Iraq militants says U.S. Marine beheaded

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
Who is talking perfectionist? I'm talking a 30 point approval rating drop to where it is now below 50. He's behind in more than half the battleground states and you want to say there is no problem

now you've switched the discussion from bush's performance to perception of his performance. If he's lagging in perception it's due to the libs, and you, trash talking with no merit.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
now you've switched the discussion from bush's performance to perception of his performance. If he's lagging in perception it's due to the libs, and you, trash talking with no merit.

You see you are such an idiot, you blame everything on someone else, is this how you run your day to day life? This is the American people talking in the ratings and polls. What do you think they only poll libs? Are you saying that he has no problem? I just want to know because if you do you are seriously out of touch with reality.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
You see you are such an idiot, you blame everything on someone else, is this how you run your day to day life? This is the American people talking in the ratings and polls. What do you think they only poll libs? Are you saying that he has no problem? I just want to know because if you do you are seriously out of touch with reality.

your switching from your opinion of his job, to poll results of mass opinion. It's two different things. The latter is basically and indicator of the effectiveness of the liberal media in spreading lies. Using poll results to stand in for valid criticism is a lib trick. You should be above it.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
your switching from your opinion of his job, to poll results of mass opinion. It's two different things. The latter is basically and indicator of the effectiveness of the liberal media in spreading lies. Using poll results to stand in for valid criticism is a lib trick. You should be above it.

Regardless of poll results or approval ratings if you think he is not in serious trouble you are blind to reality.

My opinion of his job is i'd say less than favorable. On terrorism and effort he gets a favorable rating, on war tactics and handling of occupation he gets a dismal rating because of lack of fortitude.

Why do you blame others for everything? Is it someone else's fault you are unemployed just like its libs faults for every malody in America? Why do you play the victim?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
Regardless of poll results or approval ratings if you think he is not in serious trouble you are blind to reality.

My opinion of his job is i'd say less than favorable. On terrorism and effort he gets a favorable rating, on war tactics and handling of occupation he gets a dismal rating because of lack of fortitude.

Why do you blame others for everything? Is it someone else's fault you are unemployed just like its libs faults for every malody in America? Why do you play the victim?

I don't blame others for everything. I'm not playing the victim. I'm saying citing poll results prove nothing. If everyone believed 2 + 2 = 5 it still wouldn't make it true.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I don't blame others for everything. I'm not playing the victim. I'm saying citing poll results prove nothing. If everyone believed 2 + 2 = 5 it still wouldn't make it true.

So if poll numbers had Bush at an 80% approval rating and up in all the battleground states would they then be credible?

You 2+2=5 statement was ridiculous. You are a clear case of avoid reality at all costs, your attitude will cost us this election since you want to say everything is peachy and there are no problems.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
So if poll numbers had Bush at an 80% approval rating and up in all the battleground states would they then be credible?

You 2+2=5 statement was ridiculous. You are a clear case of avoid reality at all costs, your attitude will cost us this election since you want to say everything is peachy and there are no problems.

No. They'd still just be polls numbers. Yes, to say 2+2=5 is ridiculous, and if everyone said it, it wouldn't make it less ridiculous; it seems you're beginning to understand.

You're baselessly bad mouthing bush with no standard of comparison. I think you're doing a disservice to the party and the nation, frankly. But that's just my opinion.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
No. They'd still just be polls numbers. Yes, to say 2+2=5 is ridiculous, and if everyone said it, it wouldn't make it less ridiculous; it seems you're beginning to understand.

You're baselessly bad mouthing bush with no standard of comparison. I think you're doing a disservice to the party and the nation, frankly. But that's just my opinion.

There is a comparison, his daddy. Its a very VALID comparison. Both had incredibly high approval ratings and both ran into huge problems of their own doing. Daddy got wiped by Bubba, hopefully it won't be that way with jr., its better than 50-50 it will unless good news comes fast.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
There is a comparison, his daddy. Its a very VALID comparison. Both had incredibly high approval ratings and both ran into huge problems of their own doing. Daddy got wiped by Bubba, hopefully it won't be that way with jr., its better than 50-50 it will unless good news comes fast.

I thought we were talking about his handling of the current war and the current geopolitical situation. And there is no comparison to be had in that arena. My bad.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I thought we were talking about his handling of the current war and the current geopolitical situation. And there is no comparison to be had in that arena. My bad.

Right he is the first president to take on terrorists. Iraq militarily after the initial thrust to Baghdad and fighting the insurgency has been a complete fuck up. We should have been finished months ago, but hey whats some more lives compared to a political election. Face it, we screwed this deal up and I for one having been a very vocal supporter of Bush's foray into Iraq feel let down that we didn't use every available weapon in our arsenal short of nukes to quell this uprising. In my opinion alot of lives have been lost needlessly due to our reluctance to wage WAR.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
Right he is the first president to take on terrorists. Iraq militarily after the initial thrust to Baghdad and fighting the insurgency has been a complete fuck up. We should have been finished months ago, but hey whats some more lives compared to a political election. Face it, we screwed this deal up and I for one having been a very vocal supporter of Bush's foray into Iraq feel let down that we didn't use every available weapon in our arsenal short of nukes to quell this uprising. In my opinion alot of lives have been lost needlessly due to our reluctance to wage WAR.

I disagree.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Hey man. I'm gonna go watch The Dead Zone on USA. Toodles. Keep up the rhetoric.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I disagree.

Fine, but far be it for me to ask you to support your position. Heck I suppose if that ever happens that means the Red Sea is parting.

 

[007]

You know I have to agree with OCA here. I think we did good when we took out Saddam, but we had NO PLAN on how to deal with the aftermath. It's pretty much like we're just "winging it" day to day, not really knowing what to do, so we do nothing.

I heard today that there are insurgents from many different countries there, not just what's left of Saddam's army, but terrorists from everywhere are going to Iraq to fight Americans. So that brings me to my question... "if we pulled out of Iraq, lock, stock and barrel, what would happen"?

And yes there's things that the Prez has done that piss me off. He's totally soft on illegal immigration, from mexico especially, because he's whoring himself out to the latino's for their vote. That makes me madder than hell. And I think the way things have been handled in Iraq since the end of major actions has been a cluster fuck just like OCA said. It's a damn disaster. Our soilders are pretty much open targets for terrorists to pick off at will. I don't give a fuck what we're there for, if "I" was in charge, that shit would STOP, one way or the other, and it hasn't, and that pisses me off about Bush too.

But as much as those two things tick me off, the thought of that carrot head flamming liberal kerry as President REEEEEEEALLY scares the shit out of me. If he's elected, you might as well get ready for another recession, AND more terrorist attacks, because he'll start right in with his liberal fucking "APPEASEMENT".

 

[pegwinn]

How does the Marines take out a building?

How does the Air Force take control of a building....

Three year lease with an option to buy :cof:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
Fine, but far be it for me to ask you to support your position. Heck I suppose if that ever happens that means the Red Sea is parting.

In my book he gets an A+ just for doing the right thing in spite of all the naysayers.

Was everything perfect? No. All this 'no plan' talk is exactly what the libs say. Sometimes we must press ahead without a perfect plan. Hindsight is 20/20. Let's not crucify the guy.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Check out this column from ann coulter about demands for a plan

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/110403p.htm
'The Plan'
November 5, 2003



THE DEMOCRATS' new method of opposing the war on terrorism while pretending not to oppose the war on terrorism is to keep demanding that Bush produce a "plan." Wesley Clark recently complained that Bush had put American troops in harm's way, "without a plan." Of course, Clark's "plan" would have been to create a quagmire, just like in Bosnia.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said the difference in how he would have prosecuted the war in Iraq is: "I would have planned." Yes, the invasion of Iraq was the usual unplanned, spur-of-the-minute thing that took 14 months.

Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., noted for the record that when he voted for war with Iraq, "I said at the time that it was critical for us to have a plan. ... This president has no plan of any kind that I can see." Maybe it's that Beatlemania mop-top that's blocking Edwards' view.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. – the one Democratic presidential candidate too conservative for Barbra Streisand – said that President Bush gave the American people "a price tag, not a plan." He said that "we in Congress must demand a plan." You know, like that incredibly detailed plan the Democrats have in place to spend $400 billion buying prescription drugs for elderly millionaires.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said: "The administration had a plan to fight the war, but it had no plan to win the peace." Kennedy's idea of "a plan" consists of choosing a designated driver before heading out for the evening.

Interviewing Vice President Dick Cheney on "Meet the Press" about a month ago, Tim Russert echoed the theme, asking: "What is our plan for Iraq? How long will the 140,000 American soldiers be there? How many international troops will join them? And how much is this going to cost?" When will we be there, Daddy? Can I go to the bathroom? Are we there yet?

The same questions were asked of FDR over and over again by the American people after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. "How much will this cost?" "My husband's a sailor – how long will he be gone?" "What's your exit strategy, you warmonger?" Wait – no. My mistake. That didn't happen.

The Democrats' incessant demand for a "plan" tends to suggest there is something called "The Plan," which would magically prevent bad things from ever happening – especially something as totally unexpected as violence in the Middle East. Violence in the Middle East constantly comes as a bolt out of the blue to liberals.

Bush said deposing Saddam Hussein and building a democracy in Iraq was an essential part of the war on terrorism. He did not say that invading Iraq would instantly end all Muslim violence and rainy days that make liberals blue. We're at war with Islamic lunatics. They enjoy blowing people up. What further insights do liberals have to impart about this war?

A war is not as predictable as, say, a George Clooney movie (although generally more entertaining). Historian Stephen Ambrose described Gen. Dwight Eisenhower's genius as a soldier, noting that "he often said that in preparing for battle, plans were essential, but that once the battle was joined, plans were useless." Transforming a blood-soaked police state dotted with mass graves and rape rooms into a self-governing republic might take slightly longer than this week's makeover on "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."

This is not the first time an evil tyrant was deposed only for bloody elements of his regime to remain. For example, it's been nearly five months since Howell Raines was removed as editor of the New York Times. No quagmire there! What is Bill Keller's "plan" to turn the New York Times around, and how long will it take?

The U.S. military has had considerably more success in turning Iraq around than liberals have had in turning the ghettos around with their 40-year "War on Poverty." So far, fewer troops have been killed by hostile fire since the end of major combat in Iraq than civilians were murdered in Washington, D.C., last year (239 deaths in Iraq compared to 262 murders in D.C.). How many years has it been since we declared the end of major U.S. combat operations against Marion Barry's regime? How long before we just give up and pull out of that hellish quagmire known as Washington, D.C.?

The Democrats' urgent need for an "exit strategy" apparently first arose sometime after 1993, when Bill Clinton sent all those U.S. soldiers to Bosnia – who are still there. The Democrats' conception of a "plan" is like the liberal fantasy that there's a room somewhere full of unlimited amounts of "free" money that we could just give to teachers and hospitals and poor people and AIDS sufferers and the homeless if only the bad, greedy Republicans would give us the key to that wonderful room. Republicans should claim the "plan" is in that room. In a lockbox.

It's interesting that after we've finally gotten liberals to give up on seven decades of trying to plan an economy, now they want to plan a war. Extra-credit question for the class: Comparing a peacetime economy with a war, which do you think is more likely to shoot back at the planners and require subsequent readjustments? No, no, not the usual hands from the eager YAFers in the front row. Are there any liberals in the back rows who want to take a stab at answering this one? Paul Krugman?

Needless to say, the Democrats have no actual plan of their own, unless "surrender" counts as a plan. They just enjoy complaining about every bombing, every attack from Muslim terrorists, every mishap.

Back in the 1870s, Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman told a group of graduating cadets: "There are many of you here who think that war is all glory. Well, war is all hell." We didn't start it, but we're going to win it.

 

[007]

While I agree with much of the above article, I still have to point out that it's not just liberals saying we had no "plan" for what to do after major military actions ended. Conservatives have said it as well. Taking out Saddam created a power vacuum the size of which we did not anticipate. And although I also agree things are much better now for Iraq than they were under Saddam's brutal dictatorship, what is going on there right now with our military I think is enough to piss off the Pope. These dick licking little pussy coward terrorists can throw on a dirty sheet, rap a towel around their head and slap on a pair of sandels and hell, they look just like everyone else there. They can sucker punch our troops because our troops wear proper "identifying" military atire. To me, something is just WRONG with the way we're dealing with that. It baffles me that our military would let this scenario continue without finding a way to even things out. Picking off our troops is like shooting fish in a barrel, and if I was the CIC, I'd feel a little guilty about putting my troops in that kind of situation without making some sort of effort to correct it.

Now I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be there, or that building a country should only take 5.3 weeks. I'm saying our troops are sitting ducks, and it pisses me off everytime I hear one of them got killed. By hook or by crook, I'd find a way to pick them off without them knowing "I" was there.... and that's what we SHOULD do.

 

[Annie]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040705/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_marine

Report: Group Says Marine in Safe Place

54 minutes ago

By NADIA ABOU EL-MAGD, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - An Iraqi militant group said Monday it had not killed a U.S. Marine it was holding captive, Al-Jazeera television reported.

In a statement sent to Al-Jazeera, a group, calling itself "Islamic Response," said it was holding Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun, a U.S. Marine of Lebanese heritage. The group said he was safe at a location it did not identify.


On Saturday a Web site posting claimed Hassoun had been beheaded. On Sunday, a second Web posting on another Internet site said Hassoun was alive.


The United States reported Hassoun, 24, missing after he did not report for duty at his base in Iraq (news - web sites) on June 20. On June 27, Al-Jazeera broadcast a videotape showing Hassoun blindfolded along with a statement from militants threatening to kill him unless the United States released all Iraqis in "occupation jails." Militants held a curved sword over his head.


Other militant groups have captured and threatened to behead other foreign Muslim hostages, creating an uproar among many Muslims, including other militants. All the captured Muslims aside from Hassoun have been released unharmed.

 

[krisy]

I just saw his family making a statement on the news and supposedly he has been moved to a "safe place". No one really knows who moved him or where he is?!