Contact these turncoats...

[stephanie]

Every slimy Democrat but two voted for this...17 Republicans voted with them, I put their contact information below...Let's tell them what we think....
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070216/capt.ny11802162041.us_iraq_ny118.jpg?
In this image from television, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Ca., gavels the 246-182 vote approving a nonbinding measure, a symbolic rejection of President Bush's plan to deploy more troops to Iraq, Friday, Feb. 16, 2007, in Washington. AP Photo/vis CSPAN)




FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 99
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)

H CON RES 63 YEA-AND-NAY 16-Feb-2007 3:22 PM
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Resolution
BILL TITLE: Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq


Yeas Nays PRES NV
Republican 17- 180- 4
Democratic 229- 2- 2
Independent
TOTALS 246 -182- 6


Here are the contacts for the 17 Republicans...
http://www.castle.house.gov/ DE
http://coble.house.gov/ NC 6th district
http://tomdavis.house.gov/ VA 11th district
http://www.house.gov/duncan/ TN 2nd district
http://www.house.gov/english/ PA 3rd
http://gilchrest.house.gov/ MD 1st
http://inglis.house.gov/ SC 4th
http://www.house.gov/timjohnson/ IL 15th
http://jones.house.gov/ NC 3rd
http://keller.house.gov/ FL 8th
http://www.house.gov/kirk/ IL 10th
http://www.house.gov/latourette/ OH 14th
http://www.house.gov/paul/ TX 14th
http://www.house.gov/petri/ WI 6th
http://www.house.gov/ramstad/ MN 3rd
http://www.house.gov/upton/ MI 6th
http://walsh.house.gov/ NY 25th


This is the contact for the two brave Democrats who stood up for the troops..
http://jimmarshall.house.gov/ D-GA 8
http://www.house.gov/genetaylor/ D-MS 4

[jillian]

Gee... you think they'll be getting more positive mail or more negative mail?

Thanks for the info. ;)

[Hagbard Celine]

Every slimy Democrat but two voted for this...17 Republicans voted with them, I put their contact information below...Let's tell them what we think....
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070216/capt.ny11802162041.us_iraq_ny118.jpg?
In this image from television, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Ca., gavels the 246-182 vote approving a nonbinding measure, a symbolic rejection of President Bush's plan to deploy more troops to Iraq, Friday, Feb. 16, 2007, in Washington. AP Photo/vis CSPAN)




FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 99
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)

H CON RES 63 YEA-AND-NAY 16-Feb-2007 3:22 PM
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Resolution
BILL TITLE: Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq


Yeas Nays PRES NV
Republican 17- 180- 4
Democratic 229- 2- 2
Independent
TOTALS 246 -182- 6


Here are the contacts for the 17 Republicans...
http://www.castle.house.gov/ DE
http://coble.house.gov/ NC 6th district
http://tomdavis.house.gov/ VA 11th district
http://www.house.gov/duncan/ TN 2nd district
http://www.house.gov/english/ PA 3rd
http://gilchrest.house.gov/ MD 1st
http://inglis.house.gov/ SC 4th
http://www.house.gov/timjohnson/ IL 15th
http://jones.house.gov/ NC 3rd
http://keller.house.gov/ FL 8th
http://www.house.gov/kirk/ IL 10th
http://www.house.gov/latourette/ OH 14th
http://www.house.gov/paul/ TX 14th
http://www.house.gov/petri/ WI 6th
http://www.house.gov/ramstad/ MN 3rd
http://www.house.gov/upton/ MI 6th
http://walsh.house.gov/ NY 25th


This is the contact for the two brave Democrats who stood up for the troops..
http://jimmarshall.house.gov/ D-GA 8
http://www.house.gov/genetaylor/ D-MS 4

You do know that this resolution was a protest vote against sending more troops INTO Iraq right? I thought "supporting the troops" meant keeping them alive. I guess you guys have been using "support the troops" as a code for "send as many troops as possible into dangerous situations where they can get maimed and killed."

[stephanie]

You do know that this resolution was a protest vote against sending more troops INTO Iraq right? I thought "supporting the troops" meant keeping them alive. I guess you guys have been using "support the troops" as a code for "send as many troops as possible into dangerous situations where they can get maimed and killed."

:420:

[Gaffer]

You do know that this resolution was a protest vote against sending more troops INTO Iraq right? I thought "supporting the troops" meant keeping them alive. I guess you guys have been using "support the troops" as a code for "send as many troops as possible into dangerous situations where they can get maimed and killed."

Its just more attacks in the war on Bush. They are playing with soldiers lives to get their way. They are a dispicable bunch of traitors. They want to deny the troops the extra guns needed to finish the job. I hope the next major attack is on washington and right on top of their dumb asses. They deserve everything they get.

[Hagbard Celine]

Its just more attacks in the war on Bush. They are playing with soldiers lives to get their way. They are a dispicable bunch of traitors. They want to deny the troops the extra guns needed to finish the job. I hope the next major attack is on washington and right on top of their dumb asses. They deserve everything they get.

By "playing with soldiers' lives" do you mean "protesting the president's decision to send more US troops in to be killed?"

[avatar4321]

By "playing with soldiers' lives" do you mean "protesting the president's decision to send more US troops in to be killed?"

No. He means they are playing with soldier lives by telling the troop and our enemies that Congress is unwilling to stand behind them as they keep us safe from harm.

When are you Democrats going to realize your actions have real life consequences? We have Jack Murtha conspiring to cut funds from the troops in an effort to pull our troops out of Iraq.

NEWSFLASH: The war wont end if our troops our pulled out. If our troops are pulled out or underfunded just because Democrats want to make the President look bad, we are going to see murder and slaughter that we havent seen since the killing fields in southeast Asia. But then Democrats like pretending they werent responsible for that either.

[Hagbard Celine]

No. He means they are playing with soldier lives by telling the troop and our enemies that Congress is unwilling to stand behind them as they keep us safe from harm. Seems to me a debate in congress is a normal thing. I don't know what country you live in, but here in the US the purpose of the congress is to debate issues. We don't have a bi-cameral legislature so that they can be a rubber stamp for the sitting president. It also seems to me that the troops aren't doing much to keep anybody "safe." Last I checked terrorism here in the US was handled by domestic law enforcement officials, not the troops policing Iraq.


When are you Democrats going to realize your actions have real life consequences? We have Jack Murtha conspiring to cut funds from the troops in an effort to pull our troops out of Iraq.The last thing Murtha is going to do is cut the funding that keeps troops protected in the field. What you're spewing is a spun-up right-wing talking point that is simply not true.


NEWSFLASH: The war wont end if our troops our pulled out. If our troops are pulled out or underfunded just because Democrats want to make the President look bad,Trust me, the President doesn't need the democrats' help in looking bad. His track record more than does that job for him.


we are going to see murder and slaughter that we havent seen since the killing fields in southeast Asia. But then Democrats like pretending they werent responsible for that either. Ha, you mean like we saw in Darfur? The Republican-run Congress sure did a lot to alleviate those people's pain. :rolleyes: Or how about the deaths of the poor and black right here in the good ol' US of A directly following the Katrina disaster. You could really tell that the Republican congress' hearts were bleeding for those people. Man, the deaths of innocent people is a mighty convenient card to pull when you need it isn't it Mr. Conservative? :eek:

[stephanie]

Seems to me a debate in congress is a normal thing. I don't know what country you live in, but here in the US the purpose of the congress is to debate issues. We don't have a bi-cameral legislature so that they can be a rubber stamp for the sitting president. It also seems to me that the troops aren't doing much to keep anybody "safe." Last I checked terrorism here in the US was handled by domestic law enforcement officials, not the troops policing Iraq.

The last thing Murtha is going to do is cut the funding that keeps troops protected in the field. What you're spewing is a spun-up right-wing talking point that is simply not true.

Trust me, the President doesn't need the democrats' help in looking bad. His track record more than does that job for him.

Ha, you mean like we saw in Darfur? The Republican-run Congress sure did a lot to alleviate those people's pain. :rolleyes: Or how about the deaths of the poor and black right here in the good ol' US of A directly following the Katrina disaster. You could really tell that the Republican congress' hearts were bleeding for those people. Man, the deaths of innocent people is a mighty convenient card to pull when you need it isn't it Mr. Conservative? :eek:

:420:

[avatar4321]

:420:

I was thinking more... :bang3: :bang3:

[stephanie]

I was thinking more... :bang3: :bang3:

:420: That's all I could post...

I couldn't post what I was REALLY thinking...:wink2:

[Gaffer]

Seems to me a debate in congress is a normal thing. I don't know what country you live in, but here in the US the purpose of the congress is to debate issues. We don't have a bi-cameral legislature so that they can be a rubber stamp for the sitting president. It also seems to me that the troops aren't doing much to keep anybody "safe." Last I checked terrorism here in the US was handled by domestic law enforcement officials, not the troops policing Iraq.

We are not talking about a debate in congress, we are talking about congress attempting to take power from the president and using the military and troops lives to do that. The troops are fighting al quada and iranian thugs in iraq. The same ones that want to come here and kill us after they take over the middle east. The same ones congress wants to give the battle plans too. We are not fighting terrorism, we are fighting islam. And the dems want to sell out this country to islam for their own gain.

[/QUOTE]The last thing Murtha is going to do is cut the funding that keeps troops protected in the field. What you're spewing is a spun-up right-wing talking point that is simply not true.[/QUOTE]

That's exactly what murtha wants to do. murtha is a piece of shit. He is doing everything in his power to undermine the military.

[/QUOTE]Trust me, the President doesn't need the democrats' help in looking bad. His track record more than does that job for him.[/QUOTE]

No he doesn't he does enough stupid shit on his own


[/QUOTE] Ha, you mean like we saw in Darfur? The Republican-run Congress sure did a lot to alleviate those people's pain. :rolleyes: Or how about the deaths of the poor and black right here in the good ol' US of A directly following the Katrina disaster. You could really tell that the Republican congress' hearts were bleeding for those people. Man, the deaths of innocent people is a mighty convenient card to pull when you need it isn't it Mr. Conservative? :eek:[/QUOTE]

And what is being done in darfur now. That's a un run operation and the Us hasn't had much say in it. But the dems LOVE the un. How about deaths every day anywhere. You going to blame them on Bush too. Katrina was a disaster all right, nagan REALLY screwed things up and that stupid governor did even worse. But lets blame the republicans. It's the dem way, point the finger and blame someone else.

[stephanie]

This Is The Worst Democrat Congress.......EVER

Their selling out our Country.......For POWER

[Merlin]

You do know that this resolution was a protest vote against sending more troops INTO Iraq right? I thought "supporting the troops" meant keeping them alive. I guess you guys have been using "support the troops" as a code for "send as many troops as possible into dangerous situations where they can get maimed and killed."

I don't know if you have ever been over there or not, but I wish you were over there now. I would love to see you write then about how you wouldn't want Congress to send you any help. If you want to murder someone, why don't you just get your gun and do it like a man????

[OCA]

Despite what Congress thinks the president is going ahead bravely in the face of a media smear campaign and sending the troops.

God bless President Bush.

[manu1959]

You do know that this resolution was a protest vote against sending more troops INTO Iraq right? I thought "supporting the troops" meant keeping them alive. I guess you guys have been using "support the troops" as a code for "send as many troops as possible into dangerous situations where they can get maimed and killed."

so let me see if i have this straight......

at the begining you said sadam is a threat kill him

then for the past 5 years all yall have been saying there are not enough troops, you didn't send enough troops, you need more troops to win the peace

now that we want to send more troops you all are against it....

[Birdzeye]

About effin' time Congress stood up to the wannabe emperor and put him on notice that they don't approve!

He got us into this war on false pretenses and now we're in a royal mess. I no longer believe anything Bush says and I certainly have no confidence that he can clean up the mess left by his decisions.

[Dilloduck]

About effin' time Congress stood up to the wannabe emperor and put him on notice that they don't approve!

He got us into this war on false pretenses and now we're in a royal mess. I no longer believe anything Bush says and I certainly have no confidence that he can clean up the mess left by his decisions.

There's only one reason we are in a "royal mess" ! Democrats would not get behind the war effort. I like the way they sabotage a plan and then bitch because it didn't work out right.

[Birdzeye]

There's only one reason we are in a "royal mess" ! Democrats would not get behind the war effort. I like the way they sabotage a plan and then bitch because it didn't work out right.


Now that's a downright disingenious argument, considering that until this year, Bush had a GOP-controlled Congress that gave him everything he wanted. The Dems didn't have the power or clout to "sabotage" Bush's war.

[Dilloduck]

Now that's a downright disingenious argument, considering that until this year, Bush had a GOP-controlled Congress that gave him everything he wanted. The Dems didn't have the power or clout to "sabotage" Bush's war.

Bullshit---the liberals and the media did everything in thier power to present a divided front to the enemy which is EXACTY what the enemy was depending on. If we had fought the war as a untited country it would be over but there is no way in hell the Liberals were going to let conservatives relish a victory.

[Birdzeye]

Bullshit---the liberals and the media did everything in thier power to present a divided front to the enemy which is EXACTY what the enemy was depending on. If we had fought the war as a untited country it would be over but there is no way in hell the Liberals were going to let conservatives relish a victory.


Since you clearly can't abide dissent - which I thought was what made this country so great - then I can only suggest that you move to a country where "unity" is strictly enforced - like North Korea or Cuba.

[Dilloduck]

Since you clearly can't abide dissent - which I thought was what made this country so great - then I can only suggest that you move to a country where "unity" is strictly enforced - like North Korea or Cuba.

Hogwash---Dissent forth sake of screwing over the other party is nothing but whiney carping. Real dissent offers alternatives.

[Abbey Marie]

Bullshit---the liberals and the media did everything in thier power to present a divided front to the enemy which is EXACTY what the enemy was depending on. If we had fought the war as a untited country it would be over but there is no way in hell the Liberals were going to let conservatives relish a victory.

Perfectly said, Dillo. :clap:

[KarlMarx]

What a bunch of traitorous sons of bitches...

Pelosi = Fonda

[Birdzeye]

Perfectly said, Dillo. :clap:

It's actually bullshit. Bush has been able to do pretty much anything he wanted to do, thanks to a GOP-controlled Congress that gave him almost anything he wanted.

To suggest that he has been hamstrung by dissenters, and to insinuate that those who disapprove of this war are traitors, is simply preposterous.

[Abbey Marie]

It's actually bullshit. Bush has been able to do pretty much anything he wanted to do, thanks to a GOP-controlled Congress that gave him almost anything he wanted.

To suggest that he has been hamstrung by dissenters, and to insinuate that those who disapprove of this war are traitors, is simply preposterous.

It's actually right on the money. Our enemy has been emboldened by the left's whining about our President. They sense, and rightly so, that with a turn to the Dems, our country will not have the will to fight them. And by the time we finally wake up to how deadly serious they are, they will have made irreversible inroads.

[Dilloduck]

It's actually bullshit. Bush has been able to do pretty much anything he wanted to do, thanks to a GOP-controlled Congress that gave him almost anything he wanted.

To suggest that he has been hamstrung by dissenters, and to insinuate that those who disapprove of this war are traitors, is simply preposterous.

Wrong----they don't dissaprove of the war--they dissaprove of America being a sovereign country and conservatives. If there wasn't a war the would be whinng about somethig else.

[Birdzeye]

Wrong----they don't dissaprove of the war--they dissaprove of America being a sovereign country and conservatives. If there wasn't a war the would be whinng about somethig else.

That's a serious allegation. Care to provide some evidence to back it up? I've challenged a few right wingers like you to do just that, and their usual reaction is either to cut and run, or hurl personal insults.

[Dilloduck]

That's a serious allegation. Care to provide some evidence to back it up? I've challenged a few right wingers like you to do just that, and their usual reaction is either to cut and run, or get very, very nasty.

Provide me with some evidence that the liberals were more invested than winning the war than bitching about how it all started.

[Yurt]

You do know that this resolution was a protest vote against sending more troops INTO Iraq right? I thought "supporting the troops" meant keeping them alive. I guess you guys have been using "support the troops" as a code for "send as many troops as possible into dangerous situations where they can get maimed and killed."

So you believe that troops should not be sent to war or situations where they could get maimed or killed?

[Yurt]

This Is The Worst Democrat Congress.......EVER

Their selling out our Country.......For POWER

Absolutely. When the going was good, the majority dems were all for it, then it became a little slow and they jumped the opportunistic band wagon of bashing Bush just to gain support from the uneducated people who can't see that Bush did win the war. What is wrong is not with Bush, it is with Iraqis. Let me be clear, what is wrong is not Bush, it is the Iraqis. They wanted Saddam gone.

Make no mistake. Virtually all the muslims want(ed) him gone. Yeah. But then they wanted the US to get out quick. Why? To implement their view of "islam." That is the fight in the street now. It is marginally against the US, it is very much so about which muslim wants power.

If you complain that Bush has not done enough to quell violence, then why do you bitch when american troops kill Iraqis? In order to quell violence like this you need an iron fist. There is no other way. So either put up a solution or shut up.

And no, leaving is not a solution to winning, it simply says we give up. That is fine, and I often wonder if that is not the best course. But in no way, does that make Bush a bad leader. For anything Bush does you libs will say he lost, he is a bad leader... etc. All for power, not for the sake of the Iraqis, oh no....

[OCA]

About effin' time Congress stood up to the wannabe emperor and put him on notice that they don't approve!

He got us into this war on false pretenses and now we're in a royal mess. I no longer believe anything Bush says and I certainly have no confidence that he can clean up the mess left by his decisions.

What false pretenses would these be? Watch yourself because for every "supposed' falsehood you think George uttered I can provide evidence of twenty Demos including Bubba who agreed with him in the years before and during his administration.

[OCA]

Since you clearly can't abide dissent - which I thought was what made this country so great - then I can only suggest that you move to a country where "unity" is strictly enforced - like North Korea or Cuba.

Used to be dissent and politics stopped at the water's edge, guess now with the Demos its power first and America second.

[jillian]

There's only one reason we are in a "royal mess" ! Democrats would not get behind the war effort. I like the way they sabotage a plan and then bitch because it didn't work out right.

Bunch a crap. Dems gave your guy the power. He botched it. The reason we're in a royal mess is because there's no possible good outcome. Do we pull out now and leave a mess? Or do we pull out later, after more of our troops are killed.... and leave a mess.

Not a lot of choices there. And that IS Bush's fault. And it's clearly not just dems saying it.

But keep on enjoying your wishful thinking. :420:

[pegwinn]

Its just more attacks in the war on Bush. True They are playing with soldiers lives to get their way. True They are a dispicable bunch of traitors. False They want to deny the troops the extra guns needed to finish the job. False, it isn't about troops, it's about the role of each branch of the .gov scrambling for power. I hope the next major attack is on washington and right on top of their dumb asses. They deserve everything they get. Note to the NSA screeners reading this, he doesn't mean it. Normally the GMan is a great guy. Please don't send the MIB's after him


This Is The Worst Democrat Congress.......EVER True, and they followed the worst Republican Congress, EVER.

Their selling out our Country.......For POWER True, business as usual in DC.


I don't know if you have ever been over there or not, but I wish you were over there now. Not me. And I speak as a pro. This guy cannot go because he would be a hazard to those around him. Same reason I oppose a draft, it requires lowering standards. I would love to see you write then about how you wouldn't want Congress to send you any help. If you want to murder someone, why don't you just get your gun and do it like a man???? Hey, FBI Monitors. Read the NSA monitor notes above. I can vouch that Merlin is usually a great guy. It's just that well, you know how it is when you continually try to talk sense into some people. You get a bit stressed. Cut him some slack OK?


About effin' time Congress stood up to the wannabe emperor and put him on notice that they don't approve! Uh yeah, with a nonbinding resolution. I bet you call NFL linebackers pussies when watching them on TV. While they were drafting and debating and voting on the "Nyah Nyah Nyah" legislation: How many real pieces of workable solutions to Americas problems were left foundering in committees etc? Glad these guys don't work on commission. No result, No dinero

He got us into this war on false pretenses and now we're in a royal mess. I no longer believe anything Bush says and I certainly have no confidence that he can clean up the mess left by his decisions. Fortunately he doesn't work for you or I. But, Check out what OCA said IRT falsehoods.

Are we having fun yet?

[Yurt]

Bunch a crap. Dems gave your guy the power. He botched it. The reason we're in a royal mess is because there's no possible good outcome. Do we pull out now and leave a mess? Or do we pull out later, after more of our troops are killed.... and leave a mess.

Not a lot of choices there. And that IS Bush's fault. And it's clearly not just dems saying it.

But keep on enjoying your wishful thinking. :420:

Wrong:


Absolutely. When the going was good, the majority dems were all for it, then it became a little slow and they jumped the opportunistic band wagon of bashing Bush just to gain support from the uneducated people who can't see that Bush did win the war. What is wrong is not with Bush, it is with Iraqis. Let me be clear, what is wrong is not Bush, it is the Iraqis. They wanted Saddam gone.

Make no mistake. Virtually all the muslims want(ed) him gone. Yeah. But then they wanted the US to get out quick. Why? To implement their view of "islam." That is the fight in the street now. It is marginally against the US, it is very much so about which muslim wants power.

If you complain that Bush has not done enough to quell violence, then why do you bitch when american troops kill Iraqis? In order to quell violence like this you need an iron fist. There is no other way. So either put up a solution or shut up.

And no, leaving is not a solution to winning, it simply says we give up. That is fine, and I often wonder if that is not the best course. But in no way, does that make Bush a bad leader. For anything Bush does you libs will say he lost, he is a bad leader... etc. All for power, not for the sake of the Iraqis, oh no....

What is your solution? Or do you support the muslims idea of a world wide caliphate?

Uh, don't stutter, just answer.

[jillian]

Wrong:

Gee... what an in depth response. The reasoning you provided was earth-shaking and ultimately so persuasive I think I'll go congratulate the guy in the white house for his (failed) efforts. :poke:



What is your solution? Or do you support the muslims idea of a world wide caliphate?

Idiocy...world wide caliphate?? Proof positive that you have nothing to say.


Uh, don't stutter, just answer.

Why? Because your effort at debate was so scintillating?

And, love, I never stutter. :)

[Dilloduck]

Bunch a crap. Dems gave your guy the power. He botched it. The reason we're in a royal mess is because there's no possible good outcome. Do we pull out now and leave a mess? Or do we pull out later, after more of our troops are killed.... and leave a mess.

Not a lot of choices there. And that IS Bush's fault. And it's clearly not just dems saying it.

But keep on enjoying your wishful thinking. :420:

Then obviously the Dems are to blame for giving him so much "power".
The Dems are to blame for buying into the same bad intel that Bush and the rest of the world bought into.
After sending over 100,000 troop into harms way what is the point in whining about how we got there ? How is that productive? How does that help anything? Whe the dems wanted to send in more troops I don't recall them calling them "more targets" but somehow now they are when the administration does it?

[KarlMarx]

Bunch a crap. Dems gave your guy the power. He botched it. The reason we're in a royal mess is because there's no possible good outcome. Do we pull out now and leave a mess? Or do we pull out later, after more of our troops are killed.... and leave a mess.

Not a lot of choices there. And that IS Bush's fault. And it's clearly not just dems saying it.

But keep on enjoying your wishful thinking. :420:

Jillian

Santyana's saying is relevant here, those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

Your people (and yes, I use that term deliberately) have been comparing Iraq to Vietnam. They are now doing their utmost to make sure that will happen.

Vietnam was lost mainly because the news media and the anti-war movement at home turned public opinion against the war effort. A Democratically controlled Congress made sure that Nixon's efforts to win the war were hamstrung and finally, that all funding would be cut off to the Vietnamese army fighting the Viet Cong.

The result was that hundreds of thousands were imprisoned and tortured. The Khmer Rouge then set up power next door and wiped out 2 million people.

All the talk by the Left about how many Iraqis are dying in this war suddenly will become a non sequitur once we pull out, won't it?

The Dems complained that there weren't enough troops to do the job. Now Bush is trying to do something about it and whammo! It's an escalation.

The Dems actually want us out of that war, they don't support the troops (especially after this weekend's vote), they are going to further hamstring the president's effort to win this war. Finally, they will do their utmost to cut funding to the war effort so that the only option left will be to withdraw and leave the Iraqis holding the bag. Just like we did in Vietnam.

And that will hurt our reputation abroad. Our enemies and our allies will see America as a country that cuts and runs. All that talk of how we appear to the rest of the world that the Left likes to engage in will suddenly cease. It doesn't matter if the world sees America as weak, unreliable and easily defeated just so long we're not involved in a war abroad.

In my opinion, calling the Democrat Party the party of traitors and turncoats is well deserved . They are going to repeat the mistakes of Vietnam, millions will die and some of those will be our own troops. The Middle East will become a bigger mess than it is now and the Democrats will have an excuse and list of talking points at the ready when all that happens. It will be Bush's fault, the neocons fault, everyone's fault but theirs.

Someone once said that politics ends at our borders. The Democrats put an end to that. They've made this war, and Vietnam, a political war.

[jillian]

Jillian

Santyana's saying is relevant here, those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

Yes. I agree. And we should have taken the lessons we learned from Vietnam and internalized them... learned from them and not repeated them. Taking it out of the realm for a moment of whether we agree or disagree with the entry into Iraq. We'll pretend it was the right thing to do for argument's sake. That being the case, then we know the only way to enter into a situation like that is to go in with overwhelming force or not at all. Rumsfeld wanted to go in on the cheap... with a leaner, meaner military. Turns out that was a huge mistake. And don't say I'm Monday morning quarterbacking. *We* people were saying it then.... .as were most of the generals on the ground... you know, all the ones that retired so they could speak out??


Your people (and yes, I use that term deliberately) have been comparing Iraq to Vietnam. They are now doing their utmost to make sure that will happen.

No. Bush made sure that would happen by having no plan, no exit strategy and insufficient troops. One also can't ignore the analogies between the cries of WMD's and the Gulf of Tonkin incident.


Vietnam was lost mainly because the news media and the anti-war movement at home turned public opinion against the war effort. A Democratically controlled Congress made sure that Nixon's efforts to win the war were hamstrung and finally, that all funding would be cut off to the Vietnamese army fighting the Viet Cong.

Vietnam was lost because there was no ultimate reason to be there, same as here. You seem to have things backward. The war isn't lost because it lost public support. The war lost public support because there was no good end. Loss? Depends on what you see as a loss. Me? I figure that if Saigon was ultimately going to fall anyway (and it would have) then better it had happened when Nixon came into office (since he ran on a platform of getting us out of Vietnam) then years later after thousands more of our troops were killed in the jungle.


The result was that hundreds of thousands were imprisoned and tortured. The Khmer Rouge then set up power next door and wiped out 2 million people.

You think we could have kept the Khmer Rouge out of power?? That's interesting. Sorry. I don't buy it.


All the talk by the Left about how many Iraqis are dying in this war suddenly will become a non sequitur once we pull out, won't it?

They're going to die either way BECAUSE Bush stuck his nose in and did what his father knew was going to be a failure. So, now they die along with our troops. Then they'll just kill each other. I'm ok with that. Our involvement in a civil war is inappropriate.


The Dems complained that there weren't enough troops to do the job. Now Bush is trying to do something about it and whammo! It's an escalation.

Absurd argument. At the beginning the troops could have made a difference. Now they won't.... will just mean more of our troops dying. Even a neo-con should be able to get that distinction.


The Dems actually want us out of that war, they don't support the troops (especially after this weekend's vote), they are going to further hamstring the president's effort to win this war. Finally, they will do their utmost to cut funding to the war effort so that the only option left will be to withdraw and leave the Iraqis holding the bag. Just like we did in Vietnam.

And that will hurt our reputation abroad. Our enemies and our allies will see America as a country that cuts and runs. All that talk of how we appear to the rest of the world that the Left likes to engage in will suddenly cease. It doesn't matter if the world sees America as weak, unreliable and easily defeated just so long we're not involved in a war abroad.

In my opinion, calling the Democrat Party the party of traitors and turncoats is well deserved . They are going to repeat the mistakes of Vietnam, millions will die and some of those will be our own troops. The Middle East will become a bigger mess than it is now and the Democrats will have an excuse and list of talking points at the ready when all that happens. It will be Bush's fault, the neocons fault, everyone's fault but theirs.

Someone once said that politics ends at our borders. The Democrats put an end to that. They've made this war, and Vietnam, a political war.

I am sooooooooooooo bored and sick of tired of the neo-cons crying that not supporting this misadventure into Iraq is somehow "not supporting the troops". What a bunch of hooey. I support them. Use them for when it's necessary to defend and protect us.... not for nation building.

What happened to all you *conservatives*? You used to KNOW that wasn't what our troops were for.

And now the incompetent in the White House is telling us that "anonymous military officials" are claiming that the Irani government is controlling arms going into Iraq. Gee? Where have we heard crap like that before?

And before you tell me... oh, but the admin wouldn't *mislead* us or rely on faulty intel (*again*), on Monday General Peter Pace (chairman of the joint chiefs) said (you listening here???) THERE IS NO INFORMATION LINKING THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN TO WEAPONS SUPPLIES TO SHI'A INSURGENTS.

Does that mean they're NOT doing it? No. But you know the old expression... fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. ??? (and no it isn't "fool me twice... won't get fooled again").

Well, I wouldn't believe this admin if their tongues were notarized and I wouldn't trust the prez's judgment if it came with the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

That isn't because he's a republican. I never used to have a problem voting for a (moderate) republican. It's because he's proven himself untrustworthy and incompetent.

Interestingly, and this might not surprise you. I happen to like Joe Scarborough who's got more conservative principle in his little pinky than Bush has in his entire body. Scarborough served at least a few terms as a Republican Congressman and is a true Reagan Republican. Even he says it's time to get our troops out. Look at all the true conservative Republicans who gave your guy a vote of no confidence yesterday.... even Repubs in safe seats. And you can whine that they're traitors.. or RINO's... or anything else you want to whine about them being... but they're cutting the apron strings because they know a) the American public thinks the pres mishandled the whole kit and kaboodle; and b) they've got to listen to the people who voted for them; and c) maybe.... just maybe... they're honorable enough to know cutting Bush off at the knees on his little "surge the course" policy is the right thing to do.

And THAT'S what Congressional oversight is. The prez... he ain't the only DECIDER.

[Dilloduck]

Taking it out of the realm for a moment of whether we agree or disagree with the entry into Iraq. We'll pretend it was the right thing to do for argument's sake.

OMG---after years of completely trashing everything Bush has done only NOW are you going to "petend" it may have been the right thing to do ?
:bang3:

[Gunny]

You do know that this resolution was a protest vote against sending more troops INTO Iraq right? I thought "supporting the troops" meant keeping them alive. I guess you guys have been using "support the troops" as a code for "send as many troops as possible into dangerous situations where they can get maimed and killed."

You obviously have NO idea what "support the troops" means.

[Gunny]

By "playing with soldiers' lives" do you mean "protesting the president's decision to send more US troops in to be killed?"

What is the actual purpose of doing so? Telegraphing to the enemy that all they have to do is wait for a Dem President to put the finishing touches on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?

[Gunny]

About effin' time Congress stood up to the wannabe emperor and put him on notice that they don't approve!

He got us into this war on false pretenses and now we're in a royal mess. I no longer believe anything Bush says and I certainly have no confidence that he can clean up the mess left by his decisions.

Enough true facts have been disseminated over the past four years that one can assume you are either a liar or an idiot. Take your pick.

[Gunny]

Now that's a downright disingenious argument, considering that until this year, Bush had a GOP-controlled Congress that gave him everything he wanted. The Dems didn't have the power or clout to "sabotage" Bush's war.

Speaking of disengenuous ... Bush did NOT get everything he wanted from Congress, and the Dems most certainly have had enough power to obstruct him every step of the way.

And you can attempt to hide behind your lie all you want, but the fact remains the left has undermined this war from the very second they decided it was predicated only on WMDs, and since none popped up and said "Here I am," that Bush lied about them.

[Gunny]

It's actually bullshit. Bush has been able to do pretty much anything he wanted to do, thanks to a GOP-controlled Congress that gave him almost anything he wanted.

To suggest that he has been hamstrung by dissenters, and to insinuate that those who disapprove of this war are traitors, is simply preposterous.

To suggest that the big thing barrelling down the tracks is anything BUT a train is preposterous.

[NightTrain]

Now that's a downright disingenious argument, considering that until this year, Bush had a GOP-controlled Congress that gave him everything he wanted. The Dems didn't have the power or clout to "sabotage" Bush's war.

Think so?

Al Queda's leadership seems to think differently. The enemy watches our beloved Democrats & their shenanigans very closely.

Read this message very carefully. Note the sense of accomplishment Al Queda claims for the results of the mid term elections.

They're quite happy with Democrats gaining seats, what does that tell you about what party the terrorists favor?


The third thing I wish to talk about is a message to the Democrats in America.

I tell them: you must realize two facts.

The first is that you aren’t the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost: rather, the Mujahideen – the Muslim Ummah’s vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq – are the ones who won, and the American forces and their Crusader allies are the ones who lost.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/al_qaeda_sends_.html

Here's a complete transcript for your perusal:

http://www.ict.org.il/apage/8215.php

Do you think that perhaps the posturing and anti-war statements made by Pelosi and crew are exactly what Al Queda wants?

[GW in Ohio]

"Its just more attacks in the war on Bush. They are playing with soldiers lives to get their way. They are a dispicable bunch of traitors. They want to deny the troops the extra guns needed to finish the job. I hope the next major attack is on washington and right on top of their dumb asses. They deserve everything they get." --Gaffer

Whoa.

Hold on there, Baba-looey.

People who oppose this stupid, foolish war that was undertaken under false pretenses are not traitors.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and the rest of that inner circle are apparently incapable of coming to terms with the fact that they fucked up really badly and perpetrated what is probably the worst foreign policy disaster in the history of this country.

But most Americans have come to terms with it. That is why the Democrats swept both Houses of Congress in the recent elections and why Bush's approval ratings are setting negative records.

We've lost over 3,000 of our best people in this misguided effort and I don't want to see us lose one more. Every one of those 3,000 deaths, plus the thousands of injured, are on Bush and Cheney's heads. They may not answer for them in this life, but they'll answer in the next.

And by the way, some of our casualties in Afghanistan would not have happened if the boy king and Darth Cheney hadn't diverted troops from the effort in Afghanistan to their pipe dream in Iraq.

[Birdzeye]

Exactly, GW. When people resort to demonizing those who disapprove of the war as "traitors," you have to wonder if they simply have no other argument to justify their support.

I certainly don't see how you can label a person as a "traitor" for voting for war opponents, as the majority of Americans appear to have done last November, or to write one's congresscritter to express disapproval of this war. To suggest that we must all march in lockstep behind GWB and give him unconditional support is to advocate that we become a totalitarian regime like North Korea.

[Dilloduck]

Exactly, GW. When people resort to demonizing those who disapprove of the war as "traitors," you have to wonder if they simply have no other argument to justify their support.

I certainly don't see how you can label a person as a "traitor" for voting for war opponents, as the majority of Americans appear to have done last November, or to write one's congresscritter to express disapproval of this war. To suggest that we must all march in lockstep behind GWB and give him unconditional support is to advocate that we become a totalitarian regime like North Korea.

I'm not one to throw around the word "traitor" lightly. I just think libs in general have been just a big of a problem in Iraq as Bush and Rummys' tactical mistakes. No need to grab this word "traitor" and get all huffy about it. Just take an honest look at how much your actions have hindered what may have been a great victory. Your actions sure as hell didn't help any in getting our troops OUT of harms way any sooner.

[GW in Ohio]

" No need to grab this word "traitor" and get all huffy about it. Just take an honest look at how much your actions have hindered what may have been a great victory. Your actions sure as hell didn't help any in getting our troops OUT of harms way any sooner." --Dilloduck

There was never any "victory" possible in Iraq. Don't you remember at the very start, the generals told Bush and Rummy that we'd need at least twice as many troops as we had available to overthrow Saddam and then pacify the country?

Bush and Rummy just brushed those objections aside and went ahead with the invasion. They had dreams of glory, and visions of re-making the Middle East in our image.

There was never any good outcome coming out of our invasion of Iraq. We've precipitated a civil war and we're right in the middle of it.

I expect my American president to be smart enough to know that the people in the Middle East are basically crazy and the less we have to do with them, the better off we'll be.

Bush ain't nearly smart enough to be president. It's true that the American voters weren't smart enough to recognize this in '00 and '04.

But they're sure as hell suffering buyer's remorse now, aren't they?

[Abbey Marie]

I'm not one to throw around the word "traitor" lightly. I just think libs in general have been just a big of a problem in Iraq as Bush and Rummys' tactical mistakes. No need to grab this word "traitor" and get all huffy about it. Just take an honest look at how much your actions have hindered what may have been a great victory. Your actions sure as hell didn't help any in getting our troops OUT of harms way any sooner.

Remember how the MSM jumped all over that soldier who shot a guy on the ground because he thought he was armed? It was during a very intense house raid. Compare that to how they omit any positive coverage of the war, and of the men and women fighting it. Then there's Cindy Sheehan exploiting her hero son's death as a political cause. You don't thave to be a "traitor" per se to undermine our military and give our enemy reason for hope. There are degrees...

[Gunny]

"Its just more attacks in the war on Bush. They are playing with soldiers lives to get their way. They are a dispicable bunch of traitors. They want to deny the troops the extra guns needed to finish the job. I hope the next major attack is on washington and right on top of their dumb asses. They deserve everything they get." --Gaffer

Whoa.

Hold on there, Baba-looey.

People who oppose this stupid, foolish war that was undertaken under false pretenses are not traitors.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and the rest of that inner circle are apparently incapable of coming to terms with the fact that they fucked up really badly and perpetrated what is probably the worst foreign policy disaster in the history of this country.

But most Americans have come to terms with it. That is why the Democrats swept both Houses of Congress in the recent elections and why Bush's approval ratings are setting negative records.

We've lost over 3,000 of our best people in this misguided effort and I don't want to see us lose one more. Every one of those 3,000 deaths, plus the thousands of injured, are on Bush and Cheney's heads. They may not answer for them in this life, but they'll answer in the next.

And by the way, some of our casualties in Afghanistan would not have happened if the boy king and Darth Cheney hadn't diverted troops from the effort in Afghanistan to their pipe dream in Iraq.

Opposing the war does not make one a traitor. Empowering the enemy by publicly undermining national policy DOES.

And all we needed was yet another "liberal mandate" fool. Republicans/conservatives abstaining from voting allowed Dems to slip in through the back door. A lack of foresight on their part does not a Dem mandate make.

[Gunny]

" No need to grab this word "traitor" and get all huffy about it. Just take an honest look at how much your actions have hindered what may have been a great victory. Your actions sure as hell didn't help any in getting our troops OUT of harms way any sooner." --Dilloduck

There was never any "victory" possible in Iraq. Don't you remember at the very start, the generals told Bush and Rummy that we'd need at least twice as many troops as we had available to overthrow Saddam and then pacify the country?

Bush and Rummy just brushed those objections aside and went ahead with the invasion. They had dreams of glory, and visions of re-making the Middle East in our image.

There was never any good outcome coming out of our invasion of Iraq. We've precipitated a civil war and we're right in the middle of it.

I expect my American president to be smart enough to know that the people in the Middle East are basically crazy and the less we have to do with them, the better off we'll be.

Bush ain't nearly smart enough to be president. It's true that the American voters weren't smart enough to recognize this in '00 and '04.

But they're sure as hell suffering buyer's remorse now, aren't they?

More and more I hear this line from the lefties ... there was never any victory possible. The beginnings of perpetuating yet another lie.

[KarlMarx]

Yes. I agree. And we should have taken the lessons we learned from Vietnam and internalized them... learned from them and not repeated them. Taking it out of the realm for a moment of whether we agree or disagree with the entry into Iraq. We'll pretend it was the right thing to do for argument's sake. That being the case, then we know the only way to enter into a situation like that is to go in with overwhelming force or not at all. Rumsfeld wanted to go in on the cheap... with a leaner, meaner military. Turns out that was a huge mistake. And don't say I'm Monday morning quarterbacking. *We* people were saying it then.... .as were most of the generals on the ground... you know, all the ones that retired so they could speak out??
But.. but... how many generals SUPPORT this war? A lot more than don't, I'll say. But their opinions don't count, right?



No. Bush made sure that would happen by having no plan, no exit strategy and insufficient troops. One also can't ignore the analogies between the cries of WMD's and the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
No one says that the occupation is going as well as it should. But to use another saying, "two wrongs don't make a right"... it's as if you went on a diet, didn't lose as much weight as you wanted, so you decided to abandon it altogether.



Vietnam was lost because there was no ultimate reason to be there, same as here. You seem to have things backward. The war isn't lost because it lost public support. The war lost public support because there was no good end. Loss? Depends on what you see as a loss. Me? I figure that if Saigon was ultimately going to fall anyway (and it would have) then better it had happened when Nixon came into office (since he ran on a platform of getting us out of Vietnam) then years later after thousands more of our troops were killed in the jungle.

Halting the spread of Communism was the reason we were there. The war was not going badly. .....

From Wikipedia....

In total, the United States estimated that 45,000 Viet Cong and PAVN soldiers were killed, though the actual figure may have been significantly lower.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-11>[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_Offensive#_note-11)</SUP> The USA, ARVN, and allied Australian and South Korean forces suffered 4,324 killed, 16,063 wounded, and 598 missing.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-12>[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_Offensive#_note-12)</SUP> (other sources give a higher estimate of about 5,000 ARVN troops killed).<SUP class=reference id=_ref-13>[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_Offensive#_note-13)</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP>.... </SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
The Tet Offensive can be considered a military defeat for the Communist forces, as neither the Viet Cong nor the North Vietnamese army achieved their tactical goals. Furthermore, the operational cost of the offensive was dangerously high, with the Viet Cong essentially crippled by the huge losses inflicted by South Vietnamese and other Allied forces. Nevertheless, the Offensive is widely considered a turning point of the war in Vietnam, with the NLF and PAVN winning an enormous psychological and propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda) victory

....
The Communist high command did not anticipate the psychological effect the Tet Offensive would have on America.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-15>[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_Offensive#_note-15)</SUP> For example, the attack on the U.S. Embassy was allocated only 19 Viet Cong soldiers, and even the expenditure of this force was considered by some VC officers to be misguided. Only after they saw how the U.S. was reacting to this attack did the Communists begin to propagandize it.




You think we could have kept the Khmer Rouge out of power?? That's interesting. Sorry. I don't buy it.
Right from Wikipedia....

When the U.S. Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Congress) suspended aid to Cambodia in 1973, the Khmer Rouge made sweeping gains in the country. By 1975, with the Lon Nol government running out of ammunition, it was clear that it was only a matter of time before the government would collapse. On April 17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_17), 1975 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975) the Khmer Rouge captured Phnom Penh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phnom_Penh).




They're going to die either way BECAUSE Bush stuck his nose in and did what his father knew was going to be a failure. So, now they die along with our troops. Then they'll just kill each other. I'm ok with that. Our involvement in a civil war is inappropriate.
They're going to die anyway.... you mean Iraqis are dying by the millions now? I don't think so... but just wait till Iran gets its hooks into Iraq... you haven't seen anything yet!




Absurd argument. At the beginning the troops could have made a difference. Now they won't.... will just mean more of our troops dying. Even a neo-con should be able to get that distinction.

That's odd, many soldiers who come back from Iraq say they are doing a tremendous amount of good. That's because many troops are involved in rebuilding Iraq, as in building hospitals, schools and so on... even a do good liberal can see how pulling the troops out now would hurt the Iraqis.




I am sooooooooooooo bored and sick of tired of the neo-cons crying that not supporting this misadventure into Iraq is somehow "not supporting the troops". What a bunch of hooey. I support them. Use them for when it's necessary to defend and protect us.... not for nation building.

Pulling funding out from the combat troops is not supporting the trooops. In fact, this vote will help to further demoralize our troops. Pelosi and her henchmen are traitors because they put the interests of their party ahead of the interests of the country.

By the way... the people will speak in 2008, this was a mid term election. While turnout was high for a midterm, it was not anything near a record turn out for an election. Many voters stayed home to send a signal to the Republicans...



And now the incompetent in the White House is telling us that "anonymous military officials" are claiming that the Irani government is controlling arms going into Iraq. Gee? Where have we heard crap like that before?
You don't believe that? I do. I believe that the Iranians have an interest in seeing us lose. Iran is a hostile power and they are bent on extending their influence on the region.


And before you tell me... oh, but the admin wouldn't *mislead* us or rely on faulty intel (*again*), on Monday General Peter Pace (chairman of the joint chiefs) said (you listening here???) THERE IS NO INFORMATION LINKING THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN TO WEAPONS SUPPLIES TO SHI'A INSURGENTS.
Except for weapons caches full of weapons that came from Iran, that is... and that many insurgents are not Iraqis but from Iran.


Does that mean they're NOT doing it? No. But you know the old expression... fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. ??? (and no it isn't "fool me twice... won't get fooled again").
Actually, I'd like to use that line when you find out that the Democrats are leading you down the primrose path.


Well, I wouldn't believe this admin if their tongues were notarized and I wouldn't trust the prez's judgment if it came with the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.
I could say the same thing about Pelosi, Senator Clinton and the rest of the idiots that now run Congress.



That isn't because he's a republican. I never used to have a problem voting for a (moderate) republican. It's because he's proven himself untrustworthy and incompetent.

Interestingly, and this might not surprise you. I happen to like Joe Scarborough who's got more conservative principle in his little pinky than Bush has in his entire body. Scarborough served at least a few terms as a Republican Congressman and is a true Reagan Republican. Even he says it's time to get our troops out. Look at all the true conservative Republicans who gave your guy a vote of no confidence yesterday.... even Repubs in safe seats. And you can whine that they're traitors.. or RINO's... or anything else you want to whine about them being... but they're cutting the apron strings because they know a) the American public thinks the pres mishandled the whole kit and kaboodle; and b) they've got to listen to the people who voted for them; and c) maybe.... just maybe... they're honorable enough to know cutting Bush off at the knees on his little "surge the course" policy is the right thing to do.


It is interesting that a surge during World War II is what helped win it. Up until June of 1944, the war in Europe was primarily an air war... after than it was "boots on the ground" and that means more troops.... by the way, an escalation during World War I (i.e. when the Americans got involved) also helped win the war.


And THAT'S what Congressional oversight is. The prez... he ain't the only DECIDER.
Actually, the Constitution makes the prez the decider... the congressional oversight sounds like an unconstituitonal power grab to me... eventually Congress will be running everything... by the way... all that money that won't be going to the war... do you think we'll be getting it back? NO WAY! The Democrats will spend it all.... who is minding Congress?

[Birdzeye]

I'm not one to throw around the word "traitor" lightly. I just think libs in general have been just a big of a problem in Iraq as Bush and Rummys' tactical mistakes. No need to grab this word "traitor" and get all huffy about it. Just take an honest look at how much your actions have hindered what may have been a great victory. Your actions sure as hell didn't help any in getting our troops OUT of harms way any sooner.


The responsibility for not getting our troops out of harm's way lies with Bush and Cheney, not me. They are the ones who got us into this ill-advised war, and they are responsible for the mess we're now in.

I have never particpated in any public antiwar protest. However, I have done my patriotic duty to vote and to let my congnresscritters know what my opinions are. I have no regrets about voting for those who believe this war was a mistake, and for letting them know that's how I feel about it. Exercising one's civic duties and privileges is patriotism, not treason.

[Gunny]

Exactly, GW. When people resort to demonizing those who disapprove of the war as "traitors," you have to wonder if they simply have no other argument to justify their support.

I certainly don't see how you can label a person as a "traitor" for voting for war opponents, as the majority of Americans appear to have done last November, or to write one's congresscritter to express disapproval of this war. To suggest that we must all march in lockstep behind GWB and give him unconditional support is to advocate that we become a totalitarian regime like North Korea.

Apparently you and GW are in lockstep with the "majority of Americans appear to have done last November." Let's put it in real context ... the majority of those who actually voted.

Please DO provide some evidence to support your allegation that we have in any way become more or less a totalitarian regime like N Korea since Bush took office.

Your arguments are based on a half-truth and an outright lie, respectively.

[OCA]

I keep hearing this bullshit from leftist whackos like Jilly "increasing troop numbers will just result in getting more soldiers killed"....how the fuck do you know or how does Comrade Pelosi know? What if it works, ever thought of that?

Anti-war people can parse the word traitor anyway you like but y'all are traitorous and treasanous when you publicly, over a long period of time and in an organized effort, endeavor to undermine U.S. foriegn policy and aid and abet the enemy through this effort.

Saying you are against the war biut care about the soldiers(the biggest oxymoronic lie out there) is what you guys say to yourselves so you can sleep at night. You don't really care about the soldiers, you care about bringing the admin down and regaining power....only.

You and your willing co-conspirators in the MSM have played this one brilliantly though, I must congratulate you, by only showing anything with a tinge of negativity to the American public and labeling soldiers as "torturers" and "murderers" you have managed to massively swing public sentiment, Macchiavelli himself would be proud.

BTW GW I always make it a point to say thank you to people from Ohio for putting W over the top in '04 and doing the rihght thing and banning queer marriage, thank you.

[manu1959]

The responsibility for not getting our troops out of harm's way lies with Bush and Cheney, not me. They are the ones who got us into this ill-advised war, and they are responsible for the mess we're now in.

actually the blame lies with george tennant, a clinton apointee....for saying

"it is a slam dunk that saddam has wmds....slam dunk"

"dems lie people die"

[Birdzeye]

Apparently you and GW are in lockstep with the "majority of Americans appear to have done last November." Let's put it in real context ... the majority of those who actually voted.

Please DO provide some evidence to support your allegation that we have in any way become more or less a totalitarian regime like N Korea since Bush took office.

Your arguments are based on a half-truth and an outright lie, respectively.


I didn't make the allegation. I merely said that those who insist that we must march in lockstep behind the president, offering him unconditional support, are, in effect, saying that a totalitarian regime is precisely what they want for this country. The posts here are evidence of that sentiment.

In the meantime, I'm doing my best to demoralize our troops by sewing qults for wounded soldiers. What are you doing for them?

[darin]

I didn't make the allegation. I merely said that those who insist that we must march in lockstep behind the president, offering him unconditional support, are, in effect, saying that a totalitarian regime is precisely what they want for this country. The posts here are evidence of that sentiment.

In the meantime, I'm doing my best to demoralize our troops by sewing qults for wounded soldiers. What are you doing for them?

dude...wat the hell? You aren't even READING. Sewing a quilt? Do you even KNOW the people in this thread? MANY of these folk have given DECADES of service to our nation. Have you served ONE DAY? Have you done anything important for the freedoms you enjoy? Often I feel those who have never served shouldn't get the right to vote until they are 35.

If you HAVE served, your drill instructors FAILED you. Why are you filled with so much HATRED? You HATE the people of Iraq - the innocents who are shedding their blood to combat those folk encouraged by YOUR and the Democrats' rhetoric and lies and weakness.

[OCA]

I didn't make the allegation. I merely said that those who insist that we must march in lockstep behind the president, offering him unconditional support, are, in effect, saying that a totalitarian regime is precisely what they want for this country. The posts here are evidence of that sentiment.

In the meantime, I'm doing my best to demoralize our troops by sewing qults for wounded soldiers. What are you doing for them?

Sewing quilts while pissing on their mission.....LMFAO! heeeeeepocreeeete(mocking accent)

[darin]

Sewing quilts while pissing on their mission.....LMFAO! heeeeeepocreeeete(mocking accent)

I know! It's like this:

"Here's a quilt you baby killer! I hope you recover from your ILLEGAL war, you War-Criminal!"

:(

[manu1959]

I didn't make the allegation. I merely said that those who insist that we must march in lockstep behind the president, offering him unconditional support, are, in effect, saying that a totalitarian regime is precisely what they want for this country. The posts here are evidence of that sentiment.

In the meantime, I'm doing my best to demoralize our troops by sewing qults for wounded soldiers. What are you doing for them?


so you are insisting that we must march in lockstep against the president, offering him unconditional oppsisiton, in effect saying thata anarchy is precisely what you want for this country....that is until H for Hypocriscy is elected then..... you will insist that we must march in lockstep behind the president, offering her unconditional support, are, in effect, saying that a totalitarian regime is precisely what you want for this country.

get over yourself

and why are trying demoralize them? what are you sewing on the quilts? fuck you gimp?

[Gaffer]

Yes. I agree. And we should have taken the lessons we learned from Vietnam and internalized them... learned from them and not repeated them. Taking it out of the realm for a moment of whether we agree or disagree with the entry into Iraq. We'll pretend it was the right thing to do for argument's sake. That being the case, then we know the only way to enter into a situation like that is to go in with overwhelming force or not at all. Rumsfeld wanted to go in on the cheap... with a leaner, meaner military. Turns out that was a huge mistake. And don't say I'm Monday morning quarterbacking. *We* people were saying it then.... .as were most of the generals on the ground... you know, all the ones that retired so they could speak out??

The lessons were learned. The libs are using the same tactics now that they used during Vietnam. Undermine through control of the media and the purse strings. It didn't matter then that it cost millions of lives in southeast asia. it just mattered that in 1976 they got back in the power seat with their boy cahter. The same methods are being used today. And again it doesn't matter how many lives it costs, as long as the libs get their power. Rumsfelf and Bush made the mistake of under estimating the amount of chaos that would follow saddam's fall. And they didn't expect al quada and iran to work together to bring down iraq.



No. Bush made sure that would happen by having no plan, no exit strategy and insufficient troops. One also can't ignore the analogies between the cries of WMD's and the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Bush's plan was to secure iraq and let a government be formed and take over. The gulf of tonkin was an outright lie, concocted by the democratic administration for a reason to escalalte the war. WMD's was just one of a list of reasons to invade iraq and was the only one where nothing was found. WMD's were what the democrat leader of the CIA said were there and was confirmed by every other countries intelligence agencies. It would be reasonable to assume that they all knew what they were talking about.



Vietnam was lost because there was no ultimate reason to be there, same as here. You seem to have things backward. The war isn't lost because it lost public support. The war lost public support because there was no good end. Loss? Depends on what you see as a loss. Me? I figure that if Saigon was ultimately going to fall anyway (and it would have) then better it had happened when Nixon came into office (since he ran on a platform of getting us out of Vietnam) then years later after thousands more of our troops were killed in the jungle.

Vietnam was lost because of the democratic congress...period. It was all over in 68 at the end of tet, except the news media reported it as a great loss. The North Vietnamese themselves said they were making plans to surrender and end the war until the leftist media propaganda machine in the states fired up to pull their nuts out of the fire. So the war dragged on for another 5 years with many more dead and wounded. All casualties from 68 onward were the direct responsibility of the left and the media. Saigon would never have fallen if it hadn't been for the dems in congress cutting ALL support and funding to Vietnam so they could not defend themselves. All aid was cut to cambodia as well. And now the bastards are at it again.



You think we could have kept the Khmer Rouge out of power?? That's interesting. Sorry. I don't buy it.

Yes we could have. A stable and strong Vietnam and support to the cambodian government would have eventually defeated the kymer rouge.



They're going to die either way BECAUSE Bush stuck his nose in and did what his father knew was going to be a failure. So, now they die along with our troops. Then they'll just kill each other. I'm ok with that. Our involvement in a civil war is inappropriate.

Bush is trying to make a stable democratic country in iraq. I don't think that can be done as long as it's based on islamic laws. But if we pull out now the whole region will go down like southeast asia. iran will dominate everything and if you think we have high gas prices now, just wait till they get control. There will be a major war there between the sunni's and the shea.



Absurd argument. At the beginning the troops could have made a difference. Now they won't.... will just mean more of our troops dying. Even a neo-con should be able to get that distinction.

More troops means more firepower. More ground covered and more enemy dead. They are already making a difference as there have been hundred of insurgents killed and captured, and more areas cleaned out. Sadr has fled to iran with most of his officers. They do watch the news and make plans accordingly.



I am sooooooooooooo bored and sick of tired of the neo-cons crying that not supporting this misadventure into Iraq is somehow "not supporting the troops". What a bunch of hooey. I support them. Use them for when it's necessary to defend and protect us.... not for nation building.

Not supporting the mission of the troops in iraq is NOT supporting the troops. Its that simple. By securing iraq they are defending us here. Its a key front in the war on islam. al queda and iran are allied against us.

What happened to all you *conservatives*? You used to KNOW that wasn't what our troops were for.

I know what the troops are for. They are for fighting the enemy, anywhere and anytime they find him. They are not for sitting around in a base in this country waiting for the enmy to come to them. That's silly, but its the dem way to fight a war.

And now the incompetent in the White House is telling us that "anonymous military officials" are claiming that the Irani government is controlling arms going into Iraq. Gee? Where have we heard crap like that before?

The officials are not anonymous. They are intel people and soldiers who have found and shown that iran is supporting the insurgents with both arms and men. The weapons and equipment are on display. And they have prisoners who are talking as well.

And before you tell me... oh, but the admin wouldn't *mislead* us or rely on faulty intel (*again*), on Monday General Peter Pace (chairman of the joint chiefs) said (you listening here???) THERE IS NO INFORMATION LINKING THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN TO WEAPONS SUPPLIES TO SHI'A INSURGENTS.

They haven't got the direct evidence linking the iranian government to the weapons yet. The administration is making sure the intelligence is RIGHT this time before moving against iran, so the libs have nothing to stand on when we go after them.

Does that mean they're NOT doing it? No. But you know the old expression... fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. ??? (and no it isn't "fool me twice... won't get fooled again").

You have been fooled by the libs for so long you couldn't see the truth if it kissed you on the face.

Well, I wouldn't believe this admin if their tongues were notarized and I wouldn't trust the prez's judgment if it came with the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

But you would believe the commie scum that are in control of the house?

That isn't because he's a republican. I never used to have a problem voting for a (moderate) republican. It's because he's proven himself untrustworthy and incompetent.

Moderate means fence sitter. They are also known as rino's because they are NOT republicans and certainly not conservatives.

Interestingly, and this might not surprise you. I happen to like Joe Scarborough who's got more conservative principle in his little pinky than Bush has in his entire body. Scarborough served at least a few terms as a Republican Congressman and is a true Reagan Republican. Even he says it's time to get our troops out. Look at all the true conservative Republicans who gave your guy a vote of no confidence yesterday.... even Repubs in safe seats. And you can whine that they're traitors.. or RINO's... or anything else you want to whine about them being... but they're cutting the apron strings because they know a) the American public thinks the pres mishandled the whole kit and kaboodle; and b) they've got to listen to the people who voted for them; and c) maybe.... just maybe... they're honorable enough to know cutting Bush off at the knees on his little "surge the course" policy is the right thing to do.

The repub's are jumping ship because a lot of them are just RINO's and don't want to be associated with Bush come election time cause they want the DINO votes in their next election. And cutting Bush off at the knees is undermining our government.

And THAT'S what Congressional oversight is. The prez... he ain't the only DECIDER.

Had Bush reduced the number of troops in iraq instead of increasing it the libs would be crying that he needed to beef up our forces, not reduce them. Makes no matter what he does you and the libs will condemn it as wrong.

[Yurt]

=jillian;15689]Gee... what an in depth response. The reasoning you provided was earth-shaking and ultimately so persuasive I think I'll go congratulate the guy in the white house for his (failed) efforts. :poke:

So you can't even respond to what I said, you instead have to insult me and the president. Why don't you try an intelligent response instead of using logical fallacies.


Idiocy...world wide caliphate?? Proof positive that you have nothing to say.

I have spent time on muslim boards and researched Islam, you are fooling yourself. It is people like you that will allow it to happen, just like those who thought Hitler was no "problem." This is but one small sample from a quick google search, I hope it opens your eyes:


Main objectives
A huge tree of "sub-goals" branches from these main objectives which are derived from the Quran and the tradition of the prophet (pbuh) [3,4]:

1- Building the Muslim individual: brother or sister with a strong body, high manners, cultured thought, ability to earn, strong faith, correct worship, conscious of time, of benefit to others, organized, and self-struggling character [3].
2- Building the Muslim family: choosing a good wife (husband), educating children Islamicaly, and inviting other families.
3- Building the Muslim society (thru building individuals and families) and addressing the problems of the society realistically.
4- Building the Muslim state.
5- Building the Khilafa (basically a shape of unity between the Islamic states).
6- Mastering the world with Islam.


http://www.ummah.net/ikhwan/


Why? Because your effort at debate was so scintillating?

And, love, I never stutter.

Ok genius, your glib remarks never once touched on the debate. Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy, thus your logic is faulty and has absolutely no bearing on the topic. Definately the sign of a weak position from a weak mind.

Thanks again for showing us your aptitude.

[Birdzeye]

sew . . . (pun intended) . . . since you dudes can't do anything but try to attack me, I guess that means you aren't doing diddly squat for our troops' morale.

Heeepocreets.

Oh, and how am I damaging their morale? By voting? By contacting my congresscritters? You guys are a hoot.

[Dilloduck]

sew . . . (pun intended) . . . since you dudes can't do anything but try to attack me, I guess that means you aren't doing diddly squat for our troops' morale.

Heeepocreets.

Oh, and how am I damaging their morale? By voting? By contacting my congresscritters? You guys are a hoot.

Some posters have just rebutted your position without resorting to personal attacks OR cutting and running---You really like focusing on the attacks dont you? Try dealing with the substantive posts instead of playing martyr.

[Grumplestillskin]

So you can't even respond to what I said, you instead have to insult me and the president. Why don't you try an intelligent response instead of using logical fallacies.

I have spent time on muslim boards and researched Islam, you are fooling yourself. It is people like you that will allow it to happen, just like those who thought Hitler was no "problem." This is but one small sample from a quick google search, I hope it opens your eyes:

Ok genius, your glib remarks never once touched on the debate. Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy, thus your logic is faulty and has absolutely no bearing on the topic. Definately the sign of a weak position from a weak mind.

Thanks again for showing us your aptitude.

You insulted first re your stutter remark. You don't like being insulted, don't do it yourself. Simple...:mm:

As for a worldwide calphite, that may be the intent of radical Muslims. So what? Radical Muslims are on the fringes and hardly have a minimal if any chace of succeeding. Apart from a shithole like Afghanistan - where BTW, due to Taliban policies the country was run into the ground - have radicals been successful? I'd also point out that even then the Taliban didn't run the whole country, and the place was such a mess their influence was minimal and easily suveilled by the West...

[KarlMarx]

I have to make one more observation. It will be interesting to see how many Democrats vote in opposition of this non-binding resolution. It will probably equal the same number of Democrats who voted to convict Clinton (i.e. zero).

On the other hand, there are Republicans who voted against the troop surge. And you know what? They're still in the Republican Party.

I wonder what would happen to a Democrat who voted for the troop surge? Let me guess, the same thing that happened to Joe Lieberman, they'd get drummed out of the Democratic Party.

Look at what happened to him, he opposed to the Iraq War, and the Democrats turned on him like a school of piranhas.

The Democrats must march lock step with the party hierarchy, they tolerate no dissent amongst themselves. This is the party that tells us that dissent is a patriotic duty, this is the party that offers up platitudes of bipartisanship and reaching out.

Nice platitudes, but they want they're platitudes for everyone else to follow ... NOT THEM. That's what I don't like about this bunch, they want to make the rules, they want to tell everyone else what to do, but they feel that the rules don't apply to them and no one can tell them what to do.

That's the Democratic Party for you, a party of LIES, BULLSHIT, HYPOCRISY AND BACK STABBERS.

[Dilloduck]

You insulted first re your stutter remark. You don't like being insulted, don't do it yourself. Simple...:mm:

As for a worldwide calphite, that may be the intent of radical Muslims. So what? Radical Muslims are on the fringes and hardly have a minimal if any chace of succeeding. Apart from a shithole like Afghanistan - where BTW, due to Taliban policies the country was run into the ground - have radicals been successful? I'd also point out that even then the Taliban didn't run the whole country, and the place was such a mess their influence was minimal and easily suveilled by the West...

Surveillance does not stop anything. If we see it coming and do nothing about it, it just makes one sort of look dumb doesn't it ?

[Yurt]

=Grumplestillskin;15949]You insulted first re your stutter remark. You don't like being insulted, don't do it yourself. Simple...:mm:

Huh? How is asking her not to stutter an insult? I wanted a straight answer, so I asked for one. You might want to refresh yourself on what an insult is. Oh wait, don't take that for insult :bye1:



As for a worldwide calphite, that may be the intent of radical Muslims. So what? Radical Muslims are on the fringes and hardly have a minimal if any chace of succeeding. Apart from a shithole like Afghanistan - where BTW, due to Taliban policies the country was run into the ground - have radicals been successful? I'd also point out that even then the Taliban didn't run the whole country, and the place was such a mess their influence was minimal and easily suveilled by the West

You say fringe. Have you read the Quran? I have read almost all of it and it expressly calls for muslims to conquer the world and subjugate those who do not accept Islam by force.

If you like, I can open a new thread and open your eyes to the truth. Just ask and please don't stutter.

[Grumplestillskin]

Oh, and how am I damaging their morale? By voting? By contacting my congresscritters? You guys are a hoot.

You are not undercutting their morale one iota so I wouldn't take too much from the neocons on this board. Most are Bush apologists. You think when they're out on patrol soldiers are thinking "oh, some libs and other don't support me..boo hoo"? Shit no, they're making sure they ain't gonna become a stat in the war. Ditto the terrorists. You think they are gonna hate the US any less if you don't support the president? You think if AQ woke up and read the headlines "100% of all America is behind the president and the troops" they are gonna shut up shop and go home? They're gonna be shaking in their boots? Thing is, the reason the likes of Dillo et al say this, is because when it comes down to it, like most conservatives/neocons, they are all for small govt, taxes, and all the other freedoms, but in reality they want to control everything you say and do. His type of post is nothing more than an attempt to stiffle freedom of speech...:420:

[Grumplestillskin]

You say fringe. Have you read the Quran? I have read almost all of it and it expressly calls for muslims to conquer the world and subjugate those who do not accept Islam by force.

If you like, I can open a new thread and open your eyes to the truth. Just ask and please don't stutter.

So what re the Koran? Big deal. Christians are also told by their bible to prothylise and does every Christian do that? Does every Christian kill homos like Leviticus tells them to? Do you think every Muslim follows it to the letter and gives a toss? You don't think the vast majority of them are just like you and I trying to make their way in the world - getting food, shelter etc? Yours is nothing but an Alarmist's view of the world...Carry on tripping over your imagination and stay inside - the sky IS falling...:blues:

[Dilloduck]

You are not undercutting their morale one iota so I wouldn't take too much from the neocons on this board. Most are Bush apologists. You think when they're out on patrol they're thinking "oh, some libs and other don't support me out here any more..boo hoo"? Shit no, they're making sure they ain't gonna become a stat in the war. Ditto the terrorists. You think they are gonna hate the US any less if you don't support the president? You think if AQ woke up and read the headlines "100% of all America is being the president and the troops" they are gonna shut up shop and go home? They're gonna be shaking in their boots? Thing is, the reason the likes of Dillo et al say this, is because when it comes down to it, like most conservatives/neocons, they are all for small govt, taxes, and all the other freedoms, but in reality they want to control everything you say and do. His type of post is nothing more than an attempt to stiffle freedom of speech...:420:

I'm more interested in "stiffling" speech that has only as its' intent to hide the truth.

[Grumplestillskin]

I'm more interested in "stiffling" speech that has only as its' intent to hide the truth.

You say tomayto, I say tomahto..

[Dilloduck]

So what re the Koran? Big deal. Christians are also told by their bible to prothylise and does every Christian do that? Does every Christian kill homos like Leviticus tells them to? Do you think every Muslim follows it to the letter and gives a toss? You don't think the vast majority of them are just like you and I trying to make their way in the world - getting food, shelter etc? Yours is nothing but an Alarmist's view of the world...Carry on tripping over your imagination and stay inside - the sky IS falling...:blues:

no---that was the world trade center---and it had people in it.

[Dilloduck]

You say tomayto, I say tomahto..

STILL a blithering idiot --------:talk2hand:

[Grumplestillskin]

no---that was the world trade center---and it had people in it.

:uhoh:

[Gaffer]

You insulted first re your stutter remark. You don't like being insulted, don't do it yourself. Simple...:mm:

As for a worldwide calphite, that may be the intent of radical Muslims. So what? Radical Muslims are on the fringes and hardly have a minimal if any chace of succeeding. Apart from a shithole like Afghanistan - where BTW, due to Taliban policies the country was run into the ground - have radicals been successful? I'd also point out that even then the Taliban didn't run the whole country, and the place was such a mess their influence was minimal and easily suveilled by the West...

A world wide caliphate is the intent of ALL muslims. It is commanded in the koran. It is the goal of al queda and iran. It's not a fringe element. Is iran a fringe element? There is a definate strategic plan in motion to take over the entire middle east. After that they intend to move on to the rest of the world, one region at a time.

Islam is not a religion. It's a theocracy out to capture and control the world. And you make the same mistake Bush and the rest of washington are making in assuming its just a fringe element of a religion that we are dealing with. It is islam itself we are fighting, not a fringe element. Read what some of the former muslims who left the religion have to say about it. To leave islam is a death sentence. Those that are muslim but don't practice it are the fringe elements. Thiose few that speak out against the violence of islam are the fringe element. The majority of practicing muslims support or condone the radicals and are just not in a position to do more.

[Grumplestillskin]

STILL a blithering idiot --------:talk2hand:

Still puts only one sentence together and thinks he is debating...:puke3:

[Dilloduck]

You say tomayto, I say tomahto..

Is the point you're trying to make with this goofy shit that everything is relative ?

[Grumplestillskin]

Is the point you're trying to make with this goofy shit that everything is relative ?

Sort of. You are basically saying anybody who does not support the troops is not telling the truth. Problem, that is your OPINION, and nothing else and therefore you are trying to stiffle speech...

[jillian]

Sort of. You are basically saying anybody who does not support the troops is not telling the truth. Problem, that is your OPINION, and nothing else and therefore you are trying to stiffle speech...

Not to mention the warped assertion that anyone who doesn't believe Bush should have carte blanche to pursue a failed policy doesn't support the troops.

[Grumplestillskin]

Not to mention the warped assertion that anyone who doesn't believe Bush should have carte blanche to pursue a failed policy doesn't support the troops.

Well, he hasn't started calling you a traitor yet, which is what most neocons do...:mm:

[Gaffer]

So what re the Koran? Big deal. Christians are also told by their bible to prothylise and does every Christian do that? Does every Christian kill homos like Leviticus tells them to? Do you think every Muslim follows it to the letter and gives a toss? You don't think the vast majority of them are just like you and I trying to make their way in the world - getting food, shelter etc? Yours is nothing but an Alarmist's view of the world...Carry on tripping over your imagination and stay inside - the sky IS falling...:blues:

The old liberal cry, the christians are just as bad as the muslims. :poop:


There is no comparison. apples to oranges.

Those muslims that come to the western countries that want a life like you or I will eventually disavow islam and move on to a better life. Those that don't will sit in their little self made ghettos and harbor all the hate they can gather from reading the koran and preaching to themselves what devils the rest of us are while waiting for the opportunity to strike at us. And they will hid behind our Constitution and freedoms while encouraging people like you to support them.

The sky's not falling. But there is a storm brewing.

[Dilloduck]

Sort of. You are basically saying anybody who does not support the troops is not telling the truth. Problem, that is your OPINION, and nothing else and therefore you are trying to stiffle speech...

there is a truth, grump. It's not all about perception. 50 people can call something whatever they want but it STILL is what it is.

[jillian]

Surveillance does not stop anything. If we see it coming and do nothing about it, it just makes one sort of look dumb doesn't it ?

Right...that's why things like the millennium plot were stopped cold.

[trobinett]

Well, he hasn't started calling you a traitor yet, which is what most neocons do...:mm:

Your living up to your signature.

[jillian]

So you can't even respond to what I said, you instead have to insult me and the president. Why don't you try an intelligent response instead of using logical fallacies.



I have spent time on muslim boards and researched Islam, you are fooling yourself. It is people like you that will allow it to happen, just like those who thought Hitler was no "problem." This is but one small sample from a quick google search, I hope it opens your eyes:





Ok genius, your glib remarks never once touched on the debate. Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy, thus your logic is faulty and has absolutely no bearing on the topic. Definately the sign of a weak position from a weak mind.

Thanks again for showing us your aptitude.

Why would I "debate" with someone whose idea of debate is telling me not to stutter.

I do believe if you look at your post, you'll find the ad hominem was yours, not mine.

Funny how that works. Makes you cranky, huh?

[jillian]

Well, he hasn't started calling you a traitor yet, which is what most neocons do...:mm:

I'm sure that's in another thread. :mm: :cheers2:

[Dilloduck]

Right...that's why things like the millennium plot were stopped cold.

that was surveillance FOLLOWED UP by action ---I realize it's hard for liberals to understand the difference

[Grumplestillskin]

The old liberal cry, the christians are just as bad as the muslims. :poop:

There is no comparison. apples to oranges.

Those muslims that come to the western countries that want a life like you or I will eventually disavow islam and move on to a better life. Those that don't will sit in their little self made ghettos and harbor all the hate they can gather from reading the koran and preaching to themselves what devils the rest of us are while waiting for the opportunity to strike at us. And they will hid behind our Constitution and freedoms while encouraging people like you to support them.

The sky's not falling. But there is a storm brewing.


You are wrong. I am not comparing Christians to Muslims at all. I am saying that Christians do not follow the exact tenets of the Old and new testaments so it stands to reason Muslims don't re the koran. I will never support any kind of religious fundamentalism...ever.

[Grumplestillskin]

Your living up to your signature.

And you're living up to yours...

[OCA]

You say tomayto, I say tomahto..

Typical Chump answer.

Use as a reminder folks when thinking of replying to this court jester.

[Grumplestillskin]

there is a truth, grump.

If that were so, we'd all be sitting around a camp fire singing Kumbya

[Grumplestillskin]

Typical Chump answer.

Use as a reminder folks when thinking of replying to this court jester.

Only a Simpleton would go for this post of mine in this thread, where there are more substantial ones to answer.
Oh, then again, it is OFA...LOL

[OCA]

Not to mention the warped assertion that anyone who doesn't believe Bush should have carte blanche to pursue a failed policy doesn't support the troops.

Oh i'm sure you support the troops in theory you're just too stupid to realize that undermining their mission is hanging them out to dry.

Can't have it both ways, either you support the soldiers and the mission or you support neither.

[trobinett]

And you're living up to yours...

Thank you!:wink2:

[OCA]

Only a Simpleton would go for this post of mine in this thread, where there are more substantial ones to answer.
Oh, then again, it is OFA...LOL

Haven't seen anything substantial. Oh no wait, the one where you basically said 9/11 was no big deal and there is no cause for concern by using the puke smiley was classic.

Don't swallow too much sand when your head is buried.

[OCA]

Well, he hasn't started calling you a traitor yet, which is what most neocons do...:mm:


If the shoe fits.................

[Grumplestillskin]

Haven't seen anything substantial. Oh no wait, the one where you basically said 9/11 was no big deal and there is no cause for concern by using the puke smiley was classic.

Don't swallow too much sand when your head is buried.

Yeah, that's what I said re 9-11 - next thing you'll say is I'm a terrorist supporter...

[Grumplestillskin]

Can't have it both ways, either you support the soldiers and the mission or you support neither.

Course you can have it both ways. And I do...

[Grumplestillskin]

Thank you!:wink2:

Pleasure...:coffee:

[Dilloduck]

If that were so, we'd all be sitting around a camp fire singing Kumbya

That's exactly what your ' tomato ' bromide implies----I think the point is to take a position and defend it-----not just infer that everyone sees things differently and it's just peachy for everyone to pretend they're right.

[Grumplestillskin]

I think the point is to take a position and defend it.


I did...

[OCA]

Yeah, that's what I said re 9-11 - next thing you'll say is I'm a terrorist supporter...

Terrorist supporter.

[Grumplestillskin]

Terrorist supporter.

:clap:

[Dilloduck]

I did...

And your position is that we all see things dfferently ?

[OCA]

Course you can have it both ways. And I do...

Thats why noone takes you seriously here, no personal convictions.

[Yurt]

Why would I "debate" with someone whose idea of debate is telling me not to stutter.

I do believe if you look at your post, you'll find the ad hominem was yours, not mine.

Funny how that works. Makes you cranky, huh?

Once again, you fail to address any issues. Cranky? LOL. Try engaging in the discussion, it will help you, it will.

You must feel oh so smug after posting such smart ass answer. Huumph, I did not have to actually answer anything, just attacked the speaker.

Argumentum ad hominem.

Now answer the question. And please, stutter, if you need too.

[Grumplestillskin]

Thats why noone takes you seriously here, no personal convictions.

I know. And everybody takes you sooo seriously...:eek:

[Grumplestillskin]

And your position is that we all see things dfferently ?

No, that was not what my first post on this thread was. Nor the second. In saying that, everybody does see things differently. When a suicide bomber does his thing in a crowded marketplace, some see him as a hero, others as a terrorist. When US planes kill Iraqi civilians, some see them as collateral damage, others as murder victims...

[Yurt]

I know. And everybody takes you sooo seriously...:eek:

attack, attack, attack

care to actually engage the thread

seems like a typical democrat, but then I don't know you....

[Dilloduck]

No, that was not what my first post on this thread was. Nor the second. In saying that, everybody does see things differently. When a suicide bomber does his thing in a crowded marketplace, some see him as a hero, others as a terrorist. When US planes kill Iraqi civilians, some see them as collateral damage, others as murder victims...

but you see neither side as better or worse ?

[Grumplestillskin]

attack, attack, attack

care to actually engage the thread

seems like a typical democrat, but then I don't know you....

Follow the conversation. Then comment. If you have followed the conversation, then you wouldn't say the above. If you have, then you're a stutterer...

[Grumplestillskin]

but you see neither side as better or worse ?

Terrorists are worse of course...

[OCA]

attack, attack, attack

care to actually engage the thread

seems like a typical democrat, but then I don't know you....

Its just Chump, he can't help it.

[Yurt]

Follow the conversation. Then comment. If you have followed the conversation, then you wouldn't say the above. If you have, then you're a stutterer...

Pointless, you still attack. And in fact did so again. Why don't you address my accusation of attack? Instead of some chicken bull post...

[OCA]

I know. And everybody takes you sooo seriously...:eek:

That shit don't work Chump, actually most of the pos post reps I get are from asshole tearings I administer to you.

[Dilloduck]

Terrorists are worse of course...

That's exactly what Bush thinks. Now your getting somewhere .

[jillian]

Once again, you fail to address any issues. Cranky? LOL. Try engaging in the discussion, it will help you, it will.

You must feel oh so smug after posting such smart ass answer. Huumph, I did not have to actually answer anything, just attacked the speaker.

Argumentum ad hominem.

Now answer the question. And please, stutter, if you need too.

Again, love, go back to your first post to me. The ad hominem was yours.

I love people who start insulting others and patronizing them and then whine because they're treated accordingly.

[Grumplestillskin]

Pointless, you still attack. And in fact did so again. Why don't you address my accusation of attack? Instead of some chicken bull post...

Second paragraph, post 69. Then post 73. They were where I addressed issues. Then have a look at what followed. In fact, Dillo and I are still addressing issues and not attacking anyoen.

And you having a go at me for me having a go at OFA, who in turn had a go at me, isn't an attack? What is it, neocon foreplay? You know, for somebody with such a thin skin you sure know how to throw it around, then sit back on some sort of warped moral high ground. You started with your "stutter" comment, now it ain't exactly a "motherfucker" or "cocksucker" moment, but it sure is at the very least a rude or patronising moment. If you don't like that type of shit, don't start it. And if you can run with the hounds, stop whining.

[Grumplestillskin]

That's exactly what Bush thinks. Now your getting somewhere .

You think it's that simple huh?

[OCA]

Follow the conversation. Then comment. If you have followed the conversation, then you wouldn't say the above. If you have, then you're a stutterer...


Actually he was following along perfectly, he read you like Peyton Manning reading a secondary.

[Dilloduck]

You think it's that simple huh?

I didnt say anything about simple. You were following along pretty well for awhile there tho.

[Grumplestillskin]

That shit don't work Chump, actually most of the pos post reps I get are from asshole tearings I administer to you.

They're easily pleased ...

[Yurt]

Second paragraph, post 69. Then post 73. They were where I addressed issues. Then have a look at what followed. In fact, Dillo and I are still addressing issues and not attacking anyoen.

And you having a go at me for me having a go at OFA, who in turn had a go at me, isn't an attack? What is it, neocon foreplay? You know, for somebody with such a thin skin you sure know how to throw it around, then sit back on some sort of warped moral high ground. You started with your "stutter" comment, now it ain't exactly a "motherfucker" or "cocksucker" moment, but it sure is at the very least a rude or patronising moment. If you don't like that type of shit, don't start it. And if you can run with the hounds, stop whining.

Right... "motherfucker" "cocksucker"

Adding those words truly enhanced your point. Let actually see this paragraph you so proudly point to:


As for a worldwide calphite, that may be the intent of radical Muslims. So what? Radical Muslims are on the fringes and hardly have a minimal if any chace of succeeding. Apart from a shithole like Afghanistan - where BTW, due to Taliban policies the country was run into the ground - have radicals been successful? I'd also point out that even then the Taliban didn't run the whole country, and the place was such a mess their influence was minimal and easily suveilled by the West...

You have yet to directly respond to my post. My post. Not dillo's, mine.


Huh? How is asking her not to stutter an insult? I wanted a straight answer, so I asked for one. You might want to refresh yourself on what an insult is. Oh wait, don't take that for insult


You say fringe. Have you read the Quran? I have read almost all of it and it expressly calls for muslims to conquer the world and subjugate those who do not accept Islam by force.

If you like, I can open a new thread and open your eyes to the truth. Just ask and please don't stutter.

Get with the program, it will help you. Oh, don't take that as an insult, it is only helpful advice to better your intellect. I make no judgments as to the reality of your mind, only offering friendly advice.

:tinfoil:

[Grumplestillskin]

Right... "motherfucker" "cocksucker"
Adding those words truly enhanced your point. Let actually see this paragraph you so proudly point to:
You have yet to directly respond to my post. My post. Not dillo's, mine.

Get with the program, it will help you. Oh, don't take that as an insult, it is only helpful advice to better your intellect. I make no judgments as to the reality of your mind, only offering friendly advice.

:tinfoil:

What was wrong with what I pointed to? Did you address it? Did you try to? You posted an opinion, I countered it...shrug...

[Grumplestillskin]

I didnt say anything about simple. You were following along pretty well for awhile there tho.

Thank you Yoda....

[Dilloduck]

Thank you Yoda....

Sarcastic insults ? You are unable to carry on an intelligent discussion. Really.

[Grumplestillskin]

Sarcastic insults ? You are unable to carry on an intelligent discussion. Really.

If telling me I was "following along there quite nicely for a while tho" isn't patronising or talking down to somebody, then I don't know what is. Did you and Yurt go to the "Subtle School of Insults"? I'm not your student, and you sure as shit ain't a teacher. And if you want an intelligent discussion, spit it out. Stop giving off one-sentence answers. It's taking a Month of Sundays to get to your point.

[Yurt]

What was wrong with what I pointed to? Did you address it? Did you try to? You posted an opinion, I countered it...shrug...

What? Show me. I have no problem with you showing me, I will address your posts, but show me.

[Yurt]

If telling me I was "following along there quite nicely for a while tho" isn't patronising or talking down to somebody, then I don't know what is. Did you and Yurt go to the "Subtle School of Insults"? I'm not your student, and you sure as shit ain't a teacher. And if you want an intelligent discussion, spit it out. Stop giving of one-sentence answers. It's taking a Month of Sundays to get to your point.

Still insulting I see. You may fool yourself, but you don't fool me.

Stop spending so much time insulting and spend a wee time replying to the guts of the thread.

[Dilloduck]

If telling me I was "following along there quite nicely for a while tho" isn't patronising or talking down to somebody, then I don't know what is. Did you and Yurt go to the "Subtle School of Insults"? I'm not your student, and you sure as shit ain't a teacher. And if you want an intelligent discussion, spit it out. Stop giving of one-sentence answers. It's taking a Month of Sundays to get to your point.

Your response
You think it's that simple huh? had nothing even remotely to do with anything I said. Must you interject things I neither said nor implied to avoid the continuation of the discussion?

[Gunny]

I didn't make the allegation. I merely said that those who insist that we must march in lockstep behind the president, offering him unconditional support, are, in effect, saying that a totalitarian regime is precisely what they want for this country. The posts here are evidence of that sentiment.

Where's this "we" shit? The initial posts points to Republicans who crossed party lines as traitors to their party. One of you Einstein-types have read from that ALL people who don't support the President unconditionally are traitors.

Looks more like a problem of comprehension than loyalty, IMO.

In the meantime, I'm doing my best to demoralize our troops by sewing qults for wounded soldiers. What are you doing for them?

Since you want to compare penis sizes, let's see ... I used to be one of them, then I lead them. Gave every minute of twenty to years to them. I have offered to go back on active duty at any point in time the Corps thinks they need me. When they get down to retirees with screwed up knees, I'm sure I'll be a shoe-in ... the aforementioned knees just being one of those little sacrifices made.

Not to get too far into playing your little game, I think it is commendable that you make quilts for troops. However, being able to put myself in their shoes, I'd much rather know that you were supporting my mission.

[jillian]

Where's this "we" shit? The initial posts points to Republicans who crossed party lines as traitors to their party. One of you Einstein-types have read from that ALL people who don't support the President unconditionally are traitors.

Looks more like a problem of comprehension than loyalty, IMO

OK, I'll have a go... the initial post does, in fact, call Republicans who acted in a bi-partisan manner to express their disapproval "traitors".

How could one not extrapolate from that that the view of the poster, at least, is that anyone who doesn't support Bush's agenda is a traitor?

Or does it only apply to Republicans who are supposed to march in lockstep?

Maybe you can clarify?

[Grumplestillskin]

What? Show me. I have no problem with you showing me, I will address your posts, but show me.

I addressed you in post 74. Your next post to me was the "attack, attack" rant. You've hardly said anything of substance since, other than rant against me for taking exception to being insulted.

[OCA]

Holy hell Chump, a bunch of folks got you figured out early tonight and are all over you like a cheap suit, maybe you ought to logoff before you bleed out.

[OCA]

I addressed you in post 74. Your next post to me was the "attack, attack" rant. You've hardly said anything of substance since, other than rant against me for taking exception to being insulted.

Chump maybe you ought to bulk up on that rice paper you call skin, your awfully touchy tonight. Nobody has even begun to bring out the big flames tonight. Quit your fucking crying, cowboy up or get the fuck out!

[Grumplestillskin]

Your response had nothing even remotely to do with anything I said. Must you interject things I neither said nor implied to avoid the continuation of the discussion?

This is the problem when you have very short answers. You said in the previous post to my answer that "this is what George Bush has been tryin to do" _(MY paraphrase). So instead of going indepth into it, you left it like that. So I took the next step and asked if you saw it that simply. Of course it had something to do with what you said. I wouldn't have said it otherwise. If you don't want me to interject things, then make a substansive post - put more meat in.

[Grumplestillskin]

Chump maybe you ought to bulk up on that rice paper you call skin, your awfully touchy tonight. Nobody has even begun to bring out the big flames tonight. Quit your fucking crying, cowboy up or get the fuck out!

Not touchy at all. Giving as good as I get. BTW, I'm in a happy mood...You, on the hand, seem a bit more grumpier than usual. You wanna borrow my name for a while?:gay:

[Yurt]

I addressed you in post 74. Your next post to me was the "attack, attack" rant. You've hardly said anything of substance since, other than rant against me for taking exception to being insulted.


So what re the Koran? Big deal. Christians are also told by their bible to prothylise and does every Christian do that? Does every Christian kill homos like Leviticus tells them to? Do you think every Muslim follows it to the letter and gives a toss? You don't think the vast majority of them are just like you and I trying to make their way in the world - getting food, shelter etc? Yours is nothing but an Alarmist's view of the world...Carry on tripping over your imagination and stay inside - the sky IS falling...


Again, you can't simply update the thread. You accuse me of attacking and nothing more, yet, you do nothing to refute my posts. You smugly say "nothing of substance" Ooooooh, big words.

What I posted about the Quran canNOT be found the Bible. You NEVER refuted my link to the muslims who believe it is Allahs destiny that they take over the world. Instead you avoid the subject with stuff about christianity.

Answer the post. Don't play games, just answer the post. It is really that simple.

[Dilloduck]

This is the problem when you have very short answers. You said in the previous post to my answer that "this is what George Bush has been tryin to do" _(MY paraphrase). So instead of going indepth into it, you left it like that. So I took the next step and asked if you saw it that simply. Of course it had something to do with what you said. I wouldn't have said it otherwise. If you don't want me to interject things, then make a substansive post - put more meat in.

wrong---you didn't just ask me if "I saw it that simply". There's no problem with short answers. There IS a problem when you try to assume what my next step will be. I'm not going to bother spending a bunch of time on a long post to someone bent on misunderstanding it.

[Grumplestillskin]

You accuse me of attacking and nothing more, yet, you do nothing to refute my posts. You smugly say "nothing of substance" Ooooooh, big words.

Why would I refute posts, that since post 74 have been nothing but a rant against me? What is there to refute?


What I posted about the Quran canNOT be found the Bible. You NEVER refuted my link to the muslims who believe it is Allahs destiny that they take over the world. Instead you avoid the subject with stuff about christianit.

I did refute it. I do refute it. I've visiting a couple of Mulsim countries. The average Joe was fine. Couldn't give a shit about the rest of the world. Just making their way like the rest of us. I haven't avoided a thing...

[Grumplestillskin]

wrong---you didn't just ask me if "I saw it that simply". There's no problem with short answers. There IS a problem when you try to assume what my next step will be. I'm not going to bother spending a bunch of time on a long post to someone bent on misunderstanding it.

That's exactly what I asked you. Instead of saying "No, it is not that simple, for this reason etc, etc, etc" you decided to patronise. Your posts are relatively easy to understand, but you also leave a lot out so it's hard to get the gist of where you are going. As for not spending time on a long post, fine. Our convo is over. I got better things to do that try and debate somebody who is either being deliberately obtuse, or just ain't up to it. Ciao..

[Dilloduck]

That's exactly what I asked you. Instead of saying "No, it is not that simple, for this reason etc, etc, etc" you decided to patronise. Your posts are relatively easy to understand, but you also leave a lot out so it's hard to get the gist of where you are going. As for not spending time on a long post, fine. Our convo is over. I got better things to do that try and debate somebody who is either being deliberately obtuse, or just ain't up to it. Ciao..

wrong again---here is EXACTLY what you said to me.


You think it's that simple huh?

Better run over and ask Jilly for some pointers---oh wait---she ain't doing all that great right now either. :wink2:

[Grumplestillskin]

wrong again---here is EXACTLY what you said to me.



Better run over and ask Jilly for some pointers---oh wait---she ain't doing all that great right now either. :wink2:

I don't need any pointers Dillo. They mean the same thing, and if you think they don't that's on you. If you wanna play semantics, I DEFINITELY don't have the wherewithal or time. I note how you ignored this aspect of my post:
"No, it is not that simple, for this reason etc, etc, etc"
If somebody needs a hand around here, it ain't me...

[Dilloduck]

I don't need any pointers Dillo. They mean the same thing, and if you think they don't that's on you. If you wanna play semantics, I DEFINITELY don't have the wherewithal or time. I note how you ignored this aspect of my post:
"No, it is not that simple, for this reason etc, etc, etc"
If somebody needs a hand around here, it ain't me...

Don't play stupid- you added "huh" on the end of an allegedly honest question for a purpose---to challenge. Try honest questioning and answering. I find it gets me much further into the discussion and avoids cycling into silly name calling and offense taking.

[Grumplestillskin]

Don't play stupid- you added "huh" on the end of an allegedly honest question for a purpose---to challenge. Try honest questioning and answering. I find it gets me much further into the discussion and avoids cycling into silly name calling and offense taking.

That "huh" was just a shoulder shrugging "huh" not a accusatory one. Sorry you took it that way. Wasn't meant that way. I'm pretty relaxed today Dillo...just jawing until you and Yurt started....that's the problem with messageboards, you can't tell the inflection in somebody's typing...

[Abbey Marie]

Since you want to compare penis sizes, let's see ... I used to be one of them, then I lead them. Gave every minute of twenty to years to them. I have offered to go back on active duty at any point in time the Corps thinks they need me. When they get down to retirees with screwed up knees, I'm sure I'll be a shoe-in ... the aforementioned knees just being one of those little sacrifices made.

Not to get too far into playing your little game, I think it is commendable that you make quilts for troops. However, being able to put myself in their shoes, I'd much rather know that you were supporting my mission.

Tried to rep you, Gunny. :salute:

[pegwinn]

I didn't make the allegation. I merely said that those who insist that we must march in lockstep behind the president, offering him unconditional support, are, in effect, saying that a totalitarian regime is precisely what they want for this country. The posts here are evidence of that sentiment. Nope. There is a lot of emotional baggage being dumped and the word traitor being used indiscriminately. An actual Traitor damn near made it into the White House. You can disagree to your hearts content. Those same servicemen who are building hospitals and schools, policing the towns for roving bands of thugs supplied by castoff Armys stuff and Iranian Moolah as opposed to mullah, are making sure you have the right to dissent.

In the meantime, I'm doing my best to demoralize our troops by sewing qults for wounded soldiers. What are you doing for them? Mostly praying. As to your question about personal contributions. I put a few years in the Marines. I went some places. No hero at all. Not like the heroic folks who voted to make a nonbinding resolution instead of working on meaningful legislation that might tackle a few other problems here at home

Still having a blast I guess.

[GW in Ohio]

Gunny (and others):

I have been in the military (1st Signal Battalion, Phu Lam, '68--'69) and I do understand that when you're a soldier and you're undertaking a military operation, you can't have any doubts or hesitations. You have to go full-bore and get the job done. If you hesitate or are indecisive, you're asking for trouble, or defeat.

But somebody also has to look at military ops from a detached, civilian perspective, and ask, "Is this the right mission to be undertaking?" That's all we're doing. And most Americans, and many people in Congress, have come to the conclusion that this was a badly-conceived, badly-planned operation from the start that never should have happened because it was undertaken under false assumptions.

Iraq was the wrong mission at the wrong time. And I don't buy into the notion that if we stay there longer, and put more people into the mission, that we'll ultimately succeed.

We'll never succeed there. The mission was FUBAR from the get-go and the Iraqis (and the rest of the people in the Middle East) are basically crazy and don't really want peace.

It's a hard thing to accept, after we've lost over 3,000 good people and thousands more have been injured. But we need to suck it up and face the fact that a bad leader led us into a bad war. And we need to disengage before we lose any more good people.

[Gunny]

OK, I'll have a go... the initial post does, in fact, call Republicans who acted in a bi-partisan manner to express their disapproval "traitors".

How could one not extrapolate from that that the view of the poster, at least, is that anyone who doesn't support Bush's agenda is a traitor?

Or does it only apply to Republicans who are supposed to march in lockstep?

Maybe you can clarify?

Clarify? Yeah. Words mean things. If one extrapolates more than what is written, one is on a fishing expedition since the intent of the accusation is obvious.

It is one Republican calling other Republicans traitors for not supporting the party line.

Speaking of "marching in lockstep," look what happened to Lieberman because he wouldn't. The fact is, partisan politics brought this nonbinding resolution into existence, and I don't see not supporting the Democrat's agenda as "marching in lockstep." In this case, I see it as a vote against pointless stupidity.

[Gunny]

Gunny (and others):

I have been in the military (1st Signal Battalion, Phu Lam, '68--'69) and I do understand that when you're a soldier and you're undertaking a military operation, you can't have any doubts or hesitations. You have to go full-bore and get the job done. If you hesitate or are indecisive, you're asking for trouble, or defeat.

But somebody also has to look at military ops from a detached, civilian perspective, and ask, "Is this the right mission to be undertaking?" That's all we're doing. And most Americans, and many people in Congress, have come to the conclusion that this was a badly-conceived, badly-planned operation from the start that never should have happened because it was undertaken under false assumptions.

I agree it was a badly-planned operation. I do not agree that it never should have happened, and I definitely idsagree that it was undertaken under false assumptions.

I don't know about you, but I spent several Christmas's away from home babysitting the Iraq-Kuwait border because Saddam continued to violate the terms of ceasefire, and remained a threat to any and all neighboring countries. I consider the fact he invaded two of them proof of intent.

At some point in time, he was going to have to be dealt with. When exactly do you think that should have been?

As far as false assumptions go, I only know of one that has so far proven untrue, and if you were betting in Vegas, I'd bet you would not bet against the assumption Saddam had WMDs. He not only possessed them, but used them. He got busted as late as 93 with a bio lab.

Then there's the fact that just about every intelligence agency in the world believed the verysame "assumption." If you think for some reason the US military did not believe it, then you must've missed out on all the extra shots and sitting around in the desert in NBC protective gear.

I consider those whose arguments stand on the fact that some huge stockpile of WMDs didn't pop up and say "Here I am" as proof that Saddam did not possess, pursue, nor intend to use WMDs disingenuous and intellectually dishonest for the sole purpose of playing partisan politics.

Iraq was the wrong mission at the wrong time. And I don't buy into the notion that if we stay there longer, and put more people into the mission, that we'll ultimately succeed.

Putting more people into the mission will not, in and of itself, be the factor that determines whether or not we succeed. Strategy and tactics will be teh dtermining factor.

We'll never succeed there. The mission was FUBAR from the get-go and the Iraqis (and the rest of the people in the Middle East) are basically crazy and don't really want peace.

It's a hard thing to accept, after we've lost over 3,000 good people and thousands more have been injured. But we need to suck it up and face the fact that a bad leader led us into a bad war. And we need to disengage before we lose any more good people.

President Bush is hardly a bad leader, and deposing Saddam a noteworthy effort. My criticism has been from day one and still remains the manner in which it was conducted. Sound strategy and tactics were placed second to appeasing world opinion and political correctness. As long as that remains our MO, we aren't going to win ANY wars, and we may as well never leave "the house."

We can just be another "used to be" world power and sit around and wait for the inevitable destruction of our society since we are unwilling to do anything to defend it.

[pegwinn]

Gunny (and others):

I have been in the military (1st Signal Battalion, Phu Lam, '68--'69) and I do understand that when you're a soldier and you're undertaking a military operation, you can't have any doubts or hesitations. You have to go full-bore and get the job done. If you hesitate or are indecisive, you're asking for trouble, or defeat. Fucking A. And BTW Thank You.

But somebody also has to look at military ops from a detached, civilian perspective, and ask, "Is this the right mission to be undertaking?" That's all we're doing. And most Americans, and many people in Congress, have come to the conclusion that this was a badly-conceived, badly-planned operation from the start that never should have happened because it was undertaken under false assumptions. Not quite true. There have been bits and pieces of WMD found. Not near as much as we thought, true. I do agree that it was badly lead from the political leadership. A case of the right idea, the right project if you will, using the wrong blueprints.

Iraq was the wrong mission at the wrong time. And I don't buy into the notion that if we stay there longer, and put more people into the mission, that we'll ultimately succeed. Seems funny that folks have been saying we were doing on the cheap, and now that we are moving into reinforcing the troops suddenly it is escalation.

We'll never succeed there. The mission was FUBAR from the get-go and the Iraqis (and the rest of the people in the Middle East) are basically crazy and don't really want peace. We can succeed there. The way to do it is to literally destroy anything that gets in the way of us standing up the legitimate Iraqi .gov. Your last sentence is only discussing the fringe elements of extremism. I observed that most of the locals worry about the same thing as anyone else. Eating, paying the bills, and raising families. It can be done. Not cheap and damn sure not free.

It's a hard thing to accept, after we've lost over 3,000 good people Great people. and thousands more have been injured. But we need to suck it up and face the fact that a bad leader led us into a bad war. And we need to disengage before we lose any more good people. That isn't the same guy that wrote paragraph one above was it? GW isn't a bad leader. Granted, he isn't a former General turned President either. His Strategic Goal is to do what it takes (in spite of criticism) to ensure the American People as a whole are safe. His ad visors are trying to watch his ass politically. So they have his best interests at heart if not the troops or the nation as a whole. All that adds up to an execution phase that wasn't based on locating, closing with, and destroying the enemy (I love that phrase. My Marines got soooooo tired of hearing it :D ) but on deposing and rapidly rebuilding Saddam's Iraq.

Double check my posts GW. I haven't called anyone a traitor except JFKerry (and you were one of the ones he betrayed) and offered to debate that one in a separate string. Like you, and the Gunny, and The SgtMaj, I speak from personal experience. I can tell you that media coverage when it gets back to the troops doesn't shift thier focus or demoralize them on the spot. They are too busy looking out for each other and getting the mission accomplished. But, at the end of the days fight, when they are sleeping, a bit of a doubt is formed......

[Grumplestillskin]

Double check my posts GW. I haven't called anyone a traitor except JFKerry (and you were one of the ones he betrayed)

He betrayed no one. He was doing what he thought was right, and hindsight shows he was.

[darin]

He betrayed no one. He was doing what he thought was right, and hindsight shows he was.

what the hell? He was RIGHT? dude - you're making me physically ILL.

Not just you - but the more I'm exposed to how hateful, how destructive, and how anti-Truth liberals are, the more I'm thinking the Human race really won't survive. I'd call into question somebody's sanity who believes American GI's were simply raping and killing, indiscriminately, in the fashion of 'jen-giss' Kahn.

John Kerry is among the worst America has produced. Unethical, Morally bankrupt.

[Grumplestillskin]

what the hell? He was RIGHT? dude - you're making me physically ILL.

Not just you - but the more I'm exposed to how hateful, how destructive, and how anti-Truth liberals are, the more I'm thinking the Human race really won't survive. I'd call into question somebody's sanity who believes American GI's were simply raping and killing, indiscriminately, in the fashion of 'jen-giss' Kahn.

John Kerry is among the worst America has produced. Unethical, Morally bankrupt.

Go throw up then. I know personally at least one US soldier who openly admitted to me he executed a member of the VC. In fact his exact words were "I emptied my M-16 into him after he surrended". To be fair, he told me what the guy had done, which was disgusting, but in saying that, it kinda proves that that kinda thing did happen. Where did Kerry mention Genghis Khan? Funny what you say about Kerry, I feel the same way about Bush...shrug...

[Gunny]

He betrayed no one. He was doing what he thought was right, and hindsight shows he was.

What he thought was right?

As a Naval Officer, he didn't have to think. What was right was written on paper for him.

If one is given an unlawful order, it is one's duty to refuse to obey it, and immediately report it up the chain of command. Not once, in all the arguments in regard to Kerry, have I seen where he carried out his duties as a Naval officer in this regard. Had he made allegations, the paper trail would most certainly exist somewhere.

No, he come out a couple of years later and makes unsubstantiated allegations that basically sound like a bad Oliver Stone flick, betraying those he served with by branding them war criminals, all so he could jump start a fledgling political career.

In every instance where he is concerned one point stands starkly clear above all others .... everything he says and does is all about John Kerry.

[OCA]

Go throw up then. I know personally at least one US soldier who openly admitted to me he executed a member of the VC.

Sure you do:poop:

[manu1959]

Go throw up then. I know personally at least one US soldier who openly admitted to me he executed a member of the VC. In fact his exact words were "I emptied my M-16 into him after he surrended". To be fair, he told me what the guy had done, which was disgusting, but in saying that, it kinda proves that that kinda thing did happen. Where did Kerry mention Genghis Khan? Funny what you say about Kerry, I feel the same way about Bush...shrug...

i know people that took VC up in choppers and tossed them out one at a time till they started talking....big deal....it is war....fight it....the object of war is to win and kill more of them than they kill of you.....

as for kerry....he was a traitor to his own uniform and there was no fucking way i would vote to make him the comander in chief of the military he betrayed.

[Grumplestillskin]

What he thought was right?

As a Naval Officer, he didn't have to think. What was right was written on paper for him.

If one is given an unlawful order, it is one's duty to refuse to obey it, and immediately report it up the chain of command. Not once, in all the arguments in regard to Kerry, have I seen where he carried out his duties as a Naval officer in this regard. Had he made allegations, the paper trail would most certainly exist somewhere.

No, he come out a couple of years later and makes unsubstantiated allegations that basically sound like a bad Oliver Stone flick, betraying those he served with by branding them war criminals, all so he could jump start a fledgling political career.

In every instance where he is concerned one point stands starkly clear above all others .... everything he says and does is all about John Kerry.

I give you he wasn't the best presidential candidate, but he was better than the guy in the WH at the moment IMO. So much vitriole and crap has been spewed about Kerry, it is hard to separate fact from fiction. Of course those who hate him only believe the bad stuff, which makes him sound worse than he does. I watched the whole speech he gave to the committee back in 1972 or 73 or whenever it was. All the memebers of the committee - Dem and Repub - clapped him at the end of it. I thought it was a good speech..(shrug)

[Grumplestillskin]

i know people that took VC up in choppers and tossed them out one at a time till they started talking.....

So he was right.

[manu1959]

So he was right.

kerry?

[Grumplestillskin]

kerry?

Yeah.

[Grumplestillskin]

Sure you do:poop:

Run along. Adults are posting. Haven't you got a car to chase? :blowup:

[SassyLady]

Go throw up then. I know personally at least one US soldier who openly admitted to me he executed a member of the VC. In fact his exact words were "I emptied my M-16 into him after he surrended". To be fair, he told me what the guy had done, which was disgusting, but in saying that, it kinda proves that that kinda thing did happen. Where did Kerry mention Genghis Khan? Funny what you say about Kerry, I feel the same way about Bush...shrug...

Guess you aren't old enough to have heard his speech to Congress. Once you heard him, you never forgot him.

And, you'll never forget the way he pronouced the name. How about watching his testimony re the Winter Soldier. Or read the transcript. Here's the paragraph referring to GK:



They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.


How you can continue to support someone without ever having read the transcript is beyond me. Grow up Grump and do some more research.
The above testimony is said in such a way as to infer that this was SOP. It was not, however, the liberal left of this country chose to believe this man and his cohorts and the genocide in Vietnam is a result of us pulling out after losing the war in the media.

[Gunny]

I give you he wasn't the best presidential candidate, but he was better than the guy in the WH at the moment IMO. So much vitriole and crap has been spewed about Kerry, it is hard to separate fact from fiction. Of course those who hate him only believe the bad stuff, which makes him sound worse than he does. I watched the whole speech he gave to the committee back in 1972 or 73 or whenever it was. All the memebers of the committee - Dem and Repub - clapped him at the end of it. I thought it was a good speech..(shrug)

I'm not spewing crap about Kerry. What I have stated is fact. If he did actually witness what he stated before Congress that he did, then he is guilty if derelection of duty and conduct unbecomming an officer and gentleman.

He got his rousing ovation back them because it was politically correct to condemn the war and believe all criminal accusations made villify the war and its conduct.

And I can say the same in regard to you and Bush as you say about Kerry ... you only believe the bad stuff. Kerry is by far a worse person to have in the White House than Bush.

Another fact: The accusation that Kerry is a traitor applied to his meeting with North Vietnamese delegates in Paris, without any official function or purpose while North Vietnam was still our enemy. If that doesn't smack of collaberation and treason, I don't know what does. His mere presence in their camp was a visible show of support for the enemy of this Nation.

BTW ... there is nothing about hating Kerry in anything I have ever said about him, and any of the accusations I present are fact-based.

[Dilloduck]

Run along. Adults are posting. Haven't you got a car to chase? :blowup:

Those one line responses are sooo confusing !! :lol:

[Grumplestillskin]

Guess you aren't old enough to have heard his speech to Congress. Once you heard him, you never forgot him.

And, you'll never forget the way he pronouced the name. How about watching his testimony re the Winter Soldier. Or read the transcript. Here's the paragraph referring to GK:

How you can continue to support someone without ever having read the transcript is beyond me. Grow up Grump and do some more research.
The above testimony is said in such a way as to infer that this was SOP. It was not, however, the liberal left of this country chose to believe this man and his cohorts and the genocide in Vietnam is a result of us pulling out after losing the war in the media.

And going by Manu's post, and the soldier I was talking to, they did similar things. And if you know anything about Mongol culture you will know that there are several spelling and pronunciations of Ghenghis Khan and his is but one of several ways. There is Ghenghis, Chingghis, Jenghis and a few others.
Don't come on here telling me to grow up. If you want convo, have at it...

[Dilloduck]

And going by Manu's post, and the soldier I was talking to, they did similar things. And if you know anything about Mongol culture you will know that there are several spelling and pronunciations of Ghenghis Khan and his is but one of several ways. There is Ghenghis, Chingghis, Jenghis and a few others.
Don't come on here telling me to grow up. If you want convo, have at it...

I'll try again----Do the Democrats think that passing a non-binding resolution ( I mean even the dreaded UN passes resolutions ) is going to help anything ?

[SassyLady]

And going by Manu's post, and the soldier I was talking to, they did similar things. And if you know anything about Mongol culture you will know that there are several spelling and pronunciations of Ghenghis Khan and his is but one of several ways. There is Ghenghis, Chingghis, Jenghis and a few others.
Don't come on here telling me to grow up. If you want convo, have at it...

Isolated incidents - not SOP, which is what Kerry tried to convince everyone was going on.

Do a little more research on your man Grump............he's the dirtiest of them all and makes Bush seem like a hero.

PS...........I must have missed it when you told us about your military experience.....what years did you serve your country and which branch?

[Grumplestillskin]

I'm not spewing crap about Kerry. What I have stated is fact. If he did actually witness what he stated before Congress that he did, then he is guilty if derelection of duty and conduct unbecomming an officer and gentleman.

He got his rousing ovation back them because it was politically correct to condemn the war and believe all criminal accusations made villify the war and its conduct.

And I can say the same in regard to you and Bush as you say about Kerry ... you only believe the bad stuff. Kerry is by far a worse person to have in the White House than Bush.

Another fact: The accusation that Kerry is a traitor applied to his meeting with North Vietnamese delegates in Paris, without any official function or purpose while North Vietnam was still our enemy. If that doesn't smack of collaberation and treason, I don't know what does. His mere presence in their camp was a visible show of support for the enemy of this Nation.

BTW ... there is nothing about hating Kerry in anything I have ever said about him, and any of the accusations I present are fact-based.

I'd put down your take on his speech as hindsight. You can call it dereliction of duty if you like, but people saw it for waht it was back then, an insight into an unpopular war. Did you declare war on N Vietnam? Did he go to Hanoi? Why shouldn't he have met with them in Paris. I agree with you that he would not have made a good president. Neither does Bush though. Maybe a better quality of candidate is needed...

[Abbey Marie]

And going by Manu's post, and the soldier I was talking to, they did similar things. And if you know anything about Mongol culture you will know that there are several spelling and pronunciations of Ghenghis Khan and his is but one of several ways. There is Ghenghis, Chingghis, Jenghis and a few others.
Don't come on here telling me to grow up. If you want convo, have at it...

It really doesn't matter how many ways you can say tom-ah-to, Kerry still sounds like a dweeb.

[SassyLady]

And if you know anything about Mongol culture you will know that there are several spelling and pronunciations of Ghenghis Khan and his is but one of several ways. There is Ghenghis, Chingghis, Jenghis and a few others.


I don't need to know anything about Mongol culture to know that the man used GK as a reference in his speech. The point being that Kerry did not pronouce it the American way, therefore, when he said it it stood out..........thus making it hard to ever forget the name, face and voice of a traitor for those of us who heard him the first time.

[Grumplestillskin]

Isolated incidents - not SOP, which is what Kerry tried to convince everyone was going on.

Do a little more research on your man Grump............he's the dirtiest of them all and makes Bush seem like a hero.

PS...........I must have missed it when you told us about your military experience.....what years did you serve your country and which branch?

I did not serve in the military. What of it? Does that mean I no longer have an opinion. What about you? What years did you serve, which branch? And if you didn't so what? Does that make you a lesser person? Does that make your opinion less valid? I served my community in another way.

Isolated incidents? So that means he was wrong or right? How many "isolated" incidents were there? Two, five 100?

Kerry got three purple hearts and a bronze and silver star? Oh, that's right ALL were gotten under dubious circumstances. Gee, he must be one fortunate guy - to have four (one purple heart and one of the stars were for the same incident) SEPARATE incidents to get five medals, yet every incident was just "lucky" for him.....Bush is about as much a hero as my pet dog...

[Grumplestillskin]

I don't need to know anything about Mongol culture to know that the man used GK as a reference in his speech. The point being that Kerry did not pronouce it the American way, therefore, when he said it it stood out..........thus making it hard to ever forget the name, face and voice of a traitor for those of us who heard him the first time.

Maybe, being an educated man and all, he pronounced it the correct way. Maybe the American way is the wrong way...

[manu1959]

Yeah.

well as i said and other have said.....he claims to have seen it and as a soilder not reporting it is a crime....further, meeting with the enemy in uniform, which he also did.....is treason....so yes he was right and yes he was a traitor.....the difference is.....the US prosecutes its war criminals....unless of course they are on the left side of the aisle...then they get a pass.....

greatest botched invasion of all time was????????????

[Abbey Marie]

I did not serve in the military? What of it? Does that mean I no longer have an opinion. What about you? What years did you serve, which branch? And if you didn't so what? Does that make you a lesser person? Does that make your opinion less valid? I served my community in another way.

Isolated incidents? So that means he was wrong or right? How many "isolated" incidents were there? Two, five 100?

Kerry got three purple hearts and a bronze and silver star? Oh, that's right ALL were gotten under dubious circumstances. Gee, he must be one fortunate guy - to have four (one purple heart and one of the stars were for the same incident) SEPARATE incidents to get five medals, yet every incident was just "lucky" for him.....Bush is about as much a hero as my pet dog...

My take on KP's post is that one generally has a better ability to judge what goes on in war, if one has served. It has nothing to do with having opinions; we all know the joke about those.

[Grumplestillskin]

It really doesn't matter how many ways you can say tom-ah-to, Kerry still sounds like a dweeb.

LOL..fair enough. His wife didn't help either IMO..

[Dilloduck]

well as i said and other have said.....he claims to have seen it and as a soilder not reporting it is a crime....further, meeting with the enemy in uniform, which he also did.....is treason....so yes he was right and yes he was a traitor.....the difference is.....the US prosecutes its war criminals....unless of course they are on the left side of the aisle...then they get a pass.....

greatest botched invasion of all time was????????????

welll------the Bay of Pigs wasn't a pretty sight !

[manu1959]

I'd put down your take on his speech as hindsight. You can call it dereliction of duty if you like, but people saw it for waht it was back then, an insight into an unpopular war. Did you declare war on N Vietnam? Did he go to Hanoi? Why shouldn't he have met with them in Paris. I agree with you that he would not have made a good president. Neither does Bush though. Maybe a better quality of candidate is needed...

a quality candidate like mr bill clinton.....

[Grumplestillskin]

well as i said and other have said.....he claims to have seen it and as a soilder not reporting it is a crime....further, meeting with the enemy in uniform, which he also did.....is treason....so yes he was right and yes he was a traitor.....the difference is.....the US prosecutes its war criminals....unless of course they are on the left side of the aisle...then they get a pass.....

greatest botched invasion of all time was????????????

It is not treason. If it was, he would have been charged. You may not like that, but there is no reason for him not to be charged. When did the US declare war on Vietnam again?

[Grumplestillskin]

a quality candidate like mr bill clinton.....

He was a quality candidate, politically. Of course he liked too many women. I'd rather have a president in charge with that fallability that the plethora Bush has...

[SassyLady]

I did not serve in the military? What of it? Does that mean I no longer have an opinion. What about you? What years did you serve, which branch? And if you didn't so what? Does that make you a lesser person? Does that make your opinion less valid? I served my community in another way.

Just curious. I haven't been here long and thought I might have missed it. You seem to have lots of conversations with soldiers and vets and I was trying to put it in context. For me - I haven't personally served. Just the wife of a CSM with over 20 years service as a combat engineer.

As for validity - I always put more validity in the opinions of those who have served.....that experience factor thing.


Isolated incidents? So that means he was wrong or right? How many "isolated" incidents were there? Two, five 100?

Still not SOP as propagated by Kerry.


Kerry got three purple hearts and a bronze and silver star? Oh, that's right ALL were gotten under dubious circumstances. Gee, he must be one fortunate guy - to have four (one purple heart and one of the stars were for the same incident) SEPARATE incidents to get five medals, yet every incident was just "lucky" for him

Not lucky........very calculately staged and filmed.


Bush is about as much a hero as my pet dog...

More dogs have done heroic acts than snakes!

[SassyLady]

Maybe, being an educated man and all, he pronounced it the correct way. Maybe the American way is the wrong way...


Not if you're an American!!! :laugh2:

[jillian]

As for validity - I always put more validity in the opinions of those who have served.....that experience factor thing.

So can I take it you place greater weight on what Murtha or Cleland say than what Bush or Cheney (with his 5 deferrments) says?

[SassyLady]

So can I take it you place greater weight on what Murtha or Cleland say than what Bush or Cheney (with his 5 deferrments) says?

About what? John Kerry? Treason?

[manu1959]

It is not treason. If it was, he would have been charged. You may not like that, but there is no reason for him not to be charged. When did the US declare war on Vietnam again?

is your argument that since congress could not declare war the jfk wannabe could not be charge with treason? again makes no difference to me....he shit on his own people....and then to expect to be voted by those people to be their commander in chief is delusional.....

[Grumplestillskin]

Just curious. I haven't been here long and thought I might have missed it. You seem to have lots of conversations with soldiers and vets and I was trying to put it in context. For me - I haven't personally served. Just the wife of a CSM with over 20 years service as a combat engineer.

I don't know how many are vets. Gunny, CSM and Darin are the only ones I talk to regularly. Most of the others could be too for all I know. Oh, and Pengwin is too.


As for validity - I always put more validity in the opinions of those who have served.....that experience factor thing.

I put more validity in their opinions on how the military is run, things about equipment etc. Not about why a war is fought.


Not lucky........very calculately staged and filmed.

As I said, one lucky guy...

[Grumplestillskin]

is your argument that since congress could not declare war the jfk wannabe could not be charge with treason? again makes no difference to me....he shit on his own people....and then to expect to be voted by those people to be their commander in chief is delusional.....

Ah, the crux of the matter. The betrayal. Why people just don't come out and say that is the problem. Let's face it, all the things Kerry said could have happened, but it is the betrayal. What goes on in country, stays in country?

[manu1959]

So can I take it you place greater weight on what Murtha or Cleland say than what Bush or Cheney (with his 5 deferrments) says?

murtha and cleland both wanted more troops to win the peace before they voted not to send more troops to win the war.....

i love nuance

[jillian]

About what? John Kerry? Treason?

Nope. About Iraq.

[manu1959]

Ah, the crux of the matter. The betrayal. Why people just don't come out and say that is the problem. Let's face it, all the things Kerry said could have happened, but it is the betrayal. What goes on in country, stays in country?

you act like i have not been saying this for years....jfk part deux said he saw these crimes....he did nothing about it....that is called being an accomplice....

he is a traitor and a liar.....

[Grumplestillskin]

murtha and cleland both wanted more troops to win the peace before they voted not to send more troops to win the war.....

i love nuance

I love it when two folks suggest something at the outset, which might have made the Iraq situation better - based on their own military experiecne - they get ignored, the place turns into a shithole (not due to their own doing, but the CIC and his advisors); they see that Iraq is a shithole and there is no chance of recovery due to said policies, then say it's time to pull out because the dude in teh WH got it wrong, then they get called flip floppers. Yet when Jill starts a thread about a certain GoP presidental hopeful (maybe) and his flip flop, a chorus of conservatives harp "haven't you ever changed your mind?"..

[Dilloduck]

murtha and cleland both wanted more troops to win the peace before they voted not to send more troops to win the war.....

i love nuance

LOL -nuance---I don't know how these liberals could act any more blatantly partisan------they STILL have no plan other than to pretend they are the UN and pass resolutions !!!!:laugh2:

[manu1959]

Nope. About Iraq.

didn't they vote to invade? didn't they vote to fund it?

[manu1959]

I love it when two folks suggest something at the outset, which might have made the Iraq situation better - based on their own military experiecne - they get ignored, the place turns into a shithole (not due to their own doing, but the CIC and his advisors); they see that Iraq is a shithole and there is no chance of recovery due to said policies, then say it's time to pull out because the dude in teh WH got it wrong, then they get called flip floppers. Yet when Jill starts a thread about a certain GoP presidental hopeful (maybe) and his flip flop, a chorus of conservatives harp "haven't you ever changed your mind?"..

so which is it...are you allowed to change your mind or not?

and yes he was for killing people before he was against it...same as your guys

[SassyLady]

Nope. About Iraq.

About Vietnam perhaps. About Iraq - nope.

[jillian]

About Vietnam perhaps. About Iraq - nope.

Didn't think so. :cheers2:

[Grumplestillskin]

so which is it...are you allowed to change your mind or not?

and yes he was for killing people before he was against it...same as your guys

Absolutely you can change your mind.
He was not for killing people at all...:blues:

[manu1959]

Absolutely you can change your mind.
He was not for killing people at all...:blues:

who is he again?

[pegwinn]

He betrayed no one. He was doing what he thought was right, and hindsight shows he was.

You forgot to quote the rest of the sentence. Were you the one I offered to debate Kerry on? The thread is so frickin long I cannot find the post.

[OCA]

I love it when two folks suggest something at the outset, which might have made the Iraq situation better - based on their own military experiecne - they get ignored, the place turns into a shithole (not due to their own doing, but the CIC and his advisors); they see that Iraq is a shithole and there is no chance of recovery due to said policies, then say it's time to pull out because the dude in teh WH got it wrong, then they get called flip floppers. Yet when Jill starts a thread about a certain GoP presidental hopeful (maybe) and his flip flop, a chorus of conservatives harp "haven't you ever changed your mind?"..

You know for sure a troop surge won't yield positive results? Didn't think so.

Lets face it, the marine turncoat Murtha wanted more troops when Bush didn't, he wants less now when Bush wants more, he is simply an obstructionist, whatever is the opposite position of Bush.

If Bush said shit he'd say piss etc. etc. etc.

[SassyLady]

You know for sure a troop surge won't yield positive results? Didn't think so.

Lets face it, the marine turncoat Murtha wanted more troops when Bush didn't, he wants less now when Bush wants more, he is simply an obstructionist, whatever is the opposite position of Bush.

If Bush said shit he'd say piss etc. etc. etc.


Thanks for funneling down all the crap about liberals OCA --- obstructionist says it all! :laugh2:

[Gunny]

I'd put down your take on his speech as hindsight. You can call it dereliction of duty if you like, but people saw it for waht it was back then, an insight into an unpopular war. Did you declare war on N Vietnam? Did he go to Hanoi? Why shouldn't he have met with them in Paris. I agree with you that he would not have made a good president. Neither does Bush though. Maybe a better quality of candidate is needed...

I think you are confused. Until Kerry made accusations of witnessing war crimes, the fact that he was derelict in his duty at the time the alleged crimes were committed would be unknown. It was his revelation of new fact that produces my accusation.

There's no hindsight. It was the first thing I thought of when I heard what he had to say before Congress.

The most obvious fact is that Kerry didn't give a damn about any supposed war crimes until he thought he could use them to further his political career; which, he did successfully. It's equally obvious he is a self-centered, ruthless opportunist where his political career is concerned.

And whether I declared war on Vietnam or not is irrelvant. Our Nation was at war with North Vietnam and I'm on our side, not the enemy's.

Your opinion as to the quality of our Presidential candidates is irrelvant to the fact that the choice we were given was Bush or Kerry.

[GW in Ohio]

Hey, guys.....

Can we stop ragging on John Kerry? At least he didn't duck his duty during the Vietnam War.

I can overlook the fact that GW Bush got assigned to the Texas Air National Guard because his daddy had influence. But when he got transferred to the Alabama ANG in order to be able to work on political campaigns for GOP candidates and then didn't show for most of the 'Bama ANG meetings, he lost credibility with me.

At least Kerry was out there in harm's way.

[Dilloduck]

Hey, guys.....

Can we stop ragging on John Kerry? At least he didn't duck his duty during the Vietnam War.

I can overlook the fact that GW Bush got assigned to the Texas Air National Guard because his daddy had influence. But when he got transferred to the Alabama ANG in order to be able to work on political campaigns for GOP candidates and then didn't show for most of the 'Bama ANG meetings, he lost credibility with me.

At least Kerry was out there in harm's way.

Of course we can't---isn't the whole deal here trying to make the point that what you think is more correct than what someone else thinks?

[jimnyc]

Hey, guys.....

Can we stop ragging on John Kerry? At least he didn't duck his duty during the Vietnam War.

Correct, he was too busy condemning the war and throwing away his medals.


At least Kerry was out there in harm's way.

We know, he received a band aid and got a purple heart :rolleyes:

[Grumplestillskin]

Correct, he was too busy condemning the war and throwing away his medals.

We know, he received a band aid and got a purple heart :rolleyes:

At least he went. yeah, three purple hearts - all band aids - all under dodgy circumstances..

whichever way you look at it, he was there four months longer than you know who....:blues:

[GW in Ohio]

And Bush got what?

A hangover and a bus ride home from Tuscaloosa?

I repeat.....

At least Kerry served and was in harm's way.

The only danger Mr. Bush was in came when they took attendance at his Air National Guard meetings.

[Dilloduck]

At least he went. yeah, three purple hearts - all band aids - all under dodgy circumstances..

whichever way you look at it, he was there four months longer than you know who....:blues:

WOW----too bad his traitorous behavior sorta erased any credit he wants to try to take for it.

[jimnyc]

At least he went. yeah, three purple hearts - all band aids - all under dodgy circumstances..

whichever way you look at it, he was there four months longer than you know who....:blues:

And he returned and became a lying traitor. He claimed to have thrown away his medals when he never did. His own actions after the war is what likely cost him the election. I can respect anyone that serves our country but they instantly lose it once they spit upon the rest who serve honorably and those that respect other soldiers like their brothers and sisters.


And Bush got what?

A hangover and a bus ride home from Tuscaloosa?

I repeat.....

At least Kerry served and was in harm's way.

The only danger Mr. Bush was in came when they took attendance at his Air National Guard meetings.

So he served in harms way, big deal, so have hundreds and thousands of other men and women. Not that many returned and spoke out against their brothers they served with, and then used those very same circumstances to try and win an election.

[Grumplestillskin]

And he returned and became a lying traitor. He claimed to have thrown away his medals when he never did. His own actions after the war is what likely cost him the election. I can respect anyone that serves our country but they instantly lose it once they spit upon the rest who serve honorably and those that respect other soldiers like their brothers and sisters.

So he served in harms way, big deal, so have hundreds and thousands of other men and women. Not that many returned and spoke out against their brothers they served with, and then used those very same circumstances to try and win an election.

He's not a traitor. Liar? Hhhmmm, show me a polly who hasn't stretched the truth or lied. Bush is a coke-snorting drunk. Give me a guy who will go in front of congress and put his arse on the line over a guy who's been molly coddled all his life by his daddy. Bush has never done an honest day's work in his life. Even as a president he is a puppet at most...
I prefer Laura over Heinz tho'.....:eek:

[jimnyc]

He's not a traitor. Liar? Hhhmmm, show me a polly who hasn't stretched the truth or lied. Bush is a coke-snorting drunk. Give me a guy who will go in front of congress and put his arse on the line over a guy who's been molly coddled all his life by his daddy. Bush has never done an honest day's work in his life. Even as a president he is a puppet at most...
I prefer Laura over Heinz tho'.....:eek:

Anyone who serves side by side with other soldiers who help defend your life, then you come back and bash those very same men, that is despicable, and makes him a traitor.

You say Bush "is" a coke snorting drunk. I won't deny he's ever done either, but can you show where he's done so in the past 25 years or so?

[manu1959]

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040421205043310

John Kerry today wants us to believe that he has always been an anti-Communist. Yet the historical record raises questions about that claim. Loyal Americans think twice about violating the legal provision against negotiating with foreign powers (18 U.S.C. 953) and the Constitutional prohibition against giving support to our nation's enemies during wartime (Article III, Section 3). Anti-Communists do not openly support proposals that amount to an American surrender to Communist enemies in time of war.

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=puppets

Two recently discovered documents captured from the Vietnamese communists during the Vietnam War strongly support the contention that a close link existed between the Hanoi regime and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) while John Kerry served as the group's leading national spokesman.

http://www.answers.com/topic/treason

Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.....assisting its enemies in war. In the U.S., the framers of the Constitution defined treason narrowly — as the levying of war against the U.S. or the giving of aid and comfort to its enemies —

[Angel Of Mercy]

You know, all I see here are a bunch of Milk Dud-eaters who love to pass out epithets like "turncoat" and "traitor" while not making any valid points. Is name-calling what you people call debating? How many of you have ever actually strapped on combat boots, eh? You seem to be in such a big bad hurry to put other people in harm's way while you lounge on the couch and pretend like you're doing something.

Disgusting...

[manu1959]

You know, all I see here are a bunch of Milk Dud-eaters who love to pass out epithets like "turncoat" and "traitor" while not making any valid points. Is name-calling what you people call debating? How many of you have ever actually strapped on combat boots, eh? You seem to be in such a big bad hurry to put other people in harm's way while you lounge on the couch and pretend like you're doing something.

Disgusting...

and you opinion on others is valid because..............you are an oxygen bandit?

[Yurt]

You know, all I see here are a bunch of Milk Dud-eaters who love to pass out epithets like "turncoat" and "traitor" while not making any valid points. Is name-calling what you people call debating? How many of you have ever actually strapped on combat boots, eh? You seem to be in such a big bad hurry to put other people in harm's way while you lounge on the couch and pretend like you're doing something.

Disgusting...

with your first post you prove a hypocrite and an idiot. Btw, lots of folks here have strapped on combat boots. Might try reading to you don't look so foolish. Wait, that probably wont help either

[Birdzeye]

You know, all I see here are a bunch of Milk Dud-eaters who love to pass out epithets like "turncoat" and "traitor" while not making any valid points. Is name-calling what you people call debating? How many of you have ever actually strapped on combat boots, eh? You seem to be in such a big bad hurry to put other people in harm's way while you lounge on the couch and pretend like you're doing something.

Disgusting...


Hi, Angel! Charming bunch we have here, eh? They can dish it out, but they get awfully pissy when you return fire.

[manu1959]

Hi, Angel! Charming bunch we have here, eh? They can dish it out, but they get awfully pissy when you return fire.

:pee:

[Birdzeye]

with your first post you prove a hypocrite and an idiot. Btw, lots of folks here have strapped on combat boots. Might try reading to you don't look so foolish. Wait, that probably wont help either

Feel free to say something worth saying anytime.

[Birdzeye]

:pee:

Whatsamatta, Manu? You got nothing worth saying?

[jimnyc]

You know, all I see here are a bunch of Milk Dud-eaters who love to pass out epithets like "turncoat" and "traitor" while not making any valid points. Is name-calling what you people call debating? How many of you have ever actually strapped on combat boots, eh? You seem to be in such a big bad hurry to put other people in harm's way while you lounge on the couch and pretend like you're doing something.

Disgusting...

And you stated what to dispute what I wrote? Everything I stated that Kerry did was FACT. You didn't hit one single point with your post, is that what you call debating?


Hi, Angel! Charming bunch we have here, eh? They can dish it out, but they get awfully pissy when you return fire.

I didn't once get pissy. Rarely do unless someone strikes first.

[manu1959]

Feel free to say something worth saying anytime.

please point out the worthwhile part of this?

Originally Posted by Angel Of Mercy
You know, all I see here are a bunch of Milk Dud-eaters who love to pass out epithets like "turncoat" and "traitor" while not making any valid points. Is name-calling what you people call debating? How many of you have ever actually strapped on combat boots, eh? You seem to be in such a big bad hurry to put other people in harm's way while you lounge on the couch and pretend like you're doing something.

Disgusting...

is the worth while part where he calls people names for calling people names? or is it where superiority is claimed because of self proclaimed service?

[stephanie]

I'm offended........They called me a milk-dud-eater...



:cow: :cow:

[Birdzeye]

You're right, Jimny, you didn't get pissy. I can't say the same about some others, however.

[jimnyc]

You're right, Jimny, you didn't get pissy. I can't say the same about some others, however.

Well, every poster is going to have their own style. But a first time poster should learn the board before slinging comments at everyone.

And thank you for your acknowledgment. :)

[manu1959]

Whatsamatta, Manu? You got nothing worth saying?

just dropping down to your level....:pee:

[Gaffer]

First off, I like milk duds.

secondly new posters have no business coming in and making accusations about people when they don't know who or what they are talking about.

Thirdly many of us talk about the war from experience, not just sitting back in our chairs safe at home. So come down off your high horse. If you want to discuss something then bring it on. I don't get into pissing contests or petty name calling.

So lets get this thread back on track.

[Yurt]

Hi, Angel! Charming bunch we have here, eh? They can dish it out, but they get awfully pissy when you return fire.

That was the posters "first" post.

Not very cordial.

[Abbey Marie]

That was the posters "first" post.

Not very cordial.

Gee, I must have missed that. It says a lot.

[Birdzeye]

I notice some of you have nothing to say about certain people here who hurl personal insults, unprovoked, at people simply because they aren't to the right of Attila the Hun.

[manu1959]

You do know that this resolution was a protest vote against sending more troops INTO Iraq right? I thought "supporting the troops" meant keeping them alive. I guess you guys have been using "support the troops" as a code for "send as many troops as possible into dangerous situations where they can get maimed and killed."

call this whatever you like, but at the end of the day this is all the people that wanted to go originally to remove a bad man from power .... giving up.

[OCA]

Hi, Angel! Charming bunch we have here, eh? They can dish it out, but they get awfully pissy when you return fire.

Birdshit you call that fire? The douchebag didn't even do a modicum of research before branding everyone here an armchair quarterback....but then again he/she is right up your alley.

[manu1959]

I notice some of you have nothing to say about certain people here who hurl personal insults, unprovoked, at people simply because they aren't to the right of Attila the Hun.

interesting....using personal insults to condem others for personal insults....that will get results

[Abbey Marie]

I notice some of you have nothing to say about certain people here who hurl personal insults, unprovoked, at people simply because they aren't to the right of Attila the Hun.

To come in and in your first post insult members is quite arrogant. You need to take message boards as you find them. Most of us have been on this board's predecessor together a long time, and we like each other fine.
If it's not your cup of tea...

[stephanie]

interesting....using personal insults to condemn others for personal insults....that will get results

But manu, it was subtle so that is OK....:uhoh:

[manu1959]

But manu, it was subtle so that is OK....:uhoh:

no she will say that we insulted her first so that makes it ok.....damn i am off thread again:trolls:

[OCA]

I notice some of you have nothing to say about certain people here who hurl personal insults, unprovoked, at people simply because they aren't to the right of Attila the Hun.

Birdshit i'm a longtime member here, i've never once changed my style in 3+years, now as for having something to say I suppose its because they respect me for never changing and know that for every one post where I intelligently flame the shit out of a turd such as yourself there are a dozen that are nothing but straight factual debating.

Simply put though I have deemed from your first however many posts that you are only interested in throwing out 1 line talking points rooted in leftwing fanaticism and without factual backup........so from here on out you get the pointy toed end of my Tony Lamas.

Don't like that? You have two choices, either knock off your bullshit whining and stick to FACTUAL debating or you are always free to hit the road.

[Yurt]

interesting....using personal insults to condem others for personal insults....that will get results

Oh no, the paradox. They still don't get it. Then again, they probably think paradox, means:

pair of docks

http://www.lucky13resort.com/dk1.jpg

[Abbey Marie]

no she will say that we insulted her first so that makes it ok.....damn i am off thread again:trolls:

Staying on-topic is so overrated. ;)

[Yurt]

Staying on-topic is so overrated. ;)

What does overrated mean anyways? I mean, who rates over, and then who rates the rated?

:p

[stephanie]

What does overrated mean anyways? I mean, who rates over, and then who rates the rated?

:p

:lol: :slap:

[Birdzeye]

interesting....using personal insults to condem others for personal insults....that will get results


And what personal insult did I use?


AFAIK, I haven't insulted anybody.

[manu1959]

And what personal insult did I use?
AFAIK, I haven't insulted anybody.

then i guess you are without sin....and i and atila shall go back to our camp

[stephanie]

then i guess you are without sin....and i and atila shall go back to our camp

And I repeat....
It was sublte, so that makes it OK....:uhoh: :dev:

[Yurt]

then i guess you are without sin....and i and atila shall go back to our camp

:lmao:

[Birdzeye]

Of course there's nothing subtle about . . .

Birdshit

"a turd such as yourself"

This from someone who purports to want discussion. LOL