Troops Want to Stay In Iraq

[red states rule]

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]

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]

bingo

more like craps - libs lose

 

[maineman]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[email protected]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/04/04/2007-04-04_w_turns_up_the_heat-2.html

 

[maineman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

****************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]

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]

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]

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?