US Troops Are Winning in Iraq - When Will Dems Admit It?

[red states rule]

For years the left bellowed how the US was losing in Iraq, it was mess, our troops were being slaughtered, and Harry Reid sneered "the war was lost"

Now, the troops are winning, the liberal media is not reporting the good news, and Dems are ducking any questions about the success

Will the Dems admit we are winning in Iraq, or still keep fighting their war on reality?



American troops are winning
By Pete Hegseth
December 11, 2007

In May and June, overall attacks in Iraq were at their highest levels since the war began, monthly coalition deaths were near an all-time high, and violence against civilians was still at staggering levels. To most observers, the war in Iraq was not going well.

At the same time, members of Congress were already declaring the "surge" a failure and stepping up their "timeline for withdrawal" rhetoric. Anti-war Democrats, and a few Republicans, cited "realities on the ground" as compelling evidence to call for an immediate, or more nuanced "phased," end to the war.

These same "realities," also emboldening anti-war groups to declare an "Iraq Summer," during which they would finally crush domestic support for the war and force Congress to de-fund the mission there. MoveOn.org and others dispatched operatives around the country and harassed members of Congress.

Truthfully, as we now know, these "realities" on the ground were the unfortunate birth pangs of the new counter-insurgency strategy being implemented by Gen. David Petraeus. Some on Capitol Hill understood this fact in June, and their courage in those dark days kept Congress from prematurely declaring defeat in Iraq.

In June, the full compliment of surge forces had just arrived, hence the violence levels hadn't yet ebbed; by June, American forces had moved off of large bases and defensive positions, and into an offensive posture among the population, hence the initially high casualty rate; and in June, al Qaeda had yet to felt the full shock of the surge, hence their continue brutality.

But that was then, and this is now; and Iraq in December 2007 is a drastically different place than Iraq in June 2007. Overall attack levels are now at the lowest levels since 2005, monthly coalition deaths are nearing an all-time low, and violence against Iraqi civilians has been reduced by more than 60 percent, according to the anti-war site icasualties.org

However, the more things change in Iraq, the more they stay the same on Capitol Hill. For the past month, with a few off-handed exceptions, Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill has largely refused to acknowledge success. They are stuck in the talking points of June, and stuck on a narrative of failure.

Despite the incredible progress made by our military — which has opened the door for real and sustainable political progress in Iraq — the Democratic leadership continues to insist that we de-fund the war and bring the troops home no matter what. Beholden to entrenched and noisy anti-war interest groups, the Democrat leadership in Washington seems willing to cut-off much needed funding, placing our brave troops in harms way.

For the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071211/EDITORIAL/112110007/1013

[glockmail]

They've got too much invested in a loss. Most will never admit that america has triumped yet again.

[stephanie]

Never...




In fact I've heard that Moveon.orgie has another campaign going now their getting to release, because the Democrats in OUR CONGRESS is getting ready to approve a bill that President Bush has asked for to support our troops...the Democrats staked their election and receive monies from the anti war movement and now they want their paybacks... It's not a pretty picture....when you lay with dogs..expect to get fleas...:coffee:

[nevadamedic]

For years the left bellowed how the US was losing in Iraq, it was mess, our troops were being slaughtered, and Harry Reid sneered "the war was lost"

Now, the troops are winning, the liberal media is not reporting the good news, and Dems are ducking any questions about the success

Will the Dems admit we are winning in Iraq, or still keep fighting their war on reality?



American troops are winning
By Pete Hegseth
December 11, 2007

In May and June, overall attacks in Iraq were at their highest levels since the war began, monthly coalition deaths were near an all-time high, and violence against civilians was still at staggering levels. To most observers, the war in Iraq was not going well.

At the same time, members of Congress were already declaring the "surge" a failure and stepping up their "timeline for withdrawal" rhetoric. Anti-war Democrats, and a few Republicans, cited "realities on the ground" as compelling evidence to call for an immediate, or more nuanced "phased," end to the war.

These same "realities," also emboldening anti-war groups to declare an "Iraq Summer," during which they would finally crush domestic support for the war and force Congress to de-fund the mission there. MoveOn.org and others dispatched operatives around the country and harassed members of Congress.

Truthfully, as we now know, these "realities" on the ground were the unfortunate birth pangs of the new counter-insurgency strategy being implemented by Gen. David Petraeus. Some on Capitol Hill understood this fact in June, and their courage in those dark days kept Congress from prematurely declaring defeat in Iraq.

In June, the full compliment of surge forces had just arrived, hence the violence levels hadn't yet ebbed; by June, American forces had moved off of large bases and defensive positions, and into an offensive posture among the population, hence the initially high casualty rate; and in June, al Qaeda had yet to felt the full shock of the surge, hence their continue brutality.

But that was then, and this is now; and Iraq in December 2007 is a drastically different place than Iraq in June 2007. Overall attack levels are now at the lowest levels since 2005, monthly coalition deaths are nearing an all-time low, and violence against Iraqi civilians has been reduced by more than 60 percent, according to the anti-war site icasualties.org

However, the more things change in Iraq, the more they stay the same on Capitol Hill. For the past month, with a few off-handed exceptions, Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill has largely refused to acknowledge success. They are stuck in the talking points of June, and stuck on a narrative of failure.

Despite the incredible progress made by our military — which has opened the door for real and sustainable political progress in Iraq — the Democratic leadership continues to insist that we de-fund the war and bring the troops home no matter what. Beholden to entrenched and noisy anti-war interest groups, the Democrat leadership in Washington seems willing to cut-off much needed funding, placing our brave troops in harms way.

For the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071211/EDITORIAL/112110007/1013

They won't. The only reason the Democrats are opposed to the war in Iraq is because they were left out of the planning and can't take the credit. If they were part of it we would be hearing what a success it is and how great they are for doing this.

[red states rule]

Never...




In fact I've heard that Moveon.orgie has another campaign going now their getting to release, because the Democrats in OUR CONGRESS is getting ready to approve a bill that President Bush has asked for to support our troops...the Democrats staked their election and receive monies from the anti war movement and now they want their paybacks... It's not a pretty picture....when you lay with dogs..expect to get fleas...:coffee:



As Glock pointed out, Dems haveinvested their political future in the the US losing in Iraq, and the fall of the US economy

They are losing on both

So they do what libs do best, they duck, dodge, and lie about the facts

I have confidence a majoroty of the voters are smart enough to see how the Dems thirst for failure and not success

[glockmail]

As Glock pointed out, Dems haveinvested their political future in the the US losing in Iraq, and the fall of the US economy

They are losing on both

So they do what libs do best, they duck, dodge, and lie about the facts

I have confidence a majoroty of the voters are smart enough to see how the Dems thirst for failure and not success
Look for them to start talking about homeless people now. That's always their fall back. Like the guv'mint has something to do with it.

[red states rule]

Look for them to start talking about homeless people now. That's always their fall back. Like the guv'mint has something to do with it.

So if they can't come up with a real issue - they will create one?

Situation normal for the left

[red states rule]

The troops know they are winning, and they are in still fired up


IRAQ EXCLUSIVE: Troops' Spirits Remain High, See Fruits of Labor Despite Political Pessimists
By Lt. Col. Oliver North

FOB Kalsu, Iraq — Those who believe that the campaign in Iraq is a lost cause better not tell that to the soldiers of the 3rd Infantry Division — they think they’re winning. That’s not just their Commanding General, Rick Lynch talking — that’s the word from every soldier we have listened to for the week we have been with them. These troops ought to know — many of them are here on their third, year-long tour of duty in Iraq.

Those we have been interviewing for an upcoming special edition of War Stories were part of the initial attack north from Kuwait in March 2003; they were here when Al Qaeda tried to stop the democratic elections in 2005; and they have been here again since May 2007. What they have experienced along the way gives them a perspective that is much at odds from what we most often see expressed in our mainstream media and by America’s most prominent politicians.

“If I thought we were losing, I wouldn’t be here,” said Staff Sgt. Nicholas Ingleston of Williamston, New York. He’s an M-1 Tank Gunner on his third tour of duty in Iraq. When I asked him why he had decided to re-enlist in the U.S. Army, knowing that would mean coming back to Iraq a third time, this father of three replied, “I’m part of a team and we came here to do a job and we’re doing it.” His commentary on where we have been — and where this fight is headed was typical of what we have heard on this, our ninth “embed” in Iraq.

Professional political pessimists and their apprentices in the press long ago declared this fight “lost” and U.S. efforts here a “failure.” In June, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the struggle to bring about a democratic outcome in Iraq, a “grotesque mistake.” She was joined by Republican critics like Indiana Sen. Dick Lugar who said “the current surge strategy is not an effective means of protecting” America's vital interests in Iraq. That kind of sniping was heard from both sides of the aisle throughout the summer. Then, after Labor Day, Gen. David Petraeus was subjected to vitriolic criticism before he even had the chance to testify before Congress.

When the senior U.S. commander in Iraq reported that military objectives were, in large measure being met, he was attacked for being a shill for the Bush administration. “In recent months,” he said, “in the face of tough enemies and the brutal summer heat of Iraq, Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces have achieved progress in the security arena.” Few accepted that, essentially saying that had to see it to believe it.

Well, if they care to look, they can see it now. As Mark Twain once said of Wagner’s music — “It’s not as bad as it sounds.”

Although there is marked improvement in the security situation, some in the media just don’t want to admit it. A recent headline in the San Francisco Chronicle read, “Even if Surge Succeeds, Iraq Faces Volatile Future.”

Col. Terry Ferrell, the Commanding Officer of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team of 3rd ID – our current hosts — arrived here in June. When I was last here — in March of 2003 — it was a FARP, a Forward Arming and Refueling Point, for the Marines driving north toward Baghdad. When 2 BCT arrived here six months ago it was an Al Qaeda stronghold. Today, all that has changed.

We have now seen what few others have cared to report: that “the Awakening” in the Sunni population — and the “Concerned Citizens” program here in Babel province has indeed — as Col.Ferrell puts it, “lifted the blanket of fear on these communities.” He told us, “we have crippled the al Qaeda in this area and contributed to a dramatic turnaround in security for Baghdad.” From all we have seen, he’s spot on.

Interestingly, these kinds of stories are becoming a trend throughout Iraq. Unfortunately, these aren’t the kinds of facts that make good copy for America’s media elites. Reductions in enemy attacks, fewer U.S., coalition and civilian casualties and improvements in Iraqi military and security forces have driven news from Iraq out of the front pages of our papers and off broadcast news.

Publicly, U.S. commanders describe the situation as “cautiously optimistic,” and say that “the momentum is in the right direction.” Privately, they say that “we are putting them [Al Qaeda and the Shiite militias] on the ropes.”

Though disappointed by the lack of “good news” being reported in the U.S. press, the troops’ sense of humor is undiminished. When Sec. Gates was in Baghdad this week, it was announced that lack of congressional funding could result in “pink slips for up to 200,000 Defense Department employees.” Hearing the story, one young soldier heading out on patrol commented, “Somebody call me if I get laid off.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316003,00.html

[retiredman]

no one has ever doubted the skill and abilities of the United States military. Of course they will "win" in any ground encounter in Iraq for as long as we stay there. The point is: to what end? The stated mission of the surge was to provide some peaceful "space" so that political progress could be made. Even our ground commanders now say that regardless of how militarily successful the surge has been, the Iraqi political reconciliation has not moved forward and that the inability of the Iraqi government to actually begin governing and coming to grips with the sectarian issues that divide it is THE most grave threat to the long term stability of Iraq. The "enemy" isn't AQ anymore....it isn't even really the sectarian militias...it is the Iraqi politicians who are unable and unwilling to create a stable government.

but it is nice to see you back to you old "cut and paste" form.... always using other people's words because you are too lazy to write anything of substance yourself!

welcome back!

[red states rule]

no one has ever doubted the skill and abilities of the United States military. Of course they will "win" in any ground encounter in Iraq for as long as we stay there. The point is: to what end? The stated mission of the surge was to provide some peaceful "space" so that political progress could be made. Even our ground commanders now say that regardless of how militarily successful the surge has been, the Iraqi political reconciliation has not moved forward and that the inability of the Iraqi government to actually begin governing and coming to grips with the sectarian issues that divide it is THE most grave threat to the long term stability of Iraq. The "enemy" isn't AQ anymore....it isn't even really the sectarian militias...it is the Iraqi politicians who are unable and unwilling to create a stable government.

but it is nice to see you back to you old "cut and paste" form.... always using other people's words because you are too lazy to write anything of substance yourself!

welcome back!

Is that why Harry Reid bellowed "the war is lost" before the surge was at full strength?

Or why Dems have tried 41 times to insert a surrender date in spending bills?

Hell of way to show support for the troops - of cousre this is what we have come to expect from the Defeatocrats in DC

and facts still bug the hell of out you MM

[retiredman]

Is that why Harry Reid bellowed "the war is lost" before the surge was at full strength?

Or why Dems have tried 41 times to insert a surrender date in spending bills?

Hell of way to show support for the troops - of cousre this is what we have come to expect from the Defeatocrats in DC

and facts still bug the hell of out you MM


Reid felt that the war was lost because, regardless of our military victories, we will be unable to create a stable working government in Iraq without the work of the Iraqi political leaders, and they clearly have little interest in doing so.

No one has inserted a surrender date into anything. That is a FACT that somehow gets blow away by all your Limbaughesque rhetoric.

And RSR...I have never minded facts. I use them all the time. What has become annoying - and amusing - is your inability to WRITE anything yourself.

If I wanted to read Newsbusters articles all day long, I'd go there and not here. I come here to stand MY words up against other poster's words. I have no desire to "debate" the entire conservative editorial machine on the internet!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

Reid felt that the war was lost because, regardless of our military victories, we will be unable to create a stable working government in Iraq without the work of the Iraqi political leaders, and they clearly have little interest in doing so.

No one has inserted a surrender date into anything. That is a FACT that somehow gets blow away by all your Limbaughesque rhetoric.

And RSR...I have never minded facts. I use them all the time. What has become annoying - and amusing - is your inability to WRITE anything yourself.

If I wanted to read Newsbusters articles all day long, I'd go there and not here. I come here to stand MY words up against other poster's words. I have no desire to "debate" the entire conservative editorial machine on the internet!:laugh2:

Reid and the Dems have said all is lost, smeared the troops, and all your lies and spinning will not change those facts

That is why the liberal media is not covering what is happening in Iraq like they used to, and Dems are not holding their defeatest press conferences

Will Dems cave on their surrender date? Given how support for the war is going up - probably. Dems only care about polls and not about what is right or wrong

Being a loyal lib you do not care about the truth MM - that is why I post facts about the liberal media

[glockmail]

Reid felt that the war was lost because, regardless of our military victories, we will be unable to create a stable working government in Iraq without the work of the Iraqi political leaders, and they clearly have little interest in doing so.

.... Reid's "feelings" are from constantly moving the goal posts for our military, and his inability to provide a stable Senate. I'd guess the Iraqi government has a higher approval rating than the Democrat Congress. :laugh2:

[retiredman]

here is a novel idea:

I wrote a post to you in which I countered the assertions made at the outset of this thread. That was post #9. WHy don't YOU use YOUR words and try to compose a reply to MY words contained therein?

I know it's crazy,and something we've never tried before, you and I...but why not give it a try?

[retiredman]

Reid's "feelings" are from constantly moving the goal posts for our military, and his inability to provide a stable Senate. I'd guess the Iraqi government has a higher approval rating than the Democrat Congress. :laugh2:

pretty tough to have a "stable" senate with only 48 democrats. we'll do much better in '09!:lol:

[red states rule]

here is a novel idea:

I wrote a post to you in which I countered the assertions made at the outset of this thread. That was post #9. WHy don't YOU use YOUR words and try to compose a reply to MY words contained therein?

I know it's crazy,and something we've never tried before, you and I...but why not give it a try?

Translation - do not post facts, just go with what I tell you about Democrats

[red states rule]

pretty tough to have a "stable" senate with only 48 democrats. we'll do much better in '09!:lol:

Not with numbers like these :lol:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=9555

[glockmail]

pretty tough to have a "stable" senate with only 48 democrats. we'll do much better in '09!:lol:Here is a novel idea:

I wrote a post in which I countered your assertions made. Why don't YOU use YOUR words and try to compose a reply to MY words contained therein?

[red states rule]

Here is a novel idea:

I wrote a post in which I countered your assertions made. Why don't YOU use YOUR words and try to compose a reply to MY words contained therein?

Why should he start now?

[retiredman]

Reid's "feelings" are from constantly moving the goal posts for our military, and his inability to provide a stable Senate. I'd guess the Iraqi government has a higher approval rating than the Democrat Congress. :laugh2:

I thought I had.... but I will try to dumb it down for you.

I do not think that the goalposts for our military are moved by anything other than the changing situation on the ground. military success is always hollow and will never spell "victory" when the victory sought is not a military one but a political one.

Reid only has 48 democrats in the senate. as I said earlier, it will continue to be impossible for him to achieve any stability until his power base is expanded by a handful more of democrats.

And I'd guess you'd like to forget about the fact that the congress is made up of nearly 50/50 democrats and republicans. People are upset with the democratic leadership because they cannot get anything done (see above). Interesting to note, however, that even though the people give the congress low approval ratings, they give the republicans IN congress even lower approval ratings and have done so without fail since before the 2006 election. They KNOW which party is causing inaction in congress and they grade them accordingly.

[glockmail]

Why should he start now? I just figgered, since he suggested it and is repentant, maybe he is the Newmaineman.:coffee:

[retiredman]

Translation - do not post facts, just go with what I tell you about Democrats


NO. do NOT just go with what I tell you about democrats....use YOUR words to counter MY words. Don't ALWAYS hide behind cut and paste op-ed pieces or regurgitated Rush one liners.

[red states rule]

I thought I had.... but I will try to dumb it down for you.

I do not think that the goalposts for our military are moved by anything other than the changing situation on the ground. military success is always hollow and will never spell "victory" when the victory sought is not a military one but a political one.

Reid only has 48 democrats in the senate. as I said earlier, it will continue to be impossible for him to achieve any stability until his power base is expanded by a handful more of democrats.

And I'd guess you'd like to forget about the fact that the congress is made up of nearly 50/50 democrats and republicans. People are upset with the democratic leadership because they cannot get anything done (see above). Interesting to note, however, that even though the people give the congress low approval ratings, they give the republicans IN congress even lower approval ratings and have done so without fail since before the 2006 election. They KNOW which party is causing inaction in congress and they grade them accordingly.

So Dems can't get anything done, we need to vote more in in power?

Much like they have told blacks for 40 years. Dems keep telling them how rotten America is to them - just keep voting Democrat and things will get better

It never does - and they keep voting for them

Dems have broken all the promises the made to get elected - yet you expect the voters to forget that fact

Dream on

[retiredman]

So Dems can't get anything done, we need to vote more in in power?

Much like they have told blacks for 40 years. Dems keep telling them how rotten America is to them - just keep voting Democrat and things will get better

It never does - and they keep voting for them

Dems have broken all the promises the made to get elected - yet you expect the voters to forget that fact

Dream on

I am already counting the $500 I'll win from you. :laugh2:

or are you going to welch on that bet?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_ballot/generic_congressional_ballot

[glockmail]

I thought I had.... but I will try to dumb it down for you.

I do not think that the goalposts for our military are moved by anything other than the changing situation on the ground. military success is always hollow and will never spell "victory" when the victory sought is not a military one but a political one.

Reid only has 48 democrats in the senate. as I said earlier, it will continue to be impossible for him to achieve any stability until his power base is expanded by a handful more of democrats.

And I'd guess you'd like to forget about the fact that the congress is made up of nearly 50/50 democrats and republicans. People are upset with the democratic leadership because they cannot get anything done (see above). Interesting to note, however, that even though the people give the congress low approval ratings, they give the republicans IN congress even lower approval ratings and have done so without fail since before the 2006 election. They KNOW which party is causing inaction in congress and they grade them accordingly.

Insults aside, you didn't before nor have you done so now. Reid/ Pelosi have moved the goalposts, not the Iraqi army. We defeated them after 3 days!

Perhaps you can enlighten us with what the stated goal was at the outset, with a credible link maybe?

The goal in my mind was to establish a US presence in the MidEast to counter Syria and Iran's attacks on Israel. Just like we have in Japan, Germany, and Korea.

[red states rule]

I am already counting the $500 I'll win from you. :laugh2:

or are you going to welch on that bet?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_ballot/generic_congressional_ballot

maybe you are not up on current events

even Harry Rieid is in trouble in NV

[retiredman]

maybe you are not up on current events

even Harry Rieid is in trouble in NV

Reid's problems in Nevada are a Nevada issue.... nationally, democrats will pretty much sweep the table - as the Rasmussen poll suggests.

[red states rule]

You know things are going well in Iraq when the liberal media ignores those stories

Dems no longer can hold press confrences gleefully talking about US troops dying



Good News = Less News on Iraq War

Back in September, when General David Petraeus reported that the surge in U.S. troops had improved the security situation in Iraq, the big three broadcast networks were openly skeptical.

“Insurgent attacks are down from 170 in January to 120 in August,” ABC’s Terry McCarthy noted on the September 9 World News Sunday, the day before Petraeus testified before Congress. “But that is still four attacks a day, on average. Iraq remains a very violent place....Life in central Iraq is still deadly dangerous.”

“Victory is not at hand, not even in sight,” CBS’s David Martin similarly contended on the next night’s Evening News. On the NBC Nightly News, reporter Jim Maceda found it “palpably quiet” in an area of Iraq once controlled by Sunni insurgents, but “this is really an exception....That civil war as, again, as you get out of the capital of Baghdad, it is truly brewing. So this is really just a partial success for this surge so far.”

That was three months ago. Now, all three networks have become more optimistic in their on-ground reporting from the war zone, admitting that the surge in troops and new counterinsurgency tactics have reduced the violence. But as the news from the war front improves, a Media Research Center study finds ABC, CBS and NBC are less likely to tell viewers about it.

MRC researchers examined all 354 Iraq war stories that aired on the big three evening newscasts from September 1 through November 30, including weekends. That figure includes 234 field reports, plus 120 short headline items read by the news anchor.

■ Vanishing War. Back in September, as reporters voiced skepticism of General Petraeus’ progress report, the networks aired a total of 178 Iraq stories, or just under two per network per night. (See chart.) About one-fourth of those stories (42) were filed from Iraq itself, with most of the rest originating in Washington.

In October, TV’s war news fell by about 40 percent, to 108 stories, with the number of reports filed from Iraq itself falling to just 20, or less than one-fifth of all Iraq stories. By November, the networks aired a mere 68 stories, with only eleven (16%) actually from the war zone itself.

■ Pessimistic CBS. Of the three evening newscasts, ABC’s World News was the first to take serious note of the improving situation (back on October 1), and has offered the most stories (9 field reports, 7 from Iraq) detailing the progress. “Not only is there a huge increase in Iraqi citizens groups who are coming forward to help the Americans, but overall levels of violence have gone way down,” Terry McCarthy enthused on November 22. In a Thanksgiving week interview with President Bush, anchor Charles Gibson was congratulatory: “You took a lot of doubting and rather skeptical questions about the surge. I'll give you a chance to crow. Do you want to say I told you so?”

On NBC, reporter Tom Aspell filed five stories about progress, generally balancing good news with bad. “Refugees coming back to Baghdad are going to see a lot of changes. There are more people in the streets, shops are open and traffic everywhere,” Aspell noted November 27. “But it is still a dangerous city.”

For its part, the CBS Evening News has offered only three stories documenting the recent progress, just one from their reporter in Iraq, Lara Logan, on November 21. Five weeks earlier, Logan announced on NBC’s Tonight Show that the war was going “extremely badly, from my point of view.” Reality, she claimed, was “much worse than the picture, the image we even have of Iraq.” — Rich Noyes

http://mrc.org/realitycheck/2007/fax20071204.asp

[red states rule]

Reid's problems in Nevada are a Nevada issue.... nationally, democrats will pretty much sweep the table - as the Rasmussen poll suggests.

Tell that to Tom whats his name, He was once the head Dem in the Senate

[retiredman]

Insults aside, you didn't before nor have you done so now. Reid/ Pelosi have moved the goalposts, not the Iraqi army. We defeated them after 3 days!

Perhaps you can enlighten us with what the stated goal was at the outset, with a credible link maybe?

The goal in my mind was to establish a US presence in the MidEast to counter Syria and Iran's attacks on Israel. Just like we have in Japan, Germany, and Korea.

Please explain how Reid and Pelosi "moved the goalposts"

Oh...and the stated goal: Dubya said it best:

"Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

I say, "mission accomplished"!! Where in there did he ever say anything about establishing a US presence? Where in there did he ever say anything about babysitting sectarian squabbles? Iraq has been disarmed of its WMD's (that was the easy one!) Saddam can no longer support anything except a thriving ant colony on his rotting corpse, and the Iraqi people are free to do whatever the fuck they want to do. It just so happens that what they really want to do is kill each other....and that ain't America's problem.

[retiredman]

Tell that to Tom whats his name, He was once the head Dem in the Senate

and the folks in HIS STATE gave him the boot, not America.

Why do you run away from Rasmussen's polls that have shown a huge lead for democrats in the congressional race for months now?

[stephanie]

Reid's problems in Nevada are a Nevada issue.... nationally, democrats will pretty much sweep the table - as the Rasmussen poll suggests.

Dreaming...can be a beautiful thing...:laugh2:

The Democrats were given a chance...and watching them implode in less than a year....was a work of,....????:laugh2:

[retiredman]

Dreaming...can be a beautiful thing...:laugh2:

The Democrats were given a chance...and watching them implode in less than a year....was a work of,....????:laugh2:

you wanna put any money on that? I say that democrats increase their majorities in both chambers.

YOu wanna bet, or just bullshit?

[stephanie]

you wanna put any money on that? I say that democrats increase their majorities in both chambers.

YOu wanna bet, or just bullshit?



Your HUGH MAJORIRTY this last election wansn't enough...:laugh2:

I'll just sit here and laugh...like I alwsays do..thank you...:cheers2:

[retiredman]

Your HUGH MAJORIRTY this last election wansn't enough...:laugh2:

I'll just sit here and laugh...like I alwsays do..thank you...:cheers2:


"hugh majority"? who is he?

I know of Hugh Hefner and Hugh Downes, but not that guy.

[glockmail]

Please explain how Reid and Pelosi "moved the goalposts"

Oh...and the stated goal: Dubya said it best:

"Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

I say, "mission accomplished"!! Where in there did he ever say anything about establishing a US presence? Where in there did he ever say anything about babysitting sectarian squabbles? Iraq has been disarmed of its WMD's (that was the easy one!) Saddam can no longer support anything except a thriving ant colony on his rotting corpse, and the Iraqi people are free to do whatever the fuck they want to do. It just so happens that what they really want to do is kill each other....and that ain't America's problem.

Your bolded question is answered by W's bolded sentence. :coffee:

[retiredman]

Your bolded question is answered by W's bolded sentence. :coffee:


only after a hearty dose of neocon koolaid!

[retiredman]

Your bolded question is answered by W's bolded sentence. :coffee:


only after a hearty dose of neocon koolaid!

and I notice that you didn't answer any of my other points.

typical.

[Hagbard Celine]

I'm curious as to what exactly you mean when you say we're "winning." If you mean we're winning an era of permanent occupation in Iraq, then I'd agree that we are in fact "winning." If you're talking about something else, I'll have to disagree because there is nothing else. All we're winning is a lifetime of permanent warzone servitude and nation-building for our troops in the middle of a sectarian struggle for power.

[retiredman]

here is a novel idea:

I wrote a post to you in which I countered the assertions made at the outset of this thread. That was post #9. WHy don't YOU use YOUR words and try to compose a reply to MY words contained therein?

I know it's crazy,and something we've never tried before, you and I...but why not give it a try?


Translation - do not post facts, just go with what I tell you about Democrats


Here is a novel idea:

I wrote a post in which I countered your assertions made. Why don't YOU use YOUR words and try to compose a reply to MY words contained therein?


Why should he start now?

I did. Better question: when will YOU ever start to use YOUR OWN words to argue against MY words?:laugh2:

[April15]

So who do we get a "terms of surrender" from if we win? As the enemy is an idea the concept of "winning" is shallow. The best that can be achieved is a slowdown of attacks from the groups. And if the attacks come at 6 or 8 year intervals what have we really accomplished?

As for why good news is not news, do you have to ask?

[gabosaurus]

Winning WHAT?
The only folks who believe that the U.S. troops are "winning" are the Bush apologists and the extreme right-wing sites who are desperate to retain their audiences.
Even American military commanders are calling Iraq "a quagmire" and "a failure."

When are you idiots going to admit it?

[Gunny]

Winning WHAT?
The only folks who believe that the U.S. troops are "winning" are the Bush apologists and the extreme right-wing sites who are desperate to retain their audiences.
Even American military commanders are calling Iraq "a quagmire" and "a failure."

When are you idiots going to admit it?


The only people who believe we are losing are those who couldn't bear the thought that the US could be successful with a Republican President. Not to mention it would impeach every bullshit accusation we've had to listen to ad nauseum since 2003.

It's damned pathetic that there are those that would see this Nation lose simply to appease their bullshit, partisan beliefs.

[red states rule]

Winning WHAT?
The only folks who believe that the U.S. troops are "winning" are the Bush apologists and the extreme right-wing sites who are desperate to retain their audiences.
Even American military commanders are calling Iraq "a quagmire" and "a failure."

When are you idiots going to admit it?

Ask Reid and Pelosi - they are the ones who keep inserting a surrender date in spending bills

They have done it 41 times - and it failed everytime

[retiredman]

Ask Reid and Pelosi - they are the ones who keep inserting a surrender date in spending bills

They have done it 41 times - and it failed everytime

I would suggest that you use the word "surrender" correctly, or not at all.:lol:

[red states rule]

I would suggest that you use the word "surrender" correctly, or not at all.:lol:

That is exactly what your party wants and stands for

[retiredman]

That is exactly what your party wants and stands for

get a dictionary. find "surrender" read the definition, and then start using it correctly.

[red states rule]

get a dictionary. find "surrender" read the definition, and then start using it correctly.

Wanting to cut and run, and appease to the terrorists is surrender. Your party has spent 4 years smearing the troops, underminging the war effort, and cheered as the liberal media published classified information - you put your political future in the US losing in Iraq

John Murtha went as far as saying Marines kille din cold blood - now even he says the surge is working. (and at the same time taking a cheap shot at the Pentagon and losing his cool)

Go take your meds MM - your world is falling apart


John Murtha is the new Brian Baird
By Michelle Malkin • November 30, 2007 10:23 AM No, he still hasn’t apologized to the Haditha Marines he smeared and defamed. But John Murtha is back from Iraq and spreading the word that the “surge is working.”

Nancy Pelosi, reach for your Maalox.

The Politico reports on Murtha then and now:

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), one of the leading anti-war voices in the House Democratic Caucus, is back from a trip to Iraq and he now says the “surge is working.” This could be a huge problem for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders, who are blocking approval of the full $200 billion being sought by President Bush for combat operations in Iraq in 2008.

Murtha’s latest comments are also a stark reversal from what he said earlier in the year. The Pennsylvania Democrat, who chairs the powerful Defense subcommittee on the House Appropriations Committee, has previously stated that the surge “is not working” and the United States faced a military disaster in Iraq.

Murtha told CNN on July 12, following a Bush speech, that the president’s views on the success of surge in Iraq were “delusional.”

…Murtha even yelled at a reporter during a recent press conference, telling the reporter that the news coming out of the Pentagon regarding Iraq is not believable.

“They don’t need to do the things — you’re missing the point — because the Pentagon says it, you believe it?,” Murtha yelled. “You believe what the Pentagon says? Huh? With all the things that they have told us, you believe what — I mean, go back and look — ‘mission accomplished,’ al Qaeda connection, weapons of mass destruction, on and on and on, and you believe the Pentagon?”
Allahpundit takes you on a video trip down memory lane.

Reminder: Murtha has an Army vet challenger for his seat. Check him out.

Meantime, will the nutroots do to Murtha what they’ve done to Democrat Rep. Brian Baird?

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/30/john-murtha-is-the-new-brian-baird/

[manu1959]

get a dictionary. find "surrender" read the definition, and then start using it correctly.

if you withdraw from the field of battle thus "surrendering" the land.....and if you no longer engage the enemy have you not lost....would not the other side claim victory and see your actions as surrender?

[red states rule]

if you withdraw from the field of battle thus "surrendering" the land.....and if you no longer engage the enemy have you not lost....would not the other side claim victory and see your actions as surrender?

MM is stuck in a never ending spin mode. He will defend the Dems no matter if it does mean the lives of our troops and a win for the terrorists

Party before country with him

[retiredman]

if you withdraw from the field of battle thus "surrendering" the land.....and if you no longer engage the enemy have you not lost....would not the other side claim victory and see your actions as surrender?

To answer your question:


who cares?

it doesn't make it surrender and it certainly is lot "losing"

[red states rule]

To answer your question:


who cares?

it doesn't make it surrender and it certainly is lot "losing"

Not if you are hoping the terrorists win

[retiredman]

Not if you are hoping the terrorists win

what an asinine statement. why would anyone in America hope that the terrorists win?

and can you tell me who our enemy is now in Iraq? and how will they "win" if we step away and let Iraqis determine their own fate?

[manu1959]

To answer your question:

who cares?

it doesn't make it surrender and it certainly is lot "losing"

yes losing all your shit and quitting is victory ......

[red states rule]

what an asinine statement. why would anyone in America hope that the terrorists win?

and can you tell me who our enemy is now in Iraq? and how will they "win" if we step away and let Iraqis determine their own fate?

Libs have been telling us the war is lost, it is a quagmire, it is a slaughter house for the troops, and we can;t win

It is asinine for the Dems to be openly preaching a defeatest attitude, and invest in defeat for the US for political gain

So why do you support and defnd their actions?

[manu1959]

what an asinine statement. why would anyone in America hope that the terrorists win?

and can you tell me who our enemy is now in Iraq? and how will they "win" if we step away and let Iraqis determine their own fate?

we tried that with obl in somalia....they then hit the cole and the wtc twice the pentagon not to mention the nigerian embassies.....

[retiredman]

yes losing all your shit and quitting is victory ......

if I kick you to the curb and leave you bleeding as I walk away, that is "surrendering"?

and we would never "lose all our shit". the stuff we want, we'll take home with us and the stuff we don't we'll give to the Iraqi army. hardly "surrendering" to anyone!

[red states rule]

we tried that with obl in somalia....they then hit the cole and the wtc twice the pentagon not to mention the nigerian embassies.....


Bill's inaction gave us 9-11. Now Dems do not want Pres Bush to get the credit for a win in Iraq

[retiredman]

we tried that with obl in somalia....they then hit the cole and the wtc twice the pentagon not to mention the nigerian embassies.....

so you think we knew who OBL was when we were in Somalia? and you think that the first WTC attack came after somalia? Or does it all just sort of blend together for you in this neocon stream of consciousness?

[manu1959]

if I kick you to the curb and leave you bleeding as I walk away, that is "surrendering"?

and we would never "lose all our shit". the stuff we want, we'll take home with us and the stuff we don't we'll give to the Iraqi army. hardly "surrendering" to anyone!

if you turn your back on me as you walk away you will wish you surrendered properly.....

[red states rule]

so you think we knew who OBL was when we were in Somalia? and you think that the first WTC attack came after somalia? Or does it all just sort of blend together for you in this neocon stream of consciousness?

Still giving Bill a pass for not doing his job. Why am i not surprised?

[retiredman]

Bill's inaction gave us 9-11. Now Dems do not want Pres Bush to get the credit for a win in Iraq

Dubya's golf game after hearing the August 9th PDB had something to do with it, don't you think?

what about his complete lack of attention to anti-terrorism? Why did team Bush take money AWAY from the anti-terrorism efforts of the DoJ the day BEFORE 9/11?

[red states rule]

Dubya's golf game after hearing the August 9th PDB had something to do with it, don't you think?

what about his complete lack of attention to anti-terrorism? Why did team Bush take money AWAY from the anti-terrorism efforts of the DoJ the day BEFORE 9/11?

More Michael Moore crap?

Is that all you have?

Thanks to Pres Bush we have not been hit again - even with the left leaking and publishing classifed info on how we trak the terrorists

Keep waving the white flag MM - the terrorists know people like you are their only hope to win this war

[retiredman]

if you turn your back on me as you walk away you will wish you surrendered properly.....


oooo tough guy...

if I kick anyone to the curb and leave them bleeding and walk away, is that surrendering to them? yes or no?

[red states rule]

oooo tough guy...

if I kick anyone to the curb and leave them bleeding and walk away, is that surrendering to them? yes or no?

Given you"desire" to defeat the terrorists - ypu would run like hell and all that would be left would be a vapor trail

[retiredman]

More Michael Moore crap?

Is that all you have?

Thanks to Pres Bush we have not been hit again - even with the left leaking and publishing classifed info on how we trak the terrorists

Keep waving the white flag MM - the terrorists know people like you are their only hope to win this war


facts are tough to run away from, aren't they, RSR.

It is a fact that Asscroft removed $50+Million from the DoJ antiterrorism task force the day before 9/11.

and again...who exactly do you consider to be the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq? Is is Sadr and his army, is it sunni militias? is it Iran? is it AQ? who would "win" if we let Iraq settle their own political problem and started to focus on rooting out islamic extremism throughout the region and the world instead of babysitting one country's sectarian problem?

[red states rule]

facts are tough to run away from, aren't they, RSR.

It is a fact that Asscroft removed $50+Million from the DoJ antiterrorism task force the day before 9/11.

and again...who exactly do you consider to be the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq? Is is Sadr and his army, is it sunni militias? is it Iran? is it AQ? who would "win" if we let Iraq settle their own political problem and started to focus on rooting out islamic extremism throughout the region and the world instead of babysitting one country's sectarian problem?

and Clinton did nothing after 5 attacks - which gave us 9-11

Keep trying to spin and moving the goalposts further back.

Libs were giddy when the troops were dying in large numbers, and car bombs went off - now the liberal media all but ignores the progress being made

[manu1959]

so you think we knew who OBL was when we were in Somalia? and you think that the first WTC attack came after somalia? Or does it all just sort of blend together for you in this neocon stream of consciousness?

wtcI feb 1993 ..... somalia october 1993 ..... 1998 embassy bombings..... cole in 2000

you are right i had my dates reversed....

still the point is the same......we don't respond...they beat us to the curb and leave us bloody.....we have become pussies and they know it....wait till we pull out of iraq....

[retiredman]

and Clinton did nothing after 5 attacks - which gave us 9-11

Keep trying to spin and moving the goalposts further back.

Libs were giddy when the troops were dying in large numbers, and car bombs went off - now the liberal media all but ignores the progress being made


Liberals were NOT "giddy" when our troops were dying in large numbers. That is a profoundly slanderous and insulting statement. :fu:

can't quite escape that Asscroft budget move, can you?:laugh2:

[82Marine89]

facts are tough to run away from, aren't they, RSR.

It is a fact that Asscroft removed $50+Million from the DoJ antiterrorism task force the day before 9/11.

And that caused the attacks to happen. Amazing what terrorists can do in a 24 hour period. BTW, nice attack on his name.


and again...who exactly do you consider to be the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq? Is is Sadr and his army, is it sunni militias? is it Iran? is it AQ? who would "win" if we let Iraq settle their own political problem and started to focus on rooting out islamic extremism throughout the region and the world instead of babysitting one country's sectarian problem?

D. All of the above

[manu1959]

oooo tough guy...

if I kick anyone to the curb and leave them bleeding and walk away, is that surrendering to them? yes or no?

but you aren't ....they aren't bleeding at all...they know you will give up and walk away claiming victory ....then they will attack again...they did it about five times under clinton ......

[retiredman]

wtcI feb 1993 ..... somalia october 1993 ..... 1998 embassy bombings..... cole in 2000

you are right i had my dates reversed....

still the point is the same......we don't respond...they beat us to the curb and leave us bloody.....we have become pussies and they know it....wait till we pull out of iraq....

oh...we respond. 19 guys, mostly from Saudi Arabia attack us and we initially seem to be headed in the right direction and start to seek them out in Afghanistan, and then, get ourselves embroiled in a fight in Iraq that we were foolish enough to start!

I am all for fighting the bad guys. Iraq is not the place. Iraq was ONE place where wahabbist extremist were NOT welcome, and then we fucked that up.

[red states rule]

Liberals were NOT "giddy" when our troops were dying in large numbers. That is a profoundly slanderous and insulting statement. :fu:

can't quite escape that Asscroft budget move, can you?:laugh2:

Everytime there were troops deaths Dems rushed to the press room to rant - now the deaths are way down they say nothing

The liberal media is no longer leading off their nightly broadcasts with news from Iraq - I wonder why?

Yes they were giddy, and they hoped their deasd bodies would take them to the promise land of surrender

[red states rule]

oh...we respond. 19 guys, mostly from Saudi Arabia attack us and we initially seem to be headed in the right direction and start to seek them out in Afghanistan, and then, get ourselves embroiled in a fight in Iraq that we were foolish enough to start!

I am all for fighting the bad guys. Iraq is not the place. Iraq was ONE place where wahabbist extremist were NOT welcome, and then we fucked that up.

No you are for whatever your party leaders tell you be for. In this case surrender and appeasement of terrorists - you see it as a defeat for Pres Bush, and nothing else

[retiredman]

No you are for whatever your party leaders tell you be for. In this case surrender and appeasement of terrorists - you see it as a defeat for Pres Bush, and nothing else

look. little man. please don't presume to tell me what I am for, or how I see anything. you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

[red states rule]

look. little man. please don't presume to tell me what I am for, or how I see anything. you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

You do whatever the hell your leaders tell you. No matter what they say or do yopu give them a pass - even when they smear and screw the troops

I do know what I am talking about - a defeatest asshole who has put his party ahead of his country

[manu1959]

oh...we respond. 19 guys, mostly from Saudi Arabia attack us and we initially seem to be headed in the right direction and start to seek them out in Afghanistan, and then, get ourselves embroiled in a fight in Iraq that we were foolish enough to start!

I am all for fighting the bad guys. Iraq is not the place. Iraq was ONE place where wahabbist extremist were NOT welcome, and then we fucked that up.

them being from SA and them being backed by SA govt are two different things so drop that one unless you want to go after yemen as well....that argument is lame and you know it ....

i agree we fucked up and went into iraq.....we should have camped out in afganistan and fought the war we are in the middle of there.....in the mountains were the USSR lost their country.....seems iraq was the better place to fight the war so they made up a reason treaty and un resolution violations to fight it there.....urban and dessert warfare is more up the us military alley since they are forced to fight the war by the rules of the us media and politicians....did we learn nothing in korea, vietnam, rawand and somalia....

as for me.....i have said for decades....no us miltary anywhere but on us soil.....no foriegn aid period.....invest in and defend america.....

[gabosaurus]

You have to agree with the logic shown. The ring leaders of the attack were hiding out in Pakistan. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, funded by the Saudi royal family.
So we invaded -- Iraq?
Yeah, THAT made a lot of sense... :rolleyes:

[red states rule]

You have to agree with the logic shown. The ring leaders of the attack were hiding out in Pakistan. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, funded by the Saudi royal family.
So we invaded -- Iraq?
Yeah, THAT made a lot of sense... :rolleyes:

and AQ is all but destroyed in Iraq - much to the dismay of the left who were doing all they could to help them win

[retiredman]

and AQ is all but destroyed in Iraq - much to the dismay of the left who were doing all they could to help them win


I am quite pleased that the minor franchise operation that took the name Al Qaeda in Iraq is failing. Sunni wahabbist extremism was never going to go over very well in a country where most of the sunnis were baathists anyway.

[red states rule]

I am quite pleased that the minor franchise operation that took the name Al Qaeda in Iraq is failing. Sunni wahabbist extremism was never going to go over very well in a country where most of the sunnis were baathists anyway.

Keep downplaying the good news - that is all you guys left

Your worst nightmare is coming true - and your kook base is going to war with your Dems in Congress

[retiredman]

Keep downplaying the good news - that is all you guys left

Your worst nightmare is coming true - and your kook base is going to war with your Dems in Congress

I am downplaying nothing. The ONLY real good news I want to hear about is our departure from Iraq..and that will only happen when Iraqi politicians decide that they want to form a peaceful country made up of three disparate and distrustful sects.

And your wild predictions of a democratic collapse in congress are unfounded.....but cute!

[red states rule]

I am downplaying nothing. The ONLY real good news I want to hear about is our departure from Iraq..and that will only happen when Iraqi politicians decide that they want to form a peaceful country made up of three disparate and distrustful sects.

And your wild predictions of a democratic collapse in congress are unfounded.....but cute!

I know you are pushing for surrender - all of us have know that for over a year

You and your party want the US to lose in Iraq - you think it helps your party. You see it as a loss for Pres Bush, and could not care less if it strengthens the resolve of the terrorists

[retiredman]

I know you are pushing for surrender - all of us have know that for over a year

You and your party want the US to lose in Iraq - you think it helps your party. You see it as a loss for Pres Bush, and could not care less if it strengthens the resolve of the terrorists

that is a silly and insulting Rush line that you keep mimicing. No democrat WANTS America to lose the war against islamic extremism. Many patriotic americans, like myself, strongly believe that we WILL lose that war if we don't allow Iraq to solve its own problems and, as quickly as possible, start fighting the real war we ought to have been fighting all along.

[red states rule]

that is a silly and insulting Rush line that you keep mimicing. No democrat WANTS America to lose the war against islamic extremism. Many patriotic americans, like myself, strongly believe that we WILL lose that war if we don't allow Iraq to solve its own problems and, as quickly as possible, start fighting the real war we ought to have been fighting all along.

You and your party have done everything possible to undermine the troops and the war. From your contant smears of the troops, to leaking classified info, to demanding US Constitutional rights to terrorists

The liberal media was reporting troops deaths every night - now nothing as the deaths drop and they ignore the progress

Dems were hoping for the US to lose - now they see we may win.

They will not stand by and let it happen - now they are screwing the troops by not funding them

[retiredman]

You and your party have done everything possible to undermine the troops and the war. From your contant smears of the troops, to leaking classified info, to demanding US Constitutional rights to terrorists

The liberal media was reporting troops deaths every night - now nothing as the deaths drop and they ignore the progress

Dems were hoping for the US to lose - now they see we may win.

They will not stand by and let it happen - now they are screwing the troops by not funding them


I have done NOTHING to undermine our troops. I have never smeared them. I have never leaked classified information. I have never demanded constitutional rights for terrorists. please retract your libelous and insulting first paragraph.

I'll wait.

[red states rule]

I have done NOTHING to undermine our troops. I have never smeared them. I have never leaked classified information. I have never demanded constitutional rights for terrorists. please retract your libelous and insulting first paragraph.

I'll wait.

but you have defended your party when they have done all the above. You support their surrender and appeasement platform - and never spoke out against the smears and insults leveled at the troops from your party

[retiredman]

but you have defended your party when they have done all the above. You support their surrender and appeasement platform - and never spoke out against the smears and insults leveled at the troops from your party

bullshit. and beyond that, your post states that I had done all of those things. retract it.

[red states rule]

bullshit. and beyond that, your post states that I had done all of those things. retract it.

Truth hurts MM?

To bad. You have kissed the ass of the Dems as they gave the one finger salute to the troops

[retiredman]

Truth hurts MM?

To bad. You have kissed the ass of the Dems as they gave the one finger salute to the troops

you are a slanderous liar. we're done here. Let me know when you wish to retract your lie.

[red states rule]

you are a slanderous liar. we're done here. Let me know when you wish to retract your lie.

Guilty conscience MM?

Even Harry "the war is lost" Reid wishes he did not use the word lost. Seems you are regretting all your defense of the Dems slander toward the troops

[red states rule]

Libs were saying how Iraq would be the #1 issue in 08

I wonder what happened to blow that out of the water? Maybe the fact the US is winning?


In N.H., Iraq war fading as key issue
Candidates hearing more from voters on economic anxieties
By Jill Zuckman | Tribune national correspondent
12:55 AM CST, December 12, 2007

MANCHESTER, N.H.—Up on Gunstock Mountain last week, not a single voter in a packed ski lodge asked Sen. Hillary Clinton about the Iraq war.

The closest Sen. John McCain came to Iraq during a town hall meeting in Bedford was a question about U.S. intelligence on Iran.

And at a crowded house party for former Sen. John Edwards, only one person spoke up to ask how he plans to end combat missions and bring the troops home.

Not long ago it was the issue that dominated every campaign event and speech. Now the war in Iraq has dramatically receded as a campaign topic, giving way to preoccupations closer to home -- the price of heating oil, the collapse of the real estate market and the high cost of health care.

"Iraq is fading as an important issue," said Andrew Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. "It's been declining since the late spring and early summer on both the Republican side and the Democratic side."

Among Democrats in New Hampshire, 57 percent said in June that the Iraq war was the issue most important to them, but by November that had dropped to 41 percent. Among Republicans, 36 percent said in June that they were most concerned about Iraq, and by November that figure was down to 22 percent, according to Smith's state polling.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-071212warvote-story,1,1083453.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

[glockmail]

I have done NOTHING to undermine our troops. I have never smeared them. I have never leaked classified information. I have never demanded constitutional rights for terrorists. please retract your libelous and insulting first paragraph.

I'll wait.


you are a slanderous liar. we're done here. Let me know when you wish to retract your lie.

When called to the mat MM runs away.

[retiredman]

When called to the mat MM runs away.

I just got back from taking an 90 year old member of my congregation to the hospital for a test. And I'll have to go back soon and bring her back home. I am not surprised you would characterize that as running away. When given the chance, glock will join any conversation for the sole purpose of nipping at a liberal's heels like the yappy little dog that he is. pretty cowardly, if you ask me!

[retiredman]

Guilty conscience MM?

Even Harry "the war is lost" Reid wishes he did not use the word lost. Seems you are regretting all your defense of the Dems slander toward the troops

my conscience is clear. How about yours, you lying slanderous asshole?

[glockmail]

I just got back from taking an 90 year old member of my congregation to the hospital for a test. And I'll have to go back soon and bring her back home. I am not surprised you would characterize that as running away. When given the chance, glock will join any conversation for the sole purpose of nipping at a liberal's heels like the yappy little dog that he is. pretty cowardly, if you ask me! I calls it likes I sees it. Your insults are due to your inabilty to admit defeat.

[retiredman]

I calls it likes I sees it. Your insults are due to your inabilty to admit defeat.

explain for the audience where you have "defeated" me in this thread.

I'll wait.:laugh2:

[Immanuel]

explain for the audience where you have "defeated" me in this thread.

I'll wait.:laugh2:

What audience? Most of us quit reading this thread 80 posts ago. I keep coming back to see if anything has changed and keep finding the same old thing. :)

Immie

[glockmail]

explain for the audience where you have "defeated" me in this thread.

I'll wait.:laugh2:


When you stopped arguing and started using insults. It's a pattern with you.

[glockmail]

What audience? Most of us quit reading this thread 80 posts ago. I keep coming back to see if anything has changed and keep finding the same old thing. :)

Immie Same here.

[retiredman]

an insult free post:

I believe that our adventure in Iraq cannot be "won" militarily even if our troops win ever battle and prevail in every skirmish. I think that America to "win" in Iraq will take the successful actions of people outside our control. I believe that for America to "win" in Iraq will take the herculean efforts of Iraqi politicians to put aside a thousand plus years of enmity and distrust and find some way to have shiites, sunnis and kurds all live together in one country and somehow share the benefits of its natural resources in such a way as to maintain some level of domestic tranquility. The mission of the "surge" was to provide some "space" from the sectarian violence so that those politicians could begin to forge that structure. Clearly, the US military has done their job and, as always, done it splendidly. That is all we can do. But, without the success on the Iraqi political front, all that military success will not translate into a "victory". The surge will have to wind down in early 2008. We do not have the troop strength to maintain those sorts of troop levels in the combat area. This surge is providing a window of opportunity for the Iraqi leaders. What will we do when the window closes and they have not taken advantage of it?

[glockmail]

an insult free post:

I believe that our adventure in Iraq cannot be "won" militarily even if our troops win ever battle and prevail in every skirmish. I think that America to "win" in Iraq will take the successful actions of people outside our control. I believe that for America to "win" in Iraq will take the herculean efforts of Iraqi politicians to put aside a thousand plus years of enmity and distrust and find some way to have shiites, sunnis and kurds all live together in one country and somehow share the benefits of its natural resources in such a way as to maintain some level of domestic tranquility. The mission of the "surge" was to provide some "space" from the sectarian violence so that those politicians could begin to forge that structure. Clearly, the US military has done their job and, as always, done it splendidly. That is all we can do. But, without the success on the Iraqi political front, all that military success will not translate into a "victory". The surge will have to wind down in early 2008. We do not have the troop strength to maintain those sorts of troop levels in the combat area. This surge is providing a window of opportunity for the Iraqi leaders. What will we do when the window closes and they have not taken advantage of it?
Its not a herculean effort to live in peace. When sunnis/ shiites students spend time in the US they live and work together peacefully, even so with Jews. When they go back to the middle east they resume fighting. The reason is that the political atmosphere requires it. Our continued presence has calmed them, and will continue to do so, even as we reduce our numbers. We have a common enemy with them as well as a common interest. Many others have sucessfully beaten swords into plows and muslims can do the same.

[retiredman]

Its not a herculean effort to live in peace. When sunnis/ shiites students spend time in the US they live and work together peacefully, even so with Jews. When they go back to the middle east they resume fighting. The reason is that the political atmosphere requires it. Our continued presence has calmed them, and will continue to do so, even as we reduce our numbers. We have a common enemy with them as well as a common interest. Many others have sucessfully beaten swords into plows and muslims can do the same.

that is your opinion. I do not share it. we should respectfully agree to disagree. I do not believe that Iraqi sunnis and shiites will be able to forge a multiethnic democracy. you disagree with that. so be it.

[glockmail]

that is your opinion. I do not share it. we should respectfully agree to disagree. I do not believe that Iraqi sunnis and shiites will be able to forge a multiethnic democracy. you disagree with that. so be it. That’s a cop-out on your part. Again we see your pattern here. Instead of conceding the point you claim that your unjustified opinion is equal to mine. My opinion has a basis in fact; yours does not and is therefore a weak position.

Different ethnicities, religions and races live together in peace wherever there is fairness and justice. Are you suggesting that the people in the Middle East are somehow less human, or less capable of creating such an environment?

The fact that leaders of your party hold the same opinion and spout it off in public is damaging to the goals of this Administration, the goals of the US, as well as the safety of our troops. If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi just SHUT UP we’d probably be a lot further along right now.

[retiredman]

That’s a cop-out on your part. Again we see your pattern here. Instead of conceding the point you claim that your unjustified opinion is equal to mine. My opinion has a basis in fact; yours does not and is therefore a weak position.

Different ethnicities, religions and races live together in peace wherever there is fairness and justice. Are you suggesting that the people in the Middle East are somehow less human, or less capable of creating such an environment?

The fact that leaders of your party hold the same opinion and spout it off in public is damaging to the goals of this Administration, the goals of the US, as well as the safety of our troops. If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi just SHUT UP we’d probably be a lot further along right now.

It is not a cop out. you claim, without factual justification, that democracy will miraculously heal the millennium old wounds between Shiite and Sunni in Iraq...or even that it will make the Shiites in Iraq forget their treatment for the last three decades at the hands of Sunni baathists. No justification. Just your opinion, which is based upon ZERO experience with that culture.

On the other hand, I have lived in the middle east, and I have witnessed the enmity that exists between those sects, and I have gained a greater understanding than you have about how the arab mind operates and the way it prioritizes loyalties. And even then, all I have is MY opinion with little justification other than personal observation and study. The arab mind operates differently than the western mind does. Their ethics are different. Their upbringing stresses different values. They are certainly NOT less human or less capable of creating an environment of democracy, they are just not culturally driven to want multicultural Jeffersonian democracy. The would never let their loyalties (family THEN clan THEN tribe THEN sect) be compromised in the ways such a democracy would demand - IMHO.

That being said, I disagree with you. You cannot sit here today and prove that democracy will work in Iraq...I cannot prove that it won't.

And if the democrats all shut up even when they truly believe we are headed down the wrong path, they wouldn't be very good public servants and it wouldn't be much of a democracy, would it?

[glockmail]

It is not a cop out. you claim, without factual justification, that democracy will miraculously heal the millennium old wounds between Shiite and Sunni in Iraq...or even that it will make the Shiites in Iraq forget their treatment for the last three decades at the hands of Sunni baathists. No justification. Just your opinion, which is based upon ZERO experience with that culture.

On the other hand, I have lived in the middle east, and I have witnessed the enmity that exists between those sects, and I have gained a greater understanding than you have about how the arab mind operates and the way it prioritizes loyalties. And even then, all I have is MY opinion with little justification other than personal observation and study. The arab mind operates differently than the western mind does. Their ethics are different. Their upbringing stresses different values. They are certainly NOT less human or less capable of creating an environment of democracy, they are just not culturally driven to want multicultural Jeffersonian democracy. The would never let their loyalties (family THEN clan THEN tribe THEN sect) be compromised in the ways such a democracy would demand - IMHO.

That being said, I disagree with you. You cannot sit here today and prove that democracy will work in Iraq...I cannot prove that it won't.

And if the democrats all shut up even when they truly believe we are headed down the wrong path, they wouldn't be very good public servants and it wouldn't be much of a democracy, would it?


The true face of the Democrat finally arises: racist, bigoted.

[retiredman]

The true face of the Democrat finally arises: racist, bigoted.


not in the least. To attempt to expect the world to conform to YOUR judeo-christian ethic is the height of bigotry.

Let me suggest some light reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Arab-Mind-Raphael-Patai/dp/1578261171

[glockmail]

not in the least. To attempt to expect the world to conform to YOUR judeo-christian ethic is the height of bigotry.

Let me suggest some light reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Arab-Mind-Raphael-Patai/dp/1578261171

My bullshit detector just went off big time.

Are 2nd generation Arab-Americans any different than 2nd generation Irish-Americans? Their minds react similar. The mood in Dearborn, Michigan after 9-11 was unremarkably similar to the mood in South Boston.

We see your bigotry raise its ugly head. So THIS is what you're all about, eh?:pee:

[retiredman]

My bullshit detector just went off big time.

Are 2nd generation Arab-Americans any different than 2nd generation Irish-Americans? Their minds react similar. The mood in Dearborn, Michigan after 9-11 was unremarkably similar to the mood in South Boston.

We see your bigotry raise its ugly head. So THIS is what you're all about, eh?:pee:

two questions:

why are you comparing Irishmen and Arabs?

Are 2nd generation arabs raised in an arab culture?

[glockmail]

two questions:

why are you comparing Irishmen and Arabs?

Are 2nd generation arabs raised in an arab culture?

1. To make my point.
2. Yes.

[retiredman]

1. Irishmen and Arabs - especially those from Ireland and Arabia - are from two completely different cultures. The culture in Ireland is lightyears closer to the culture in America than the culture in Arabia is, so your comparison is fatally flawed.

2. no...they are not. they are raised in an arab household, not an arab culture. they are raised in an american culture. they are surrounded by American language and currency and customs and laws.

[glockmail]

1. Irishmen and Arabs - especially those from Ireland and Arabia - are from two completely different cultures. The culture in Ireland is lightyears closer to the culture in America than the culture in Arabia is, so your comparison is fatally flawed.

2. no...they are not. they are raised in an arab household, not an arab culture. they are raised in an american culture. they are surrounded by American language and currency and customs and laws.

Tell that to my grandpa, who sipped whiskey and listened to Irish music on the hi-fi every day until he died. Then tell that to our friend in South Boston during the 70's and 80's, who were financially supportive to those nice young men who ran the IRA.

[red states rule]

Tell that to my grandpa, who sipped whiskey and listened to Irish music on the hi-fi every day until he died. Then tell that to our friend in South Boston during the 70's and 80's, who were financially supportive to those nice young men who ran the IRA.

MM has to wait for his talking points to come in via fax

cut him some slack

[retiredman]

Tell that to my grandpa, who sipped whiskey and listened to Irish music on the hi-fi every day until he died. Then tell that to our friend in South Boston during the 70's and 80's, who were financially supportive to those nice young men who ran the IRA.


my grandmother came over on the boat from County Cork. The culture of Ireland is closer to the culture of the United States than is the culture of arab countries. That is a fact. and talk about your grandpa seems like ....dare I say it...a "deflection"! :laugh2:

[retiredman]

oh boy glock. you're in luck. reinforcements have arrived!:lol:

[retiredman]

MM has to wait for his talking points to come in via fax

cut him some slack

wow.

for someone who relies on cut and paste op-ed pieces for 99% of his material, that is really an incredibly funny comment!:laugh2:

[glockmail]

my grandmother came over on the boat from County Cork. The culture of Ireland is closer to the culture of the United States than is the culture of arab countries. That is a fact. and talk about your grandpa seems like ....dare I say it...a "deflection"! :laugh2: Tell that to the people of Northern Ireland. The Irish-Catholic hated them enough to commit acts of terrorism.

Deflection is when you skip around the point like you do so well. The example of my Granpap was to prove a point.

[red states rule]

wow.

for someone who relies on cut and paste op-ed pieces for 99% of his material, that is really an incredibly funny comment!:laugh2:

Only you call facts that back up my points "cut and paste"

Of course seeing facts that destroy your liberal rants does not go well with you

[retiredman]

Only you call facts that back up my points "cut and paste"

Of course seeing facts that destroy your liberal rants does not go well with you


your "points" are entirely contained within the cut and paste articles that you spam the board with. You have proven time and time again that you are either unwilling or incapable of writing anything original of any significance or of carrying on a conversation that includes anything other than stock, well worn one liners.

If, just once, you would write something of substance yourself, and then intelligently try to defend it, I would be truly amazed.

[red states rule]

your "points" are entirely contained within the cut and paste articles that you spam the board with. You have proven time and time again that you are either unwilling or incapable of writing anything original of any significance or of carrying on a conversation that includes anything other than stock, well worn one liners.

If, just once, you would write something of substance yourself, and then intelligently try to defend it, I would be truly amazed.

Facts to a lib like you is like sunlight to a vampire

[retiredman]

Tell that to the people of Northern Ireland. The Irish-Catholic hated them enough to commit acts of terrorism.

Deflection is when you skip around the point like you do so well. The example of my Granpap was to prove a point.

Regardless of the cultural differences between catholics and protestants in northern ireland, those differences pale in comparison to the difference between ANY and EVERY society based on judeo-christian ethics and ones based on islamic/arab cultural values.

and the fact that your grandfather was a drunk who listened to Irish music does not PROVE anything.

[retiredman]

Facts to a lib like you is like sunlight to a vampire


did you post that well worn one liner to PROVE my point???? :lol:

[red states rule]

did you post that well worn one liner to PROVE my point???? :lol:

My posts destroy your liberal BS

BTW this thread should interest you

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=9621

[glockmail]

Regardless of the cultural differences between catholics and protestants in northern ireland, those differences pale in comparison to the difference between ANY and EVERY society based on judeo-christian ethics and ones based on islamic/arab cultural values.

and the fact that your grandfather was a drunk who listened to Irish music does not PROVE anything.

1. Tell that to the Iranian-American who I work for, or the Sudanese-Muslim American that I hired to work for me! The fact is, Arabs have the same proclivity to co-exist with each other as Europeans. You don't agree- because you are a racist.

Grandpap was a sipper not a drinker. There's that reading comprehension problem of yours again. :laugh2:

[retiredman]

1. Tell that to the Iranian-American who I work for, or the Sudanese-Muslim American that I hired to work for me! The fact is, Arabs have the same proclivity to co-exist with each other as Europeans. You don't agree- because you are a racist.

Grandpap was a sipper not a drinker. There's that reading comprehension problem of yours again. :laugh2:

Your "fact" is nothing of the sort, but only your opinion.

a sipper, eh? is that what your grandma told you? I know lots of folks who "sip" Irish whiskey every day ;) ... that is not reading comprehension....that is an example of your denial.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

Your "fact" is nothing of the sort, but only your opinion.

a sipper, eh? is that what your grandma told you? I know lots of folks who "sip" Irish whiskey every day ;) ... that is not reading comprehension....that is an example of your denial.:laugh2:

More racism from the party of love and tolerance

[retiredman]

More racism from the party of love and tolerance

racism? how? I am half Irish!!!!:lol:

[Dilloduck]

Facts to a lib like you is like sunlight to a vampire

If you think that
Facts to a lib like you is like sunlight to a vampire, what is your purpose in trying to reason with them by using facts?

[red states rule]

If you think that , what is your purpose in trying to reason with them by using facts?

Using facts in a debate is the norm - and watching a lib like MM flip out is fun to watch

[glockmail]

Your "fact" is nothing of the sort, but only your opinion.

a sipper, eh? is that what your grandma told you? I know lots of folks who "sip" Irish whiskey every day ;) ... that is not reading comprehension....that is an example of your denial.:laugh2:

My opinion is based on actual personal and professional experience with arabs and muslims in an environment where justice and freedom prevail. According to my Iranian-American client, the current leaders in Iran are "crazy". Before I hired the Sudanese guy, I asked him point blank how he'd handle a Southern Christian questioning his religion, and his response was "we both have the same God".

You opinion can only be attributed to bigotry.

I suggest that you stop discussing my grandparents in such a hateful manner with your unjustified accusations. I realize that a racist and bigot can't help to equate "Irish" and "drunk", but in order to avoid a long term battle like we just ended I ask that you refrain from verbalizing your thoughts here.

[glockmail]

racism? how? I am half Irish!!!!:lol:Self-loathing: a trait of liberals.

[red states rule]

Self-loathing: a trait of liberals.

MM just can't accept the facts how the troops are not only defeating the terrorists in Iraq - thye are defeating the terrroists allies in DC

Dems are losing badly to the US military and the pressure is building for them to pass the funding bill

[Dilloduck]

Using facts in a debate is the norm - and watching a lib like MM flip out is fun to watch

Seems to be a lot of that going around then. I think it's kind of sad when Americans think it's fun to intentionally piss each other off. If we are truly debating issues, we sure have an odd way of doing it.

[red states rule]

Seems to be a lot of that going around then. I think it's kind of sad when Americans think it's fun to intentionally piss each other off. If we are truly debating issues, we sure have an odd way of doing it.

If posting facts to back up my posts is intentionally pissing libs off - I plead guility

[Dilloduck]

If posting facts to back up my posts is intentionally pissing libs off - I plead guility

Do you also plead guilty of actually liking to watch your fellow American "flip out" ?

[red states rule]

Do you also plead guilty of actually liking to watch your fellow American "flip out" ?

I do enjoy watching libs flip out when they can't counter the truth. All the left has is emotion and they are, for the most part, devoid of facts

[retiredman]

My opinion is based on actual personal and professional experience with arabs and muslims in an environment where justice and freedom prevail. According to my Iranian-American client, the current leaders in Iran are "crazy". Before I hired the Sudanese guy, I asked him point blank how he'd handle a Southern Christian questioning his religion, and his response was "we both have the same God".

You opinion can only be attributed to bigotry.

I suggest that you stop discussing my grandparents in such a hateful manner with your unjustified accusations. I realize that a racist and bigot can't help to equate "Irish" and "drunk", but in order to avoid a long term battle like we just ended I ask that you refrain from verbalizing your thoughts here.

you opinion is based on experience with muslims in a judeo-christian environment. It is, therefore, irrelevant. We will never succeed in supplanting arabic culture with judeo-christian culture. Crusades of that sort do not sit well with the inhabitants of the region for good reason.

and my opinion can be attributed to many things - you are waaaaay too fond of your own absolute pronouncements! My opinion IS, in fact, attributed to experience IN an arab culture where I was the Christian in a region of nearly entirely muslims. You cannot match that experience or the insight such experience provides.

And I meant no disrespect to your grandfather. my grandfather "sipped" bourbon every day. He was from Texas and even though he married a colleen from cork, he never developed a taste for irish whiskey.

[glockmail]

Do you also plead guilty of actually liking to watch your fellow American "flip out" ?
When said fellow American is working hard to "zing" me, yes. :laugh2:

[red states rule]

When said fellow American is working hard to "zing" me, yes. :laugh2:

and is sprewing the usual blame Amercia first BS

[glockmail]

you opinion is based on experience with muslims in a judeo-christian environment. It is, therefore, irrelevant. We will never succeed in supplanting arabic culture with judeo-christian culture. Crusades of that sort do not sit well with the inhabitants of the region for good reason.

and my opinion can be attributed to many things - you are waaaaay too fond of your own absolute pronouncements! My opinion IS, in fact, attributed to experience IN an arab culture where I was the Christian in a region of nearly entirely muslims. You cannot match that experience or the insight such experience provides.

And I meant no disrespect to your grandfather. my grandfather "sipped" bourbon every day. He was from Texas and even though he married a colleen from cork, he never developed a taste for irish whiskey.

1. My experience is based in an environment of Christian values where justice and fairness prevails. The Muslim religion is based on Christianity and its values. Your experience appears to from a culture where those values have been allowed to be bastardized. Your experience as a minority in that bastardized culture appears to have made you a bigot, based on your earlier statements.
2. Wow. Look who’s complaining of fondness for absolute pronouncements! :lol:
3. A manly apology would be more acceptable to me than a weasely “I meant no disrespect”. It is clear to anyone what you meant. Your lack of honesty in these situations is the man reason that so many dislike you.

[red states rule]

1. My experience is based in an environment of Christian values where justice and fairness prevails. The Muslim religion is based on Christianity and its values. Your experience appears to from a culture where those values have been allowed to be bastardized. Your experience as a minority in that bastardized culture appears to have made you a bigot, based on your earlier statements.
2. Wow. Look who’s complaining of fondness for absolute pronouncements! :lol:
3. A manly apology would be more acceptable to me than a weasely “I meant no disrespect”. It is clear to anyone what you meant. Your lack of honesty in these situations is the man reason that so many dislike you.

MM offering a manly apology? You might as well ask Ted Kennedy to go on the wagon and Bill Clinton to be loyal to Hillary

[retiredman]

1. My experience is based in an environment of Christian values where justice and fairness prevails. The Muslim religion is based on Christianity and its values. Your experience appears to from a culture where those values have been allowed to be bastardized. Your experience as a minority in that bastardized culture appears to have made you a bigot, based on your earlier statements.
2. Wow. Look who’s complaining of fondness for absolute pronouncements! :lol:
3. A manly apology would be more acceptable to me than a weasely “I meant no disrespect”. It is clear to anyone what you meant. Your lack of honesty in these situations is the man reason that so many dislike you.
1. The muslim religion is based upon Christianity? no. it is not. It is based upon the writings of Mohammed. Islam considers many of the prophets of Judaism as prophets in Islam and it considers Jesus a prophet as well, but it is hardly "based upon Christianity. And your perceptions of my experiences are inaccurate.
2. I call 'em as I see 'em
3. If I offended you or your dear grandfather in any way by suggesting that someone who drank whiskey every day might be a drunk, I sincerely apologize. I meant no disrespect.

[glockmail]

1. The muslim religion is based upon Christianity? no. it is not. It is based upon the writings of Mohammed. Islam considers many of the prophets of Judaism as prophets in Islam and it considers Jesus a prophet as well, but it is hardly "based upon Christianity. And your perceptions of my experiences are inaccurate.
2. I call 'em as I see 'em
3. If I offended you or your dear grandfather in any way by suggesting that someone who drank whiskey every day might be a drunk, I sincerely apologize. I meant no disrespect.
1. Muslims consider Jesus to be the greatest prophet. Therefore they rely heavily on his ethics, just as those who believe He is the Christ.
2. So how do you call your statements earlier?
3. This is a thickly veiled insult. Many people drink whiskey daily. In fact the moderate use of alcohol is recommended by most doctors.

[retiredman]

1. Muslims consider Jesus to be the greatest prophet. Therefore they rely heavily on his ethics, just as those who believe He is the Christ.
2. So how do you call your statements earlier?
3. This is a thickly veiled insult. Many people drink whiskey daily. In fact the moderate use of alcohol is recommended by most doctors.
1. Christianity is based upon the divinity and resurrection of Jesus as well as his teachings. Islam considers Jesus a mortal messenger no different than Adam or Moses. Oh...and I am pretty sure, if you ask your muslim buddies, they will tell you that they consider Mohammed to be the "greatest prophet" ;)
2. to which of my statements do you refer?
3. No insult intended -veiled or otherwise. MY doctor recommends I consume a glass of red wine every day, but demanded that I refrain from distilled spirits.

[glockmail]

1. Christianity is based upon the divinity and resurrection of Jesus as well as his teachings. Islam considers Jesus a mortal messenger no different than Adam or Moses. Oh...and I am pretty sure, if you ask your muslim buddies, they will tell you that they consider Mohammed to be the "greatest prophet" ;)
2. to which of my statements do you refer?
3. No insult intended -veiled or otherwise. MY doctor recommends I consume a glass of red wine every day, but demanded that I refrain from distilled spirits.
1. I have asked them. It appears that you haven’t learned much living among our Muslim brothers:

In Islam, Jesus (Arabic: عيسى, commonly transliterated as Isa) is considered one of God's most beloved and important prophets, a bringer of divine scripture, a worker of miracles, and the Messiah. However, Muslims do not share the Christian belief in the crucifixion or divinity of Jesus. Muslims believe that Jesus' crucifixion was a divine illusion and that he ascended bodily to heaven. Most Muslims also believe that he will return to the earth in the company of the Mahdi once the earth has become full of sin and injustice at the time of the arrival of Islam's Antichrist-like Dajjal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
2. Post 137, 2nd paragraph.
3. As you were the one who performed the infraction, I am the one who judges the penance.
4. You need to question your doctor more thoroughly. Although red wine is a good anti-oxidant, dark fruits are actually better, and more recent studies have found that all types of alcoholic beverages have equally desirable effects.

[retiredman]

1. as I said:
Christianity is based upon the divinity and resurrection of Jesus as well as his teachings. Islam considers Jesus a mortal messenger no different than Adam or Moses. Oh...and I am pretty sure, if you ask your muslim buddies, they will tell you that they consider Mohammed to be the "greatest prophet" and if your buddies do NOT tell you that Mohammed is the greatest prophet, you should question their credentials.
as YOUR link said:
Jesus (Arabic: عيسى, commonly transliterated as Isa) is considered one of God's most beloved and important prophets, a bringer of divine scripture, a worker of miracles, and the Messiah. However, Muslims do not share the Christian belief in the crucifixion or divinity of Jesus.

2. my opinion that I know more about the middle east and arabic culture than YOU do is a COMPARATIVE statement, not an ABSOLUTE statement. next?

3. Here's my suggestion: Judge in one hand...shit in the other...tell me which one fills up faster!

4. I will take my cardiology advice from the cardiologist who saved my life, not some yahoo on the internet...but thanks anyway.

[glockmail]

1. as I said:
Christianity is based upon the divinity and resurrection of Jesus as well as his teachings. Islam considers Jesus a mortal messenger no different than Adam or Moses. Oh...and I am pretty sure, if you ask your muslim buddies, they will tell you that they consider Mohammed to be the "greatest prophet" and if your buddies do NOT tell you that Mohammed is the greatest prophet, you should question their credentials.
as YOUR link said:
Jesus (Arabic: عيسى, commonly transliterated as Isa) is considered one of God's most beloved and important prophets, a bringer of divine scripture, a worker of miracles, and the Messiah. However, Muslims do not share the Christian belief in the crucifixion or divinity of Jesus.

2. my opinion that I know more about the middle east and arabic culture than YOU do is a COMPARATIVE statement, not an ABSOLUTE statement. next?

3. Here's my suggestion: Judge in one hand...shit in the other...tell me which one fills up faster!

.....


1. Well it’s a minor point, really. A more applicable point is that Muslims recognize Jesus as a most beloved and important prophet, a bringer of divine scripture, a teacher, a worker of miracles, and the Messiah. Therefore their core ethical values are similar to Christians. So again, Your experience appears to from a culture where those values have been allowed to be bastardized. Your experience as a minority in that bastardized culture appears to have made you a bigot, based on your earlier statements.
2. Deflection. Your post 137 states: "...you are waaaaay too fond of your own absolute pronouncements!" That statement is directly applicable to you, as demonstrated repeatedly.
3. I’ll take it then that you are unwilling to apologize. That leaves you open for insults about drunks in your family, notably your father, as you share a late night scotch with his ghost.

[retiredman]

1. Well it’s a minor point, really. A more applicable point is that Muslims recognize Jesus as a most beloved and important prophet, a bringer of divine scripture, a teacher, a worker of miracles, and the Messiah. Therefore their core ethical values are similar to Christians. So again, Your experience appears to from a culture where those values have been allowed to be bastardized. Your experience as a minority in that bastardized culture appears to have made you a bigot, based on your earlier statements.
2. Deflection. Your post 137 states: "...you are waaaaay too fond of your own absolute pronouncements!" That statement is directly applicable to you, as demonstrated repeatedly.
3. I’ll take it then that you are unwilling to apologize. That leaves you open for insults about drunks in your family, notably your father, as you share a late night scotch with his ghost.

1. A MINOR POINT???? You claiming that Jesus is "the greatest prophet of Islam" is a MINOR POINT????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA That is RICH!!!!

2. That was your assertion... and when asked to point me to a post where I had made such an absolute pronouncement, you sent me to a specific post and a specific paragraph where I had made a comparative pronouncement about you and me...nothing absolute about it at all. Get your references straight if you are going to use them....

3. What part of: "If I offended you or your dear grandfather in any way by suggesting that someone who drank whiskey every day might be a drunk, I sincerely apologize. I meant no disrespect." did you NOT understand the first fucking time I typed it?

[glockmail]

1. A MINOR POINT???? You claiming that Jesus is "the greatest prophet of Islam" is a MINOR POINT????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA That is RICH!!!!

2. That was your assertion... and when asked to point me to a post where I had made such an absolute pronouncement, you sent me to a specific post and a specific paragraph where I had made a comparative pronouncement about you and me...nothing absolute about it at all. Get your references straight if you are going to use them....

3. What part of: "If I offended you or your dear grandfather in any way by suggesting that someone who drank whiskey every day might be a drunk, I sincerely apologize. I meant no disrespect." did you NOT understand the first fucking time I typed it?


1. Deflection.
2. You did exactly what you accussed me of: a liberal hallmark. Waht was amazing is you did it in the very same post!
3. Explained earlier.

[retiredman]

1. Deflection.
2. You did exactly what you accussed me of: a liberal hallmark. Waht was amazing is you did it in the very same post!
3. Explained earlier.

1. you love that word deflection. When you make a statement that clearly proves you don't know fuck-all about Islam and I call you on it as an impeachment of the rest of your silly rant about the religion, that is a "deflection? cute. Anyone who thinks that Jesus is the greatest prophet in Islam has no business pontificating on the religion as some expert. period.

2. bullshit. when asked to show me where I made an absolute pronouncement, you pointed me straight to a paragraph that compared you and me.

3. My apology stands as is. I fully realize that there are people, like your grandfather, who drink whiskey every day and are not drunks...and I stated that.

[glockmail]

1. you love that word deflection. When you make a statement that clearly proves you don't know fuck-all about Islam and I call you on it as an impeachment of the rest of your silly rant about the religion, that is a "deflection? cute. Anyone who thinks that Jesus is the greatest prophet in Islam has no business pontificating on the religion as some expert. period.

2. bullshit. when asked to show me where I made an absolute pronouncement, you pointed me straight to a paragraph that compared you and me.

3. My apology stands as is. I fully realize that there are people, like your grandfather, who drink whiskey every day and are not drunks...and I stated that.
1. Its just a word that applies to your tactics of creating an issue to suit your agenda while ignoring mine, which in this case is that Muslims recognize Jesus as a most beloved and important prophet, a bringer of divine scripture, a teacher, a worker of miracles, and the Messiah. Therefore their core ethical values are similar to Christians.
2. Read it again, Bubba.
3. As stated earlier, your apology was not viewed as genuine and has therefore been rejected.

[retiredman]

1. Its just a word that applies to your tactics of creating an issue to suit your agenda while ignoring mine, which in this case is that Muslims recognize Jesus as a most beloved and important prophet, a bringer of divine scripture, a teacher, a worker of miracles, and the Messiah. Therefore their core ethical values are similar to Christians.
2. Read it again, Bubba.
3. As stated earlier, your apology was not viewed as genuine and has therefore been rejected.

1. similar to Christians? I suppose they are more similar than a hindu's perhaps....but they are not so similar that multicultural democracy flourishes in their midst, IMHO... and the point remains.... anyone who claims that Jesus is the greatest prophet of Islam took his comparative religion class from the back of a comic book.
2. Why...did you edit it since the last time I read it?
3. I stated: "If I offended you or your dear grandfather in any way by suggesting that someone who drank whiskey every day might be a drunk, I sincerely apologize. I meant no disrespect." It was and is genuine. you can fail to accept my apology if you like, but you cannot claim that I did not apologize.

[glockmail]

........but they are not so similar that multicultural democracy flourishes in their midst, IMHO... ....BIGOT

[retiredman]

BIGOT

so.... all you got left is namecalling?

Why am I not surprised?:laugh2:

fuckin' loser.

[manu1959]

so.... all you got left is namecalling?

Why am I not surprised?:laugh2:

fuckin' loser.

:lol:

[retiredman]

his one word epithet reply to my previous post deserved little more, wouldn't you agree?

[manu1959]

his one word epithet reply to my previous post deserved little more, wouldn't you agree?

you are talking with glock.....

[retiredman]

you are talking with glock.....

oh....very diplomatic! very....deferential!

[glockmail]

so.... all you got left is namecalling?

Why am I not surprised?:laugh2:

fuckin' loser.

The truth hurts you. I can tell by your escalation of attack words. It won't work. Try insulting my family instead.

[manu1959]

oh....very diplomatic! very....deferential!

hardly.......

[Kathianne]

I take it the truce between MFM and Glock has broken down? Not surprised, but wish it were different, would be more enlightening here.

[retiredman]

The truth hurts you. I can tell by your escalation of attack words. It won't work. Try insulting my family instead.

you're in over your head. all you know about Islam is what some guy at work told you.... so all you got is calling me a bigot for understanding that jeffersonian multicultural democracy cannot be crammed down the throats of other cultures. I have never suggested that I was in any way superior to arabs, only that my cultural foundation was radically different. Tell me again how Jesus is the "greatest prophet in Islam" again, Mr. theology major! :laugh2:

[glockmail]

I take it the truce between MFM and Glock has broken down? Not surprised, but wish it were different, would be more enlightening here. I'm trolling for insults, and scoring many! :laugh2:

[glockmail]

you're in over your head. all you know about Islam is what some guy at work told you.... so all you got is calling me a bigot for understanding that jeffersonian multicultural democracy cannot be crammed down the throats of other cultures. I have never suggested that I was in any way superior to arabs, only that my cultural foundation was radically different. Tell me again how Jesus is the "greatest prophet in Islam" again, Mr. theology major! :laugh2:
Post 105 says it all: "The arab mind operates differently than the western mind does. "

RACIST

[retiredman]

I take it the truce between MFM and Glock has broken down? Not surprised, but wish it were different, would be more enlightening here.

melodramatic righteous indignation is his schtick....certainly you knew that.

[retiredman]

Post 105 says it all: "The arab mind operates differently than the western mind does. "

RACIST

did you ever read that Raphael Patai book I recommended to you? You really should.

Do blacks have a different skin color than caucasians? of course they do. Is that racist to note that? or course not...it only becomes racist when I suggest that darker pigmentation is somehow the mark of someone inferior to me. The arab mind DOES operate differently than the western mind. I would NEVER suggest that the western mind operates BETTER.

[glockmail]

did you ever read that Raphael Patai book I recommended to you? You really should.

Do blacks have a different skin color than caucasians? of course they do. Is that racist to note that? or course not...it only becomes racist when I suggest that darker pigmentation is somehow the mark of someone inferior to me. The arab mind DOES operate differently than the western mind. I would NEVER suggest that the western mind operates BETTER.


Why not ask an arab if he agrees with that shit you just slung.

[retiredman]

Why not ask an arab if he agrees with that shit you just slung.

I have had many hours of discussion with my lebanese friends about that very topic.

YOu should not assume that the two arabs you know are a representative sample!:laugh2:

[glockmail]

I have had many hours of discussion with my lebanese friends about that very topic.

YOu should not assume that the two arabs you know are a representative sample!:laugh2: Perhaps you can provide some research data to justify your racism.

[retiredman]

Perhaps you can provide some research data to justify your racism.

read the book I suggested. then get back to me.

[glockmail]

read the book I suggested. then get back to me. Whatever you say Oprah.

[red states rule]

I have had many hours of discussion with my lebanese friends about that very topic.

YOu should not assume that the two arabs you know are a representative sample!:laugh2:

Were you talking to your "friends" as they were serving you your dinner?

[red states rule]

Whatever you say Oprah.

MM needs time to crawl off and lick the many wounds you inflected on him today

[retiredman]

Were you talking to your "friends" as they were serving you your dinner?

as a matter of fact, we shared many dinners while I lived in Beirut. But those were my civilian friends. I think you are referring to the PLO and AMAL representatives from SOUTHERN Lebanon that I dined with in while on duty. We didn't discuss religion at those meetings. YOu remember. that was back when I was serving my country in a hostile fire zone and you were back avoiding service....:laugh2:

[retiredman]

Whatever you say Oprah.

You asked me for research. I gave you the location of an entire book full. If it is really that important to you, go read it...or stay ignorant, if you like... it doesn't matter to me!

[red states rule]

as a matter of fact, we shared many dinners while I lived in Beirut. But those were my civilian friends. I think you are referring to the PLO and AMAL representatives from SOUTHERN Lebanon that I dined with in while on duty. We didn't discuss religion at those meetings. YOu remember. that was back when I was serving my country in a hostile fire zone and you were back avoiding service....:laugh2:

You mean while you were putting in time serving meals in the galley

[retiredman]

You mean while you were putting in time serving meals in the galley

insulting veterans.... that's how you support the troops, eh?:poke:

you only support troops and veterans if they suck the same koolaid as you do!

[red states rule]

insulting veterans.... that's how you support the troops, eh?:poke:

you only support troops and veterans if they suck the same koolaid as you do!

You draw your service card more then Jessie James drew his gun. You try and hide behind it like a shield while pushing for surrender in Iraq

[retiredman]

You draw your service card more then Jessie James drew his gun. You try and hide behind it like a shield while pushing for surrender in Iraq


and you insult me about my service all the time. I have never pushed for surrender anywhere.

Like I said,. you support only those folks serving our nation who think like you do. Wait...make that "believe like you do". YOu really don't "think" very much at all!:lol:

[82Marine89]

insulting veterans.... that's how you support the troops, eh?:poke:

you only support troops and veterans if they suck the same koolaid as you do!

Got a problem being insulted? Didn't you serve so that he could insult you? Do you think that because you served that you can't be made fun of?

[red states rule]

and you insult me about my service all the time. I have never pushed for surrender anywhere.

Like I said,. you support only those folks serving our nation who think like you do. Wait...make that "believe like you do". YOu really don't "think" very much at all!:lol:

Keep hiding behind it MM.

At least I never hoped someone would die so I could piss on their grave like someone else we all know

[retiredman]

Keep hiding behind it MM.

At least I never hoped someone would die so I could piss on their grave like someone else we all know

you just insult veterans.

do you have a yellow bumper magnet on the back of your rusted chevette?

[red states rule]

you just insult veterans.

do you have a yellow bumper magnet on the back of your rusted chevette?

No, but you now have a yellow streak running down your back like your party leaders

[82Marine89]

you just insult veterans.

do you have a yellow bumper magnet on the back of your rusted chevette?

Because you are a veteran does not place you above insults. If you want respect for being a veteran, you must realize that respect is earned, not given. I am proud of my service, but it doesn't make me any better than someone who never served. The same applies to you. He is insulting you for what you say, not what you are.

[red states rule]

Because you are a veteran does not place you above insults. If you want respect for being a veteran, you must realize that respect is earned, not given. I am proud of my service, but it doesn't make me any better than someone who never served. The same applies to you. He is insulting you for what you say, not what you are.

Thank you. I am calling him on his silence on his party leaders fro calling our troops in Iraq terrorists, Nazis, cold blooded killers, comparing them to Pol Pot, and the Gen Betray Us ad

As our men and women are in harms way, risking their lives, Dems are screwing them over funding, and playing political games with their lives

MM supports those actions, and that is what I am calling him on.

He did serve, and for that I thank him

And you

[82Marine89]

You're welcome.

Twice.

[red states rule]

You're welcome.

Twice.

Thank you 82Marine89

Without men and women like you we would not live in the greastest and most free country on Earth

[actsnoblemartin]

One of the finest posts ive seen in a very long time, from one of the best human beings/posters on the board.


Because you are a veteran does not place you above insults. If you want respect for being a veteran, you must realize that respect is earned, not given. I am proud of my service, but it doesn't make me any better than someone who never served. The same applies to you. He is insulting you for what you say, not what you are.

[red states rule]

One of the finest posts ive seen in a very long time, from one of the best human beings/posters on the board.

at least 82Marine89 understood what I was saying. He is a stand up guy

[actsnoblemartin]

He has been a stand up guy.

And so are you, and by the way i understand what you mean.

Your criticizing his politics, not his service record.


at least 82Marine89 understood what I was saying. He is a stand up guy

[red states rule]

He has been a stand up guy.

And so are you, and by the way i understand what you mean.

Your criticizing his politics, not his service record.

MM is mearly trying to deflect form the facts, since he does not have any facts to present

[actsnoblemartin]

when will dems admit anything, when hell freezes over

[red states rule]

when will dems admit anything, when hell freezes over

In a way they are admitting defeat Martin. Dems are starting to cave on spending, and this would be yet another win for Pres Bush over the Dems

Now MM will ignore his Dems are backing down, and rant how I posted another cut and paste article


Dems cave on spending
By Alexander Bolton
December 13, 2007

Senate and House Democrats backed down Wednesday from a spending showdown with President Bush.

The Democrats’ capitulation Wednesday on the total domestic spending level is the latest instance of Bush prevailing on a major policy showdown. Bush and his Senate Republican allies have repeatedly beat back efforts by Democrats to place restrictions on funding for the war in Iraq as well as Democratic attempts to expand funding of children’s health insurance by $35 billion.

Democratic leaders said Wednesday that they would keep total spending at the strict $933 billion limit set by the White House. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also abandoned a proposal she supported Tuesday to eliminate lawmakers’ earmarks from spending bills after she faced stiff opposition from powerful fellow Democrats.

Pelosi told the Democratic chairmen of the House Appropriations subcommittees, the so-called cardinals, that earmarks would stay in the omnibus and that Democratic leaders would accede to cut spending to levels demanded by Bush to save 11 spending bills from a veto, said sources familiar with a meeting that took place in Pelosi’s office early Wednesday morning.

The Democratic cardinals rebelled against a plan suggested by Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) to save $9.5 billion by slashing earmarks. Obey hoped to use the money to minimize cuts to domestic programs important to Democrats.

Pelosi emphasized in a press conference Wednesday afternoon that “we don’t want the bill vetoed,” in reference to a massive omnibus that Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and House are in the midst of negotiating. She said leaders would have a better understanding of the bill’s details by mid-Thursday.

Although Democrats have accepted Bush’s spending ceiling, obstacles remain to reaching final agreement. House and Senate Democrats are pursuing different approaches to slimming the spending package.

House Democrats have elected to manipulate funding levels for various government programs to reflect their policy priorities. The House Appropriations subcommittee chairmen have been given substantial leeway to decide which programs will be cut and boosted in the process.

The Senate is expected to adopt a straight across-the-board cut without discriminating among Democratic and Republican favorites, said several Democrats briefed on leadership negotiations.

for the complete article

http://thehill.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=70300&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=70

[retiredman]

Democrats DID cave.... but they had to get a bill passed...to do otherwise would have been irrresponsible.

and, rather than actually write something with your own words, you DID lazily resort to cutting and pasting yet another in a long and unending string of editorials and attempting - yet again - to pass opinion off as fact.

boring....mind numbingly boring.

[Kathianne]

Democrats DID cave.... but they had to get a bill passed...to do otherwise would have been irrresponsible.

and, rather than actually write something with your own words, you DID lazily resort to cutting and pasting yet another in a long and unending string of editorials and attempting - yet again - to pass opinion off as fact.

boring....mind numbingly boring.

Not really, since pork was one of the myriad of reasons Republicans didn't bother with the last mid-term election. Then Dems claimed they would eliminate pork and clean up the process. It didn't take long to find that was more 'hot air':

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301782_pf.html


In the Democratic Congress, Pork Still Gets Served
'Phonemarking' Is Among Ways Around Appropriations Process

By John Solomon and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 24, 2007; A01

When the new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives passed one of its first spending bills, funding the Energy Department for the rest of 2007, it proudly boasted that the legislation contained no money earmarked for lawmakers' pet projects and stressed that any prior congressional requests for such spending "shall have no legal effect."

Within days, however, lawmakers including Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) began directly contacting the Energy Department. They sought to secure money for their favorite causes outside of the congressional appropriations process -- a practice that lobbyists and appropriations insiders call "phonemarking."

"I understand some of your offices have begun to receive requests from some Congressional offices asking that the department continue to fund programs or activities that received earmarked funds in prior years," department chief of staff Jeffrey Kupfer wrote in a stern Feb. 2 memo, warning agency officials to approve money only for "programs or activities that are meritorious."

The number of earmarks, in which lawmakers target funds to specific spending projects, exploded over the past decade from about 3,000 in 1996 to more than 13,000 in 2006, according to the Congressional Research Service. Most earmarks made it into appropriations bills or their accompanying conference reports without identifying their sponsors. Upon taking control of Congress after November's midterm elections, Democrats vowed to try to halve the number of earmarks, and to require lawmakers to disclose their requests and to certify that the money they are requesting will not benefit them.

But the new majority is already skirting its own reforms....

But there may be some hope on the horizon, though Obama has his own PAC problems as Hillary keeps shrilly telling us:

http://www.examiner.com/a-1102435%7EThe_pig_roast_is_almost_over.html


Editorial
Editorial: The pig roast is almost over

The Washington DC Examiner Newspaper
2007-12-13 08:00:00.0
Current rank: # 395 of 10,785
WASHINGTON -

It’s not just another day in the nation’s capital. At 11:30 a.m., Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Nussle and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., will throw the switch on a new landmark of government, USASpending.gov. Mandated by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA), which was co-sponsored by Coburn and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., USASpending.gov is a searchable, Googlelike database that puts most federal spending within a few mouse clicks for every American. (Obama won’t be present at today’s activities because he is on the presidential campaign trail.)

Today is a milestone because, as President Bush noted when he signed FFATA into law Sept. 26: “We spend a lot of time and a lot of effort collecting your money, and we should show the same amount of effort in reporting how we spend it. … Taxpayers have a right to know where that money is going, and you have a right to know whether or not you’re getting value for your money.” Taxpayers can know because USASpending.gov brings federal spending into the Internet age. It’s the place to go, for example, if you’re interested in how much the government spent last year on “consultants” or the number of federal contracts given to the company owned by your congressman’s biggest contributor.

There are innumerable reasons why the establishment of USASpending.gov is a milestone, but two of them are particularly worthy of mention. First, Coburn and Obama drew little attention when they introduced FFATA and the bill mostly flew under the radar as it progressed in Congress. But when passage became a real possibility, the Old Bulls in Congress — ever jealous of their ability to spend our tax dollars on their pet causes — used every legislative trick in the book trying to stop FFATA. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., even placed secret holds on the measure, stalling it for weeks in the Senate. But they were unmasked by Porkbusters.org, an Internet-based coalition from across the ideological spectrum.

Porkbusters.org sparked thousands of phone calls and e-mails asking senators if they were responsible for the secret holds. Stevens and Byrd soon gave up and within a few weeks Bush signed the bill into law.

Second, it may take a few years before the good effects of USASpending.gov are fully felt, but here’s fair warning to the old-school politicians who thrive on pork-barrel politics: It’s no longer just the dwindling ranks of the mainstream media covering the big spenders. Starting today, legions of citizens and professional watchdogs have access to an unprecedented amount of information and data on where tax dollars are going. And they’re all connected via the Internet. The pig roast with tax dollars as the main course is coming to an end.

[red states rule]

Democrats DID cave.... but they had to get a bill passed...to do otherwise would have been irrresponsible.

and, rather than actually write something with your own words, you DID lazily resort to cutting and pasting yet another in a long and unending string of editorials and attempting - yet again - to pass opinion off as fact.

boring....mind numbingly boring.

It was irrresponsible that they waited this long to be responsible

Sorry of you hate to see the results of your failed Dem ruin Congress. I would be to if I was rabid liberal and Pres Bush has a 44% approval rating, and my Dem Congress has a 22% rating

[gabosaurus]

I suppose the U.S. is winning the body count contest. Getting up near 4,000. I wonder what kind of celebration the Bushies will throw. Obviously a banquet with red wine and steak tartare has already been scheduled.

[red states rule]

I suppose the U.S. is winning the body count contest. Getting up near 4,000. I wonder what kind of celebration the Bushies will throw. Obviously a banquet with red wine and steak tartare has already been scheduled.

Libs were giddy when the troops were dying. Every night the liberal media showed the video and gave the death counts

Now that things are a 180 - the liberal media ignores the progress in Iraq. Libs are depressed they are losing to Pres Bush on the war funding bill, and as they watch their approval ratings sink

What a Christams gift for the left. Pres Bush is at 44%, while the Dem Congress is at 22%

Dems are caving on spending, and giving Pres Bush another win over Reid and Pelosi

[Yurt]

You're welcome.

Twice.

:lmao:

This board is a better place because of 82nd. No doubt. And don't lie 82nd, you were in that group of marines that got me loaded (one shot) on Amtrak when I was 14.

:cheers2:

[Kathianne]

:lmao:

This board is a better place because of 82nd. No doubt. And don't lie 82nd, you were in that group of marines that got me loaded (one shot) on Amtrak when I was 14.

:cheers2:

I've never seen anything that would lead me to believe I wouldn't want him there, if ever I was in trouble. An all around 'good guy.'

[actsnoblemartin]

he (82marine89) has always been an asset to this board. I would hate for him to leave, and would miss his contributions greatly


I've never seen anything that would lead me to believe I wouldn't want him there, if ever I was in trouble. An all around 'good guy.'

[Kathianne]

he (82marine89) has always been an asset to this board. I would hate for him to leave, and would miss his contributions greatly

Was he thinking of leaving? I missed that.

[82Marine89]

Was he thinking of leaving? I missed that.

Yurt got me to stay. Thanks Yurt.

[glockmail]

Democrats DID cave.... but they had to get a bill passed...to do otherwise would have been irrresponsible.

and, rather than actually write something with your own words, you DID lazily resort to cutting and pasting yet another in a long and unending string of editorials and attempting - yet again - to pass opinion off as fact.

boring....mind numbingly boring.
:pee:

[glockmail]

Yurt got me to stay. Thanks Yurt. Don't leave you fucker! You're one of the Great Ones! :salute:

[82Marine89]

Don't leave you fucker! You're one of the Great Ones! :salute:

Not great enough to rate my own thread. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

Not great enough to rate my own thread. :laugh2:
You have to work hard to be seriously hated. :coffee:

[glockmail]

For years the left bellowed how the US was losing in Iraq, it was mess, our troops were being slaughtered, and Harry Reid sneered "the war was lost"

Now, the troops are winning, the liberal media is not reporting the good news, and Dems are ducking any questions about the success

Will the Dems admit we are winning in Iraq, or still keep fighting their war on reality?



....


It just dawnd on me the brilliance of this thread title. Democrats never like to admit to anything. They are always looking to shirk responsibility.

[red states rule]

It just dawnd on me the brilliance of this thread title. Democrats never like to admit to anything. They are always looking to shirk responsibility.

and you notice libs like MM still want surrender and make excuses for 9-11

Here is another update from a man who was in Iraq. MM will bitch about another cut and paste and duck the good news




The new Iraq
By Oliver North
December 16, 2007
HILLAH, Iraq.

The slogan "de oppresso liber" is Latin for "free the oppressed." It's the motto of the U.S. Special Forces, but it has also been adopted by several of the Iraqi military and police units our Fox News "War Stories" team has been covering here in the land between the rivers.

These Special Operations troops — Americans and their Iraqi counterparts — have become the tip of the spear in the war against radical Islamic terror.

U.S. military forces have started phasing down from the "surge" that began last summer. The 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division whose departure from Iraq was announced in November and is now taking place, will not be replaced by an American unit. In the months ahead, four more brigade-sized units are scheduled to rotate home.

If all goes as planned, they will all be replaced by Iraqi security forces. This is just some of the good news that somehow just doesn't make its way into the mainstream media. But wait, there's more.

The Iraqi military and police that we have seen on this, our ninth trip to Iraq since 2003, are now remarkably well-trained and equipped. Though many of the personnel in these units have been on "active duty" for less than a year, they are, according to what we have seen and documented, ready, willing and able to fight for their country. Their motives for "signing on" are also important. In Maderiya, a town east of Baghdad toward the Iranian border, I asked Capt. Fawaz Nazzir why he joined the new Iraqi army 11 months ago. In a testament to U.S. resolve in prosecuting this campaign, Capt. Nazzir replied, "I waited to see which side was going to win."

To some Americans that may sound like a cynical response — but not to those who have spent years campaigning in Mesopotamia. "What would you expect given how uncertain our commitment was at home?" commented one U.S. officer on his third tour of duty here. He continued: "Until 'the surge' nobody in Iraq knew whether we were going to finish this fight. AQI [al Qaeda in Iraq] and the Shi'ite militias were all telling their followers that we were going to cut and run. 'The surge' proved that we weren't going to abandon them."

Not only did we not abandon them — we upped the ante; increasing the number of U.S. combat units in country and significantly expanding training and support for Iraq's fledgling security forces.


for the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071216/COMMENTARY06/675010095/1012/COMMENTARY

[April15]

Olie north!? A man who is a traitor to his nation? Why he and RR aren't in jail is just unbelieveble. I know RR is dead but he should have gone down for Iran/contra.
And I don't eve want to read something ollie wrote.

[red states rule]

Olie north!? A man who is a traitor to his nation? Why he and RR aren't in jail is just unbelieveble. I know RR is dead but he should have gone down for Iran/contra.
And I don't eve want to read something ollie wrote.

He has spent alot of time with the troops on the front lines

I understand why you don't want to read the atricle - it spells out all the good news and successs from Iraq

Something libs never want to hear about

[glockmail]

.....
And I don't eve want to read something ollie wrote.
Then you will remain ignorant.

[red states rule]

Then you will remain ignorant.

and a liberal

[glockmail]

and a liberal Same diff.

[red states rule]

Same diff.

These people are without honor. They spent 4 years saying the troops were a bunch of losers - now they are proving them wrong and they still will not stand up and say they were wrong

No wonder the military votes in huge numbers for Republicans. That might be the real reason they will not support them

[retiredman]

These people are without honor. They spent 4 years saying the troops were a bunch of losers - now they are proving them wrong and they still will not stand up and say they were wrong

No wonder the military votes in huge numbers for Republicans. That might be the real reason they will not support them

I, for one, have NEVER said our troops were anything but well trained fighting men and women who did their jobs. And nearly every single one of them did - and does - that job with honor.

[red states rule]

I, for one, have NEVER said our troops were anything but well trained fighting men and women who did their jobs. And nearly every single one of them did - and does - that job with honor.

and you openly support your party that has called them losers and still are fighting hard to surrender

[retiredman]

and you openly support your party that has called them losers and still are fighting hard to surrender

no one in my party calls our troops losers and no one is fighting hard to surrender. Can you ever move beyond Rush talking points and actually debate an issue with YOUR words?

[red states rule]

no one in my party calls our troops losers and no one is fighting hard to surrender. Can you ever move beyond Rush talking points and actually debate an issue with YOUR words?

Re you ignoring Harry "the war is lost" Reid?

41 times the Dems have tried to insert a surrendner date in various bills

[retiredman]

Re you ignoring Harry "the war is lost" Reid?

41 times the Dems have tried to insert a surrendner date in various bills

the overall objective of the war: to bring a multicultural democracy to Iraq IOS lost. It ain't gonna happen.

There was NEVER a date for surrender in any bill. Learn to use the english language correctly or try another - perhaps pig latin?

[red states rule]

the overall objective of the war: to bring a multicultural democracy to Iraq IOS lost. It ain't gonna happen.

There was NEVER a date for surrender in any bill. Learn to use the english language correctly or try another - perhaps pig latin?

It is that defeatest attitude that has taken your party into the toilet

It is surrender when you want to pull the troops out while they are winning - and hand a win to the terrorists

[retiredman]

It is that defeatest attitude that has taken your party into the toilet

It is surrender when you want to pull the troops out while they are winning - and hand a win to the terrorists

who ARE these "terrorists" that you keep speaking of?
Are you talking about Al Qaeda in Iraq?

Are you talking about Sunni insurgents who used to fight americans but now fight AQ in Iraq?

Are you talking about the mahdi army?


Who will we hand over Iraq to? I would suggest that, when we leave we will hand over Iraq to the recognized government of Iraq. And we will hand over any military assets we chose to leave behind and ALL military encampments to the military of Iraq. Please explain how the terrorists which you have identified by answering the previous three questions will be handed over anything under that scenario.

[glockmail]

the overall objective of the war: to bring a multicultural democracy to Iraq IOS lost. It ain't gonna happen.

... Why not? Still on the "arab mind" thang, bigot?

[retiredman]

Why not? Still on the "arab mind" thang, bigot?


haven't read the book yet, I see.

without any knowledge of the subject, all you really can do is spew your ignorance. good job.

[glockmail]

haven't read the book yet, I see.

without any knowledge of the subject, all you really can do is spew your ignorance. good job. Like I gotta read a book recomended by a racist liberal to understand people. You're not simply ignorant, bud.
:pee:

[retiredman]

Like I gotta read a book recomended by a racist liberal to understand people. You're not simply ignorant, bud.
:pee:

got any proof that Raphael Patai is a "racist liberal"?

I'll wait.

[Kathianne]

got any proof that Raphael Patai is a "racist liberal"?

I'll wait.

I could be wrong but I think Glock was referring to you, not Patai.

[retiredman]

I could be wrong but I think Glock was referring to you, not Patai.

perhaps...but he is merely playing his best drama queen act, regardless.

If I had suggested he read the Gospel of John instead of a book by Raphael Patai, he would have undoubtedly said the same thing.

[gabosaurus]

he (82marine89) has always been an asset to this board. I would hate for him to leave, and would miss his contributions greatly

If you can't accept both sides of the issue, go to a board where only one side of the issue is accepted. While I am grateful to the military for their defense of this country, I am not going to worship them as infallible. Military service is an occupation, just like those who serve as police, fire or other first responders are. The military do as they are instructed. They have no voice in this.
It is not the fault of our servicemen that their superiors have totally screwed up the Iraqi quagmire. It's not their fault that some vengeful dumbass started a war and sent them to fight it. It's not their fault that their superiors continually lie to them while keeping them under equipped and without proper guidance.
Given the choice of staying or leaving, you can't tell me that 95 percent of our service people in Iraq would not choose to come home. They are doing zero good, at an incredible cost.
Iraq is sort of like a leaking dike. The more holes you plug up, the more are going to spring open. You can't win in Iraq. The best you can hope for is a draw. Which can only be accomplished by getting out.

[glockmail]

I could be wrong but I think Glock was referring to you, not Patai.
Bingo Kate its like dealing with a kindergatner sometimes.

[retiredman]

sort of an interesting smoke screen to avoid gaining some knowledge on a subject you clearly know little about.

why IS that?

[glockmail]

sort of an interesting smoke screen to avoid gaining some knowledge on a subject you clearly know little about.

why IS that?
Your smoke screen is interesting as well. 'Read this book and get back to me, or else you're ignorant.'

GROW UP.

[retiredman]

Your smoke screen is interesting as well. 'Read this book and get back to me, or else you're ignorant.'

GROW UP.

I am fully grown, and I have read the book in question, which provides you with all of the information you have requested. the text of the book is not available online. And the fact that you are ignorant of arab culture is evident. I have never suggested that Raphael Patai was the sole source of wisdom on the subject, merely that it is one with which I am quite familiar. If you don't care to learn, that's fine with me. If you do, there are other good source materials, I am sure. take your pick.

[glockmail]

:pee:
I am fully grown, and I have read the book in question, which provides you with all of the information you have requested. the text of the book is not available online. And the fact that you are ignorant of arab culture is evident. I have never suggested that Raphael Patai was the sole source of wisdom on the subject, merely that it is one with which I am quite familiar. If you don't care to learn, that's fine with me. If you do, there are other good source materials, I am sure. take your pick.

[gabosaurus]

When backed into a corner, Glock replies with his usual non-educated response. Ho-hum.

[Yurt]

I am fully grown, and I have read the book in question, which provides you with all of the information you have requested. the text of the book is not available online. And the fact that you are ignorant of arab culture is evident. I have never suggested that Raphael Patai was the sole source of wisdom on the subject, merely that it is one with which I am quite familiar. If you don't care to learn, that's fine with me. If you do, there are other good source materials, I am sure. take your pick.

what ever is your point?

http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/r1864871125.jpg

[82Marine89]

If you can't accept both sides of the issue, go to a board where only one side of the issue is accepted. While I am grateful to the military for their defense of this country, I am not going to worship them as infallible. Military service is an occupation, just like those who serve as police, fire or other first responders are. The military do as they are instructed. They have no voice in this.
It is not the fault of our servicemen that their superiors have totally screwed up the Iraqi quagmire. It's not their fault that some vengeful dumbass started a war and sent them to fight it. It's not their fault that their superiors continually lie to them while keeping them under equipped and without proper guidance.
Given the choice of staying or leaving, you can't tell me that 95 percent of our service people in Iraq would not choose to come home. They are doing zero good, at an incredible cost.
Iraq is sort of like a leaking dike. The more holes you plug up, the more are going to spring open. You can't win in Iraq. The best you can hope for is a draw. Which can only be accomplished by getting out.

You might want to have a talk with your fellow lib, HFM. He apparently thinks his veteran status places him above ridicule. He is the one, as he stated earlier in this post that he couldn't be insulted because he is a veteran. He has yet to respond to my comment to him, but that's status quo for him.

With regards to the rest of your post, I would love to see a link showing me where their superiors continually lied to them and kept them ill equipped. As for guidance, the government might have not had a good plan, but the boots on the ground have the best guidance possible. The NCO's, SNCO's and officers make sure their men are properly trained and prepared for the rigors of combat. 100% of these brave men and women serving in the military either joined or re-enlisted after the war started. If they didn't want to be there, they wouldn't have done so. As for the rest, if you prefer the Clinton era cut and run, that's fine. I say let these men and women do what is necessary to secure a victory and then bring them home.

[gabosaurus]

Why bother to knock a culture or religion that you don't understand? Don't just post an anonymous photo and think that justifies your opinion. It only validates your ignorance.

[82Marine89]

what ever is your point?

http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/r1864871125.jpg

The one in black looks hot.

[gabosaurus]

Didn't you learn anything from Viet Nam? There is no "victory." Only continuing slaughter.
If you condone the continuing slaughter of your fellow servicemen, so be it.

[Yurt]

Why bother to knock a culture or religion that you don't understand? Don't just post an anonymous photo and think that justifies your opinion. It only validates your ignorance.

Your opinion on this matter is moot. You ran away from the understanding islam thread and failed to answer a very clear and easy to understand question because you knew that by answering your entire platform would crumble. So you can take your hit and run quips and put them in your 120 page dissertation as FN 5098.

[gabosaurus]

The one in black looks hot.

You guys spend too much time thinking with your small heads, as opposed to your larger ones. Must be a military thing.

[82Marine89]

You guys spend too much time thinking with your small heads, as opposed to your larger ones. Must be a military thing.

Heat hot you pervert.

[gabosaurus]

Your opinion on this matter is moot. You ran away from the understanding islam thread and failed to answer a very clear and easy to understand question because you knew that by answering your entire platform would crumble. So you can take your hit and run quips and put them in your 120 page dissertation as FN 5098.

I abandoned the other thread because you dopes had turned it into a hate-filled circle jerk. It difficult to argue with abject stupidity, so I don't bother to try.
Our differences are very clear. I want to understand. You want to hate.
Hate is a very lonely life. Which explains you fairly well.

[Yurt]

You guys spend too much time thinking with your small heads, as opposed to your larger ones. Must be a military thing.

stereotyping and generalizing -- must be all that education you have

[gabosaurus]

Heat hot you pervert.

Nice try. Doesn't work though.

[Yurt]

I abandoned the other thread because you dopes had turned it into a hate-filled circle jerk. It difficult to argue with abject stupidity, so I don't bother to try.
Our differences are very clear. I want to understand. You want to hate.
Hate is a very lonely life. Which explains you fairly well.

bs gabs. my question had nothing to do with hate, in fact it was a question on something you quoted. get your mind out of the gutter and stop fantasizing about dicks so much.

[82Marine89]

Nice try. Doesn't work though.

So you can tell me what I was thinking?

[red states rule]

You might want to have a talk with your fellow lib, HFM. He apparently thinks his veteran status places him above ridicule. He is the one, as he stated earlier in this post that he couldn't be insulted because he is a veteran. He has yet to respond to my comment to him, but that's status quo for him.

With regards to the rest of your post, I would love to see a link showing me where their superiors continually lied to them and kept them ill equipped. As for guidance, the government might have not had a good plan, but the boots on the ground have the best guidance possible. The NCO's, SNCO's and officers make sure their men are properly trained and prepared for the rigors of combat. 100% of these brave men and women serving in the military either joined or re-enlisted after the war started. If they didn't want to be there, they wouldn't have done so. As for the rest, if you prefer the Clinton era cut and run, that's fine. I say let these men and women do what is necessary to secure a victory and then bring them home.



The Washington times had this today on the front page


snip

Violence in Iraq is at its lowest levels since the first year of the American invasion.

Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the man responsible for the ground campaign in Iraq, said that the first six months of 2007 were probably the most violent period since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. The past six months, however, had seen some of the lowest levels of violence since the conflict began, Gen. Odierno said, attributing the change to an increase in both U.S. troops and better-trained Iraqi forces.

"I feel we are back in '03 and early '04. Frankly. I was here then, and the environment is about the same in terms of security in my opinion," he told reporters yesterday in Baghdad. "What is different from then is that the Iraqi security forces are significantly more mature."

When Mr. Bush in January announced the surge of about 30,000 U.S. troops to Iraq, he said the goal was to create "breathing space" for the Iraqi government to pass laws demonstrating the reconciliation of Shia, Sunni and Kurdish factions.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071217/NATION/759960179/1001

[retiredman]

every democrat applauds the actions and the successes of our troops on the ground.

It is a pity that it seems as if their sacrifice is for naught given the inability of "the Iraqi government to pass laws demonstrating the reconciliation of Shia, Sunni and Kurdish factions."

there were some of us warning that such reconciliation might not be possible.