> all three of those politicians made statements that were aimed at the administration's policies.... and were intentionally and willfully misconstrued -and continue to be so - by the right because it suits your political purposes



What do you think 'my' political purposes are?


----------



## Annie (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> not yours but the one yours quoted



Please, illuminate.


----------



## maineman (Mar 21, 2007)

CSM said:


> What do you think 'my' political purposes are?



lumping you in with rabid uber conservatives might have been a tad overzealous.

my apologies


----------



## CSM (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> I don't think they were using the TROOPS, they were using the news - current events - embarrassments - to get to the president....as if that is a singularly democratic practice.



Hmmm...way to antiseptic a view. I suppose it allows you to still support your politics that way. "They were using a news event..." I'll have to remember that one!


----------



## maineman (Mar 21, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Please, illuminate.



'and these are the assholes who then rant when their patrioitism is questioned'


----------



## CSM (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> lumping you in with rabid uber conservatives might have been a tad overzealous.
> 
> my apologies



Well I may be a  'conservative' but I am not ssure if I am 'uber'...I know I am not 'rabid'. There is only one poster I know for sure is 'rabid' and he is banned from here.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> 'and these are the assholes who then rant when their patrioitism is questioned'



when they call our troops Nazis. terrorists, uneducated, compare them to Pol Pot, and say they run torture chambers - I DO question their patriotism


----------



## maineman (Mar 21, 2007)

CSM said:


> Well I may be a  'conservative' but I am not ssure if I am 'uber'...I know I am not 'rabid'. There is only one poster I know for sure is 'rabid' and he is banned from here.



RSR fits that criteria, from my perspective...but that is why I have him on ignore now.


----------



## Annie (Mar 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> when they call our troops Nazis. terrorists, uneducated, compare them to Pol Pot, and say they run torture chambers - I DO question their patriotism



He's right MM, that is a problem.


----------



## maineman (Mar 21, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> He's right MM, that is a problem.



we've been around that maypole more times than I care to count.... nobody called anybody a terrorist.  for you to continue to spew that is disappointing to me.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> we've been around that maypole more times than I care to count.... nobody called anybody a terrorist.  for you to continue to spew that is disappointing to me.



Disappointing that the truth continues to be told


----------



## CSM (Mar 21, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> He's right MM, that is a problem.



I know one thing; once a pol makes statements that can be construed or taken out of context and they sound like these quotes do, they will never be elected president.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

CSM said:


> I know one thing; once a pol makes statements that can be construed or taken out of context and they sound like these quotes do, they will never be elected president.



How were they taken "out of contaxt"?


----------



## maineman (Mar 21, 2007)

CSM said:


> I know one thing; once a pol makes statements that can be construed or taken out of context and they sound like these quotes do, they will never be elected president.



I would not disagree...although I might mourn that fact.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> I would not disagree...although I might mourn that fact.



You may mourn - the military will cheer


----------



## maineman (Mar 21, 2007)

CSM said:


> I know one thing; once a pol makes statements that can be construed or taken out of context and they sound like these quotes do, they will never be elected president.



but the fact that idiots like RSR continue to willfully conflate terroize with terrorist is no better than David Howard being canned by the city government of Washington DC for using the word niggardly


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> but the fact that idiots like RSR continue to willfully conflate terroize with terrorist is no better than David Howard being canned by the city government of Washington DC for using the word niggardly



Keep making lame excuse for your lame party


----------



## CSM (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> I would not disagree...although I might mourn that fact.



That could be said for both sides of the aisle....we have lost more than a few because of political correctness...but I suppose that is politics. Sometimes I believe we should have two systems...one for the entertainment of the citizens and one for truly running the country in a manner that benefits this country and its citizens.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

CSM said:


> That could be said for both sides of the aisle....we have lost more than a few because of political correctness...but I suppose that is politics. Sometimes I believe we should have two systems...one for the entertainment of the citizens and one for truly running the country in a manner that benefits this country and its citizens.



We do

Libs provide the entertainment

Reagan conservatives that benefits this country and its citizens


----------



## maineman (Mar 21, 2007)

CSM said:


> That could be said for both sides of the aisle....we have lost more than a few because of political correctness...but I suppose that is politics. Sometimes I believe we should have two systems...one for the entertainment of the citizens and one for truly running the country in a manner that benefits this country and its citizens.




no disagreement from me there


----------



## red states rule (Mar 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> no disagreement from me there



on libs providing the entertainment? For once we agree on something


----------



## Gunny (Mar 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> on libs providing the entertainment? For once we agree on something



There are just as many screwball Republicans as there are Democrats.  John McCain needs to retire to a gated, private coummunity for "older" folks.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 22, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> There are just as many screwball Republicans as there are Democrats.  John McCain needs to retire to a gated, private coummunity for "older" folks.




Seems there a lot more screwball Dems then screwball Republicans

McCain should shut up, join the Dems, and make it official


----------



## Louie (Mar 23, 2007)

sure they want to stay in Iraq and I want some ocean front property in Arizona


----------



## red states rule (Mar 23, 2007)

Louie said:


> sure they want to stay in Iraq and I want some ocean front property in Arizona



Perhaps you failed to read the first post of this thread


----------



## maineman (Mar 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Perhaps you failed to read the first post of this thread




perhaps you failed to notice that that was the opinion of one man?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> perhaps you failed to notice that that was the opinion of one man?



Since when do libs give a damn what the troops say? Libs are to busy smearing them and saying they cannot win the war to listen to what they have to say


----------



## maineman (Mar 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Since when do libs give a damn what the troops say? Libs are to busy smearing them and saying they cannot win the war to listen to what they have to say



I care a great deal with the troops say.  I speak with them in emails every single week.  I just got back from the airport where we welcomed the son of one of my co-workers back.  The point is.... you posted an article from one servicemember and want to pass that off as PROOF that ALL the troops are fully supportive of this war and that they ALL want to stay in Iraq and continue to fight it.  That is not a conclusion that you have any right to draw based upon the writings of one man.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> I care a great deal with the troops say.  I speak with them in emails every single week.  I just got back from the airport where we welcomed the son of one of my co-workers back.  The point is.... you posted an article from one servicemember and want to pass that off as PROOF that ALL the troops are fully supportive of this war and that they ALL want to stay in Iraq and continue to fight it.  That is not a conclusion that you have any right to draw based upon the writings of one man.



I have posted many articles with quotes from many swervicemenvers. You have constantly dismissed them

Now today the Dems spit in their faces with their surrender bill and have made the terrorists very happy


----------



## maineman (Mar 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I have posted many articles with quotes from many swervicemenvers. You have constantly dismissed them
> 
> Now today the Dems spit in their faces with their surrender bill and have made the terrorists very happy



many quotes.... have you posted 80 thousand quotes?  no.  YOu have posted 20 quotes...or less.... that is 20 serivemenbers.  Are you suggesting that is a valid sample size?  How can you begin to portray the idea that you KNOW how "the troops" feel about the war in Iraq?  Have you ever even talked to one yourself?  Do you even KNOW anyone who is there or has been there?  Do you know a majority of them?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> many quotes.... have you posted 80 thousand quotes?  no.  YOu have posted 20 quotes...or less.... that is 20 serivemenbers.  Are you suggesting that is a valid sample size?  How can you begin to portray the idea that you KNOW how "the troops" feel about the war in Iraq?  Have you ever even talked to one yourself?  Do you even KNOW anyone who is there or has been there?  Do you know a majority of them?



I have posted articles with multiple interviews and videos on those articles with dozens of servicemen

Of course sine it was Fox News, libs like you dismiss them as staged

Yes I know several over in Iraq and they do want to finish the job - of course they have to with no help from the Defeatocrats

On the other hand, when 60 minutes puts a few anti war vets on the air libs see that as the overwhelming majority opinion


----------



## maineman (Mar 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I have posted articles with multiple interviews and videos on those articles with dozens of servicemen
> 
> Of course sine it was Fox News, libs like you dismiss them as staged
> 
> ...



dozens.... wow.

there are 150 thousand troops over there and you have got dozens to back up your claim that "the troops all want to stay".

dozens.

if I were to post the emails from "dozens" of national guardsmen who think that the war is stupid and attempted to make the claim that, based upon those "dozens" of emails, it is PROOF that all the troops want us to leave, you would laugh me off the thread....

give me that same right.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> dozens.... wow.
> 
> there are 150 thousand troops over there and you have got dozens to back up your claim that "the troops all want to stay".
> 
> ...




So you laugh off my posts yet libs run with a few anti war vets on 60 minutes or the network news

If the troops want the war to end, they have a strange way of showing it with reenlistments up

I would like to see how the troops feel about the surrender bill Dems passed today


----------



## maineman (Mar 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So you laugh off my posts yet libs run with a few anti war vets on 60 minutes or the network news
> 
> If the troops want the war to end, they have a strange way of showing it with reenlistments up
> 
> I would like to see how the troops feel about the surrender bill Dems passed today


I don't laugh off your posts....I only question your right to claim that your "dozens of articles" represent "all the troops".  When have I ever "run with a few anti war vets on 60 minutes?

I am trying to have a conversation with YOU....not every conservative .... why don't you talk to ME instead of denigrating every variety of liberal in America.?

And you have obviously never been in the service.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

"Take us out of that vacuum -- and it's on the edge now -- and boom, it would become a free-for-all," said Lt. Col. Mark Suich, who commands the 1st Squadron, 89th Cavalry Regiment just south of Baghdad. "It would be a raw contention for power. That would be the bloodiest piece of this war."

The soldiers declined to discuss the political jousting back home, but they expressed support for the Bush administration's approach to the war, which they described as sticking with a tumultuous situation to give Iraq a chance to stand on its own.

Leading Democrats have argued for a timeline to bring U.S. troops home, because obvious progress has been elusive, especially in Baghdad, and even some Republican lawmakers have recently called for a change in strategy. But soldiers criticized the idea of a precipitate withdrawal, largely because they believe their hard work would go for naught.

Capt. Jim Modlin, 26, of Oceanport, N.J., said he thought the situation in Iraq had improved between his deployment in 2003 and his return this year as a liaison officer to Iraqi security forces with the 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, based here on FOB Sykes outside Tall Afar. Modlin described himself as more liberal than conservative and said he had already cast his absentee ballot in Texas. He said he believed that U.S. elected officials would lead the military in the right direction, regardless of what happens Tuesday.

"Pulling out now would be as bad or worse than going forward with no changes," Modlin said. "Sectarian violence would be rampant, democracy would cease to exist, and the rule of law would be decimated. It's not 'stay the course,' and it's not 'cut and run' or other political catchphrases. There are people's lives here. There are so many different dynamics that go on here that a simple solution just isn't possible."

Soldiers and officers had difficulty conveying what victory in Iraq would look like or exactly how to achieve it. In some ways, victory is a moving target, they said, one that relies heavily on the Iraqi people gaining trust in the Iraqi security forces and the ability of the Iraqi government to support essential services. In northern Iraq, officials said they expect to hand over major parts of the country to Iraqi forces within the next five months, but most agree that Baghdad will be far behind.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6/11/05/AR2006110500770.html?nav=most_emailed


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

one is left with the conclusion that you really are incapable of expressing any sort of independent thought.  Maybe all you really are is a newsbot..... and here I've been trying to communicate with it!


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> one is left with the conclusion that you really are incapable of expressing any sort of independent thought.  Maybe all you really are is a newsbot..... and here I've been trying to communicate with it!



and members of the Bush hating, terrorist coddling, USA bashing, military loathing left cannot stand to see any support for Pres Bush and the war coming from the "uneducated" US military


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> and members of the Bush hating, terrorist coddling, USA bashing, military loathing left cannot stand to see any support for Pres Bush and the war coming from the "uneducated" US military



I do, in fact, dislike our president.  I do not, nor have I ever "coddled" terrorists.  I most certainly do not "loathe" the military.  And I welcome and rejoice in the fact that men and women in the military, regardless of the diversity of their opinions about this war, do their jobs with honor and professionalism.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> I do, in fact, dislike our president.  I do not, nor have I ever "coddled" terrorists.  I most certainly do not "loathe" the military.  And I welcome and rejoice in the fact that men and women in the military, regardless of the diversity of their opinions about this war, do their jobs with honor and professionalism.



The why do you continue to support the Dems who have insulted and smeared them?

Why are do you continue to support the Dems who voted for surrender at all costs yesterday?


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The why do you continue to support the Dems who have insulted and smeared them?
> 
> Why are do you continue to support the Dems who voted for surrender at all costs yesterday?



None of the democrats that represent me have ever insulted or smeared our troops.  

I disagree with your mischaracterization of the bill that passed the house yesterday.


And while I may have my disagreements with many democrats and their statements about this war, they still share my overall political philosophy to a profoundly greater extent than any republican outside of the two moderates who serve in the US senate from my state.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> None of the democrats that represent me have ever insulted or smeared our troops.
> 
> I disagree with your mischaracterization of the bill that passed the house yesterday.
> 
> ...



Oh yea, you still lie and cover for them despite all the times I posted their quotes

I suppose you consider peanut storage sheds vital military spending. Also, demanding 15 days notice to Congress before the CIC can deploy troops and calling for a pull out date is not tying the hands of the military is not surrender?

Not to a panty wearing lib I guess


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Oh yea, you still lie and cover for them despite all the times I posted their quotes
> 
> I suppose you consider peanut storage sheds vital military spending. Also, demanding 15 days notice to Congress before the CIC can deploy troops and calling for a pull out date is not tying the hands of the military is not surrender?
> 
> Not to a panty wearing lib I guess



no...it is definitely not surrender. 

and I call you on it when you misconstrue and improperly define words.  Speak with precision as I do and we wouldn't have as many problems.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...it is definitely not surrender.
> 
> and I call you on it when you misconstrue and improperly define words.  Speak with precision as I do and we wouldn't have as many problems.



It is not surrender if you want the terrorists to win

As far as speaking clearly, Sen Durbin did very well

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime  Pol Pot or others  that had no concern for human beings".


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It is not surrender if you want the terrorists to win
> 
> As far as speaking clearly, Sen Durbin did very well
> 
> "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime &#8212; Pol Pot or others &#8212; that had no concern for human beings".



I do not want the terrorists to win.  Why must you spew crap like that?  If all you care to do is insult me, I really have no desire to continue.

Durbin believed that the way we were treating prisoners is not the way that America should treat prisoners.  I happen to agree.  I think that some of the methods we use are indeed more similar to those employed by totalitarian regimes in the past than I would prefer them to be.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> I do not want the terrorists to win.  Why must you spew crap like that?  If all you care to do is insult me, I really have no desire to continue.
> 
> Durbin believed that the way we were treating prisoners is not the way that America should treat prisoners.  I happen to agree.  I think that some of the methods we use are indeed more similar to those employed by totalitarian regimes in the past than I would prefer them to be.




If you support tying the hands of the US military to kill the enemy - you must want the terrorists to win

As far as Sen Turbin - there is nothing new in smearing the troops, libs have done that for the last 30 years

Much like John Kerry - You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you dont, you get stuck in Iraq.


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> If you support tying the hands of the US military to kill the enemy - you must want the terrorists to win
> 
> As far as Sen Turbin - there is nothing new in smearing the troops, libs have done that for the last 30 years
> 
> Much like John Kerry - You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you dont, you get stuck in Iraq.



I don't support tying the military's hands.  I support putting the onus on Iraq to solve their own problems.  We should not put our troops in the middle of a civil war between sunnis and shiites where BOTH sides think we are the enemy as well.

And again...I have never smeared the troops.... and Kerry is not a very adept comedian....and a terrible ad libber.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> I don't support tying the military's hands.  I support putting the onus on Iraq to solve their own problems.  We should not put our troops in the middle of a civil war between sunnis and shiites where BOTH sides think we are the enemy as well.
> 
> And again...I have never smeared the troops.... and Kerry is not a very adept comedian....and a terrible ad libber.



Civil war? the people of Iraq do not think thier is a civil war going on. Only the liberal media and the Defeatocrats

Kerry is just terrible - and a traitor

You are the biggest liberal ass kisser and an embarrassment to the armed forces of the US


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Civil war? the people of Iraq do not think thier is a civil war going on. Only the liberal media and the Defeatocrats
> 
> Kerry is just terrible - and a traitor
> 
> You are the biggest liberal ass kisser and an embarrassment to the armed forces of the US



if all you want to do is insult me, I won't play that game either.

calling me an embarrassment to the armed forces is really not anything you are qualified to judge.  My record stands for itself and I never had one superior officer ever offer anything other than high praise for my performance.  Nobody I ever knew in uniform found me an embarrassment.  I wonder how or why you would think you are qualified to make such a slanderous statement?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> if all you want to do is insult me, I won't play that game either.
> 
> calling me an embarrassment to the armed forces is really not anything you are qualified to judge.  My record stands for itself and I never had one superior officer ever offer anything other than high praise for my performance.  Nobody I ever knew in uniform found me an embarrassment.  I wonder how or why you would think you are qualified to make such a slanderous statement?



Because you blindly support those who are underming the war effort, Pres Bush, and the troops all for political reasons

For a man (and I use that term loosly) who bellows he loves the US military how can you support the Dems who on a dialy basis show they have no desire to win the war or support the troops?

Much like this fuck...........

I don't agree with that. But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is, you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment; you've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis, and there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. - John Kerry


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Because you blindly support those who are underming the war effort, Pres Bush, and the troops all for political reasons
> 
> For a man (and I use that term loosly) who bellows he loves the US military how can you support the Dems who on a dialy basis show they have no desire to win the war or support the troops?
> 
> ...



1.  I don't "blindly support" anyone.

2.  I disagree with your characterization of democrats as not supporting the troops.  I think they do.  and I told you and I am really running out of patience here...do not continue to insult me.

3. if a band of armed men who spoke a foreign language and did not understand mine broke into MY home in the dead of night, I am absolutely certain that my wife and children would be terrorized.  Wouldn't you?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> 1.  I don't "blindly support" anyone.
> 
> 2.  I disagree with your characterization of democrats as not supporting the troops.  I think they do.  and I told you and I am really running out of patience here...do not continue to insult me.
> 
> 3. if a band of armed men who spoke a foreign language and did not understand mine broke into MY home in the dead of night, I am absolutely certain that my wife and children would be terrorized.  Wouldn't you?



Form your posts - you kiss the asses of Dems while hating every breath Pres Bush takes

Libs continue to show their lack of support for the troops and you continue to support them. What does that tell about you?

Keep defedning the slimball Kerry and his smearing of the troops. Again your "patriotism" is showing through loud and clear


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

why are you incapable of answering questions posed to you?


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

if a band of armed men who spoke a foreign language and did not understand mine broke into MY home in the dead of night, I am absolutely certain that my wife and children would be terrorized. *Wouldn't you?*

yes or no?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> if a band of armed men who spoke a foreign language and did not understand mine broke into MY home in the dead of night, I am absolutely certain that my wife and children would be terrorized. *Wouldn't you?*
> 
> yes or no?



Not if they got rid of Saddam

Of cousre that is NOT what Kerry was saying - he has a long history of insulting the US military

That is Kerry being the real Kerry


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Not if they got rid of Saddam
> 
> Of cousre that is NOT what Kerry was saying - he has a long history of insulting the US military
> 
> That is Kerry being the real Kerry




so you are saying that if you were awakened in the dead of night by an armed band of men speaking a foreign language, you would not be afraid?

Kerry said what he said....he said that women and children were terrorized by being awakened in the dead of night by armed men speaking a foreign language.

If you say you would not be afraid at such an intrusion, I do not believe you.

And these people were not the friends of America...these were the homes of suspected insurgents.... do you honestly think that they were all pro-America because we got rid of Saddam?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> so you are saying that if you were awakened in the dead of night by an armed band of men speaking a foreign language, you would not be afraid?
> 
> Kerry said what he said....he said that women and children were terrorized by being awakened in the dead of night by armed men speaking a foreign language.
> 
> ...




Kerry was calling the troops terrorists - much like he called them murders and uneducated. 

Once again the polls of the Iraq people disagree with you. They want the US to finsish the job, they do not think their is a civil war, and they are happy to see the terrorists losing the battle

Of cousre, they also see how the libs are fucking things up and they are afriad of what will happen if the libs get their way


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Kerry was calling the troops terrorists - much like he called them murders and uneducated.
> 
> Once again the polls of the Iraq people disagree with you. They want the US to finsish the job, they do not think their is a civil war, and they are happy to see the terrorists losing the battle
> 
> Of cousre, they also see how the libs are fucking things up and they are afriad of what will happen if the libs get their way




no...he was NOT calling the troops terrorists... your failings with language are noteworthy.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...he was NOT calling the troops terrorists... your failings with language are noteworthy.



Lets see, he says US troops BREAK into homes and TERRORIZE women and children

Yes, he WAS calling them TERRORISTS

Reminds me of another great Kery moment,  "I actually voted for the $87 billion - before I voted against it"


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Lets see, he says US troops BREAK into homes and TERRORIZE women and children
> 
> Yes, he WAS calling them TERRORISTS
> 
> Reminds me of another great Kery moment,  "I actually voted for the $87 billion - before I voted against it"



no... he said they terrorized women and children.  the word "terrorize" has a different and distinct meaning from "terrorist"  Bullies terrorize a school yard... that does not make them terrorists.  Curt Schilling terrorized left handed batters with his high inside fastball...that does not make him a terrorist.  Like i said, your lack of comprehension of the nuance of language is pretty appalling.


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Lets see, he says US troops BREAK into homes and TERRORIZE women and children
> 
> Yes, he WAS calling them TERRORISTS
> 
> Reminds me of another great Kery moment,  "I actually voted for the $87 billion - before I voted against it"




and you are aware that his quote about the $87B had to do with two different forms of the legislation - one where the money was a grant and the other where it was a loan?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> no... he said they terrorized women and children.  the word "terrorize" has a different and distinct meaning from "terrorist"  Bullies terrorize a school yard... that does not make them terrorists.  Curt Schilling terrorized left handed batters with his high inside fastball...that does not make him a terrorist.  Like i said, your lack of comprehension of the nuance of language is pretty appalling.



Only in your world will you bellow how you support the troops while bowing before the very people who smear them every chance they get

There were some troops who had a great response to Mr Kerry


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Only in your world will you bellow how you support the troops while bowing before the very people who smear them every chance they get
> 
> There were some troops who had a great response to Mr Kerry



are you saying that terrorize and terrorist mean the same thing?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you saying that terrorize and terrorist mean the same thing?



I am saying Kerry insulted the troops again, inserted his foot in his mouth agin, and the libs are circling ine wagons around him - again


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I am saying Kerry insulted the troops again, inserted his foot in his mouth agin, and the libs are circling ine wagons around him - again



why are you incapable of answering simple questions?

are you saying that terrorize and terrorist mean the same thing?

yes or no?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> why are you incapable of answering simple questions?
> 
> are you saying that terrorize and terrorist mean the same thing?
> 
> yes or no?



and you say I have a difficult understanding of the English language


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> and you say I have a difficult understanding of the English language




either answer the question, or run away.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> either answer the question, or run away.



I have - you seem to be on the verge of running away - not me


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I have - you seem to be on the verge of running away - not me




are you saying that terrorize and terrorist mean the same thing?

yes or no?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you saying that terrorize and terrorist mean the same thing?
> 
> yes or no?



I am saying John Boy slimed the troops - and the picture of the troops would say they agree with me


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

so you are saying that a pit bull who breaks his chain and roams the neighborhood terrorizing the children, he is a member of a political organization that is using terror as a political weapon?  IS that correct?


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I am saying John Boy slimed the troops - and the picture of the troops would say they agree with me



answer the question

are you really incapable of doing so?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> so you are saying that a pit bull who breaks his chain and roams the neighborhood terrorizing the children, he is a member of a political organization that is using terror as a political weapon?  IS that correct?



You are some liberal ass kisser MM

Your boy insulted the troops (who you claim to care so much about) and you will not admit it

The troops understood what he said - why can't you?


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I am saying John Boy slimed the troops - and the picture of the troops would say they agree with me




tha picture had to do with your false contention that Kerry called our troops terrorists?  I didn't see that in that picture.  Could you explain?


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You are some liberal ass kisser MM
> 
> Your boy insulted the troops (who you claim to care so much about) and you will not admit it
> 
> The troops understood what he said - why can't you?



why can't you stick to the job of answering a simple question?

why IS that?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> why can't you stick to the job of answering a simple question?
> 
> why IS that?



Chill out MM

Go burn a US flag and clam down

We all know what your boy said - I posted a photo of the troops response as well


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Chill out MM
> 
> Go burn a US flag and clam down
> 
> We all know what your boy said - I posted a photo of the troops response as well




why are you so afraid of answering questions?

now I know why you have never served in the military.  YOu are afraid of just about everything!


----------



## Gunny (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I am saying John Boy slimed the troops - and the picture of the troops would say they agree with me



Geez, what royal screw-up.  How hard does this have to be?

MM ...

In the context that you are using, terrorist and terrorize are not necessarily inclusive terms.

From a literal standpoint, they are inclusive terms.


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Geez, what royal screw-up.  How hard does this have to be?
> 
> MM ...
> 
> ...




would your wife be terrorized if a band of armed men speaking a foreign language broke into your home in the dead of night?  yes or no?

I am fully aware that, from the republican party's perspective and their never ending mission to paint any and all democrats in a bad light vis a vis this war, those words are assumed to mean the same thing. In fact, they do not....


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Geez, what royal screw-up.  How hard does this have to be?
> 
> MM ...
> 
> ...



You are trying to point out the facts and truth to a liberal

A very hard job indeed


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You are trying to point out the facts and truth to a liberal
> 
> A very hard job indeed




can you do anything else other than cut and paste and toss out one line insults?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> can you do anything else other than cut and paste and toss out one line insults?





Jsut trying to relate to you in small words that you can grasp

It seems the truth and facts mean nothing to you


----------



## Gunny (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> would your wife be terrorized if a band of armed men speaking a foreign language broke into your home in the dead of night?  yes or no?
> 
> I am fully aware that, from the republican party's perspective and their never ending mission to paint any and all democrats in a bad light vis a vis this war, those words are assumed to mean the same thing. In fact, they do not....



ter·ror·ize      /&#712;t&#603;r&#601;&#716;ra&#618;z/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ter-uh-rahyz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation 
verb (used with object), -ized, -iz·ing. 1. to fill or overcome with terror.  
2. to dominate or coerce by intimidation.  
3. to produce widespread fear by acts of violence, as bombings.  

ter·ror·ist      /&#712;t&#603;r&#601;r&#618;st/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ter-er-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation 
noun 1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.  
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.  
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.  
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.  
adjective 5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics 

Clearly the two words are inclusive from a literal standpoint.  I agree with you that in their incorrect use by people today, they are not mutually inclusive.

I DO think a politician who counts on votes should be a lot more careful that what he says IS what he means however.  I don't know how much of Kerry's constituency is military, but I wouldn't want to alienate their vote for simply lacking in proper communication skills.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You are trying to point out the facts and truth to a liberal
> 
> A very hard job indeed



He understands English, and isn't doing the _cumbia_ around the question.


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> ter·ror·ize      /&#712;t&#603;r&#601;&#716;ra&#618;z/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ter-uh-rahyz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> verb (used with object), -ized, -iz·ing. 1. to fill or overcome with terror.
> 2. to dominate or coerce by intimidation.
> 3. to produce widespread fear by acts of violence, as bombings.
> ...



I agree completely that he would have been much better off to use any of a variety of synonyms for terrorize - frighten, scare the shit out of - aggitate - alarm - petrify..... no argument at all.  But as much as some want to twist what he said...he did NOT call our troops TERRORISTS.  period.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Jsut trying to relate to you in small words that you can grasp
> 
> It seems the truth and facts mean nothing to you



Do you know for a fact that Kerry's intent was to call US military personnel terrorists?  You're doing EXACTLY what you accuse liberals of doing ... playing a dishonest, literalist game.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> I agree completely that he would have been much better off to use any of a variety of synonyms for terrorize - frighten, scare the shit out of - aggitate - alarm - petrify..... no argument at all.  But as much as some want to twist what he said...he did NOT call our troops TERRORISTS.  period.



I agree that I do not believe that was his intent.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Do you know for a fact that Kerry's intent was to call US military personnel terrorists?  You're doing EXACTLY what you accuse liberals of doing ... playing a dishonest, literalist game.



If it was his first offense I would give him the benefit of the doubt - but he has a long history of insulting the military

Much like the Dem party over the last five years


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> If it was his first offense I would give him the benefit of the doubt - but he has a long history of insulting the military
> 
> Much like the Dem party over the last five years



words have meaning.... we are not playing charades where what a word SOUNDS like trumps what it actually means.


once again.... do you believe that terrorist and terrorize are synonymous?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> words have meaning.... we are not playing charades where what a word SOUNDS like trumps what it actually means.
> 
> 
> once again.... do you believe that terrorist and terrorize are synonymous?



Words do mean things

That is why Dems are not taken seriously on supporting the troops or national defense


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Words do mean things
> 
> That is why Dems are not taken seriously on supporting the troops or national defense



why are you so afraid of just answering a simple question?  WHy do you continue to dance?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> why are you so afraid of just answering a simple question?  WHy do you continue to dance?



I have - John Boy and the libs have done what they do best, smearing the troops


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I have - John Boy and the libs have done what they do best, smearing the troops



no....you have not .... again...really simple...yes or no...

do you believe that the words "terrorist" and " terrorize" are synonymous?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> no....you have not .... again...really simple...yes or no...
> 
> do you believe that the words "terrorist" and " terrorize" are synonymous?



What part of smearing do you not understand? Terrorists, Nazi's, Pol Pot, running of torture chambers, and uneducated - my how libs show their support of the troops


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> What part of smearing do you not understand? Terrorists, Nazi's, Pol Pot, running of torture chambers, and uneducated - my how libs show their support of the troops



simple question. WHy do you continue to avoid it?

are terrorist and terrorize synonymous.  yes or no?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> simple question. WHy do you continue to avoid it?
> 
> are terrorist and terrorize synonymous.  yes or no?



Do you understand what a moron you are for continuing to defend this slimeball?


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Do you understand what a moron you are for continuing to defend this slimeball?




I am not defending anyone.  I am asking YOU a question about words.  Can you answer it?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am not defending anyone.  I am asking YOU a question about words.  Can you answer it?



You have been carrying the water for Kerry, Durbin, Kennedy, and the anti war left since day one

You defend these slimeballs while they undermine the troops


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

I am not defending anyone.  I am asking you a simple question about the meaning of two words.  Are you going to answer it or are you going to continue to be too afraid to do so?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am not defending anyone.  I am asking you a simple question about the meaning of two words.  Are you going to answer it or are you going to continue to be too afraid to do so?



You have been lying for the military bashing left since I have been here

You are either a very poor lier or just an old fool


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You have been lying for the military bashing left since I have been here
> 
> You are either a very poor lier or just an old fool



I have never lied here.  I speak only the truth.  I ask you questions and you NEVER answer them.  Please try to do so.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> I have never lied here.  I speak only the truth.  I ask you questions and you NEVER answer them.  Please try to do so.



You ahve been lying about what your buds have said about the military - even though their quotes have been psoted for you to read

As I said, you are either a poor lier or an old fool

Since you say you have not lied, that tells us all the what you really are


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You ahve been lying about what your buds have said about the military - even though their quotes have been psoted for you to read
> 
> As I said, you are either a poor lier or an old fool
> 
> Since you say you have not lied, that tells us all the what you really are




I have not lied about what they said.... you have.... but I guess it really isn't lying on your part, just a grade school level of understanding about the language.

Once again:

do you think that terrorize and terrorist are synonyms?  yes or no?

be a man... just step up and answer the question.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> I have not lied about what they said.... you have.... but I guess it really isn't lying on your part, just a grade school level of understanding about the language.
> 
> Once again:
> 
> ...



or perhaps you are a lying old fool


----------



## CTRLALTDEL (Mar 24, 2007)

LOL!!!!!  Talk about CORNERED CATS.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 24, 2007)

CTRLALTDEL said:


> LOL!!!!!  Talk about CORNERED CATS.



Na, libs are more like cornered rats


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> or perhaps you are a lying old fool



I am neither a liar, nor all that old...and I would match my intellect, my education, and my experience up with yours any day of the week.  YOU are the one incapable of writing anything on your own of any substance.  YOU are the one incapable of answering simple yes or no questions.  

Would you like to try one more time?

Please tell me if you think that terrorist and terrorize are synonymous....yes or no?

(and I realize, after just typing that, that you might not know what "synonymous" means.)  If so, I would suggest you find out here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/

you might also check the two words in question while you are there.


----------



## Shattered (Mar 24, 2007)

Lmao!!!


----------



## Gunny (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> or perhaps you are a lying old fool




This is a PERFECT example of what I have been talking about.  You haven't done a damned thing but post someone else's opinion, the try and defend it with accusations and deflections.  You couldn't even answer a simple question.  I had to answer it for you.

I may not agree with MM's political ideology, but he's laying the smacketh down on YOU something fierce because you are too intellectually lazy to think for yourself and post a logical, fact-based argument.


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> This is a PERFECT example of what I have been talking about.  You haven't done a damned thing but post someone else's opinion, the try and defend it with accusations and deflections.  You couldn't even answer a simple question.  I had to answer it for you.
> 
> I may not agree with MM's political ideology, but he's laying the smacketh down on YOU something fierce because you are too intellectually lazy to think for yourself and post a logical, fact-based argument.



gunny...we're a lot closer philosophically than either of us would probably like to admit!

but thank you for the props...

back atcha


----------



## Bullypulpit (Mar 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Because he cannot debate the issues and counter the truth
> 
> Libs do not care about facts and truth - even when it comes from the troops they claim to support



Oh puleez. We've both spanked your ass and sent you to bed without supper so often that it's gone from being funny to just sad.

Just once, show a little initiative and really think for yourself. You might actually learn something. Unless, you find bliss in ignorance.


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> Oh puleez. We've both spanked your ass and sent you to bed without supper so often that it's gone from being funny to just sad.
> 
> Just once, show a little initiative and really think for yourself. You might actually learn something. Unless, you find bliss in ignorance.



even conservatives have begun to distance themselves from this moron.


----------



## T-Bor (Mar 24, 2007)

Just like YOU will ignore the letter from a man in IRAQ who says he wants to come home and doesnt understand why we are there.. And you know there are plenty of them. 




red states rule said:


> This proves my point MM is scared of a debate - much like his fellow peace niks.
> 
> He ignores the letter from a man fighing in Iraq who expresses his deisre to finish the job
> 
> Remember, MM also supports the elected Dems who have insulted and smeared these same troops


----------



## T-Bor (Mar 24, 2007)

My oh my, was just reading through this post watching Red States get Owned by MaineMan.  You are so right MaineMan, all he does is post articles with no thought of his own.  Here is something else try to find one post of his without the word Lib in it.  That will be hard to do.  All he does is Bash libs for this and that and never is objective towards his own party.  Bush could get drunk one night and drive his car right through the White House front door and this guy would defend him and call the trial a witch hunt.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 25, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> This is a PERFECT example of what I have been talking about.  You haven't done a damned thing but post someone else's opinion, the try and defend it with accusations and deflections.  You couldn't even answer a simple question.  I had to answer it for you.
> 
> I may not agree with MM's political ideology, but he's laying the smacketh down on YOU something fierce because you are too intellectually lazy to think for yourself and post a logical, fact-based argument.



were you two seperated at birth?

All he has done is stand shoulder to shoulder with the Dems who have attacked the troops

I call him on it and now you circle the wagons around him

Take a deep breath and try some decaf before posting again


----------



## red states rule (Mar 25, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> Oh puleez. We've both spanked your ass and sent you to bed without supper so often that it's gone from being funny to just sad.
> 
> Just once, show a little initiative and really think for yourself. You might actually learn something. Unless, you find bliss in ignorance.



Since when? All he has done is defend the lies and attacks from the kook left - which you are a proud member of


----------



## red states rule (Mar 25, 2007)

So much for libs supporting freedopm of speech and freedom of the press. Now libs are attacking one of the most liberal newspaper in the US for haveing the gall to say something bad about how Dems are running the government


Democrat Congressman Accuses Washington Post of Helping Drive Nation to War
Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 24, 2007 - 20:37. 
As NewsBusters reported, the Washington Post published an editorial Friday that was highly critical of the bribery tactics employed by House Democrats to get their pork-laden Iraq withdrawal bill passed. 

As surprising as this event was, even more shocking was a Democrat Congressman so angered by this paper disagreeing with his Party that he said [the Post] helped drive the drumbeat that drove almost two-thirds of the people in this chamber to vote for [the Iraq war]."

Displaying such unbridled disgust was Rep. David Obey (D-Wisconsin) who had rather harsh words for the Post on the House floor Friday (video available here): 

Let me submit to you the problem we have today is not that we didn't listen enough to people like The Washington Post. It's that we listened too much. They endorsed going to war in the first place. They helped drive the drumbeat that drove almost two-thirds of the people in this chamber to vote for that misbegotten, stupid, ill-advised war that has destroyed our influence over a third of the world. 

Dontcha just love it? Do Democrats have any responsibility for the decisions they make in Congress? After all, when it comes to this vote, what weve been hearing for years is that it was all the Bush administrations fault. Now, its also the medias fault? 

Are these children that have been elected to serve the nation, or adults that are supposed to take responsibility for their actions and their decisions without pointing at others while saying, "He made me do it?"

Regardless of the answer, Obey wasnt finished:

So I make no apology if the moral sensibilities of some people on this floor, or the editorial writers of The Washington Post, are offended because they don't like the specific language contained in our benchmarks or in our timelines. What matters in the end is not what the specific language is. What matters is whether or not we produce a product today that puts pressure on this Administration and sends a message to Iraq, to the Iraqi politicians that we're going to end the permanent long-term dead end babysitting service. That's what we're trying to do. And if The Washington Post is offended about the way we do it, that's just too bad.

Hmmm. But isnt that a bit of a double standard, Congressman? After all, for quite some time, your Party and its representatives have been telling the American people that the President manipulated intelligence reports to mislead legislators and the public. In fact, youve all made a big deal about specific language, even so far as criticizing sixteen words in a State of the Union address, correct?

As such, isnt it somewhat hypocritical to be taking such a Machiavellian position whereby the specific language of this bill, and its atrocious bribery tactics, are irrelevant if they accomplish the goal your after?

Congressman, heal thyself.

*****Update: The Washington Post wasn't as gung ho about the Iraq war as Obey claimed on Friday. In fact, one of the strongest antiwar mainstream media voices in March 2003 was the Post's Walter Pincus. Take a look at his March 16, 2003, article entitled "U.S. Lacks Specifics on Banned Arms," as well as his March 18, 2003, article entitled "Bush Clings to Dubious Allegations About Iraq" for example.

It appears that Obey isn't familiar with Pincus' work, although facts don't seem very important to many folks who are trying to make a dubious point.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11624


----------



## maineman (Mar 25, 2007)

imagine that.... another morning, another newsbusters cut and paste.

what a fucking loser!


----------



## red states rule (Mar 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> imagine that.... another morning, another newsbusters cut and paste.
> 
> what a fucking loser!



Yes, libs are fucking losers - and surreneder monkies

Libs hate newsbusters - but can never find any errors in their reporting


----------



## maineman (Mar 25, 2007)

you prove my point.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> you prove my point.



What,how libs cannot find anything wrong in their articles?

Libs are so defensive about having any facts pointed out to them. Must be part of being a liberal

Much like a vampire cannot stand the rays of the sun - libs cannot stand the rays of truth beings shined on them


----------



## maineman (Mar 25, 2007)

red states rule said:


> What,how libs cannot find anything wrong in their articles?
> 
> Libs are so defensive about having any facts pointed out to them. Must be part of being a liberal
> 
> Much like a vampire cannot stand the rays of the sun - libs cannot stand the rays of truth beings shined on them



I don't even read your articles.  If you wrote something on your own of any substance other than your repetitive one liners, I would read them.  As I said, if I wanted to come to the internet to read newsbusters articles, I would go there.  I come here to read the thoughts of others..... I would LOVE to read your thoughts... but you are incapable of producing any.... you rely on the lengthy editorials of others...and like I said, I know where to go if that is what I want to read.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> I don't even read your articles.  If you wrote something on your own of any substance other than your repetitive one liners, I would read them.  As I said, if I wanted to come to the internet to read newsbusters articles, I would go there.  I come here to read the thoughts of others..... I would LOVE to read your thoughts... but you are incapable of producing any.... you rely on the lengthy editorials of others...and like I said, I know where to go if that is what I want to read.



Not surprised. It goes against the traits of an open minded lib to want to read opposing points of view


----------



## maineman (Mar 25, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Not surprised. It goes against the traits of an open minded lib to want to read opposing points of view




As I said...I anxiously await the time when I can read an opposing point of view that you express yourself.

I read all sorts of news sources on a daily basis...I don't come here to do so.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> As I said...I anxiously await the time when I can read an opposing point of view that you express yourself.
> 
> I read all sorts of news sources on a daily basis...I don't come here to do so.



You come here to defend libs and slander those who disagree with you


----------



## maineman (Mar 25, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You come here to defend libs and slander those who disagree with you




not so.... that is incorrect.  I come here to debate ideas.

you never seem to have any of your own beyond peurile oneliners.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> not so.... that is incorrect.  I come here to debate ideas.
> 
> you never seem to have any of your own beyond peurile oneliners.



For someone who says he does not - you sure defend the left and all their lies


----------



## Shattered (Mar 25, 2007)

Dude.. Just stop.  Seriously.  You're losing it..


----------



## red states rule (Mar 25, 2007)

Shattered said:


> Dude.. Just stop.  Seriously.  You're losing it..



How? By pointing out the liberal media bias and MM does not like it?

I am calm and rational and he seems to be losing it (if he ever had it)


----------



## Shattered (Mar 25, 2007)

red states rule said:


> How? By pointing out the liberal media bias and MM does not like it?
> 
> I am calm and rational and he seems to be losing it (if he ever had it)



Nobody needs you to point out liberal media bias - everyone knows it's there.  He asked you some serious questions in an attempt to start an *actual* debate devoid of any of your standard cut/paste crap, and based on actual thought.

You ignored every single one of them, and continued with your prerecorded database of standard one-liners which have nothing to do with the questions asked of you.

Seriously, you're what gives Cons a bad name, and gives the Libs something to feed off of.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 25, 2007)

Shattered said:


> Nobody needs you to point out liberal media bias - everyone knows it's there.  He asked you some serious questions in an attempt to start an *actual* debate devoid of any of your standard cut/paste crap, and based on actual thought.
> 
> You ignored every single one of them, and continued with your prerecorded database of standard one-liners which have nothing to do with the questions asked of you.
> 
> Seriously, you're what gives Cons a bad name, and gives the Libs something to feed off of.



I have answered his questions - he does not like the answers

Besides, libs like MM are bottom feeders anyway and no matter what you say they will fall back on their lame attempts to deflect and dodge


----------



## Shattered (Mar 25, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I have answered his questions - he does not like the answers
> 
> Besides, libs like MM are bottom feeders anyway and no matter what you say they will fall back on their lame attempts to deflect and dodge



Must I go pull specific points of his you dodged, and merely tossed a standard lib insult?  Come on.

He requests original thought.
You reply he's just a bashing lib.

He states he doesn't log on to read news threads, but logs on to debate.
You reply he's just a lying lib that doesn't like facts.

He says he comes to debate ideas (which he has proven).
You say he comes to slander those who disagree with him (which YOU are most guilty of).


----------



## red states rule (Mar 25, 2007)

Shattered said:


> Must I go pull specific points of his you dodged, and merely tossed a standard lib insult?  Come on.
> 
> He requests original thought.
> You reply he's just a bashing lib.
> ...



OMG- I post facts he replies with spin. I Post articles that support my facts he replies how I posted an article. He constantly slanders Shattered - I respond after he fires the first shot

To this day he defends Dems who have compared our troops to Nazi's, Pol Pot, terrorists, and the new owners of Saddam's torture chambers

A real likable guy, eh?


----------



## Shattered (Mar 25, 2007)

red states rule said:


> OMG- I post facts he replies with spin. I Post articles that support my facts he replies how I posted an article. He constantly slanders Shattered - I respond after he fires the first shot
> 
> To this day he defends Dems who have compared our troops to Nazi's, Pol Pot, terrorists, and the new owners of Saddam's torture chambers
> 
> A real likable guy, eh?



So you're still telling me that everyone who has told you the same thing I have (from BOTH sides of the fence) is just wrong, and you're the only one that's right?

*shakes head*

Believe me, you're not doing anyone any favors in your so-called "defense" of Conservatives.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 25, 2007)

Shattered said:


> So you're still telling me that everyone who has told you the same thing I have (from BOTH sides of the fence) is just wrong, and you're the only one that's right?
> 
> *shakes head*
> 
> Believe me, you're not doing anyone any favors in your so-called "defense" of Conservatives.



I seem to get along fine with other conservatioves

It is only the libs and RINO's who seem to have a problem


----------



## Shattered (Mar 25, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I seem to get along fine with other conservatioves
> 
> It is only the libs and RINO's who seem to have a problem



Oh, absolutely... But, as my final comment, some food for thought: You're acting like an idiot, and eventually ALL people will cease to acknowledge your existance duue to lack of any real substance.

There's no point in arguing with a brick wall that doesn't even know it's a brick wall.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 25, 2007)

Shattered said:


> Oh, absolutely... But, as my final comment, some food for thought: You're acting like an idiot, and eventually ALL people will cease to acknowledge your existance duue to lack of any real substance.
> 
> There's no point in arguing with a brick wall that doesn't even know it's a brick wall.



I like you to


----------



## Louie (Mar 25, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Perhaps you failed to read the first post of this thread




Your cut n paste jobs, rants and "logic" are as interesting as a hangnail 
keep it coming though I'm getting some good chuckles here


----------



## red states rule (Mar 25, 2007)

Louie said:


> Your cut n paste jobs, rants and "logic" are as interesting as a hangnail
> keep it coming though I'm getting some good chuckles here



Do we have MM's son here?


----------



## Gunny (Mar 25, 2007)

red states rule said:


> were you two seperated at birth?
> 
> All he has done is stand shoulder to shoulder with the Dems who have attacked the troops
> 
> ...



He asked you to support your accusation, and your response was that he's a lib.  Followed by a repeat of the question, and response from you totally irrelvant to the question.

The wrost part is you constantly accuse liberals of using the tactics you yourself are using.

You know how long it took me to look up two words in the dictionary?  Less time than you spent tap-dancing around the question.

Nobody on this board is tougher on liberals than I am when I don't agree with their argument/ideology.  But I see NO point in setting yourself up to be slaughtered by posting your opinion of your interpretation of what some Democrats have said as fact when you cannot support it with evidence.

IMO, both Kerry and Durbin are more guilty of not engaging their brains and considering their choices of words before running their mouthes.  Durbin, in fact, came out later and clarified what he meant to say.

Kerry's choice of words was poor as well, but the intent of his statement is obvious.  Terrorist is mutually inclusive to terrorize only in a literal sense, but in common use, terrorize does not automatically mean terrorist.

I hate what happened to Trent Lott for a poor choice of words and purposefully misinterpretted intent.  I'll bet you agree with me on that.

Well, you're just doing the same damned thing.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 25, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> He asked you to support your accusation, and your response was that he's a lib.  Followed by a repeat of the question, and response from you totally irrelvant to the question.
> 
> The wrost part is you constantly accuse liberals of using the tactics you yourself are using.
> 
> ...




I use common sense - you seem to be using the MM version of common nonsense

What was racist about what Lott said? 

When libs express their ture feelings - called on it -they say they are "sorry" and libs give them a pass

Conservatives like Lott do nothing - say they are sorry - and are still savaged by the left


----------



## maineman (Mar 25, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I use common sense - you seem to be using the MM version of common nonsense
> 
> What was racist about what Lott said?
> 
> ...




no...you just repeat the same tired old stuff.... and you continue to purposely misconstrue the meanings of words to suit your own partisan purposes.  and when you don't do that and avoid taking ownership for your mistakes, you cut and paste editorials.... you really are a very predictable, very disappointing broken record.

And what Trent Lott said - and I am sure he did not MEAN it the way it came out - but what he said was that we would be a better country today if we had elected a man in 1948  who was a bigot and a racist and who wanted to outlaw interracial marriage and continue segregation.  Now I am sure that he was only trying to make an old man feel good, but his words have meanings and if you are going to continually MISREPRESENT what Kerry said, I will feel compelled to correctly represent what Trent Lott said.


----------



## Shattered (Mar 25, 2007)




----------



## Gunny (Mar 25, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I use common sense - you seem to be using the MM version of common nonsense
> 
> Nonsense is making an accusation without any supporting evidence.  Specifically, it speaks of the weakness of your agument.  Generally, it speaks of your weak skills at making an argument.
> 
> ...



So?  Whether or not that is the truth is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that you perceive it to be. In that light, do you think them doing it justifies you doing it?

IMO, no.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...you just repeat the same tired old stuff.... and you continue to purposely misconstrue the meanings of words to suit your own partisan purposes.  and when you don't do that and avoid taking ownership for your mistakes, you cut and paste editorials.... you really are a very predictable, very disappointing broken record.
> 
> And what Trent Lott said - and I am sure he did not MEAN it the way it came out - but what he said was that we would be a better country today if we had elected a man in 1948  who was a bigot and a racist and who wanted to outlaw interracial marriage and continue segregation.  Now I am sure that he was only trying to make an old man feel good, but his words have meanings and if you are going to continually MISREPRESENT what Kerry said, I will feel compelled to correctly represent what Trent Lott said.



I think Lott is in the "shoulda' thought first THEN opened mouth" category.


----------



## Rosotar (Mar 25, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> I think Lott is in the "shoulda' thought first THEN opened mouth" category.



I think you pay a lot of lip service to "supporting" the troops but beyond blindly supporting the Republican party and your incompetent president's failed policies I don't see much evidence that you walk your talk.

Tell me gunny....how do you really "support" the troops?


----------



## maineman (Mar 25, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> I think Lott is in the "shoulda' thought first THEN opened mouth" category.




I agree wholeheartedly.  I medrely point out that saying that Trent Lott stated that America would be a better place today if we had elected a segregationist in 1948 instead of Harry Truman is a true statement.... saying that John Kerry called our troops terrorists is a false statement.

Both statements were ones that, had they spent a moment and thought about how what they were about to say would be construed, they no doubt would have reworded.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 25, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> I think you pay a lot of lip service to "supporting" the troops but beyond blindly supporting the Republican party and your incompetent president's failed policies I don't see much evidence that you walk your talk.
> 
> Tell me gunny....how do you really "support" the troops?



Is this your way of saying "Hi I'm new here and dumber'n a red brick?"

You're already proving your judgement sucks.


----------



## Rosotar (Mar 25, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Is this your way of saying "Hi I'm new here and dumber'n a red brick?"
> 
> You're already proving your judgement sucks.



I do apologize. I don't mean to go nuclear on the very first post.

Actually I'm not completely new here. I was banned from this board about two years ago under a different name. It was my first experiment with any kind of message board.

I've been reading your posts almost every day for the last two years so I feel like I sort of know you. Hopefully this time you'll get a chance to know me if you care to.

I'm left of the Kennedys so we're going to disagree a lot. I hope we can keep it civil. I know I learn more that way.

About a month ago I got an e-mail from the administrator on this board asking me to re-register so I'm now here, recycled for a second run. I hope I've learned a bit since last time.

So.....with all due respect.

How do you "support" the troops?

BTW thank you for your service to my country.

I am also a vet.

Psy-Op.......Panama and Grenada.


----------



## T-Bor (Mar 25, 2007)

Can we please rename this thread to the Red States Gets Pwned by the Messageboard community?


----------



## Gunny (Mar 25, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> I do apologize. I don't mean to go nuclear on the very first post.
> 
> Actually I'm not completely new here. I was banned from this board about two years ago under a different name. It was my first experiment with any kind of message board.
> 
> ...



I've given $10 a month to the Navy Relief Society without fail since 1980.  My firstborn child is currently serving in the US Army as a medic.  And as one other poster put it ....I pay my taxes.  

And I'm not out telling them I support them while protesting what they are doing.


----------



## Rosotar (Mar 25, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> I've given $10 a month to the Navy Relief Society without fail since 1980.  My firstborn child is currently serving in the US Army as a medic.  And as one other poster put it ....I pay my taxes.
> 
> And I'm not out telling them I support them while protesting what they are doing.



We're not out protesting what they're doing gunny.

As long as they're following orders I am extremely proud of them.

This is all I expect of our fighting men and women.

I do take issue with the policy that puts them in harms way in the first place.

That is my right and my duty as a responsible American.

I submit that it is little more than a cheap ploy on the part of Republicans today to try to blurr the line between supporting the troops and supporting this incompetent president and his last ditch attempt to save his own ass by throwing more good after bad.

Blind support of this administration and it's failed policies doesn't have much at all to do with support of the troops.

In fact it's looking like just the opposite is true.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 25, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> We're not out protesting what they're doing gunny.
> 
> Some are, some aren't.
> 
> ...



I'm rather curious in light of your previous comment that you feel as if you know me; yet, in htis thread, you have categorized me as something I clearly am not, and have never been.

I am not a Republican.  Never have been,  I vote Republican because it isn't like I have a whole lot of choices, and Republicans are the lesser of two evils, IMO.  With Republicans I get about half what I want, and with Dems none.  

However, I feel that neither party represent what's in the best interest of this Nation, nor the best interest and/or desires of the people in it.  They're too busy slinging mud at one another and increasing their individual wealth, and will deal with an issue only if one party thinks it makes the other look bad, or it rears its ugly head and they can't somehow make it go away by wagging the dog.

You'll waste a lot of time searching this board to find where I have blindly supported anything.  If I support something, I justify my support.  You may not agree with my reasoning or ideology, but it is at least proof that I'mdoing my own thinking.

I do not consider saying that one cannot support the troops while telling them what they are doing is unjust/wrong/illegal is a cheap ploy.  If troops feel that what they are doing is unjust, then they see themselves as murderers and come home with screwed up heads.  The aftermath of Vietnam is prime example of that.  As a former troop and leader of troops, I know exactly how I felt in their position, so I'm not just pulling something out of thin air.

What I DO consider a cheap ploy is speaking the words "I support the troops" while behaving in a manner inconsistent with the statement.  Liberals at least learned half the lesson from Vietnam, and don't want to be identified as the bad guys this time.  Problem is, if the tactics remain the same, words are not going to change the outcome.

As American citizens, we have appropriate forums with which to voice our grievances to the government without all the lies, accusations and theatrics in general, and without bringing US military personnel into the argument at all.  They have no play in the making of policy in Washington.

What does "I support the troops" mean anyway?  It means you support what the troops are doing.  Even the few things I listed that I do are not really supporting the troops.  

I support what they are doing.  I did not however, agree with the invasion to begin with.  I have not supported them being forced to fight an enemy with one hand tied behind their backs.  I have not supported the blind political idealism that has been allowed to completely obfuscate sound military tactics and strategy.

I DO support finishing the job we started, and I support doing it the right way.  We're there.  Should this all be for nought?  THAT would be the real crime.

Oh, and I don't blindly support the President either.  I DO call bullshit when that's what all the accusations amount to.  I've actually done the same for President Clinton, even though I didn't like him nor his policies.


----------



## Annie (Mar 25, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> I'm rather curious in light of your previous comment that you feel as if you know me; yet, in htis thread, you have categorized me as something I clearly am not, and have never been.
> 
> I am not a Republican.  Never have been,  I vote Republican because it isn't like I have a whole lot of choices, and Republicans are the lesser of two evils, IMO.  With Republicans I get about half what I want, and with Dems none.
> 
> ...



Ok, I'm going to wade in here, in a way I haven't for awhile. Vietnam had more 'shellshocked', 'battle fatigued' than previous wars. I truly do not believe that was do to their actions, but rather the concensus at home. They were the baby killers that Kerry and his ilk succeeded in labeling them. 

Iraq? I think in the sense that the US needs a launching point in the ME, this is relevent, but that is not how it was sold. In any case, we are there, so we need to 'win'. Problem is, that would leave a positive GW legacy, which is unacceptable to some.


----------



## maineman (Mar 25, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Ok, I'm going to wade in here, in a way I haven't for awhile. Vietnam had more 'shellshocked', 'battle fatigued' than previous wars. I truly do not believe that was do to their actions, but rather the concensus at home. They were the baby killers that Kerry and his ilk succeeded in labeling them.
> 
> Iraq? I think in the sense that the US needs a launching point in the ME, this is relevent, but that is not how it was sold. In any case, we are there, so we need to 'win'. Problem is, that would leave a positive GW legacy, which is unacceptable to some.




you know....kerry didn't make that stuff up... he heard vets telling of doing the very things that he reported on to the congress.  I know that my friends who were in country have some pretty grisly stories to tell about what went on... American GI's did indeed have ears on dogtag chains around their necks.

I don't have a problem with "winning" in Iraq, even if it gave dubya a positive legacy...I just honestly believe that "victory" as commonly understood by most, is impossible to achieve.  We will not, I believe, put a dent in the desires of sunnis and shia to slaughter one another.  We will be unable to create a multicultural jeffersonian democracy on the banks of the euphrates regardless of how many troops we surge.... I firmly believe that "victory" is a fantasy pipedream at this point.... Dubya is playing an endgame where he can limp home to January '09 and let it be the next democratic president's problem to solve.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> you know....kerry didn't make that stuff up... he heard vets telling of doing the very things that he reported on to the congress.  I know that my friends who were in country have some pretty grisly stories to tell about what went on... American GI's did indeed have ears on dogtag chains around their necks.
> 
> I don't have a problem with "winning" in Iraq, even if it gave dubya a positive legacy...I just honestly believe that "victory" as commonly understood by most, is impossible to achieve.  We will not, I believe, put a dent in the desires of sunnis and shia to slaughter one another.  We will be unable to create a multicultural jeffersonian democracy on the banks of the euphrates regardless of how many troops we surge.... I firmly believe that "victory" is a fantasy pipedream at this point.... Dubya is playing an endgame where he can limp home to January '09 and let it be the next democratic president's problem to solve.



I tend to agree with you about the sectarian violence.  And IF President Bush were to say "y'know ... y'all ain't helping yourselves, we're outa' here," and ti was presented as that, I could see justification for it.

Problem is, the Democrats and the media will have none of it.  They'll sell it as a loss no matter what.

It's too bad decisions can't be made simply for the fact that politicians are idiots and put partisanship before common sense, logic, and what's in the best interest of this Nation, and not just their individual political parties.


----------



## maineman (Mar 25, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> I tend to agree with you about the sectarian violence.  And IF President Bush were to say "y'know ... y'all ain't helping yourselves, we're outa' here," and ti was presented as that, I could see justification for it.
> 
> Problem is, the Democrats and the media will have none of it.  They'll sell it as a loss no matter what.
> 
> It's too bad decisions can't be made simply for the fact that politicians are idiots and put partisanship before common sense, logic, and what's in the best interest of this Nation, and not just their individual political parties.




I would applaud Bush if he said that and did that.


----------



## Annie (Mar 25, 2007)

I'm going to be 'upfront' as I find that whatever I post, some have a problem with it. I don't think this administration did a good sales job on the necessity of Iraq, but that doesn't make it any less imperitive to win. It is, for our security/way of life. Not a small matter, other than I guess Merlin, who professes to be happy if we are a third world country.

Vietnam is truly an argument for another thread, but in treatment of troops, at home and abroad, it's relevant. It was wrong then and wrong now. Defecating on the flag to prove whatever is wrong. So is spitting on troops, which are now all over youtube, too bad that wasn't in existance for the Vietnam troops, no figment of their imaginations there.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 25, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> I'm going to be 'upfront' as I find that whatever I post, some have a problem with it. I don't think this administration did a good sales job on the necessity of Iraq, but that doesn't make it any less imperitive to win. It is, for our security/way of life. Not a small matter, other than I guess Merlin, who professes to be happy if we are a third world country.
> 
> The problem is, the only truly effective means of ending sectarian violence is ruthless suppression.  That offends our Western/Judeo-Christian sense of  morality, so we aren't about to do it.
> 
> ...



Those people who protest violence with acts of violence are morons, IMO.


----------



## Annie (Mar 25, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Those people who protest violence with acts of violence are morons, IMO.



Gunny, I would not presume to argue tactics. Just seems to me that since the 'surge' and 'new tactics' things are improving. I think they should be given time, but that seems what the democrats in the House are afraid of.


----------



## T-Bor (Mar 25, 2007)

Your right Kathianne. The killing in Vietnam had nothing to do with the soldiers problems.  Nor did the chemicals we were using (agent orange).  I mean how in the world could seeing your buddies heads and limbs get blown off even COMPARE to slanderous words being thrown at them back home.   end sarcasm.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 25, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Gunny, I would not presume to argue tactics. Just seems to me that since the 'surge' and 'new tactics' things are improving. I think they should be given time, but that seems what the democrats in the House are afraid of.



I agree that the new strategy and tactics should be given a chance.  The problem is that the different religious sects and tribes in Iraq have been killing each other for thousands of years.  Most of the Middle East was pretty-much the same.  They have simply renewed centuries old feuds and/or religious squabbles since the ruthless suppression has been lifted and freed them to do so.

I don't think we're going to stop that short of ruthless suppression.  I also doubt we'll ever get any of the Arabs to coexist with the Kurds.


----------



## T-Bor (Mar 25, 2007)

Plus I think the timetable given by the dems is more than fair.  I think about 1.5 years is more than enough time for this so called surge to start working.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 25, 2007)

T-Bor said:


> Your right Kathianne. The killing in Vietnam had nothing to do with the soldiers problems.  Nor did the chemicals we were using (agent orange).  I mean how in the world could seeing your buddies heads and limbs get blown off even COMPARE to slanderous words being thrown at them back home.   end sarcasm.



If the cause is just, so is the means to the end.  When people get into the minds of those who have to do the fighting and convince them they are murderers, THAT screws up heads.  It's hard enough psychologically without the politically-driven guilt trip.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 25, 2007)

T-Bor said:


> Plus I think the timetable given by the dems is more than fair.  I think about 1.5 years is more than enough time for this so called surge to start working.



I think sending a schedule of events to one's enemy is not really the brightest idea I have heard.


----------



## Annie (Mar 25, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> I think sending a schedule of events to one's enemy is not really the brightest idea I have heard.



Ya think? I tried to rep, can't.


----------



## T-Bor (Mar 25, 2007)

Im not saying it did not cause problems but I mean cmon....to say that it is meer WORDS that messed up the psyche of the soldiers over the violence that they saw is pure hogwash..Im sure it didnt help but cmon lets use some common sense here.


QUOTE=GunnyL;541560]If the cause is just, so is the means to the end.  When people get into the minds of those who have to do the fighting and convince them they are murderers, THAT screws up heads.  It's hard enough psychologically without the politically-driven guilt trip.[/QUOTE]


----------



## T-Bor (Mar 25, 2007)

I agree with that.. but what else are we going to do. This so called WAR is definately not winnable.  I dont know, im not a military strategist, but I do know that what we are doing there is certainly not helping anything.  I agree with Gunny and we should have just left Saddam alone. 

P.S - does anyone here actually care about Rep points?  I care as much about that as I do my gamer rep on xbox live. 




GunnyL said:


> I think sending a schedule of events to one's enemy is not really the brightest idea I have heard.


----------



## maineman (Mar 25, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> I think sending a schedule of events to one's enemy is not really the brightest idea I have heard.



but you know as well as I do that the violence between sunni and shia will continue after our departure and will not be "solved" with American presence.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 25, 2007)

T-Bor said:


> Im not saying it did not cause problems but I mean cmon....to say that it is meer WORDS that messed up the psyche of the soldiers over the violence that they saw is pure hogwash..Im sure it didnt help but cmon lets use some common sense here.
> 
> 
> QUOTE=GunnyL;541560]If the cause is just, so is the means to the end.  When people get into the minds of those who have to do the fighting and convince them they are murderers, THAT screws up heads.  It's hard enough psychologically without the politically-driven guilt trip.


[/QUOTE]

I'm not speaking of the violence they "saw."  I'm addressing the acts of violence they committed, while continually having it hammered into their heads that they're fighting an illegal and immoral war.

The difference between being the good guy and bad guy is whether or not the cause is just.  How an individual perceives himself and/or his actions will be a direct reflection of that.  The difference in perception in this case is whether or not one perceives oneself as a liberator or a murderer.

Words a very real and they mean things.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> but you know as well as I do that the violence between sunni and shia will continue after our departure and will not be "solved" with American presence.



It isn't likely.  My opinion is Arabs will go out and pick a fight with whoever's closest if they just start feeling they've gone too long without one.


----------



## maineman (Mar 25, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> It isn't likely.  My opinion is Arabs will go out and pick a fight with whoever's closest if they just start feeling they've gone too long without one.




so our presence there actually accomplishes what, exactly, besides more business for honor guards here at home?


----------



## Gunny (Mar 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> so our presence there actually accomplishes what, exactly, besides more business for honor guards here at home?



I would say our presence is to prop up the Iraqi government until it can stand on its own, and keep the Islamofascists from getting control of Iraq's oil resources.


----------



## maineman (Mar 25, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> I would say our presence is to prop up the Iraqi government until it can stand on its own, and keep the Islamofascists from getting control of Iraq's oil resources.



do you honestly believe that anyone other than Iraqis - or perhaps Iranians after the shiites win the civil war and allign with them - will ever control Iraqi oil?

Do you really think that nefarious external AQ operatives are going to come in and subjegate all 28M Iraqis and steal the oil revenue?


----------



## CSM (Mar 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> do you honestly believe that anyone other than Iraqis - or perhaps Iranians after the shiites win the civil war and allign with them - will ever control Iraqi oil?
> 
> Do you really think that nefarious external AQ operatives are going to come in and subjegate all 28M Iraqis and steal the oil revenue?



Stranger things have happened....Taliban ring a bell? How about the Imams of Iran? Saddam Hussein? How much do you figuire those three entities stole from oil revenues. You make it seem like such things are inconceivable.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 26, 2007)

CSM said:


> Stranger things have happened....Taliban ring a bell? How about the Imams of Iran? Saddam Hussein? How much do you figuire those three entities stole from oil revenues. You make it seem like such things are inconceivable.



Saddam did well with the UN's Oil for Food Program

another great example of liberals keeping Saddam under control and contained


----------



## maineman (Mar 26, 2007)

CSM said:


> Stranger things have happened....Taliban ring a bell(1)? How about the Imams of Iran(2)? Saddam Hussein(3)? How much do you figuire those three entities stole from oil revenues. You make it seem like such things are inconceivable.



1.  are you suggesting that the taliban could control Iraq's oil industry? 2. did you read my post?  3.  Last I knew, he was Iraqi (albeit a dead Iraqi) and philosophically on the other side of the spectrum from islamofascists(whatever the hell that means!)


----------



## CSM (Mar 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> 1.  are you suggesting that the taliban could control Iraq's oil industry? 2. did you read my post?  3.  Last I knew, he was Iraqi (albeit a dead Iraqi) and philosophically on the other side of the spectrum from islamofascists(whatever the hell that means!)



1) Don't start that crap...you know darn well what I was saying is that entities other than a country's citizens can and do control oil wealth, and often to the detriment to that country's citizens.

2) yes.

3) Again, it is entirely possible for AQ to subjugate 28M Iraqi's. External forces have entered other countries and subjugated their populations since the first caveman decided to expand his territory.  History and even recent history has shown that this occurs all the time. Or are you saying it doesn't happen?


----------



## Rosotar (Mar 26, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Ok, I'm going to wade in here, in a way I haven't for awhile. Vietnam had more 'shellshocked', 'battle fatigued' than previous wars. I truly do not believe that was do to their actions, but rather the concensus at home. They were the baby killers that Kerry and his ilk succeeded in labeling them.



Conservatives do a lot of rewriting history in regard to Vietnam Kathianne. They like to blame our failure on liberals, hippies, protesters, and just the general opposition at home.

What Cons seem to forget is that the situation over there turned bad as a result of poor policy. Opposition didn't begin at home until the public found out that it was being lied to about the reasons for us being over there. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was an example.

Vietnam was also the first time in history Americans got to see the reality of war on their televisions every evening. If the same kind of TV coverage had been available during WWII and Korea there wouldn't have been the consolidated "support" at home for those wars either. When Cons bring up the "good old days" of WWII and cite the support at home they're only telling half of the story. At that time war was sanitized and the only reports the average American got were DOD press releases (propaganda) that only glorified our efforts and painted every action America took as "just" and "noble."

It is unfortunate that some Americans vented their shock, outrage, and horror on returning soldiers. I'd like to think we know a lot more collectively now as Americans. I think we've learned that if you've got to spit on somebody it should be on the politicians that order our troops into situations like this in the first place. 




Kathianne said:


> Iraq? I think in the sense that the US needs a launching point in the ME, this is relevent, but that is not how it was sold. In any case, we are there, so we need to 'win'. Problem is, that would leave a positive GW legacy, which is unacceptable to some.



That's called "throwing good after bad" and it's not a very effective strategy for winning war. This whole thing was launched on false premises and poor strategies and those strategies have failed. The only person who can't admit that seems to be George Bush. To just hang on trying the same things that have been failing in the past hoping they're going to finally start working is suicidal and frankly borders on insanity.

Yeah....we're there alright. That's the problem. There's probably not going to be any happy ending here. Admitting that doesn't mean I'm wishing for defeat. It's simple pragmatism. We need to cut our losses, bring our troops home, regroup, assess and evaluate, and live to fight another day. That's the best we can hope for now. 

Cons shouldn't shoot the messengers who are simply stating the obvious!


----------



## maineman (Mar 26, 2007)

CSM said:


> 1) Don't start that crap...you know darn well what I was saying is that entities other than a country's citizens can and do control oil wealth, and often to the detriment to that country's citizens.
> 
> 2) yes.
> 
> 3) Again, it is entirely possible for AQ to subjugate 28M Iraqi's. External forces have entered other countries and subjugated their populations since the first caveman decided to expand his territory.  History and even recent history has shown that this occurs all the time. Or are you saying it doesn't happen?



I do not think that Iraqis are going to let anyone control their oil except perhaps Iranians after the shiite victory in the civil war.

It is possible for pigs to fly.... if you want to believe that AQ is going to prevail over indiginous Iraqis, we will have to agree to disagree.... I think that is ridiculous to suggest, and even more ridiculous to plan for and develop and deploy forces to prevent that could be more effectively used to prevent things that have an actual chance of happening.


----------



## CSM (Mar 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> I do not think that Iraqis are going to let anyone control their oil except perhaps Iranians after the shiite victory in the civil war.
> 
> It is possible for pigs to fly.... if you want to believe that AQ is going to prevail over indiginous Iraqis, we will have to agree to disagree.... I think that is ridiculous to suggest, and even more ridiculous to plan for and develop and deploy forces to prevent that could be more effectively used to prevent things that have an actual chance of happening.



Which is it, the Iraqi's will control their own oil or some outside entity will do it....you can't have it both ways.

Don't be obtuse. Are you going to actully try to convince me that AQ had NO influence with the Taliban???  That AQ is not capable of influencing events and factions in Iraq which could conceivably come to power there? 

As for things that have an actual chance of happening...9/11 changed my thinking about what has a "chance of happening" and what doesn't.


----------



## maineman (Mar 26, 2007)

CSM said:


> Which is it, the Iraqi's will control their own oil or some outside entity will do it....you can't have it both ways.
> 
> Don't be obtuse. Are you going to actully try to convince me that AQ had NO influence with the Taliban???  That AQ is not capable of influencing events and factions in Iraq which could conceivably come to power there?
> 
> As for things that have an actual chance of happening...9/11 changed my thinking about what has a "chance of happening" and what doesn't.



I am not suggesting "both ways".  I am saying that Iraq may very well form a very strong alliance with Iran in the wake of a shiite victory in the ongoing civl war.  

And of course AQ had SOME influence with the taliban.... they were priveleged house guests...they certainly did not control the taliban in any substantive way..... and I do not think that AQ will be able to gain control of the Iraqi population in any way.  They are sunnis and are already fighting with iraqi sunnis... let alone how much they are hated by the shiites who make up the bulk of the population.


----------



## Rosotar (Mar 26, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> I've given $10 a month to the Navy Relief Society without fail since 1980.  My firstborn child is currently serving in the US Army as a medic.  And as one other poster put it ....I pay my taxes.
> 
> And I'm not out telling them I support them while protesting what they are doing.



Fair enough gunny.

If you say you're not a Republican then I guess you're not.

It's getting hard to find people these day's who will actually admit to being a Republican even if they are.

When you use Republican talking points to support Republican strategies though I think that the fact that you may not actually be a "registered" Republican is just splitting hairs.

Well....whatever you are you seem pretty cool to me.

I respect your right to have your opinions.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am not suggesting "both ways".  I am saying that Iraq may very well form a very strong alliance with Iran in the wake of a shiite victory in the ongoing civl war.
> 
> And of course AQ had SOME influence with the taliban.... they were priveleged house guests...they certainly did not control the taliban in any substantive way..... and I do not think that AQ will be able to gain control of the Iraqi population in any way.  They are sunnis and are already fighting with iraqi sunnis... let alone how much they are hated by the shiites who make up the bulk of the population.





This kind of support from the liberal media we can do without..............


NYTimes Waited Full Week to Correct Military Rape Story - One Tale a Total Fabrication
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on March 27, 2007 - 04:11. 

On March 18th, the New York Times published a piece titled "The Women's War". It was a feature of great length (18 pages on the Internet) centered around the plight of several female Veterans of the war in Iraq. It detailed the mistreatment they suffered by the US Military, sexual harassment they received at the hands of army officers, and their PTSDs (post traumatic distress disorders). A shocking expose is what the Times was going for, it is sure. These women certainly deserved better treatment and the story should be well publicized, of course. It might have had more impact but for the fact that the Times knew that one of the subjects featured in the article wasn't even in Iraq and that her story was a complete lie.

Worse yet, the Times published the story knowing full well that one of their subjects had lied to them. Finally, a whole week after their initial story was published on the 18th, on March 25th, the Times published a mae culpa, correcting the story.

The cover article in The Times Magazine on March 18 reported on women who served in Iraq, the sexual abuse that some of them endured and the struggle for all of them to reclaim their prewar lives. One of the servicewomen, Amorita Randall, a former naval construction worker, told The Times that she was in combat in Iraq in 2004 and that in one incident an explosive device blew up a Humvee she was riding in, killing the driver and leaving her with a brain injury. She also said she was raped twice while she was in the Navy.

...Based on the information that came to light after the article was printed, it is now clear that Ms. Randall did not serve in Iraq 

According to Fox New's Rick Leventhal the Times knew far in advance that one of their highlighted subjects was a fraud.

The newspaper knew about the mistakes on March 12, six days before the magazine was distributed, and 13 days before it published the correction.The magazine was printed on March 9  three days before the lies were discovered  but there was still plenty of time to reprint it. The cost might've been huge, but wouldn't it be worth it for a paper whose masthead proclaims "All the News That's Fit to Print?" 

For the Times' part, they claimed there wasn't enough time to correct the story in advance of the publication date.

On March 6, three days before the article went to press, a Times researcher contacted the Navy to confirm Ms. Randalls account. There was preliminary back and forth but no detailed reply until hours before the deadline. 

Leventhal claims the Times knew about it 6 days before press and the Times admits to three. Regardless if it was six or three, there was more than enough time for the Times to print a correction between March 18th and March 25th.

Why did the Times wait an entire week to print this correction when even by their own admission they knew the truth before they printed the original story?

We know what the Times knew and when they knew it (to steal the oft repeated Democrat Party phrase used against GOP administrations), but what we don't know is why it took them so long to admit to it all? 

Was there no time at all that they could have published this correction over the course of a whole week? Did they want to wait far enough into the future until they thought no one would notice?

What ever the reason, it is interesting how long they waited in light of how they treat others who "know" things but wait too long in the Time's estimation to admit it all, isn't it?

Imagine if this were Bush waiting to get all the facts straight before coming to the fore with all he knew? Wait, we don't have to imagine it. All we have to do is look to see how the Times is treating the faux scandal of the Gonzales Attorneys General firings.

As John Gibson said of the story:

Does it cost a lot to reprint an entire four-color glossy paper Sunday magazine? Yes. Does it cost a lot in reputation for the newspaper of record to knowingly publish false information and figure it can be fixed with a schedule correction a week later? Yes and yes.

The Times has a political point of view these days it has no problem pushing in its news and editorial pages. OK, it gives up some points in objectivity when it does that, but the publisher has a right to do so. But when The Times knowingly publishes phony information because it costs too much to reprint and thinks a correction a week later will fix things, that suggests something different than just editorial point of view. It suggests a willingness to lie for money. If you'll lie for money, doesn't it follow you would find it much easier to lie for the much higher calling of ideology?

The Times has some explaining to do. 

I couldn't agree more.

I actually read that story a few Sundays ago myself. The very first thought I had was a curiosity if the Times fact checked any of the aggrieved women they highlighted. I guess I got my answer!

There is one more thing that should be considered in this mess the Times has made. There were some real stories of women vets that will now be overshadowed by the Times' sloppy work. All the focus will be on the fraudulent claims and the real problems faced by the other women could easily fade into the background.

And now I have to say one more thing. Liberals had for years been trying to break down the roadblocks to women being able to serve in the military and in field positions. Now they have that in many ways, if not full combat. And now we have women getting PTSD because of their harrowing service to the country.

Am I the only one to think that this should not surprise anyone? Military men having been coming home from wars with PTSD since the first clashes of humans. Why are we all upset and surprised that, now that we are putting women in a position to see the same sorts of service, women are finding themselves faced with troubled lives afterward?

I am not saying, of course, that we should just brush off these women's troubles, but can we really justify sensational stories about their troubles as if it is somehow shocking? Shouldn't we just expect the problem and make moves to face it and help these women?

http://newsbusters.org/node/11653


----------



## Rosotar (Mar 27, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> I would say our presence is to prop up the Iraqi government until it can stand on its own, and keep the Islamofascists from getting control of Iraq's oil resources.



Yes and before that our presence there was supposed to be part of the larger "war on terror" even though our own intelligence sources say that our very presence there is *fueling* terrorism.

Yes, and before that our presence there was to support the formation of a Democratic government and the drafting of a constitution, which by the way we were told would probably end the violence. 

And before that we were told that our presence there was to bring Saddam Hussein to "justice" which was supposed to help end the violence but didn't.

And before that we were told that our presence there was to round up Saddam's henchmen and the few "dead enders" (including his sons) which would go a long way toward ending the violence there but didn't.

And before that we were told that our presence there was to "liberate" the country from Saddam's regime which was supposed to transform Iraq into the golden land of milk and honey. We were supposed to be greeted as liberators with showers of rose petals in the streets.

And before that our presence there was supposed to be to find and eliminate Saddam's weapons stockpiles which, it turns out, didn't even exist.

What's next?

Do you see why most Americans may be getting a little burnt out on a new justification for the carnage in Iraq every few months?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 27, 2007)

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998 

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others 

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002 

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998 

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998 

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002 

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002 

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002 

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998 

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002 

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002 

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002 

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002 

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002 

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002 

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America&#65533;s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002 

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002 

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998 

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 

"Saddam&#65533;s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq&#65533;s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration&#65533;s policy towards Iraq, I don&#65533;t think there can be any question about Saddam&#65533;s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002 

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2007)

another day, another slew of rightwing spam from the guy who proves over and over again that he is incapable of intelligent self expression...

ho hum.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> another day, another slew of rightwing spam from the guy who proves over and over again that he is incapable of intelligent self expression...
> 
> ho hum.



Exact quotes from Dems who said the same thing about Saddam and WMD's


----------



## Rosotar (Mar 27, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Exact quotes from Dems who said the same thing about Saddam and WMD's



Even if you assume that Dems saw the same intelligence that the CIA produced before the caveats were removed by the OSP then all that means is that they were just as wrong as Bush.

So who'se shoulders does the primary responsibility lie?

George Bush and George Tenet.

Now it's time for Dems to put them on the stand and let them explain under oath how everyone got the intelligence so "wrong."


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Exact quotes from Dems who said the same thing about Saddam and WMD's



I don't think that any of those democrats said there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's... I don't think that any of those democrats ordered Blix's UN inspectors OUT of the country so that we could invade.  That was all George.... and now the dogshit is on HIS shoes.  too bad.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> I don't think that any of those democrats said there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's... I don't think that any of those democrats ordered Blix's UN inspectors OUT of the country so that we could invade.  That was all George.... and now the dogshit is on HIS shoes.  too bad.



Amazing - libs will never admit they agreed with Pres Bush and saw the same threats

Selective memory gone wild


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Amazing - libs will never admit they agreed with Pres Bush and saw the same threats
> 
> Selective memory gone wild




find the quote where a democrat said that there was absolutely no doubt that saddam currently had stockpiles of WMD's.

I'll wait.


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2007)

and I notice you failed to acknowledge Bush's sole responsibility for kicking Blix out of the country.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> and I notice you failed to acknowledge Bush's sole responsibility for kicking Blix out of the country.



considering Saddam kicked them out why blame Bush? Oh, with you Bush is to blame for everything


----------



## red states rule (Mar 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> find the quote where a democrat said that there was absolutely no doubt that saddam currently had stockpiles of WMD's.
> 
> I'll wait.



The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2007)

red states rule said:


> considering Saddam kicked them out why blame Bush? Oh, with you Bush is to blame for everything



Saddam kicked them out years before.... but then they came back...and Bush was the one who kicked them out immediately prior to our invasion....

another case of selective memory?

lol


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002




I do not see any absolute certainty there...I certainly do not read anything about stockpiles...he talks about the threat of Saddam with weapons.... not the same thing.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> I do not see any absolute certainty there...I certainly do not read anything about stockpiles...he talks about the threat of Saddam with weapons.... not the same thing.



Not surprised by your response. You are one of his biggest ass kissers


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Not surprised by your response. You are one of his biggest ass kissers



not so.... he was not even my candidate of choice.... I only point out that you cannot find a quote like I asked for...and you ignore the FACT that it was Bush who kicked Blix and his team out of Iraq in the spring of '03.


----------



## Annie (Mar 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> not so.... he was not even my candidate of choice.... I only point out that you cannot find a quote like I asked for...and you ignore the FACT that it was Bush who kicked Blix and his team out of Iraq in the spring of '03.



Who ordered UN inspectors out of Iraq, March of '03?


----------



## Bullypulpit (Mar 27, 2007)

If so many troops want to stay in Iraq, why are the Marines calling up some 1800 members of the ready reserve, involuntarily, to serve in Iraq? Why are they having problems getting enough volunteers to fill mission critical positions?


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Who ordered UN inspectors out of Iraq, March of '03?



Bush suggested they leave so that they would not be in harm's way in the ensuing invasion.  Saddam certainly did NOT order them out... the UN pulled them when Bush told them to.


----------



## Annie (Mar 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> Bush suggested they leave so that they would not be in harm's way in the ensuing invasion.  Saddam certainly did NOT order them out... the UN pulled them when Bush told them to.



Quite. Which is different than this you posted:



> ...FACT that it was Bush who kicked Blix and his team out of Iraq in the spring of '03...



I'm not a quibbler, I think Bush meant for them 'to get out,' just like Kerry meant certain things, as did Durbin, etc. There of course are differences between our interpretations of what was said and 'FACTS'...


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Quite. Which is different than this you posted:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a quibbler, I think Bush meant for them 'to get out,' just like Kerry meant certain things, as did Durbin, etc. There of course are differences between our interpretations of what was said and 'FACTS'...



no...in this case, you ARE a quibbler.  Blix would not have left if Bush had not made it quite clear that he could not guarantee his safety if he stayed.


----------



## CSM (Mar 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...in this case, you ARE a quibbler.  Blix would not have left if Bush had not made it quite clear that he could not guarantee his safety if he stayed.



Well ...duh... I think it was awfully nice of Bush to warn the UN to get their folks out instead of bombing the hell out of the place and then saying "oh well, collateral damage!!"  and Saddam should have gotten the hint...but he was too stupid because Saddam listend to guys like Bagdad Bob....nope no US armor in this city!!!


----------



## Annie (Mar 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...in this case, you ARE a quibbler.  Blix would not have left if Bush had not made it quite clear that he could not guarantee his safety if he stayed.



Now you are changing what we are discussing, it was NOT a FACT as you had posted.


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2007)

CSM said:


> Well ...duh... I think it was awfully nice of Bush to warn the UN to get their folks out instead of bombing the hell out of the place and then saying "oh well, collateral damage!!"  and Saddam should have gotten the hint...but he was too stupid because Saddam listend to guys like Bagdad Bob....nope no US armor in this city!!!




I agree that it was nice of Bush to tell Blix to leave....downright neighborly


----------



## CSM (Mar 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> I agree that it was nice of Bush to tell Blix to leave....downright neighborly



Aw cmon...was it an order or a suggestion? Words have meaning (terrorism or terrorize??? ...dang I am so glad you had that discussion!) Maybe to you there is no difference; you have used both words in this case as if to imply they are synonymous.


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2007)

no doubt...since the UN inspectors do not report to Bush, he could not have ORDERED them out...it was just a neighborly suggestion that they get out or get killed by shock and awe.  Kofi Annan always had the option to keep them in place and let them get blown up.

Bush did not actually use boots on his feet to actually KICK the inspectors out.... but the effect was the same.

I misspoke if I said that Bush ordered them out - that is certainly true... but his suggestion had the same result.


----------



## Annie (Mar 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> no doubt...since the UN inspectors do not report to Bush, he could not have ORDERED them out...it was just a neighborly suggestion that they get out or get killed by shock and awe.  Kofi Annan always had the option to keep them in place and let them get blown up.
> 
> Bush did not actually use boots on his feet to actually KICK the inspectors out.... but the effect was the same.
> 
> I misspoke if I said that Bush ordered them out - that is certainly true... but his suggestion had the same result.



Right. On the same wave level that while some democratic leaders used qualifiers in implication that US troops were acting badly, the effect on the public perception was not positive. The conservatives tended to defend and the left have come to the conclusion that it's justifiable to burn effigies of GIs.

Of course, that doesn't mean all conservatives, liberals, etc.


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Right. On the same wave level that while some democratic leaders used qualifiers in implication that US troops were acting badly, the effect on the public perception was not positive. The conservatives tended to defend and the left have come to the conclusion that it's justifiable to burn effigies of GIs.
> 
> Of course, that doesn't mean all conservatives, liberals, etc.



I know of no one on the left that thinks it is justifiable to burn effigies of GI's...I think the record will show that it was anarchists in Portland who did that...they certainly have no backing from MY party.


----------



## Annie (Mar 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> I know of no one on the left that thinks it is justifiable to burn effigies of GI's...I think the record will show that it was anarchists in Portland who did that...they certainly have no backing from MY party.



Considering it was done at a 'bring home the troops' demonstration, both in OR and WI, with many children around and no signs of parents telling different, I'm not so sure you can speak for YOUR party. Certainly for yourself.


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Considering it was done at a 'bring home the troops' demonstration, both in OR and WI, with many children around and no signs of parents telling different, I'm not so sure you can speak for YOUR party. Certainly for yourself.



I can certainly speak for my party...I am a party committee member and we would never sanction or in any way "justify" burning GI's in effigy.  The photographic evidence shows folks dressed in typical anachist attire burning the effigies.... democrats are not down on the troops at all...just on the dumbass administration that sends them to do a job they are not trained or equipped or capable of doing....the US military is not designed to be a police force in an arab country in the middle of a civil war.  That is a stupid mission that they certainly TRY to accomplish - because they are professionals and they know their job is to do whatever the suits in DC tell them to do....but democrats know that the mission they have been sent on is a fool's mission and the fault for that lies not with the military but squarely with Bush.


----------



## Annie (Mar 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> I can certainly speak for my party...I am a party committee member and we would never sanction or in any way "justify" burning GI's in effigy.  The photographic evidence shows folks dressed in typical anachist attire burning the effigies.... democrats are not down on the troops at all...just on the dumbass administration that sends them to do a job they are not trained or equipped or capable of doing....the US military is not designed to be a police force in an arab country in the middle of a civil war.  That is a stupid mission that they certainly TRY to accomplish - because they are professionals and they know their job is to do whatever the suits in DC tell them to do....but democrats know that the mission they have been sent on is a fool's mission and the fault for that lies not with the military but squarely with Bush.



I'll try to stay on our topic, which was who was there. I agree with those burning the effigy, flags, defecating on the flag, etc. Problem with the idea that 'democrats' are not supporting that, would be looking at who was cheering them on. 

It's not just the 'right' that has ill informed members, at least some of us know 'the party' has some nutters.


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> I'll try to stay on our topic, which was who was there. I agree with those burning the effigy, flags, defecating on the flag, etc. Problem with the idea that 'democrats' are not supporting that, would be looking at who was cheering them on.
> 
> It's not just the 'right' that has ill informed members, at least some of us know 'the party' has some nutters.




are there crazy people who self identify as democrats?  certainly.  
are there crazy people who self identify as republicans?  certainly.

Does the republican party "justify" or authorize ...say... folks who kill abortion doctors or those who taunt and torment gays?  no, I would say not.

Neither does the democratic party "justify" burning GI's in effigy.


----------



## Annie (Mar 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> are there crazy people who self identify as democrats?  certainly.
> are there crazy people who self identify as republicans?  certainly.
> 
> Does the republican party "justify" or authorize ...say... folks who kill abortion doctors or those who taunt and torment gays?  no, I would say not.
> ...



Agreed. While for years I really thought the far right more dangerous, I'd say the left is gaining. Both parties should be condemning the actions of the fringe.


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Agreed. While for years I really thought the far right more dangerous, I'd say the left is gaining. Both parties should be condemning the actions of the fringe.



it is a difficult balancing act.  inappropriate action on the part of the "fringe" should be condemned, but in a larger sense, both parties need to have elements that define the LEFT and the RIGHT boundaries of our political spectrum.  I realize that good public policy is formed when well meaning people from both sides come to the middle and find common ground.... but they must come to the middle FROM SOMEWHERE.  Those committed hardcore leftists and rightists stand out on the fringe, perhaps, but they define the direction from which we both approach the center.


----------



## Annie (Mar 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> it is a difficult balancing act.  inappropriate action on the part of the "fringe" should be condemned, but in a larger sense, both parties need to have elements that define the LEFT and the RIGHT boundaries of our political spectrum.  I realize that good public policy is formed when well meaning people from both sides come to the middle and find common ground.... but they must come to the middle FROM SOMEWHERE.  Those committed hardcore leftists and rightists stand out on the fringe, perhaps, but they define the direction from which we both approach the center.



I was referring more to 'fringe' actions; like OR and WI, abortions clinic actions, feces spread on recruiting offices, cars keyed for bumper stickers, etc.


----------



## GeeWhiz (Mar 27, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Who ordered UN inspectors out of Iraq, March of '03?



Bush lied about it. Several months after his illegal invasion of Iraq he said it was Saddam that made the inspectors leave.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-3.html



> The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in.




More on Bush lies and rewriting history at this link

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/041306.html


----------



## Annie (Mar 27, 2007)

GeeWhiz said:


> Bush lied about it. Several months after his illegal invasion of Iraq he said it was Saddam that made the inspectors leave.
> 
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-3.html
> 
> ...



From the whitehouse source, I'll assume you are referring to this exchange?



> Q Mr. President, back on the question of Iraq, and that specific line that has been in question --
> 
> THE PRESIDENT: Can you cite the line? (Laughter.)
> 
> ...



From Feb report of that year:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq.un/



> U.N. report reinforces Security Council divisions
> Powell: Iraq will determine war or peace
> 
> UNITED NATIONS (CNN) --The chief U.N. weapons inspectors' reports Friday gave the divided Security Council members more ammunition to bolster their opposing positions on whether Iraq is cooperating with efforts to verify its disarmament or should face "serious consequences."
> ...


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2007)

bush says:

"And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power"

how is that not an incorrect statement?


----------



## Annie (Mar 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> bush says:
> 
> "And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power"
> 
> how is that not an incorrect statement?



Is this another Chomsky moment? You mean he 'let them in the country?'


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Is this another Chomsky moment? You mean he 'let them in the country?'



do you mean that he didn't?

Saddam most certainly DID acquiesce and let the inspectors back in...he certainly could have prevented them from entering his county but did not do so.....


----------



## Annie (Mar 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> do you mean that he didn't?
> 
> Saddam most certainly DID acquiesce and let the inspectors back in...he certainly could have prevented them from entering his county but did not do so.....



Ok, just wanted to be clear what you meant. 

Yes, he let them in country, but right up to the end, it was not clear to IAEA what was going on there. That became clear after Kofi pulled them out.


----------



## GeeWhiz (Mar 27, 2007)

The white house link I provided shows Bush lying and rewriting history by saying this:  





> And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in.



No where in the CNN link you provided does it state that Saddam would not allow inspectors in. The statement in bold is an accusation by the United States, Britain and Spain that Iraq was in violation of resolution 1441.

If Bush were to have told the truth his answer would been more like this: We accused Iraq of violating resolution 1441 and we disagreed with France, China and Spain to give the U.N inspection more time.

The fact is Bush lied as his own website shows.


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2007)

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron.asp

from that link:

_"September 12, 2002: Amid increasing speculation that the United States is preparing to invade Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, Bush delivers a speech to the United Nations calling on the organization to enforce its resolutions on disarming Iraq. Bush strongly implies that if the United Nations does not act, the United States will-a message that U.S. officials make more explicit the following week. 

September 16, 2002: *Baghdad announces that it will allow arms inspectors to return "without conditions." *Iraqi and UN officials meet September 17 to discuss the logistical arrangements for the return of inspectors and announce that final arrangements will be made at a meeting scheduled for the end of the month." _


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> bush says:
> 
> "And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power"



...and that was a lie.

imagine that.


----------



## Annie (Mar 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron.asp
> 
> from that link:
> 
> ...


Right and by February there were two UN inspector reports, with a 3rd in March that reported there was not unfettered access. Same deal as years earlier, though with less nastiness on the part of Iraq. Truth is, there is ample reason to think France may have assured Saddam they could head the US led coalition off.


----------



## Annie (Mar 27, 2007)

GeeWhiz said:


> The white house link I provided shows Bush lying and rewriting history by saying this:
> 
> No where in the CNN link you provided does it state that Saddam would not allow inspectors in. The statement in bold is an accusation by the United States, Britain and Spain that Iraq was in violation of resolution 1441.
> 
> ...



Again, like MM's, Glock's Chomsky moments, chalk it up to a literal understanding. Yes, they received visas. Yes, we agreed that more time was pointless, as the summer was upon the forces in year 1.


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Again, like MM's, Glock's Chomsky moments, chalk it up to a literal understanding. Yes, they received visas. Yes, we agreed that more time was pointless, as the summer was upon the forces in year 1.




who is this "we" of which you speak?  Who "agreed that more time was pointless"?  do you have a mouse in your pocket?


----------



## Annie (Mar 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> who is this "we" of which you speak?  Who "agreed that more time was pointless"?  do you have a mouse in your pocket?



LOL! I'm a 'citizen' of the US. In this case I was using the royal 'we'.


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> LOL! I'm a 'citizen' of the US. In this case I was using the royal 'we'.



I would suggest that to suggest "agreement" among the citizenry on that point is not really very accurate.


----------



## Annie (Mar 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> I would suggest that to suggest "agreement" among the citizenry on that point is not really very accurate.



But 'we' don't get to have our individual agreement on policies, just as a 'nation', which seems to be more than a bit splintered. 

Again, I think this splintering is a problem from the left and right, but when 'reasonable' opposition members disagree on the President's authority to act as CIC or head of state, we truly are looking into an abyss. Doesn't matter the party of the president, when national unity is gone, which is seems to be, so is the nation. Scary that more citizens, not to mention leaders are not pointing this out.


----------



## GeeWhiz (Mar 27, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Again, like MM's, Glock's Chomsky moments, chalk it up to a literal understanding. Yes, they received visas. Yes, we agreed that more time was pointless, as the summer was upon the forces in year 1.



More time wasn't pointless. More time meant the lost of public support for the war if it became obvious that the inspectors cannot find any imminent threat.

Bush claimed an imminent threat which didn't pan out and so now he is lying and rewriting history by claiming it was Saddam that wouldn't let the inspectors in.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 28, 2007)

GeeWhiz said:


> More time wasn't pointless. More time meant the lost of public support for the war if it became obvious that the inspectors cannot find any imminent threat.
> 
> Bush claimed an imminent threat which didn't pan out and so now he is lying and rewriting history by claiming it was Saddam that wouldn't let the inspectors in.



Dems also said Saddam was a threat and had WMD's. Not that facts matter to the Bush hating left


----------



## Rosotar (Mar 28, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> But 'we' don't get to have our individual agreement on policies, just as a 'nation', which seems to be more than a bit splintered.
> 
> Again, I think this splintering is a problem from the left and right, but when 'reasonable' opposition members disagree on the President's authority to act as CIC or head of state, we truly are looking into an abyss. Doesn't matter the party of the president, when national unity is gone, which is seems to be, so is the nation. Scary that more citizens, not to mention leaders are not pointing this out.



With all due respect Kathianne 

(Please don't ding me again!! )

When have we had "national unity?"

I get the impression you think Congress' job is to support the president, possibly by rubber stamping all his policy decisions?

That is the total opposite of the checks and balances our government was designed on.

I see Congress finally doing it's job lately. It's a shock to Bush but he'll get used to it eventually.

Think of it as presidential potty training.....it's a little hard at first but he'll be better off in the long run having to answer to Congress and so will our nation.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 28, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> With all due respect Kathianne
> 
> (Please don't ding me again!! )
> 
> ...





Libs will never join the war on terror - they are to busy with their war on Bush

Libs have opposed every method to fighting and defeating the terrorists. From tracking their money, to arresting them, detaining them, how they question them, listening to their phone calls, and having their allies in the liberal media printing classified documents on HOW the US is trying to find them

To the libs the only threat to America is Pres Bush and those who support him


----------



## maineman (Mar 28, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Libs will never join the war on terror - they are to busy with their war on Bush
> 
> Libs have opposed every method to fighting and defeating the terrorists. From tracking their money, to arresting them, detaining them, how they question them, listening to their phone calls, and having their allies in the liberal media printing classified documents on HOW the US is trying to find them
> 
> To the libs the only threat to America is Pres Bush and those who support him




that's just wrong.  I am hoping that we actually start fighting the war on terror here real soon.... and I will be totally supportive when we do.  The fact remains: Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on us, it had no weapons of mass destruction, and it had no alliance with the people that attacked us.  Even though he was an asshole, Saddam did a better job at three things than we have been able to do:  1.  keep sunnis and shiites from slaughtering each other, 2.  keep islamic extremists out of Iraq, and 3. keep a lid on Iranian regional hegemony.  We would be better served in our war against islamic extremists, if we could do a better job at those three things....


----------



## red states rule (Mar 28, 2007)

maineman said:


> that's just wrong.  I am hoping that we actually start fighting the war on terror here real soon.... and I will be totally supportive when we do.  The fact remains: Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on us, it had no weapons of mass destruction, and it had no alliance with the people that attacked us.  Even though he was an asshole, Saddam did a better job at three things than we have been able to do:  1.  keep sunnis and shiites from slaughtering each other, 2.  keep islamic extremists out of Iraq, and 3. keep a lid on Iranian regional hegemony.  We would be better served in our war against islamic extremists, if we could do a better job at those three things....




To bad the people of Iraq do not agree with you and want the US to stay and finish the job


----------



## maineman (Mar 28, 2007)

red states rule said:


> To bad the people of Iraq do not agree with you and want the US to stay and finish the job




Last I checked, the role of the US military was to provide security to the United States.  SInce when do we commit men to combat because the residents of foreign countries want us to?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 28, 2007)

maineman said:


> Last I checked, the role of the US military was to provide security to the United States.  SInce when do we commit men to combat because the residents of foreign countries want us to?



We now go after the terrorists before they come after us again. Perhaos libs would be more supportive of the people of Iraq if they were black


----------



## maineman (Mar 28, 2007)

red states rule said:


> We now go after the terrorists before they come after us again. Perhaos libs would be more supportive of the people of Iraq if they were black



and the people of Iraq are not the terrorists that will come after us...we need to be fighting our real enemies, not creating new ones.... and your racism is unbecoming.


----------



## Rosotar (Mar 28, 2007)

red states rule said:


> To bad the people of Iraq do not agree with you and want the US to stay and finish the job



Let me get this straight.

When the majority of Americans want us out of Iraq we don't listen to them because we don't make policy according to "polls."

But if a "poll" of Iraqi citizens say they want us to stay/finish the job, ect.... then that really means something?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 28, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> Let me get this straight.
> 
> When the majority of Americans want us out of Iraq we don't listen to them because we don't make policy according to "polls."
> 
> But if a "poll" of Iraqi citizens say they want us to stay/finish the job, ect.... then that really means something?



Americans do not want to LOSE the war unlike the left wants to happen. Libs are always ready to help the oppressed - as long as they get the credit

Libs do not anything good to happen in Iraq since it will put them on the wrong side of the issue


----------



## maineman (Mar 28, 2007)

Rosotar said:


> Let me get this straight.
> 
> When the majority of Americans want us out of Iraq we don't listen to them because we don't make policy according to "polls."
> 
> But if a "poll" of Iraqi citizens say they want us to stay/finish the job, ect.... then that really means something?




bingo


----------



## red states rule (Mar 28, 2007)

maineman said:


> bingo



more like craps - libs lose


----------



## maineman (Mar 28, 2007)

red states rule said:


> more like craps - libs lose



the point is legitimate.... when have we ever committed american troops to battle because the citizens of a foreign country wanted us to according to a poll?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 28, 2007)

maineman said:


> the point is legitimate.... when have we ever committed american troops to battle because the citizens of a foreign country wanted us to according to a poll?



France did not declare war on the US in WWII, but we invaded France to defeat those who declard war on America

Terrorists have declared war on the US, they are in Iraq, and we are their killing them and helping the new government to take over


----------



## maineman (Mar 28, 2007)

red states rule said:


> France did not declare war on the US in WWII, but we invaded France to defeat those who declard war on America
> 
> Terrorists have declared war on the US, they are in Iraq, and we are their killing them and helping the new government to take over




you were the one who made the point about the poll of Iraqis..... 

if those things are irrelevant, don't bring them up.  If you do bring them up, expect rational folks to question you on them.


and the people we are fighting in Iraq are not the terrorists that declared war on us.... that is the major issue I have with this idiotic war.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 28, 2007)

maineman said:


> you were the one who made the point about the poll of Iraqis.....
> 
> if those things are irrelevant, don't bring them up.  If you do bring them up, expect rational folks to question you on them.
> 
> ...




Libs always want to govern by polls, so why do libs dismiss polls when the people of Iraq say they are NOT in a civil war, want the US to stay and finish the job, they are better off now then under Saddam, and want the terrorists captured or killed?


----------



## maineman (Mar 28, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Libs always want to govern by polls, so why do libs dismiss polls when the people of Iraq say they are NOT in a civil war, want the US to stay and finish the job, they are better off now then under Saddam, and want the terrorists captured or killed?



make up your mind.  Are we there because a poll or Iraqis want us there, or not?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 28, 2007)

maineman said:


> make up your mind.  Are we there because a poll or Iraqis want us there, or not?



We are their killing terrorists, to help the elected government, all with the blessing of the people of Iraq

When the government can take over - we leave


----------



## maineman (Mar 28, 2007)

red states rule said:


> We are their killing terrorists, to help the elected government, all with the blessing of the people of Iraq
> 
> When the government can take over - we leave




the people we are killing are primarily indiginous Iraqis - sunnis and shiites...and the people who are killing us are primarily the same groups.  

The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were NOT in Iraq and the only reason a handful of them are there now is because we are easy targets for them.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

W turns up the heat 

Bush finally makes some sense as he rips
pols for refusing to offer bill on war funding

BY MICHAEL GOODWIN
DAILY NEWS COLUMNIST

Wednesday, April 4th 2007, 4:00 AM 

Just as a stopped clock is right twice a day, President Bush finally made some sense on Iraq yesterday. His forceful attack on the Democrats' deadline for withdrawing our combat troops hit the bull's-eye.

Bush had a fat, easy target. The House version of the military funding bill, which includes a September 2008 deadline, is loaded with domestic spending bribes needed to get members to support it. And immediately after passing their bills, the House and the Senate went on spring break without bothering to reconcile their differences. Until they do, lawmakers can't send the measure to Bush for his certain veto.

That amounts to a stalemate, with the Democrats overplaying their hand and playing into Bush's claims they are undermining our troops and setting us up for failure in Iraq. Bush, no doubt tired of being on defense over the war and the problems of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, seized an opportunity to shift the blame. Conveniently ignoring his own poor performance as commander in chief, he warned that, unless Dems give the military the money it needs and let the troops finish their mission, Iraq would become a "cauldron of chaos" where Islamic extremists could "plot attacks on America."

Painting Democrats as soft on terror is familiar turf for Bush, and some of the old swagger was back. He sounded like Dirty Harry's "make my day" when he demanded Congress get back to work. "They need to come off their vacation, get a bill to my desk, and if it's got strings and mandates and withdrawals and pork I'll veto it. And then we can get down to the business of getting this thing done."

For Democrats, there are hypocrisy and risk in the move to force a troop withdrawal. They derided the President's surge in January by saying that most military commanders opposed it. Yet, as Bush crowed yesterday, not a single commander has voiced support for their withdrawal timetable. With the added talk of tax hikes under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Dems are on the verge of reinforcing their stereotypes of being anti-military and pro-taxes.

Bush also sought to portray them as hurting military families, warning that a funding delay could mean longer stays in Iraq for some troops and earlier deployment for others.

"Congress' most basic responsibility is to give our troops the equipment and training they need to fight our enemies and protect our nation. They're now failing in that responsibility, and if they do not change course in the coming weeks, the price of that failure will be paid by our troops and their loved ones," he said.

Those are serious charges, but Bush's gambit also is full of risks. His claim of progress in securing Baghdad could be undone in the instant it takes a car bomb to go off. And Democrats are right that voters are tired of the war, so they are scoring points even among some independents by standing up to Bush.

Politically and practically, however, there is little they can do to stop Bush's surge of 25,000 more troops. They are boxed in, for now, but maybe not for long. It all depends on what happens in Iraq.

Already, there is speculation that military commanders there, who will get the full surge contingent by early June, will have the remainder of the year to show real and sustained progress. If they fail, the battle over withdrawal will become an important marker on the road to our defeat.

mgoodwin@nydailynews.com

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/04/04/2007-04-04_w_turns_up_the_heat-2.html


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

and red states retch responds with...... ta da...

*an editorial from the NY Daily News!*

Honestly....who here hasn't started to wonder whether RSR is actually a newsbot and not a real person????


----------



## Louie (Apr 4, 2007)

RSR is as predictable as dubya and is here strictly for amusement purposes only.
Crank up some more rhetoric and keep the laughs coming!!


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> and red states retch responds with...... ta da...
> 
> *an editorial from the NY Daily News!*
> 
> Honestly....who here hasn't started to wonder whether RSR is actually a newsbot and not a real person????



Libs want to surrender to the terrorists and you seem fine with that

How does your ol lady look in a burka MM?


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Libs want to surrender to the terrorists and you seem fine with that
> 
> How does your ol lady look in a burka MM?




what a laugh... all you have is one liner talking points.

No one in the democratic party wants to "surrender to the terrorists"

and here is a clue:  my "ol lady" looks better in a burka than any of the skanky crack whores YOU have to pay to get pussy when they are naked.

Have you ever had any pussy that you didn't have to pay for?  I mean...that actually still had most of their teeth?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> what a laugh... all you have is one liner talking points.
> 
> No one in the democratic party wants to "surrender to the terrorists"
> 
> ...



Libs are doing a great job of surrendering 

Your ol lady offered but I have seen better heads on a keg of beer - I sent her down to the docks to make a few extra bucks


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

****************NEWSFLASH*********************************


Libs have done it. They have won the war on terror!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is no more war on terror folks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



No more GWOT, House committee decrees

By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Apr 4, 2007 1656 EDT

The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.

This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committees Democratic leadership doesnt like the phrase.

A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and avoid using colloquialisms.

The global war on terror, a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo. Also banned is the phrase the long war, which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years.

Committee staff members are told in the memo to use specific references to specific operations instead of the Bush administrations catch phrases. The memo, written by Staff Director Erin Conaton, provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, operations in the Horn of Africa or ongoing military operations throughout the world.

There was no political intent in doing this, said a Democratic aide who asked not to be identified. We were just trying to avoid catch phrases.

Josh Holly, a spokesman for Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the committees former chairman and now its senior Republican, said Republicans were not consulted about the change.

Committee aides, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said dropping or reducing references to the global war on terror could have many purposes, including an effort to be more precise about military operations, but also has a political element involving a disagreement over whether the war in Iraq is part of the effort to combat terrorism or is actually a distraction from fighting terrorists.

House Democratic leaders who have been pushing for an Iraq withdrawal timetable have talked about the need to get combat troops out of Iraq so they can be deployed against terrorists in other parts of the world, while Republicans have said that Iraq is part of the front line in the war on terror. Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the armed services committee chairman, has been among those who have complained that having the military tied up with Iraq operations has reduced its capacity to respond to more pressing problems, like tracking down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

This is a philosophical and political question, said a Republican aide. Republicans generally believe that by fighting the war on terror in Iraq, we are preventing terrorists from spreading elsewhere and are keeping them engaged so they are not attacking us at home.

However, U.S. intelligence officials have been telling Congress that most of the violence in Iraq is the result of sectarian strife and not directly linked to terrorists, although some foreign insurgents with ties to terrorist groups have been helping to fuel the fighting.

You have to wonder if this means that we have to rename the GWOT, said a Republican aide, referring to the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medals established in 2003 for service members involved, directly and indirectly, in military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world.

If you are a reader of the Harry Potter books, you might describe this as the war that must not be named, said another Republican aide. That is a reference to the fact that the villain in the Harry Potter series, Lord Voldemort, is often referred to as he who must not be named because of fears of his dark wizardry.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/04/military_gwot_democrats_070403w/


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Libs are doing a great job of surrendering
> 
> Your ol lady offered but I have seen better heads on a keg of beer - I sent her down to the docks to make a few extra bucks



you are such a tough guy from behind the monitor...

you have never seen my wife and thank god she has never been anywhere near you.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> you are such a tough guy from behind the monitor...
> 
> you have never seen my wife and thank god she has never been anywhere near you.



I probably have - I vist the Zoo during the summer. I here you do when you are homesick


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I probably have - I vist the Zoo during the summer. I here you do when you are homesick



why not lay off the schoolyard taunts, grow up, and just show me on your website

http://icasualties.org/oif/

where we have seen a 60% decrease in casualties?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> why not lay off the schoolyard taunts, grow up, and just show me on your website
> 
> http://icasualties.org/oif/
> 
> where we have seen a 60% decrease in casualties?



You threw the first "school yard insult"

If you can't take it do not dish it out


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You threw the first "school yard insult"
> 
> If you can't take it do not dish it out



who mentioned my old lady in a burka?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> who mentioned my old lady in a burka?



That is harldy an insult. If the US loses this war - that is how the peaceful cuddly terrorists will have her dress


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> That is harldy an insult. If the US loses this war - that is how the peaceful cuddly terrorists will have her dress



keep my wife out of our conversations.  period.  Is that clear?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> keep my wife out of our conversations.  period.  Is that clear?



Take a pill MM - you know it was not an insult. Libs love to play the victim card

My and after I gave your party credit for winning the war on terror


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Take a pill MM - you know it was not an insult. Libs love to play the victim card
> 
> My and after I gave your party credit for winning the war on terror



I said.... from now on...keep my wife out of our conversations.  Is that so hard for you to understand?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> I said.... from now on...keep my wife out of our conversations.  Is that so hard for you to understand?



What did I say now?

Relax son - take your nerve tonic

Congrats on your party winning the war on terror - now the troops can come home


----------



## Louie (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I probably have - I vist the Zoo during the summer. *I here you do *when you are homesick



You have ZERO understanding or command of the English language, eh?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

Louie said:


> You have ZERO understanding or command of the English language, eh?



I have a better command then this guy

Mujibar's Immigration Test 

Yellow, Pink, and Gree n


Mujibar was trying to get into the USA legally through Immigration. 

The Officer said, "Mujibar, you have passed all the tests, except there is one more test. Unless you pass it, you cannot enter the United States of America " 

Mujibar said, "I am ready." 

The officer said, "Make a sentence using the words Yellow, Pink and Green." 

Mujibar thought for a few minutes and said, 
"Mister Officer, I am ready." 

The Officer said, "Go ahead." 

Mujibar said, "The telephone goes green, green, green, and I pink it up, and say, 'Yellow', this is Mujibar.'" 

Mujibar now lives in a neighborhood near you and works at a Verizon help desk.


----------

