No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working

[LuvRPgrl]

and Saddam would murder anyone (and their families) who would look at him in the wrong way?

Remember his human paper shredder?
Prison for kids?
Torture rooms?
His son would go to weddings and rape the bride and walk away immune.?

Why does the kook left always side against America?

They are truly delusional.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

what has been refuted? That Saddam kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another? that Iran has seen its stock rise since our invasion? that AQ is now in Iraq and wasn't before? none of that has EVER been refuted.

Your statement indicates you think people are better off with security instead of safety.

I am not going to do your homework. ALL of that has been refuted. Do a search right here on US Message board.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

what has been refuted? That Saddam kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another? that Iran has seen its stock rise since our invasion? that AQ is now in Iraq and wasn't before? none of that has EVER been refuted.

Your statement indicates you think people are better off with security instead of safety.

I am not going to do your homework. ALL of that has been refuted. Do a search right here on US Message board.

 

[Annie]

what has been refuted? That Saddam kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another? that Iran has seen its stock rise since our invasion? that AQ is now in Iraq and wasn't before? none of that has EVER been refuted.

I'm assuming then you are in favor of minority being able to terrorize and threaten to annihilate the majority? I mean that is what the Sunnis were doing in Iraq, right?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

you seemed to have avoided this one....

My calling saddam beloved and the proof is he received 100% of the vote, is called SARCASM. NOBODY EVER receives even 90% of a vote if its a legitimate election, much less 99% and 100%, which is what saddam got in his last two elections.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The truth usually is.




Care to name names?





Uhhh...Not so much. I wouldn't be giving the nut-case a gun to begin with. Personally, I'd bust a cap in his ass as soon as he started shooting.

But that's neither here nor there. You can't address the issues so you, like several others here and most of the right-wing noise machine, resort to baseless ad hominem attacks, puerile name-calling, and trying to change the subject. Your efforts in these arenas simply highlight your moral and intellectual bankruptcy. dismissed...

Hi POLLY, (want a cracker?),,,,

CLINTON, perjurer, impeached.

I put this really simple for you so your brain doesnt have to try and multitask.

The issue has been adressed over and over and over again. Dont you have anything new? We have already proven the logical fallacy of pointing out where saddam got his WMD's.
You are a moron for saying that its not ok to disarm someone simply because you may have been the person to arm them in the firstplace.
So, if saddam had gotten his WMD's from Russia, then it would be ok for us to disarm him, but since he got them from us, we have to stand aside and let him use them at will. WHAT a fucking moronic logic.

 

[maineman]

Your statement indicates you think people are better off with security instead of safety.

I am not going to do your homework. ALL of that has been refuted. Do a search right here on US Message board.

excuse me...but I really have yet to read anyone's reasonable justification why AMERICAN boys have to die to bring safety OR security to a bunch or arabs who don't particularly give a shit about US one way or the other.

And listen sister.... if you can't refute it, don't claim you can....

 

[maineman]

I'm assuming then you are in favor of minority being able to terrorize and threaten to annihilate the majority? I mean that is what the Sunnis were doing in Iraq, right?

I am not in favor of American boys being policemen in an arab country half way around the world when we have real enemies who are out to get us and those boys are much better utilized fighting them.

If you think that the shiite majority is so damned grateful, why does the sadr army keep killing americans? Why does Sadr himself call for our immediate departure?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Can someone give an objective numeric clarification about when we will no longer be needed? What is defeat and what is victory for us? Is it when 2 months pass with no assault? Is that when we can declare victory? If so, what happens if an attack occurs on day 50.? Sean Hanity and other Bush apologists say that we need to stay there until we receive victory. I don’t recall any of them defining victory in specific and objective terms. Please explain in specific and clear detail, what must happen before we can leave Iraq.

Your ignorance is classic of liberals making demands, criticizing others and saying they have the answer when they dont even know what the goal is.

And it has been stated over and over and over. You cant hear to well though when your head is in the sand, eh? HELLOOOOO,,,HELLOOOOOOOOO,,,,HELLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DOWN THERE,,,,,,,,,,HELLOOOOOOOOO

We will win unless the libs and their MSM cronies manage to get us to QUIT, GIVE UP, CRY UNCLE.....

VICTORY is getting the Iraqi security force to a level where they can defend their country, thats the least we should give them, considering it was us who ousted their sadistic dictator.

:You a moderate moderate??? BWHAHHAHAHAHHAH, you libs are so delusional. At least us conservatives admit we are, you guys run from what you really are.

You cant be a moderate when over 7 out of 10 people in the country describe themselves as Christians, and yet you deride and deny the truth and accuracy of the Bible.

You cant be a moderate when over 6 out of 10 and more in some areas of the country, pass a law preventing same gender marriage, and yet you defend it.

 

[maineman]

My calling saddam beloved and the proof is he received 100% of the vote, is called SARCASM. NOBODY EVER receives even 90% of a vote if its a legitimate election, much less 99% and 100%, which is what saddam got in his last two elections.

Excuse me.... you were the one who said:

"Nor did I ever say anyone said he was beloved."

and I am the one who proved you are a fucking LIAR when I posted this quote:

"OH hell YEA! After all, he was soooo beloved, he even received 100% of the vote in the last "election" he ran in."


I could give a fuck if it was sarcasm or irony or iambic pentameter or a goddamn limerick or any other literary convention...you said it and then claimed you hadn't.

keep track of your own bullshit and this won't happen again.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

excuse me...but I really have yet to read anyone's reasonable justification why AMERICAN boys have to die to bring safety OR security to a bunch or arabs who don't particularly give a shit about US one way or the other.

And listen sister.... if you can't refute it, don't claim you can....

ITs been refuted over and over and over and over,,,,you want to do the dance again? Its called the two step, we give you a factual answer, you respond with Polly want a cracker, liberal lemmings lies. We give another factual answer, you respond with more lies, disinformation and bullshit.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I am not in favor of American boys being policemen in an arab country half way around the world when we have real enemies who are out to get us and those boys are much better utilized fighting them.

If you think that the shiite majority is so damned grateful, why does the sadr army keep killing americans? Why does Sadr himself call for our immediate departure?

Thats not your call to make, its the call of the duly elected President of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Get over it.

And as red states so aptly pointed out, in generations past, when our young liberals really had causes to support, and change was really badly needed in our govt, they still supported the elected administration in the war efforts, even if they disagreed with the administrations choices of strategy.

They werent the snobbish elitist narcisists that we have today, people like you, Pollypulpit and Door Matts Kramer.

 

[maineman]

ITs been refuted over and over and over and over,,,,you want to do the dance again? Its called the two step, we give you a factual answer, you respond with Polly want a cracker, liberal lemmings lies. We give another factual answer, you respond with more lies, disinformation and bullshit.

factual answer?

I am saying that Saddam did not allow wahabbists in his turf... they were his enemy too.... no one has REFUTED that.

I am saying that sunnis and shiites weren't blowing themselves up killing scores of one another every day in the marketplaces of Iraq when Saddam was in power... there was NOT wholesale carnage going on between the sects of Islam in Iraq when Saddam was in power and NO ONE has REFUTED that.

I am saying that twenty years ago, the Iranians sent gun boats out to fuck with US Nvy ships and we decimated them...today... they take 15 british sailors hostage and we all are tapdancing around because NOW THEY are bigtime players in the middle east...NOW they have credibility in the region... as witnessed by the actions of Hezbollah in Lebanon last summer...and why have they got all this power and credibility and influence in the region? because we took out the one guy who could do ANYTHING to keep them in check and NO ONE has REFUTED that EITHER!

 

[maineman]

Thats not your call to make, its the call of the duly elected President of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Get over it.

And as red states so aptly pointed out, in generations past, when our young liberals really had causes to support, and change was really badly needed in our govt, they still supported the elected administration in the war efforts, even if they disagreed with the administrations choices of strategy.

They werent the snobbish elitist narcisists that we have today, people like you, Pollypulpit and Door Matts Kramer.

listen ...I served my country for a long time ...don't you go disrespecting my service or the perspective it give me.... or I'll have to tell all those stories about my great times in Olongapo

 

[maineman]

Thats not your call to make, its the call of the duly elected President of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Get over it.

I can certainly criticize the call of the pResident... and I intend to ...YOU get over it!

 

[mattskramer]

Your ignorance is classic of liberals making demands, criticizing others and saying they have the answer when they dont even know what the goal is.

In what way did I show my ignorance? I merely asked a question.

And it has been stated over and over and over. You cant hear to well though when your head is in the sand, eh? HELLOOOOO,,,HELLOOOOOOOOO,,,,HELLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DOWN THERE,,,,,,,,,,HELLOOOOOOOOO

No. To the best of my memory, it has not been clearly stated to me.

We will win unless the libs and their MSM cronies manage to get us to QUIT, GIVE UP, CRY UNCLE.....

VICTORY is getting the Iraqi security force to a level where they can defend their country, thats the least we should give them, considering it was us who ousted their sadistic dictator.

Again, what is the quantitative standard for that – less than 3 attacks per month?

:You a moderate moderate??? BWHAHHAHAHAHHAH, you libs are so delusional. At least us conservatives admit we are, you guys run from what you really are.

I am an individual and a moderate. On some specific issues, I hold liberal views and on some issues I hold conservative views. Anyway, your comment about my being a liberal does not answer my question. Please stop attacking the person and please answer the question.

You cant be a moderate when over 7 out of 10 people in the country describe themselves as Christians, and yet you deride and deny the truth and accuracy of the Bible.

You cant be a moderate when over 6 out of 10 and more in some areas of the country, pass a law preventing same gender marriage, and yet you defend it.

So is it your position that if I support gay marriage and don’t believe the Bible, but hold conservative views on practically everything else, I would still be a liberal? I disagree on what your requirements are for being a moderate. Anyway, that comments still does not answer my question. Please quit the ad homonym attacks and answer my question.

 

[red states rule]

I can certainly criticize the call of the pResident... and I intend to ...YOU get over it!

and offers no solutions - typical Bush hating and USA loathing liberal

 

[red states rule]

Your statement indicates you think people are better off with security instead of safety.

I am not going to do your homework. ALL of that has been refuted. Do a search right here on US Message board.

Dems have not changed since the Civil War


Copperheads, Then and Now
The Democratic legacy of undermining war efforts.

By Mackubin Thomas Owens

While recovering from surgery recently, I had the good fortune to read a fine new book about political dissent in the North during the Civil War. The book, Copperheads: The Rise an Fall of Lincoln’s Opponents in the North, by journalist-turned-academic-historian Jennifer Weber, shines the spotlight on the “Peace Democrats,” who did everything they could to obstruct the Union war effort during the Rebellion. In so doing, she corrects a number of claims that have become part of the conventional wisdom. The historical record aside, what struck me the most were the similarities between the rhetoric and actions of the Copperheads a century and a half ago and Democratic opponents of the Iraq war today.

In contradistinction to the claims of many earlier historians, Weber argues persuasively that the Northern anti-war movement was far from a peripheral phenomenon. Disaffection with the war in the North was widespread and the influence of the Peace Democrats on the Democratic party was substantial. During the election of 1864, the Copperheads wrote the platform of the Democratic party, and one of their own, Rep. George H. Pendleton of Ohio, was the party’s candidate for vice president. Until Farragut’s victory at Mobile Bay, Sherman’s capture of Atlanta, and Sheridan’s success in driving the Confederates from the Shenandoah Valley in the late summer and fall of 1864, hostility toward the war was so profound in the North that Lincoln believed he would lose the election.

Weber demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that the actions of the Copperheads materially damaged the ability of the Lincoln administration to prosecute the war. Weber persuasively refutes the view of earlier historians such as the late Frank Klement, who argued that what Lincoln called the Copperhead “fire in the rear” was mostly “a fairy tale,” a “figment of Republican imagination,” made up of “lies, conjecture and political malignancy.” The fact is that Peace Democrats actively interfered with recruiting and encouraged desertion. Indeed, they generated so much opposition to conscription that the Army was forced to divert resources from the battlefield to the hotbeds of Copperhead activity in order to maintain order. Many Copperheads actively supported the Confederate cause, materially as well as rhetorically.

In the long run, the Democratic party was badly hurt by the Copperheads. Their actions radically politicized Union soldiers, turning into stalwart Republicans many who had strongly supported the Democratic party’s opposition to emancipation as a goal of the war. As the Democrats were reminded for many years after the war, the Copperheads had made a powerful enemy of the Union veterans.

The fact is that many Union soldiers came to despise the Copperheads more than they disdained the Rebels. In the words of an assistant surgeon of an Iowa regiment, “it is a common saying here that if we are whipped, it will be by Northern votes, not by Southern bullets. The army regard the result of the late [fall 1862] elections as at least prolonging the war.”

Weber quotes the response of a group of Indiana soldiers to letters from Copperhead “friends” back home:

Your letter shows you to be a cowardly traitor. No traitor can be my friend; if you cannot renounce your allegiance to the Copperhead scoundrels and own your allegiance to the Government which has always protected you, you are my enemy, and I wish you were in the ranks of my open, avowed, and manly enemies, that I might put a ball through your black heart, and send your soul to the Arch Rebel himself.

It is certain that the Union soldiers tired of hearing from the Copperheads that the Rebels could not be defeated. They surely tired of being described by the Copperheads as instruments of a tyrannical administration trampling the legitimate rights of the Southern states. The soldiers seemed to understand fairly quickly that the Copperheads preferred Lincoln’s failure to the country’s success. They also recognized that the Copperheads offered no viable alternative to Lincoln’s policy except to stop the war. Does any of this sound familiar?

Today, Democratic opponents of the Iraq war echo the rhetoric of the Copperheads. As Lincoln was a bloodthirsty tyrant, trampling the rights of Southerners and Northerners alike, President Bush is the world’s worst terrorist, comparable to Hitler.

These words of the La Crosse Democrat responding to Lincoln’s re-nomination could just as easily have been written about Bush: “May God Almighty forbid that we are to have two terms of the rottenest, most stinking, ruin working smallpox ever conceived by fiends or mortals…” The recent lament of left-wing bloggers that Vice President Dick Cheney was not killed in a suicide bombing attempt in Pakistan echoes the incendiary language of Copperhead editorialist Brick Pomeroy who hoped that if Lincoln were re-elected, “some bold hand will pierce his heart with dagger point for the public good.”

Antiwar Democrats make a big deal of “supporting the troops.” But such expressions ring hollow in light of Democratic efforts to hamstring the ability of the United States to achieve its objectives in Iraq. And all too often, the mask of the antiwar politician or activist slips, revealing what opponents of the war really think about the American soldier.

For instance, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Rep. Charles Rangel have suggested that soldiers fighting in Iraq are there because they are not smart enough to do anything else. Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois has suggested a similarity between the conduct of U.S. troops in Iraq and that of Nazi soldiers in World War II. His Illinois colleagues, Sen. Barack Obama, claimed that the lives of soldiers lost in Iraq were “wasted.” And recently William Arkin, a military analyst writing online for the Washington Post, said of American soldiers that they are “mercenaries” who had little business taking critics of the war to task.

The Copperheads often abandoned all decency in their pursuit of American defeat in the Civil War. One Connecticut Copperhead told his neighbors that he hoped that all the men who went to fight for the Union cause would “leave their Bones to Bleach on the soil” of the South. The heirs of the Copperheads in today’s Democratic party are animated by the same perverted spirit with regard to the war in Iraq. Nothing captures the essence of today’s depraved Copperhead perspective better than the following e-mail, which unfortunately is only one example of the sort of communication I have received all too often in response to articles of mine over the past few months.

Dear Mr. Owens

You write, "It is hard to conduct military operations when a chorus of eunuchs is describing every action we take as a violation of everything that America stands for, a quagmire in which we are doomed to failure, and a waste of American lives."

But Mr. Owens, I believe that those three beliefs are true. On what grounds can I be barred from speaking them in public? Because speaking them will undermine American goals in Iraq? Bless you, sir, that's what I want to do in the first place. I am confident that U.S. forces will be driven from Iraq, and for that reason I am rather enjoying the war.

But doesn't hoping that American forces are driven from Iraq necessarily mean hoping that Americans soldiers will be killed there? Yes it does. Your soldiers are just a bunch of poor, dumb suckers that have been swindled out of their right to choose between good and evil. Quite a few of them are or will be swindled out of their eyes, legs, arms and lives. I didn't swindle them. President Bush did. If you're going to blame me for cheering their misery, what must you do to President Bush, whose policies are the cause of that misery?

Union soldiers voted overwhelmingly for Lincoln in 1864, abandoning the once-beloved George McClellan because of the perception that he had become a tool of the Copperheads. After Vietnam, veterans left the Democratic party in droves. I was one of them. The Democratic party seems poised to repeat its experience in both the Civil War and Vietnam.

The Democrats seem to believe that they are tapping into growing anti-Iraq War sentiment in the military. They might cite evidence of military antipathy towards the war reflected in, for example, the recent CBS Sixty Minutes segment entitled “Dissension in the Ranks.” But the Democrats are whistling past the graveyard. The Sixty Minutes segment was predicated on an unscientific Army Times poll, orchestrated by activists who now oppose the war. The fact remains that most active duty and National Guard personnel still support American objectives in Iraq. They may be frustrated by the perceived incompetence of higher-ups and disturbed by a lack of progress in the war, but it has always been thus among soldiers. The word “snafu” began as a World War II vintage acronym: “situation normal, all f****d up.”

Union soldiers could support the goals of the war and criticize the incompetence of their leaders in the same breath. But today’s soldiers, like their Union counterparts a century and a half ago, are tired of hearing that everything is the fault of their own government from people who invoke Gitmo and Abu Ghraib but rarely censure the enemy, and who certainly offer no constructive alternative to the current course of action.

The late nineteenth century Democratic party paid a high price for the influence of the Copperheads during the Civil War, permitting Republicans to “wave the bloody shirt” of rebellion and to vilify the party with the charge of disunion and treason. If its leaders are not careful, today’s Democratic party may well pay the same sort of price for the actions of its antiwar base, which is doing its best to continue the Copperhead legacy.

— Mackubin Thomas Owens is an associate dean of academics and a professor of national-security affairs at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. He is writing a history of U.S. civil-military relations.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...QwZjgyOGFkZTU=

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I find something ironic, the liberals were complaining about not enough troops, and now their complaining about more troops.

I understand that iraq was not going well, and it may be too soon to tell if the surge is working, but... life under saddam was not utopia, and leaving now, hands one of the most oil rich over to al queda and iran. Does that sounds like a good idea to you?.

And besides, if iran and al queda gain more of a foothold by gaining all of iraq's oil wealth with no one to oppose them, then why couldnt they not only topple israel, but topple jordan and turkey, two moderate arab states, and then go after all the arabs states and set up sharia state laws, that are just as bad if not worse then the taliban

Just a thought

 

[Bullypulpit]

Who would Jesus torture?

THE MONEY CHANGERS???

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit attrocities." - Voltaire

FROM WIKPEDIA: "When his father found him out, he again sent Voltaire to study law, this time in the provinces. Nevertheless, he continued to write, producing essays and historical studies not always noted for their accuracY.
The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica comments that "If the English visit may be regarded as having finished Voltaire's education, the Cirey residence was the first stage of his literary manhood." Having learned from his previous brushes with the authorities, Voltaire began his future habit of keeping out of personal harm's way, and denying any awkward responsibility"
VOLTAIRE, A LIAR AND A COWARD, NO WONDER HE IS YOUR HERO HAHHAHA

"The Rapture is not an exit strategy." - Unknown

TYPICAL LIBS, FOCUSED ON EXITING AND NOT ON WINNING (SOMETHING THEY HAVE COME QUITE ACCUSTOMED TO, EXITING AND NOT WINNING) HAHAHHAHA

No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country. - Alexis De Tocqueville

"ENDANGER" YES, SOMETHING YOU LIBS RUN FROM AT ALL COSTS.

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. - Sinclair Lewis
SOUNDS LIKE THE ACLU TO ME ))

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. - Mohandas Gandhi
LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE (SO, GHANDI WALKED ON WATER?)

You, and other supporters of the right-wing in America, have long since run out of intellectual ammunition. Poor boy...Your little brain must be working overtime to try and find something, anything, to disprove or gloss over the facts on the ground in Iraq and the corruption of the Administration which is now coming to light. Failing that, we have the result of posts such as what I've quoted above.

Ya got nothin'...old son.