Surge this!

[Rosotar]

Our country loses if we do not live up to the promise that this time we would stay until the job had been completed. Until there was a stable and strong Iraq, as was promised right after Baghdad fell.

Actually Iraq was pretty stable before we invaded. It only became the way it is after we invaded.

Leaving before that time will only ensure a future foray into that part of the world, with a better prepared enemy to fight..

It's a bit naive to believe that even a relatively strong and stable democracy in Iraq is going to enable us to "leave" the region eventually. However if we were to leave altogether it would go a long way toward easing the tensions that cause terrorism toward us and our interests.

Because of the trust issue, after we left them high and dry in our last foray into Iraq, Iraqis have a hard time believing that the US will stay. Because of this, and current reports of our loss of focus, most Iraqis have begun joining one of the local groups for protection, this solidifies them and pretty much guarantees a long embittered insecurity in that nation.

So it sounds like you're getting close to admitting that maybe Bush should have known a little more about what he was getting into before he got into it. He should have known that invading Iraq was not going to be the cakewalk he thought it was. Actually people like Colin Powell and Eric Shenseki tried to tell him but he wouldn't listen so the whole thing is really his fault. He should have known that the majority of Americans were not going to continue supporting failed policy and loosing wars forever. Don't blame the public, the media, or liberals for this failure of Bush's. The entire thing is on his shoulders alone. He got in way over his head and now his apologists will try to blame his mistakes on anybody but him. Everyday though the public gets a little wiser to this ruse as was demonstrated in last fall's elections.

This belief that as soon as we leave brotherhood and love will prevail as they kill all those from outside the nation because they are really mad is a bit, oh shall we say "wishful" yeah that will be good, of wishful thinking.

Who says brotherhood and love will prevail. It's going to be a bloodbath. There will be civil war, ethnic cleansing, ect. It is inevitable now and only a matter of time though. Bush and his Neocon puppet handlers have let the genie out of the bottle and they can't put it back in no matter how long we stay. This blood is and will be on George Bush's head no matter how hard he tries to spin it otherwise.

It will make it even more difficult, if not impossible, for these people to ever trust the US again. We must stay true to our promise, or this will haunt us for more than a generation.

Ha! Ha!

Good one!

The Iraqi's didn't invite us. We invaded on the premise of WMD....remember?

The "promise" that you speak of was just invented after the fact to keep Bush's goose from being thoroughly cooked for lying about his reasons for launching a war after it became apparent it wasn't going to be as easy as he thought.

The Iraqi's never "trusted" us with anything to begin with!

 

[no1tovote4]

Actually Iraq was pretty stable before we invaded. It only became the way it is after we invaded.

True, and I did not support it as it was an undeclared war. However that has little basis on the fact that we did make a promise after taking Baghdad that we would stay until stability becamse a fact for them.

It's a bit naive to believe that even a relatively strong and stable democracy in Iraq is going to enable us to "leave" the region eventually. However if we were to leave altogether it would go a long way toward easing the tensions that cause terrorism toward us and our interests.

It would not. We had not invaded Iraq previously and it did not stop them from attacking us. This is just another excuse that argues against the reality.

So it sounds like you're getting close to admitting that maybe Bush should have known a little more about what he was getting into before he got into it. He should have known that invading Iraq was not going to be the cakewalk he thought it was. Actually people like Colin Powell and Eric Shenseki tried to tell him but he wouldn't listen so the whole thing is really his fault. He should have known that the majority of Americans were not going to continue supporting failed policy and loosing wars forever. Don't blame the public, the media, or liberals for this failure of Bush's. The entire thing is on his shoulders alone. He got in way over his head and now his apologists will try to blame his mistakes on anybody but him. Everyday though the public gets a little wiser to this ruse as was demonstrated in last fall's elections.

Not "getting close" I have stated, on this board, consistently that I am against undeclared wars. Yet I do realize moral obligations. We made a promise, if we do not keep it we are morally in the wrong as well as leaving behind valid reason for mistrust. If we do not keep our promise the next time we are forced to enter Iraq will just be even harder.

Who says brotherhood and love will prevail. It's going to be a bloodbath. There will be civil war, ethnic cleansing, ect. It is inevitable now and only a matter of time though. Bush and his Neocon puppet handlers have let the genie out of the bottle and they can't put it back in no matter how long we stay. This blood is and will be on George Bush's head no matter how hard he tries to spin it otherwise.

Not true. We should do now what should have been done in the beginning, get enough boots on the ground to provide these people security within which they can grow without the reality of being forced into groups that they hope to "protect" them as the US is not trusted to keep their promise.

Ha! Ha!

Good one!

The Iraqi's didn't invite us. We invaded on the premise of WMD....remember?

The "promise" that you speak of was just invented after the fact to keep Bush's goose from being thoroughly cooked for lying about his reasons for launching a war after it became apparent it wasn't going to be as easy as he thought.

The Iraqi's never "trusted" us with anything to begin with!

When did I say they invited us? That is a strawman argument. The regular Iraqi on the street doesn't want to be part of the sectarian violence yet believe that the US will leave before there is security and that the only chance they have is by joining one of the groups that will be waging such atrocities. They do not believe that the US has the will to do what was promised, and I fear that they are right.

 

[red states rule]

The weird thing about that is that when Bush "wins" our country looses.

So do our troops in harms way.

Reid should learn to keep his mouth shut. When he smiled and said how Dems were to win a huge number of House and Senate seats ot showed Dems are only thinking how this will benefit them politically

Troops a secondary consideration to the Dems

 

[Rosotar]

Reid should learn to keep his mouth shut. When he smiled and said how Dems were to win a huge number of House and Senate seats ot showed Dems are only thinking how this will benefit them politically

Troops a secondary consideration to the Dems

If you could just get over your blinding hatred of Democrats you might be able to think clearly.

I'm noticing that you have a hard time discussing issues. Everything for you degenerates into Demo bashing!

You're obsessed!

 

[red states rule]

If you could just get over your blinding hatred of Democrats you might be able to think clearly.

I'm noticing that you have a hard time discussing issues. Everything for you degenerates into Demo bashing!

You're obsessed!

Reid did make the comment

Is Demo bashing now posting what Dems actually say?

 

[maineman]

I read the link

If Republicans are losing - why are the Dems giving up?
The anti war kook left are going to shit pants when they see Pres Bush wins this one

I go away fro two days and you are asking the same questions. I answered that question for you before I left. Why do you continue to ask it? Are you just too fucking thick to read what ANYONE writes in response to you?

 

[maineman]

Reid did make the comment

Is Demo bashing now posting what Dems actually say?

how does his comment show that democrats do not care about the troops? As I have said on many occasions, I am a committed democrat but would LOVE to see a multicultural jeffersonian democracy spring up on the banks of the euphrates.... I would LOVE to see Iraq turn into our biggest and bestest buddy in the whole world, even though that would mean that your party and your president would be seen as "winning" something. The fact that Harry points out that democrats will pick up seats in congress if the war continues to go as poorly as it has to date is not political opportunism or a demonstration of any lack of support for our troops. It is a statement of fact.

And you need to understand - as if that were possible - that there is a distinct difference between supporting the troops and supporting the mission that the administration sends them on.

 

[Rosotar]

how does his comment show that democrats do you care about the troops? As I have said on many occasions, I am a committed democrat but would LOVE to see a multicultural jeffersonian democracy spring up on the banks of the euphrates.... I would LOVE to see Iraq turn into our biggest and bestest buddy in the whole world, even though that would mean that your party and your president would be seen as "winning" something. The fact that Harry points out that democrats will pick up seats in congress if the war continues to go as poorly as it has to date is not political opportunism or a demonstration of any lack of support for our troops. It is a statement of fact.

And you need to understand - as if that were possible - that there is a distinct difference between supporting the troops and supporting the mission that the administration sends them on.

Good job MM.

I'd rep you if I could but I'm still trying to figure out how to do it.

 

[red states rule]

I go away fro two days and you are asking the same questions. I answered that question for you before I left. Why do you continue to ask it? Are you just too fucking thick to read what ANYONE writes in response to you?

I see the kook left of the party (you) are getting upset the Dems are not standing firm on their surrender bill

 

[red states rule]

how does his comment show that democrats do not care about the troops? As I have said on many occasions, I am a committed democrat but would LOVE to see a multicultural jeffersonian democracy spring up on the banks of the euphrates.... I would LOVE to see Iraq turn into our biggest and bestest buddy in the whole world, even though that would mean that your party and your president would be seen as "winning" something. The fact that Harry points out that democrats will pick up seats in congress if the war continues to go as poorly as it has to date is not political opportunism or a demonstration of any lack of support for our troops. It is a statement of fact.

And you need to understand - as if that were possible - that there is a distinct difference between supporting the troops and supporting the mission that the administration sends them on.

The number one thing Dems are most concerned about is their political power. The troops, national security, national defense be damned.

Only what Dems gain politically matters to them - and it would seem - to you as well MM

 

[red states rule]

Good job MM.

I'd rep you if I could but I'm still trying to figure out how to do it.

To MM a simple bow and ass kiss wil do

 

[Rosotar]

To MM a simple bow and ass kiss wil do

Whatever.

I've noticed that you've conspicuously avoided commenting on this little ditty I pulled off of your own link.

SOME REPUBLICANS "BEGINNING TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE": Distressed by the violence in Iraq and worried about tying their political fate to an unpopular president, some Republicans on Capitol Hill are beginning to move away from the White House to stake out a more critical position on the U.S. role in the war. These lawmakers are advocating proposals that would tie the U.S. commitment in the war to the Iraqi government's ability to demonstrate that it is working to quell the sectarian conflict. As Democrats start work on a new war spending bill to replace the one President Bush vetoed, at least three Republican senators who opposed the Democratic withdrawal plan said Wednesday that the new bill should include so-called benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet. Los Angeles Times: Some Republicans split with Bush on the war

So what about it ditto-boy? How does this fit in with your "Democrats surrender" theory?

 

[red states rule]

Whatever.

I've noticed that you've conspicuously avoided commenting on this little ditty I pulled off of your own link.

SOME REPUBLICANS "BEGINNING TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE": Distressed by the violence in Iraq and worried about tying their political fate to an unpopular president, some Republicans on Capitol Hill are beginning to move away from the White House to stake out a more critical position on the U.S. role in the war. These lawmakers are advocating proposals that would tie the U.S. commitment in the war to the Iraqi government's ability to demonstrate that it is working to quell the sectarian conflict. As Democrats start work on a new war spending bill to replace the one President Bush vetoed, at least three Republican senators who opposed the Democratic withdrawal plan said Wednesday that the new bill should include so-called benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet. Los Angeles Times: Some Republicans split with Bush on the war

So what about it ditto-boy? How does this fit in with your "Democrats surrender" theory?

When haven't RINO's turned against the war. Some have this fantasy about being President

 

[maineman]

The number one thing Dems are most concerned about is their political power. The troops, national security, national defense be damned.

Only what Dems gain politically matters to them - and it would seem - to you as well MM

when will you EVER move beyond tossing out one liner talking points and begin to talk about issues?

Will you explain to me how turning over encampments to the armed forces of the country of Iraq is an act of surrender?

Why would we want to assume political power of a country with no troops, no national security and no national defense? that is just another meaningless flatulent one liner. Please stop it and try to debate me on the issues. You have asked me numerous questions and I ALWAYS try to answer them. You NEVER answer any of my questions nor back up ANY of your assertions.

Iran backing Al Qaeda? bullshit

60% decrease in American casualties? bullshit.

 

[red states rule]

when will you EVER move beyond tossing out one liner talking points and begin to talk about issues?

Will you explain to me how turning over encampments to the armed forces of the country of Iraq is an act of surrender?

Why would we want to assume political power of a country with no troops, no national security and no national defense? that is just another meaningless flatulent one liner. Please stop it and try to debate me on the issues. You have asked me numerous questions and I ALWAYS try to answer them. You NEVER answer any of my questions nor back up ANY of your assertions.

Iran backing Al Qaeda? bullshit

60% decrease in American casualties? bullshit.

The only bullshit is your putting your party ahead of your country

 

[maineman]

when will you EVER move beyond tossing out one liner talking points and begin to talk about issues?

Will you explain to me how turning over encampments to the armed forces of the country of Iraq is an act of surrender?

Why would we want to assume political power of a country with no troops, no national security and no national defense? that is just another meaningless flatulent one liner. Please stop it and try to debate me on the issues. You have asked me numerous questions and I ALWAYS try to answer them. You NEVER answer any of my questions nor back up ANY of your assertions.

Iran backing Al Qaeda? bullshit

60% decrease in American casualties? bullshit.

I do not love anything more than country. answer MY questions.

 

[red states rule]

I do not love anything more than country. answer MY questions.

You have a very starange way of showing it

 

[maineman]

You have a very starange way of showing it

not so...YOU have a strange way of avoiding answering questions. Why IS that?

why can't you answer simple questions? why can't you have the courage to stand by your assertions or the grace to retract them?

 

[red states rule]

not so...YOU have a strange way of avoiding answering questions. Why IS that?

why can't you answer simple questions? why can't you have the courage to stand by your assertions or the grace to retract them?

Only libs would smear the troops, want to surrender to terrorists, and say the are patriotic

 

[maineman]

Only libs would smear the troops, want to surrender to terrorists, and say the are patriotic

I have never smeared the troops.

Will you ever retract your claim that America has seen a 60% decrease in casualties as a result of the success of the surge?

will you ever retract your assertion that Iran is supporting Al Qaeda?