Sorry, buried this in a thread below, but I figure, hell, THIS is where it stands, let it stand alone:

This Murtha thing is HUGE. It's not a Dem thing, it's a military thing. The Repubs are FREAKED, and will desperately try to Swift boat him. Already are. Won't work. The Dems are freaked too, because they aren't prepared to endorse his position, but can't disown him either. Thumbs up their ass as usual.

Can't wait till Steam or kcpw cut-and-pastes some huge piece of fraudulent crap showing what a corrupt bas tard their formerly-favorite Dem is. I'm sure the smear machine is gearing up with talking points. The lights are burning late in some RNC basement. F*ck them. We're TIRED of them.

PLUS, I can't wait to watch my own party crawfish sideways, sputtering, on Murtha's proposal. They're, unfortunately, chickenshit, unlike me, and we're tired of them too.

I say: Bring those good boys and girls home.

The American people say: Bring those good boys and girls home.

The freakin AMERICAN MILITARY says, through Murtha: Please let us bring these good boys and girls home.

The Repubs, of course, say: Let's destroy Murtha!

The Dems, of course, say: Uh, we're not sure.

This nuts war is about to be over, the nuts Repubs are about to be lashed out of Washington, and the nuts Dems are about to bumble back into power with no idea what to do.

Why does everybody hate America?<!-- / message -->

Who was that woman who called Murtha a coward? What branch did she serve in? I was very embarassed for her. What an utterly stupid thing to have said publically.

Who was that woman who called Murtha a coward? What branch did she serve in? I was very embarassed for her. What an utterly stupid thing to have said publically.
The most freshman member of the House. You just cringed to hear her.

Who was that woman who called Murtha a coward? What branch did she serve in? I was very embarassed for her. What an utterly stupid thing to have said publically.
From the summary of the chickhawk v. chickensh*t games by ther Times...


The battle boiled over when Representative Jean Schmidt, an Ohio Republican who is the most junior member of the House, told of a phone call she had just received from a Marine colonel back home.

"He asked me to send Congress a message: stay the course," Ms. Schmidt said. "He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

Democrats booed in protest and shouted Ms. Schmidt down in her attack on Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Vietnam combat veteran and one of the House's most respected members on military matters. They caused the House to come to a abrupt standstill, and moments later, Representative Harold Ford, Democrat of Tennessee, charged across the chamber's center aisle to the Republican side screaming that Ms. Schmidt's attack had been unwarranted.

"You guys are pathetic!" yelled Representative Martin Meehan, Democrat of Massachusetts. "Pathetic."

From the summary of the chickhawk v. chickensh*t games by ther Times...
The Republican Party is crashing and burning before our very eyes. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party isn't exactly rising like a Phoenix from the ashes.

Bring those good boys and girls home.

This nuts war is about to be over, the nuts Repubs are about to be lashed out of Washington, and the nuts Dems are about to bumble back into power with no idea what to do.

The bar is set so low, all the Dems have to do is not get any blow jobs in office and everyone will be happy. Seriously, the Republicans have ****ed things up so much, Democrats don't have to do <i>anything</i> and they will be seen as geniuses. Because not doing anything is better than ****ing stuff up.

In debate with Edwards, Cheney said: "One of my strongest allies in Congress when I secretary of defense was Jack Murtha, a Democrat who is chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee."

In debate with Edwards, Cheney said: "One of my strongest allies in Congress when I secretary of defense was Jack Murtha, a Democrat who is chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee."
He's a treasonous SOB now, though.

<!-- / message -->Why does everybody hate America?When you vote for the lesser of two evils you get exactly what you deserve: evil.

Sorry, buried this in a thread below, but I figure, hell, THIS is where it stands, let it stand alone:

This Murtha thing is HUGE. It's not a Dem thing, it's a military thing. The Repubs are FREAKED, and will desperately try to Swift boat him. Already are. Won't work. The Dems are freaked too, because they aren't prepared to endorse his position, but can't disown him either. Thumbs up their ass as usual.

Can't wait till Steam or kcpw cut-and-pastes some huge piece of fraudulent crap showing what a corrupt bas tard their formerly-favorite Dem is. I'm sure the smear machine is gearing up with talking points. The lights are burning late in some RNC basement. F*ck them. We're TIRED of them.

PLUS, I can't wait to watch my own party crawfish sideways, sputtering, on Murtha's proposal. They're, unfortunately, chickenshit, unlike me, and we're tired of them too.

I say: Bring those good boys and girls home.

The American people say: Bring those good boys and girls home.

The freakin AMERICAN MILITARY says, through Murtha: Please let us bring these good boys and girls home.

The Repubs, of course, say: Let's destroy Murtha!

The Dems, of course, say: Uh, we're not sure.

This nuts war is about to be over, the nuts Repubs are about to be lashed out of Washington, and the nuts Dems are about to bumble back into power with no idea what to do.

Why does everybody hate America?<!-- / message -->Murtha is pissed and he's not playing politics. Impossible for the right to defend against.

He's pissed that these soldiers are fighting and dying, and while doing so, some are losing their homes. He's pissed cause there's no plan. It's all ad hoc at this point. "Oh that didn't work so lets try this..."

He wants a redeployment cause there's no plan. Unlike the Hunter's GOP stunt last evening, Murtha's redeployment is not immediate. It's staged over 6 months and keeps the troops in the region until there's a real plan. The Left will get in line behind him once they figure it out. Give it a day or two.

It's time to figure out how to fill the void and bring home our boys/girls. It's a dam shame we don't have a president who could've united the world and put together a real coalition. I say put an Arab face on this occupation. It's their backyard. Bring in Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and the Saudis. HeII, let the Kurds have a shot too. We'll be in a supporting/financial role. All contracts for KBR/Halliburton are voided. Open bidding to Arab reconstruction firms only. Let them decide who to subcontract. Oil goes to whom ever the Iraqis want to sell it to. We pissed in their sandbox, it's not ours. Let them decide how they want to reshape their world.

If that fails, lets sub it out to China and India like everything else. They could spare at least 250,000 soldiers each. I'm sure China could rebuild Iraq a lot cheaper than anyone. Aren't they building a city the size of Manhattan in like 1 year? It would be great for them, sort of a double dip. They loan us the money for the reconstruction, we pay them to rebuild, then we pay back the money we borrowed. It's the American way... :rolleyes:

I mean what is our mission? To drive around until we get all our soldiers blown up?

No, this clusterf*ck needs to stop! Real soldiers need to take over and fix GWBs mess.

If that fails, lets sub it out to China and India like everything else. They could spare at least 250,000 soldiers each. I'm sure China could rebuild Iraq a lot cheaper than anyone. Aren't they building a city the size of Manhattan in like 1 year? It would be great for them, sort of a double dip. They loan us the money for the reconstruction, we pay them to rebuild, then we pay back the money we borrowed. It's the American way... :rolleyes:
I like that idea.

The Republican Party is crashing and burning before our very eyes. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party isn't exactly rising like a Phoenix from the ashes.

Bring those good boys and girls home.
As to the 1st part-well, the GOP got itself elected w/the idiot as its figurehead; I wouldn't count them out quite so easily (although it does look like they're losing their power grip).

2nd part-YES, it's past time.

Sadly, after a civil exchange last night and fully understanding and agreeing with you on the bring 'em home sentiment, I have to disagree. It ain't over. If we stop now, at this point, there will be such a conflagration down the road that even the staunches atheist will believe in the Bible and Armageddon. I don't know if we are in control but we don't have much choice but to ride it out What your guys and my guys should do is recognize that fact and get together in a united front, and do what ever is necessary. What I believe that entails is gloves off, world opinion be damned, we may have to act like Saddam a bit.

Just a bit.

best damn solution yet

Sadly...we may have to act like Saddam a bit.

Just a bit.
Honestly, I really can't believe you said that. So, you prescribe going medieval on their arses? So, how far do we go? Mass graves or just the taking of limbs? Didn't we already try that at Abu Ghraib? No, this has been run inncorrectly from the beginning and it doesn't look like it's gonna get any better. It's time to pack up and go home, reorganize the players, and put a real plan together. We're done with the OTJ training and the ad hoc shoot from your hip plan.

Maura's message to Bush, and the Iraqi people, is "git it done!" Cause, we're not gonna be there forever.

Honestly, I really can't believe you said that. So, you prescribe going medieval on their arses? So, how far do we go? Mass graves or just the taking of limbs? Didn't we already try that at Abu Ghraib? No, this has been run inncorrectly from the beginning and it doesn't look like it's gonna get any better. It's time to pack up and go home, reorganize the players, and put a real plan together. We're done with the OTJ training and the ad hoc shoot from your hip plan.

Maura's message to Bush, and the Iraqi people, is "git it done!" Cause, we're not gonna be there forever.

Well, we are trying a different route right now and if you guys are to be believed, it isn't working. To my mind, it still has some time left on the clock before we reject it but in the face of this sentiment, it may become increasingly difficult to complete, to whatever ending. The task of "Get 'er done," is unrealistic for the Iraqi's at this stage. If we follow that plan as outlined, it is a recipe for disaster, Old Ed recognizes this fact but he doesn't care, you seem to have some idea it will actually be a workable solution. I believe you are a fool. Whatever we decide to do, we should drop the subterfuge and describe it as what it is. Couched in any terms you may find soothing, this is a surrender and the forces opposed to us will gain so much respect and power in that region that they will become the major power there. These are the people who drive trucks of explosives into civilian gatherings to make their point and planes into buildings abroad. They are Al Qeada and the government of the Taliban. This is what you would have us leave this region to. Be honest about it will you?

Well, we are trying a different route right now and if you guys are to be believed, it isn't working. To my mind, it still has some time left on the clock before we reject it but in the face of this sentiment, it may become increasingly difficult to complete, to whatever ending. The task of "Get 'er done," is unrealistic for the Iraqi's at this stage. If we follow that plan as outlined, it is a recipe for disaster, Old Ed recognizes this fact but he doesn't care, you seem to have some idea it will actually be a workable solution. I believe you are a fool. Whatever we decide to do, we should drop the subterfuge and describe it as what it is. Couched in any terms you may find soothing, this is a surrender and the forces opposed to us will gain so much respect and power in that region that they will become the major power there. These are the people who drive trucks of explosives into civilian gatherings to make their point and planes into buildings abroad. They are Al Qeada and the government of the Taliban. This is what you would have us leave this region to. Be honest about it will you?
Ok, so what about the current path is working? "Staying the course," when you're off course, is a mistake. Bush is a dolt being led by chickenhawks who think it is acceptable to use war in place of diplomacy.

Sadly, you're just a lemming, unable to admit mistakes, following a dwindling herd. So, how's that working for ya?

Bush and the Buck Stops Here!

Ok, so what about the current path is working? "Staying the course," when you're off course, is a mistake. Bush is a dolt being led by chickenhawks who think it is acceptable to use war in place of diplomacy.

Sadly, you're just a lemming, unable to admit mistakes, following a dwindling herd. So, how's that working for ya?

Bush and the Buck Stops Here!

I don't find your lack of respect very persuasive. As I said before, I can respect honesty but so far, you show none. What is working there today is the formulation of the government and the training of their forces. If you find that unacceptable, I don't really care, it is still true to whatever extent it has reached. It is a fact. It may be slower than hoped for due to the cultural differences there and the great animosity that must be overcome. It has also been complicated by locating people to lead these forces that can be trusted, there has been a great deal of treachery involved and I believe that has been the major obsticle.

I have tried very hard to keep my temper and respond to you like you are an adult, capable of hearing and understanding. I understand that you reject everything I have said but there you are, I still believe it and I still believe there is time on the clock before we throw up our hands and give up. As to your lemming allegations, I don't believe that describes me but I would rather follow a chickenhawk than a chidkenshit.

I don't find your lack of respect very persuasive. As I said before, I can respect honesty but so far, you show none. What is working there today is the formulation of the government and the training of their forces. If you find that unacceptable, I don't really care, it is still true to whatever extent it has reached. It is a fact. It may be slower than hoped for due to the cultural differences there and the great animosity that must be overcome. It has also been complicated by locating people to lead these forces that can be trusted, there has been a great deal of treachery involved and I believe that has been the major obsticle.

I have tried very hard to keep my temper and respond to you like you are an adult, capable of hearing and understanding. I understand that you reject everything I have said but there you are, I still believe it and I still believe there is time on the clock before we throw up our hands and give up. As to your lemming allegations, I don't believe that describes me but I would rather follow a chickenhawk than a chidkenshit.

You call me a fool, and yet you expect respect? Now you call me dishonest, yet everything I post can not be discredited. All you, and your lemming pals, do is attack the person criticizing your failed president and his failed policies.

It's much harder to solve problems through diplomacy than it is to just throw troops at the situation.

Perhaps you should read a little Hans Morgenthau? He was a renouned foreign policy realist. Here's a critique of Bush and the neo-cons by John Mearsheimer based on Morgenthau. Mearsheimer is a well respected professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article.jsp?id=3&debateId=77&articleId=2522
Don't let the name of the site "Open Democracy" disturb you, it is what we're tryin to spread in Iraq, isn't it? Give it a read, you might just find it enlightening.

and Murtha's not calling for our troops to cut and run and come home. he's saying that right now, what we're doing there has no chance of succeeding. it's too late, Bush screwed things up too badly, and to just continue on as we're doing will have no effect except to get american soldiers killed.

basically, he's saying to Bush, either sh!t, or get off the pot. fight the war to win it, or get the hell out. and since Bush seems to have no inclination to do the things that need to be done to win it, then there's only one alternative. get out.

You call me a fool, and yet you expect respect? Now you call me dishonest, yet everything I post can not be discredited. All you, and your lemming pals, do is attack the person criticizing your failed president and his failed policies.

It's much harder to solve problems through diplomacy than it is to just throw troops at the situation.

Perhaps you should read a little Hans Morgenthau? He was a renouned foreign policy realist. Here's a critique of Bush and the neo-cons by John Mearsheimer based on Morgenthau. Mearsheimer is a well respected professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article.jsp?id=3&debateId=77&articleId=2522
Don't let the name of the site "Open Democracy" disturb you, it is what we're tryin to spread in Iraq, isn't it? Give it a read, you might just find it enlightening.

I am assuming that your term chickenhawk applies to everyone currently known as neocons. I am applying the term chickenshit to those in the Democratic party that have been trying to twist their previous position into something less committed. "The Devil made me do it," doesn't ring true. They are liars of the first order and subversive into the bargain. If you worship one or more of them that is your problem. I don't have to read an in depth critique by anyone to tell me what current events have already said loudly and clearly. If you pay attention, you won't need commentators to tell you what was said, you should be able to evaluate on your own, reading this sort of critique serves to reinforce, not formulate.

Whatever mistakes have or have not been made, the die is cast. The sh*tstorm of criticism on the eve of an election in the country in question can hardly be seen as positive in nature. It can only offer encouragement to those who have fought to elicit this very response from us from the outset. Whether it is our nature to have feet of clay or not, it is our reputation. The insurgency plays on that. Next February would have been a more patriotic and prudent time for the open opposition, after the elections and after the new government had an opportunity to take some form. However, the time is now so examine what you are offering or supporting very carefully. The "Plan" put forth is very much like the "Peace with Honor" we exited Vietnam by. We cut and ran under a flag of honor and absolved ourselves of commitments made to our friends during that process. This plan offers the same result, we are out, they are left on their own to fight a much stronger and better organized enemy and the outcome of that fight is clear and inevitable. The consequences to us will NOT be the same.

I am assuming that your term chickenhawk applies to everyone currently known as neocons. I am applying the term chickenshit to those in the Democratic party that have been trying to twist their previous position into something less committed. "The Devil made me do it," doesn't ring true. They are liars of the first order and subversive into the bargain.

It's funny that you guys keep referring to the dems as liars. What are they lying about? I haven't seen one of them yet say that they didn't vote for the resolution to use force when they actually did. So what is it they're lying about again? Just for the record, I did not support any of my Congressmen who voted for the use of force, which was all of them I believe, and wrote many letters to them about it.

Chickenhawk I think refers to the people on control that have never been in combat, nor have ever served in the military service with any distinction, nor have ever served ever. Such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and so on and so forth.

It's funny that you guys keep referring to the dems as liars. What are they lying about? I haven't seen one of them yet say that they didn't vote for the resolution to use force when they actually did. So what is it they're lying about again? Just for the record, I did not support any of my Congressmen who voted for the use of force, which was all of them I believe, and wrote many letters to them about it.

Chickenhawk I think refers to the people on control that have never been in combat, nor have ever served in the military service with any distinction, nor have ever served ever. Such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and so on and so forth.
Hey, Snake. Dude. You probably know I'm no pantywaste pacifist. War is perfectly fine with me. Sometimes, you just have to kill people. And I listened to the WMD crap, and believed Powell (that was a biggie, believing Powell), and sorta sighed and said, yeah, OK, let's go get the f*cker. But then there were NO WMDs, and as it turns out no reason for the war, and then the management of the situation is INCREDIBLY bungled and clueless, and if you of all people think I'm not gonna CHANGE MY MIND and say, Naw, these good boys and girls are NOT going to die for a mistake like too many of my buddies did and I almost did, for a similarly deranged President of a different party, you have taken leave of your senses.

I can NOT for the life of me understand how ANY Vietnam-era vet can support this idiotic war.

It's funny that you guys keep referring to the dems as liars. What are they lying about? I haven't seen one of them yet say that they didn't vote for the resolution to use force when they actually did. So what is it they're lying about again? Just for the record, I did not support any of my Congressmen who voted for the use of force, which was all of them I believe, and wrote many letters to them about it.

Chickenhawk I think refers to the people on control that have never been in combat, nor have ever served in the military service with any distinction, nor have ever served ever. Such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and so on and so forth.

The term has no place in any debate where people are trying to understand each other. that doesn't happen often here but from time to time I have seen it. I am beginning to get the impression you don't like this war, is that correct? Here's a shocker for you, I don't either. I don't like anything about it and especially the fact that there is an evil in the world that made it necessary. I do recognize the fact that civilians run this country and not the military and it is probably the reason we havce sruvived as long as we have as free as we are. Military service doesn't define a good political leader. There have been military men who became politicians that would be judged both sides of that coin.

As to the lies, I think you are being disengenious. You know full well what I am referring to, I know full well you disagree. I can tell you though, they make me as angry as you are at Bush. I am as strong in my convictions as you are and as certain I am right.

I am assuming that your term chickenhawk applies to everyone currently known as neocons. I am applying the term chickenshit to those in the Democratic party that have been trying to twist their previous position into something less committed. "The Devil made me do it," doesn't ring true. They are liars of the first order and subversive into the bargain. If you worship one or more of them that is your problem. I don't have to read an in depth critique by anyone to tell me what current events have already said loudly and clearly. If you pay attention, you won't need commentators to tell you what was said, you should be able to evaluate on your own, reading this sort of critique serves to reinforce, not formulate.

Whatever mistakes have or have not been made, the die is cast. The sh*tstorm of criticism on the eve of an election in the country in question can hardly be seen as positive in nature. It can only offer encouragement to those who have fought to elicit this very response from us from the outset. Whether it is our nature to have feet of clay or not, it is our reputation. The insurgency plays on that. Next February would have been a more patriotic and prudent time for the open opposition, after the elections and after the new government had an opportunity to take some form. However, the time is now so examine what you are offering or supporting very carefully. The "Plan" put forth is very much like the "Peace with Honor" we exited Vietnam by. We cut and ran under a flag of honor and absolved ourselves of commitments made to our friends during that process. This plan offers the same result, we are out, they are left on their own to fight a much stronger and better organized enemy and the outcome of that fight is clear and inevitable. The consequences to us will NOT be the same.

What you deem "chickensh*t" I view as informed and rational. Bush and his cabal are lying when they said "Congress got the same intel." Congress got cherry picked intel that Bush and especially Cheney wanted them to see. They weren't given the dissenting opinions.

Murtha is the military. I certainly wouldn't characterize him as "chickensh*t." (http://www.house.gov/murtha/awards.shtml#military) Why he carries more weight than say McCain I'll never understand. The Reps seem to treat McCain as their forgotten stepchild on Christmas eve. They only pull him out when they need him.

Part of the reason I posted that critique is it explains why the neo-cons think military force is acceptable over diplomacy, and what their plans were for the use of force beyond Iraq. Also, for the nice parallels between Iraq and Vietnam... It's quite a read. http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article.jsp?id=3&debateId=77&articleId=2522 Then again, it was written by a "liberal elite" who has only dedicated his life's work to the study of international relations.

Your side shamefully twisted what Murtha called for. He wants a redeployment over 6 mos., in order to give the troops a chance to regroup, and for Bush and Co. a chance to develop a better plan. Murtha sees our troops as the catalist for the insurgency.

Did you know that there hasn't been a capture of non-Iraqi insurgent since June '05? What that tells us is this insurgency is largely pissed off Iraqis who've lost their loved ones due to our occupation. Estimates show that over 35,000 Iraqi have died since our initial invasion. That means 35,000+ families/fathers/brothers/sisters...etc. are pretty pissed, and likely to strap a bomb to their backs.

What you deem "chickensh*t" I view as informed and rational. Bush and his cabal are lying when they said "Congress got the same intel." Congress got cherry picked intel that Bush and especially Cheney wanted them to see. They weren't given the dissenting opinions.

Murtha is the military. I certainly wouldn't characterize him as "chickensh*t." (http://www.house.gov/murtha/awards.shtml#military) Why he carries more weight than say McCain I'll never understand. The Reps seem to treat McCain as their forgotten stepchild on Christmas eve. They only pull him out when they need him.

Part of the reason I posted that critique is it explains why the neo-cons think military force is acceptable over diplomacy, and what their plans were for the use of force beyond Iraq. Also, for the nice parallels between Iraq and Vietnam... It's quite a read. http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article.jsp?id=3&debateId=77&articleId=2522 Then again, it was written by a "liberal elite" who has only dedicated his life's work to the study of international relations.

Your side shamefully twisted what Murtha called for. He wants a redeployment over 6 mos., in order to give the troops a chance to regroup, and for Bush and Co. a chance to develop a better plan. Murtha sees our troops as the catalist for the insurgency.

Did you know that there hasn't been a capture of non-Iraqi insurgent since June '05? What that tells us is this insurgency is largely pissed off Iraqis who've lost their loved ones due to our occupation. Estimates show that over 35,000 Iraqi have died since our initial invasion. That means 35,000+ families/fathers/brothers/sisters...etc. are pretty pissed, and likely to strap a bomb to their backs.

Well, I share their sentiment. I'm ready to strap a bomb to their asses and help them along with their program. I'm a little pissed at this situation myself and I blame THEM.

Well, I share their sentiment. I'm ready to strap a bomb to their asses and help them along with their program. I'm a little pissed at this situation myself and I blame THEM.

Wait, maybe this is their version of a "liberators" parade? Only their fireworks are too strong? The do like to shoot their guns in the air when they get married...

I understand where you're coming from, the whole thing suks!

Why is it we can't find this Zarqawi guy? Is he real? He certainly gets a lot of blame for the violence, but they keep showing the old photos. Seriously, has anyone questioned if he's even real? Is it easier to hate and blame someone if there's a face? You'd think someone would turn him in and become a multimillionaire. Is this just more evidence of the insurgency being homegrown?

Wait, maybe this is their version of a "liberators" parade? Only their fireworks are too strong? The do like to shoot their guns in the air when they get married...

I understand where you're coming from, the whole thing suks!

Why is it we can't find this Zarqawi guy? Is he real? He certainly gets a lot of blame for the violence, but they keep showing the old photos. Seriously, has anyone questioned if he's even real? Is it easier to hate and blame someone if there's a face? You'd think someone would turn him in and become a multimillionaire. Is this just more evidence of the insurgency being homegrown?

Yeah. He isn't Iraqi, was from Jordan, but I guess he got there as fast as he could. It looks to me like we could set some of our sattelites in permanant position, locate the most likely spots and then target them with a cruise missile attack at night. focus on likely headquarters of Zarqawi and Osama. If we miss a couple of times......oh well!

Oh please. This is a pimple on an elephants butt. I'm not ever sure why I am responding. I know you cannot believe what you wrote. It must be the pain killers or somethin'. So now the Pubs will start draggin' out their war heroes like Congressman Sam Johnson who has more medals than Starbucks has beans. His war honors make Kerry look like a cub scout that hasn't earned his knot tyin' badge yet.

No wonder the Libs fee so close to the French. They've been tryin' to raise the white flag while our fighting men and women are tryin' to win a war. You guys really want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory! Have another pill.

PS I hope you feel better from what ever ails you! I mean that without any sarcasim ;)

and Murtha's not calling for our troops to cut and run and come home. he's saying that right now, what we're doing there has no chance of succeeding. it's too late, Bush screwed things up too badly, and to just continue on as we're doing will have no effect except to get american soldiers killed.

basically, he's saying to Bush, either sh!t, or get off the pot. fight the war to win it, or get the hell out. and since Bush seems to have no inclination to do the things that need to be done to win it, then there's only one alternative. get out.

He was given a chance to vote to get them out and home last night and I believe most of the peacnics voted no.What he proposed is a retreat as sure as little apples start out green. He knows it and anyone who can think knows it as well. If that leaves you out, it won't be your first rodeo, cowboy.

You sound like the lemming by parroting the lefts talking points. You make claims about doing it the wrong way and poor planning, etc. That's a strawman argument. You very well know there is no clear way of determining victory or defeat. If you want to keep score, then let's do it. Iraq has a democratically elected government in place. They have a constitution as well. Saddam and most of his underlings, including his sons who would have followed in his footsteps have been killed or captured. He is standing trial. Newspapers and schools are open for business. Women can vote and partake in every day life affairs. There are a myriad of other signs of progress that didn't exist prior to ousting Saddam. You are a defeatist basing your assessment on partisanship because of your obvious and open hatred of Bush. Your type of mindset has caused great damage to this country and many more people are seeing that. Keep it up and you will find yourself on the outside looking in. This country is about winning. It is about justice. It is about fairness and patriotism. Your side is about division. It is about chaos and disorder. That is the only way they can attempt to regain control. Success is not good for them because it would prove how wrong they are on the issues. So you are the lemming walking down the same defeatist path for the same self-serving reasons!

No need to smear when the truth will work! 403 - 3! That's a pasting if there ever was one! Your side has no balls!

No need to smear when the truth will work! 403 - 3! That's a pasting if there ever was one! Your side has no balls!You're absolutely correct. Something else I've been saying all along:

It's the Dems that are directly responsible for the war in Iraq. Had they had the balls to vote it down before it got started we wouldn't be in the retarded position we're in right now.


Keep voting for the lesser of two evils guys, it'll get you what you deserve every time.

From your recent posts in a few threads, you seem to advocate extremism. Have I read that correctly?

From your recent posts in a few threads, you seem to advocate extremism. Have I read that correctly?Nope. I advocate doing the job right and sometimes that involves extreme measures. Apply Occam's Razor to the situation in the ME. The right course of action is clear.

And, again, this isn't something I just started saying.

The term has no place in any debate where people are trying to understand each other. that doesn't happen often here but from time to time I have seen it. I am beginning to get the impression you don't like this war, is that correct? Here's a shocker for you, I don't either. I don't like anything about it and especially the fact that there is an evil in the world that made it necessary. I do recognize the fact that civilians run this country and not the military and it is probably the reason we havce sruvived as long as we have as free as we are. Military service doesn't define a good political leader. There have been military men who became politicians that would be judged both sides of that coin.

As to the lies, I think you are being disengenious. You know full well what I am referring to, I know full well you disagree. I can tell you though, they make me as angry as you are at Bush. I am as strong in my convictions as you are and as certain I am right.

I can agree with you that they are being disingenous, but when the shoe is on the other foot, they are politicians after all, and if they can make hay with this and gain control of the Congress again, well, then they should try. There is a shift of power going on, and the Republicans might (I say might because we all well know that the dems could mess their chances up very easily) come out on the other end of it from where they are now. They made a lot of hay back in the day when Newt was in the speaker role, which is why they have had a majority in the Congress since then. Don't try to sound all proud and shocked that the dems are trying to take advantage of their opposing party's weakness, both sides do it. Doesn't make it right, but as far as i can tell, that's politics as usual in the US. It's been like that for a long time, when the opposing party does something that in general the populace doesn't agree with you call them on it, and then drive it into the ground. That's what they're doing. They're not lying about it, but there are a lot of them that did vote for use of force, now changing their minds about it. Whether that's for political gain, or because they've had better thoughts about it now and are saying that they were wrong, well, either way...

No, I don't like this war. Was against it from the start. Have protested against it, have written letters, gone on talk shows, and so on and so forth. Yes, hate it. The evil that you speak of. What was it? Hussein or the terrorists that weren't in Iraq? Saddam, yes, bad guy, as I've said time and again, but really not much of a threat to anyone aside from his own people.

I do agree that military service does not define a good leader, but I think it does offer a sense of knowing what the men and women in uniform are going through, or will have to go through if you send them into harm's way. I think Bush has used our miltary forces in a way that was unwise, and has been costly (in terms of life and cash), and if he had served, I think he might have thought better of it originally, same for Rummy, and Cheney, but they didn't. I would also have a better view of Bush if it actually appeared that he cared about the troops. To me, he doesn't. He doesn't look concerned. What he is most concerned about lately, is attacking his critics instead of attacking the problem. He hardly ever looks stressed out, hardly ever breaks a sweat, and doesn't appear to me at least, that he gives 2shits about what happens to the fighting men and women. He pays lip service to it, and that's it. I seem to remember a video coming out of him looking around the Oval Office on his hands and knees during Christmas last year was it? When he was saying, "Nope! No WMDs here." Or something to that effect. To me that screams out that he's unattached.

Do I like W? I would wager that if I were to meet him as a regular person, I would like him. What I don't like is his governing of America, and his policies foreign and domestic. He places the rich folks on top of the heap, and gives the finger to everyone else. He hates the environment, hates science, and essentially, at least in my opinion, makes horrible decisions. So yeah, I don't like the Bush administration, and '08, cannot come quick enough.

One thing about this military service and loving the troops. Nobody wants our young people wasted but they are a tool for political leaders to use when they have to. In that respect, being too conservative can lose you the war. In the Civil war, the Union was in a lot of trouble until Grant took over. I don't think he didn't love the troops but he did realize that they had to fight, he damned well did.

Going intp Iraq, most of the commentators wanted more ground forces, it's the same call that goes on today. We destroyed the forces in front of us and made it to the objective with what is accepted as extremely light casualties. That isn't to say we don't value those who were killed and injured but we expected much worse and much higher numbers. In that respect, this administration was right and the critics were wrong. It would have been nice to have been able to control the looting once we entered the city but that was not the objective. We could have killed looters but even if we had had ten times the troops on the ground, that was not seen as acceptable. The population was not who we were fighting, it still isn't.

In todays situation, what we are trying to reach is a standing army of Iraqis and a government that is stable enough to assume responsibility of that force. We would all like to see this process moving faster but it is moving and those forces are being trained under fire. They are dieing at a higher rate than our own forces as well. They have a huge stake in this process that they might not have if we had thousands more troops there to control every aspect of their lives and their country. Numbers aren't going to win this battle. It is going to take quality and dedication to something greater than some warlord tyrant. You and I have nothing to tell us if that is or is not the case as these forces step up and we have to trust those in country that are overseeing this process. The administration has the best information and insight other than those military leaders in Iraq. That requires we have some degree of trust in the administration here at home, which, admittedly puts you at a disadvantage. :)

My patience is not endless but it is not strained to the point yours seems to be because I don't know what the truth is today. The fact that the administration hasn't outlined a timeline for us doesn't mean they don't have some expectation for some of these events. It could be that they don't want to make promises they may not be able to keep. If they did so and couldn't meet it, that would truely be the end of their credibility and the patience of the Ameican people with this conflict. Which brings us to the demands of the Democratic Party and their current rather nasty partisan pressure tactics. Opportunistic and understandable but a gamble for them as well if there is some dramatic change in the fluid situation that is Iraq.

I am waiting to see. While I am waiting, I pray for the President to be right because that would be the best outcome for us at home, the Iraqi people and the military forces involved in what is left of our coalition.

Sorry, buried this in a thread below, but I figure, hell, THIS is where it stands, let it stand alone:

This Murtha thing is HUGE. It's not a Dem thing, it's a military thing. The Repubs are FREAKED, and will desperately try to Swift boat him. Already are. Won't work. The Dems are freaked too, because they aren't prepared to endorse his position, but can't disown him either. Thumbs up their ass as usual.

Can't wait till Steam or kcpw cut-and-pastes some huge piece of fraudulent crap showing what a corrupt bas tard their formerly-favorite Dem is. I'm sure the smear machine is gearing up with talking points. The lights are burning late in some RNC basement. F*ck them. We're TIRED of them.

PLUS, I can't wait to watch my own party crawfish sideways, sputtering, on Murtha's proposal. They're, unfortunately, chickenshit, unlike me, and we're tired of them too.

I say: Bring those good boys and girls home.

The American people say: Bring those good boys and girls home.

The freakin AMERICAN MILITARY says, through Murtha: Please let us bring these good boys and girls home.

The Repubs, of course, say: Let's destroy Murtha!

The Dems, of course, say: Uh, we're not sure.

This nuts war is about to be over, the nuts Repubs are about to be lashed out of Washington, and the nuts Dems are about to bumble back into power with no idea what to do.

Why does everybody hate America?<!-- / message -->

We never should have sent the troops there in the first place. We can't really just pack up and bring them home now or the place will be (more) overrun with terrorists. I have no idea how we will ever know that the time is right to leave. They have to get some kind of stable military and police force before that can happen.

It would be nice if the military could get the job done without politics getting in the way, but that never happens.

He's a treasonous SOB now, though.Cheney sure is.

Yet another example of a Republican Congress more interested in grandstanding than debate.

Yet another example of a Republican Congress more interested in grandstanding than debate.

Wha-a-at! You guys don't want to pull those kids out now?

Wha-a-at! You guys don't want to pull those kids out now?Look at Murthra's proposal (another one of Cheney's former buddy's--besides the neo-cons who knew him in the past does anybody recognize his current incarnation?) vs. the bs one the Republifrauds sent up for a vote.

If this administration wasn't deaf, dumb, and blind, none of this would be happening in plain sight. Problem is the GWB administration and the Republicans that control Congress only want to hear what they want to hear. And look where that has gotten us.

Look at Murthra's proposal (another one of Cheney's former buddy's--besides the neo-cons who knew him in the past does anybody recognize his current incarnation?) vs. the bs one the Republifrauds sent up for a vote.

If this administration wasn't deaf, dumb, and blind, none of this would be happening in plain sight. Problem is the GWB administration and the Republicans that control Congress only want to hear what they want to hear. And look where that has gotten us.

I have already told you what a fraud this proposal is and why.

It's come to this thanks to the GWB administration. Jack Murtha is a hawk. If he thinks things are messed up, you can bet you bottom dollar they are. As I've said, the facts on the ground PROVE that the anti-war critics were right and the GWB administration was wrong. Why should the GWB administration be given the benefit of any doubt at this point?

It's come to this thanks to the GWB administration. Jack Murtha is a hawk. If he thinks things are messed up, you can bet you bottom dollar they are. As I've said, the facts on the ground PROVE that the anti-war critics were right and the GWB administration was wrong. Why should the GWB administration be given the benefit of any doubt at this point?

Wasn't ol' Jack, the hawk, a nay vote recently? How come, if he's all that disillusioned?

It's the Dems that are directly responsible for the war in Iraq. Had they had the balls to vote it down before it got started we wouldn't be in the retarded position we're in right now.

Fighting for the survival of Western Civilization is not a retarded position. Helping the side that we are fighting in order to improve your party's poistion before the '06 and '08 elections is retarded

Uh-oh, Snake is getting cryptic again.

Fighting for the survival of Western Civilization is not a retarded position. Helping the side that we are fighting in order to improve your party's poistion before the '06 and '08 elections is retarded
SO...where do we America haters sign up to vote special *emergency powers* to El Prez(for life)?

Uh-oh, Snake is getting cryptic again.

Do "cryptic" mean ol' Snake is right?

Fighting for the survival of Western Civilization is not a retarded position. Helping the side that we are fighting in order to improve your party's poistion before the '06 and '08 elections is retardedAnd Western Civilization has to be destroyed in order to save it, doesn't it?

We never should have sent the troops there in the first place. We can't really just pack up and bring them home now or the place will be (more) overrun with terrorists. I have no idea how we will ever know that the time is right to leave. They have to get some kind of stable military and police force before that can happen.

It would be nice if the military could get the job done without politics getting in the way, but that never happens.

Good Points!

We invaded Iraq in order to establish a garrison in the Middle East. It's going better than can be expected, which is a fact regardless of all the "horror" stories coming out of the region. The media in the US and the rest of the World is agenda driven by pie in the sky "one world though". It makes a good story, but is not realistic in a time when islamo fascists are actively attempting to control the world.

That is why this is a "hot" world war, and why we need a garrison in the ME. The president of the US can't come out and say that, but anyone with half a brain can plainly see that is what is going on. We've got to have troops and equip and bases ready to go in the ME in order to win this war. Otherwise the fight will come to our shores as it did with 9-11. True Story.

And Western Civilization has to be destroyed in order to save it, doesn't it?
You are falling for a typical argument. We all know that if we were actually fighting for the fate of the Western world...everything, the draft, industry, conservation, restrictions would all be on the table. The problem is the rhetoric is all that is present...the Western Civ. can't be in jeopardy...because he or she says it is... It is only in jeapordy when it actually...is.

You cannot say...we are fighting the next war to end all wars and yet...do it on the cheap, with few troops, by taking the draft off the table, hamstring the military by making sure to restrict movements against potential civilian casualties etc.

Talking like that...without concurrent actions to back up the rhetoric is just empty hyperbolous blather.

And Western Civilization has to be destroyed in order to save it, doesn't it?
How so I don't follow your quip?

How so I don't follow your quip?
Don't mind V there-he has this wierd affinity for obsolete theories about democracy cookred up by a bunch of dead persons back from the 18th & 19th century--nowadays we know better.

Don't mind V there-he has this wierd affinity for obsolete theories about democracy cookred up by a bunch of dead persons back from the 18th & 19th century--nowadays we know better.

None of them old dead fellers were known to cut and run 'cause things got tough.

SO...where do we America haters sign up to vote special *emergency powers* to El Prez(for life)?

Why do you say that? Nobody is talking about anything as assanine. Please, take hald a second to think before you start typing.

...and put the bong down too :)

None of them old dead fellers were known to cut and run 'cause things got tough.Well...there have been stories about Jefferson.

Then there was that General that came to some infamousity...over a woman of all things.

They were also a bit smarter about the wars they chose and the strategeries once chosen than the current admin.

Well...there have been stories about Jefferson.

Then there was that General that came to some infamousity...over a woman of all things.

By and large perfesser, by and large. ;)

Crypticism is the last refuge of scoundrels or somesuch.

By and large perfesser, by and large. ;)
It is just part of my ongoing mission to stop you from speaking in abolutes.

Even as a vodka it is overrated.

Crypticism is the last refuge of scoundrels or somesuch.

I thought that was liberalism? I'd rather be cryptic.

Actually I was playfully distorting Samuel Johnson, whose actual quote applies to you as well: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

Actually I was playfully distorting Samuel Johnson, whose actual quote applies to you as well: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

Dawgawn it, you ejikated guys is so sma-a-a-art. Who knew?

It would have been nice to have been able to control the looting once we entered the city but that was not the objective. We could have killed looters but even if we had had ten times the troops on the ground, that was not seen as acceptable. The population was not who we were fighting, it still isn't.


Our invasion and our inability to control the "looters" wasn't the problem. Figuring out where the WMD were and where their top scientists got off to IS. That's why the world isn't safer now. It isn't. I posted the piece from Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/09/armageddon.html) Sorry, you'll have to be a member to get the full thing, but honestly this is why this whole idea was a bad one. We are not safer, Iraq isn't friendlier, and we've wasted serious money, lives and political capital in this.

BT

Like our MBA President!

You are falling for a typical argument. We all know that if we were actually fighting for the fate of the Western world...everything, the draft, industry, conservation, restrictions would all be on the table. The problem is the rhetoric is all that is present...the Western Civ. can't be in jeopardy...because he or she says it is... It is only in jeapordy when it actually...is.

You cannot say...we are fighting the next war to end all wars and yet...do it on the cheap, with few troops, by taking the draft off the table, hamstring the military by making sure to restrict movements against potential civilian casualties etc.

Talking like that...without concurrent actions to back up the rhetoric is just empty hyperbolous blather.

Okay. What do you think the situation in the Middle East and radical islamists is?

the battle in Iraq is the battle to save western Civilizatioin now? and you're asking V to put the bong down? So if we lose Iraq Sharia will overrun us and all that is western will be burned? Which # BS reason to go to war is this?
Christ I haven't seen a slope that slippery since the fall of some 2 bit Central American or SE Asian nation would mean we'd be run over by the Commies. I didn't realize this was the war to save the free world, my goodness I better go sign up, this is urgent. I mean this is Marathon or Thermopylae Y2K and No one told me.
now it's even funnier becuase before we toppled Saddam he was as anti FundiCon Islam as we are. So we overthrew a dictator which actually aided the Islamo Fascists,that's freakin' brilliant strategy if I've ever seen it.

yeah that Garrison is gonna be real popular over there. I'm sure that will be the equivalent of getting a Russian Front assignment in WW2.

and sorry if you missed his point about destroying western civ to save it.

look all you RadiCons have already lost the freakin war. You are willing to give up everything that makes America great to defeat them. So we beat Islam but we are no longer the America we wanted to defend. No freedom, intrusive govt., legal detention without accusation of a crime, torture, murder. You guys have already lost the war.

Who says I'm falling for it? Just pointing out the ridiculousness of their rhetoric.

Who says I'm falling for it? Just pointing out the ridiculousness of their rhetoric.

I still don't get it. Please explain.

we'd be going all out, not have sent 150K troops , we'd have had the entire western world lining up with us, even those lousy surrender monkeys the French would ahve fixed bayonetts with the threat of Islamic Sharia looming. your rhetoric is over inflated, empty blather and if it bore any of the slightest element of truth would point to an even greater failure by this admin to address this war properly. This isn't the kind of effort one puts in to save the west. calling this war plan 'half assed' is a compliment. So please spare us such foolish grandiosity, the barbarians aren't banging on th gates,nor will they ever be as they willn ever have the industrial nor personell abilities to wage war on the entire western world.
Now I'll promise to put my Bong down if you quit the oxycontin.

we'd be going all out, not have sent 150K troops , we'd have had the entire western world lining up with us, even those lousy surrender monkeys the French would ahve fixed bayonetts with the threat of Islamic Sharia looming. your rhetoric is over inflated, empty blather and if it bore any of the slightest element of truth would point to an even greater failure by this admin to address this war properly. This isn't the kind of effort one puts in to save the west. calling this war plan 'half assed' is a compliment. So please spare us such foolish grandiosity, the barbarians aren't banging on th gates,nor will they ever be as they willn ever have the industrial nor personell abilities to wage war on the entire western world.
Now I'll promise to put my Bong down if you quit the oxycontin.

Okay, so what is your assessment of the threat in the Middle East from the Islamo-Fascists?

Good Points!
It makes a good story, but is not realistic in a time when islamo fascists are actively attempting to control the world.

That is why this is a "hot" world war, and why we need a garrison in the ME. The president of the US can't come out and say that, but anyone with half a brain can plainly see that is what is going on. We've got to have troops and equip and bases ready to go in the ME in order to win this war. Otherwise the fight will come to our shores as it did with 9-11. True Story.

Well then riddle me this Mr Brumm....why is this admin doing the war on the cheap?
Does that not seem alittle askew of your hyperbole.......the actions taken thus far by this admin in no way match their rhetoric.....

Well then riddle me this Mr Brumm....why is this admin doing the war on the cheap?
Does that not seem alittle askew of your hyperbole.......the actions taken thus far by this admin in no way match their rhetoric.....

What we need is a friendly government in control of Iraq, control and friendly being paramount. That would leave us free to protect ourselves in whatever basing situation is the result.

Well then riddle me this Mr Brumm....why is this admin doing the war on the cheap?
Does that not seem alittle askew of your hyperbole.......the actions taken thus far by this admin in no way match their rhetoric.....

ARE U KIDDING ME!.

The opposition party, for that is what they are simply opposed to everything, combined with the mainstream media is having a field day with the current level of war. Do you really believe it would be possible for any administration to pull off what is really necessary?

There are two points here. 1) The insidious nature of the threat makes it difficult to mobilize the greater population of the world to do anything about the problem.

2) Given that fact, the current administration has done an amazing job with what they have at their disposal.

Now would someone on the other side please tell me their assessment of the threat that we face in the ME and from the Islamo-Fascists. Please.

A) Saddam's presence actually served in the battle against such

B) While Islamo Fascists would love to see a return to when Islam went from Indonesia to Spain they lack
a really good military (they haven't proven to be tactically savvy in real battle)
they would need such to wage war on the west, all they seem tobe able to do is
fight guerilla wars on their homelands. doesn't bode well for a war on the west.

the amount of people it would take to wage a war on a mechanically superior, better
trained western war machine (say a group of US the EU and the Soviets, heck I'm sure
the Chinese would defend us and our buying power as well)

the industry to produce a big enough war machine to wage such a war. where are they
gonna get the steel, the factories and technology to build their own equipment, after all
we in the west won't be supplying such a force with the equipment to attack us. please
inform me of any state of the art tank, jet or naval ship being produced in the ME

LAST BUT NOT LEAST, we in the west along with other western Civ super powers have
a whole heck of a lot more nukes and delivery machines than they will ever dream of
having. the fact that we could make the largest blown glass sculpture in the history of
man pretty much caps it.

But since you seem to be toting this, lets see

a) WMD's - nope
b) connection to Al Qaeda - nope
c) depose a dictator - well done that
d) create a democracy - chuckle,nope
e) Now defending the free world against Islamo Fascism

wouldn't the 350K troops that the fired general requested have been better with so much at stake?

Look Israel has shown numerous times that as of recent,Islamic nations fight shite offensive wars in most cases. The bumbling battles between Iran and Iraq is another fine example (and also of Saddam's War on Fundamentalist Islam,see A) of their lack of offensive military strategy. Saddam had the best mechanised army in the ME and we dismantled it without breaking a sweat so to speak.

our REAL THREAT form the ME will come in the form of terrorism. Which what we're doing right now isn't reducing the odds of. Instead of being a shining beacon of human rights and equal opportunity that would help the disgruntled youth of such places want to aspire to be we become global bully with what appears to be huge anti Islam attitudes.
we need to fuel the fire of revolution from within by showing them that our way is BETTER.
Torturing and killing folks doesn't really sell that idea so well.

and like I said, your side has already lost as you've sacrificed and are willing to sacrifice everything that makes our way better in hopes of changing them,and instead have changed ourselves.

2) Given that fact, the current administration has done an amazing job with what they have at their disposal.
Mr brumm, could I please borrow your bong some time-mine's not big enough.:rolleyes:;)

Mr brumm, could I please borrow your bong some time-mine's not big enough.:rolleyes:;)

That's what I thought, it certainly explains your laid back attitude toward the threat from Islamic terrorists. Bongs! I'll be darned.

2) Given that fact, the current administration has done an amazing job with what they have at their disposal. Do you mean to say that a quarter trillion dollar budget, a legislative majority, unlimited access to intelligence and the entire might of the US Armed forces at their disposal is a handicap???

and the press has been more than 'friendly' it isn't until the last few weeks they've shown some stones. Downing Street, the Plame Affair all were backpage for months.

re: Islamo Fascists I posted a lengthy response above.

that thai you must be smokin is clearly opiumated as you are clearly hallucinating.

so if the nature of the enemy is so insidious why hasn't the rest of the world taken up arms?

and once again, if this has been such a serious war, why skimp on the original troop deployment. I'll give you war to end all wars when you give us that if this is the case it's a huge F'up by the CIC. This has been a poorly planned op from Cheney's it'll be weeks not months, we'll be greeted miscalculation on. They've lied and F'd up and lied to cover the F ups and made up new excuses (lies) to cover those F ups so many times I'm beginning to think they think we'll just get confused.

That's what I thought, it certainly explains your laid back attitude toward the threat from Islamic terrorists. Bongs! I'll be darned.
Do pay attention Snake ;)

A) Saddam's presence actually served in the battle against such

B) While Islamo Fascists would love to see a return to when Islam went from Indonesia to Spain they lack
a really good military (they haven't proven to be tactically savvy in real battle)
they would need such to wage war on the west, all they seem tobe able to do is
fight guerilla wars on their homelands. doesn't bode well for a war on the west.

the amount of people it would take to wage a war on a mechanically superior, better
trained western war machine (say a group of US the EU and the Soviets, heck I'm sure
the Chinese would defend us and our buying power as well)

the industry to produce a big enough war machine to wage such a war. where are they
gonna get the steel, the factories and technology to build their own equipment, after all
we in the west won't be supplying such a force with the equipment to attack us. please
inform me of any state of the art tank, jet or naval ship being produced in the ME

LAST BUT NOT LEAST, we in the west along with other western Civ super powers have
a whole heck of a lot more nukes and delivery machines than they will ever dream of
having. the fact that we could make the largest blown glass sculpture in the history of
man pretty much caps it.

But since you seem to be toting this, lets see

a) WMD's - nope
b) connection to Al Qaeda - nope
c) depose a dictator - well done that
d) create a democracy - chuckle,nope
e) Now defending the free world against Islamo Fascism

wouldn't the 350K troops that the fired general requested have been better with so much at stake?

Look Israel has shown numerous times that as of recent,Islamic nations fight shite offensive wars in most cases. The bumbling battles between Iran and Iraq is another fine example (and also of Saddam's War on Fundamentalist Islam,see A) of their lack of offensive military strategy. Saddam had the best mechanised army in the ME and we dismantled it without breaking a sweat so to speak.

our REAL THREAT form the ME will come in the form of terrorism. Which what we're doing right now isn't reducing the odds of. Instead of being a shining beacon of human rights and equal opportunity that would help the disgruntled youth of such places want to aspire to be we become global bully with what appears to be huge anti Islam attitudes.
we need to fuel the fire of revolution from within by showing them that our way is BETTER.
Torturing and killing folks doesn't really sell that idea so well.

and like I said, your side has already lost as you've sacrificed and are willing to sacrifice everything that makes our way better in hopes of changing them,and instead have changed ourselves.

So, what you are saying is the towl heads aren't capable of human thought and action like democracy. Why? Is it genetic of enviroment? So much for global civil rights.

WMD and evidence of wmd was found in Iraq. But definately not in the magnitude that would satisfy a Democratic Senator, Foreign leader of NYT writer. The nature of the wmd threat there was of a mobile nature. That fact that it appears to have been driven from the country before the war is not surprising.

Was Saddam a card carrying member of Al-queada? I don't know. Was he a middle east Terrorist? Without question. Incidently, strong evidence links him to the first trade center bombing.

If by the one toting, do you mean touting?, you mean me, then I would say that I have said all along the reason for the invasion of Iraq was to surround Iran.

Islamo-Fascists includes the "democratically elected" theocrats in charge of Iran, who are close to having if they don't already have nukes. Its not a matter of having more nukes than Iran/North Korea. Iran with nuclear weapons is a death sentence for the West. 4 weeks without oil flowing out of the middle east and there will be economic catastrophe for the western economies. Iran with nukes could impose such.

The war in Iraq didn't cause disgruntled youths that were willing to blow themselves up. And not doing anything wouldn't change it either. DO the same thing over and over and you'll get the same results. The middle east will never change for the better until the leaders there change and they weren't going to change anything until we demonstrated our seriousness in the matter.

9-11 changed everything. It's not enough to talk about a better world. Everybody wants a better world. The problem is some definitions of better world don't include "free" and "tolerant".

The democrats are politicizing the Iraq situation to regain the house and the senate. The mainstream media isn't calling them on it.

We are willing the war, and now you want to surrrender because you don't like the party or personality of the president? Everytime a dem spouts off to increase their parties chances in '06 al jazeraa replays is 10 times an hour. So who's whipping up the anti-America sentiment in the ME? The same folks who want us to surrender so they can control the house and senate.

and the press has been more than 'friendly' it isn't until the last few weeks they've shown some stones. Downing Street, the Plame Affair all were backpage for months.

re: Islamo Fascists I posted a lengthy response above.

that thai you must be smokin is clearly opiumated as you are clearly hallucinating.

so if the nature of the enemy is so insidious why hasn't the rest of the world taken up arms?

and once again, if this has been such a serious war, why skimp on the original troop deployment. I'll give you war to end all wars when you give us that if this is the case it's a huge F'up by the CIC. This has been a poorly planned op from Cheney's it'll be weeks not months, we'll be greeted miscalculation on. They've lied and F'd up and lied to cover the F ups and made up new excuses (lies) to cover those F ups so many times I'm beginning to think they think we'll just get confused.

I've answered you point for point. If you cannot appreciate the media's bias, then I am not surprised that you believe the way you do.

Everytime a dem spouts off to increase their parties chances in '06 al jazeraa replays is 10 times an hour.

You get al-jazeraa? Man, I really have to spring for the premium channels.

Silas

You get al-jazeraa? Man, I really have to spring for the premium channels.

Silas

Sattelite dish!

Mr brumm, could I please borrow your bong some time-mine's not big enough.:rolleyes:;)

Look at the situation with your whole mind. Sure there are things that aren't perfect, but considering the nature of the problem and the limitations we face, the job to the point has been quite amazing.

Because you have not but antithapy for the president, you only see the negative parts that you can harp on to a sympathetic audience of similar minded people. We are the good guys in the world. We fight to be free and free others. We just do.

I don't have a bong, but you can borrow some of my common sense if you'd like. You're narrow mind could use a different perspective.

I don't have a bong, but you can borrow some of my common sense if you'd like.
Careful, it might be sold on ebay. "mint condition, hardly used".

Was Saddam a card carrying member of Al-queada? I don't know. Was he a middle east Terrorist? Without question. Incidently, strong evidence links him to the first trade center bombing.

oh jesus, someone's been reading laurie mylrhoie again. :rolleyes:

Careful, it might be sold on ebay. "mint condition, hardly used".

Good one, did your boyfriend tell you to type that?

Good one, did your boyfriend tell you to type that?
no he is sleeping after a good ehm workout but thanks for asking.

Because you have not but antithapy for the president, you only see the negative parts that you can harp on to a sympathetic audience of similar minded people. We are the good guys in the world. We fight to be free and free others. We just do.

I completely agree with your picture of what the ends should be. Democracy, freedom, great arabian booze and love.

I just think what we're doing there now has almost no connection to those ends. You say we're winning the football game, I say we're playing tennis, the football game is irrelevant. You think the war will eventually end and that democracy will spread throughout the ME. I think it will be roughly the same speed as communism spread through SE Asia after that other conflict.


Silas

no he is sleeping after a good ehm workout but thanks for asking.

Ok, I admit that I was fighting smart ass with smart ass. What can I say, I'm weak.

But, I swear to the good almighty him/her-self, alot of the time I have no idea what you dem/libs are talking about.

"EHM" is that some kind of metro sexual stuff that a simple mid-westerner like myself just doesn't get? I'm sorry that I'm not hip or queer or whatever else is cool these days.

Don't feel that you're talking down to me by using english. It's just the language a simpleton like me can understand.

While you're at it, please explain to me why we should surrender in Iraq when we are winning.

Ok, I admit that I was fighting smart ass with smart ass. What can I say, I'm weak.

But, I swear to the good almighty him/her-self, alot of the time I have no idea what you dem/libs are talking about.

"EHM" is that some kind of metro sexual stuff that a simple mid-westerner like myself just doesn't get? I'm sorry that I'm not hip or queer or whatever else is cool these days.

Don't feel that you're talking down to me by using english. It's just the language a simpleton like me can understand.

While you're at it, please explain to me why we should surrender in Iraq when we are winning.
I'm neither dem or lib.
A few commas were missing around ehm. Since english is not my first language, mistakes happen. Live with it.
As for the explaining, I have no idea what you are talking about,
You broke it, you stay around and fix it.
Apparently you only got one thing right....

The war IS over. We are now involved in a police action. The people voted and declared they want democracy and self rule. Isn't that worth any measure of success?

The war IS over. We are now involved in a police action. The people voted and declared they want democracy and self rule. Isn't that worth any measure of success? \
Considering our GREAT history of SUCKcessful *police actions* we should have a fundi-islam America hating state in oh what-a few weeks?

You think the war will eventually end and that democracy will spread throughout the ME. I think it will be roughly the same speed as communism spread through SE Asia after that other conflict.


he slept through world history and never took any courses on the ME.


Towel Heads? wow nice bigotry. incapable of wanting democracy? no, they will want that when they want it, NOT when we tell them to, especially when we make a mockery of our own. It took Western Civ (that thing we're supposedly fighting for) well over 1000 years to move to free, secular, democratic societies. You think you can drag a society still in mostly feudal / theocratical systems to such advance social states in a year or 2. Uh, please see Russia to the Soviet Uniuon back to Russia. Social Evolution, like other forms of evolution need one thing - time. ya can't force ideas on people whose cosmological views are so tied into their ontology that they can't split them.

so now the invasion of Iraq is to surround Iran so that's reason # what? So how long are we going to be at war in the ME? long after we're all pushing daisies. funny again,last I checked, weren't alot of Iranians flying on 9-11 either. Why don't we just 'get on with it' and attack the Sauds and the Yememis?

and how are they surrounded?we pulled most our troops out of Afghanistan after the first month so we could go after sADDAM. 16 bases in Iraq is what is causing all the insurgency. we don't 'look' like liberators but as an occupational force, hence the resistance.