GGniner Wrote:it makes to much sense to actually be done in today's western world, will they capitulate to Iran instead?

Yeah that would drive oil prices up and hurt the world economy. I wonder how much. May or may not be worth it.

Yeah OU, I believe EVERYTHING I posted. If it's taking such a long time, you can only blame yourself and your fellow liberals. During WWII we actually had people that wanted to see the US DEFENDED, to include the media. Now you have an entire party that would rather fight the president than the actual threat to our national security. You people bash the hell out of Bush, the military, our interrogation techniques, call our troops murderers, compare them to Pol Pot, Hitler, say they terrorize people.......and when a GDamn beheading happens, you don't say jack ****.....other than somehow blame THAT on the President as well. Our troops are tap-dancing around everything so as to not "offend" or injure one of your precious insurgents and placing themselves into more harm's way.

You on the left have some SERIOUS f'n priority issues and I believe WHOLEHEARTEDLY that you are dangerous to this country.

he doens't want the US, his own country, to win. Admitted as much in the other thread saying he wants to see bush humiliated by withdrawing from Iraq before term is up.

GGniner Wrote:

JTiger Wrote:If his approval ratings were so low in 94 why was he re-elected?

Triangulation and Ross Perot. They guy never got 50% of the vote in either election but was close in 96.
He was smart, took a GOP issue in welfare reform and went against his own party that election year and signed the GOP congress reform bill. Plus he had Bob Dole and Ross Perot, his first 2 years were a political disaster however.

the public was also living under the delusion of a "peace dividend" that in reality has been shown to not exist at the time.

my point about Truman, Lincoln and even George Washington is they were all unpopular at one time, they tried to fire George Washington at one point but are now looked at as great Presidents, because of their action.

Cry me a river. You guys blame everything on Ross Perot. The fact is we don't require a majority to win. W only got 51% a mere 1% above 50% does he deserve it?

The difference between the presidents you stated is that they fought wars of need, maybe not Korea, but the others happend to them unlike our current Iraq situation. Slice and Dice it however you want we choose to go to war with Iraq. We could still be containing Saddam right now and winning in Afghanistan where it's heating back up again and we need troops bad.

RebelKev Wrote:Yeah OU, I believe EVERYTHING I posted. If it's taking such a long time, you can only blame yourself and your fellow liberals. During WWII we actually had people that wanted to see the US DEFENDED, to include the media. Now you have an entire party that would rather fight the president than the actual threat to our national security. You people bash the hell out of Bush, the military, our interrogation techniques, call our troops murderers, compare them to Pol Pot, Hitler, say they terrorize people.......and when a GDamn beheading happens, you don't say jack ****.....other than somehow blame THAT on the President as well. Our troops are tap-dancing around everything so as to not "offend" or injure one of your precious insurgents and placing themselves into more harm's way.

You on the left have some SERIOUS f'n priority issues and I believe WHOLEHEARTEDLY that you are dangerous to this country.

I'm not going to be intimidated by this type of rant and these types of accusations.

They are only damaging your credibility.

GGniner Wrote:he doens't want the US, his own country, to win. Admitted as much in the other thread saying he wants to see bush humiliated by withdrawing from Iraq before term is up.

Oh you're absolutely right. You should see the parties I hold every time there's another car bombing in Iraq. I call all my liberal commy friends and we celebrate that our electoral chances have just increased. Then we go up on the roof and start waving white flags and popping off victory champagne. Why? Well, because we're Defeat-o-crats.

You need to stop listening to talk radio. Its scrambling your brain.

The thing I've consistantly said is that there is nothing more that we can accomplish militarily in Iraq. Our troops succeeded in all of the military objectives which were attainable for them. They toppled Saddam. The politicians have failed them and that is why Iraq is a mess. So the politicians that sent them there should acknowledge their mistakes, rectify them, and bring the troops home. The troops should not be held accountable for the fact that the politicians set unreasonable goals (creating democracy in Iraq).

What I've said is that I think Bush doesn't want to LOOK like he is pulling the troops out of Iraq without being able to claim victory because that would be humiliating to him. What they will instead to is keep kicking this can down the road until there is a democratic administration and then they will attempt to re-write history to say that "we were making Iraq free, if only Democrats hadn't pulled the plug and legislated defeat"...

Stop questioning people's patriotism, and you will have more credibility.

OUGwave Wrote:Because you don't get to choose where you get deployed to, and I am not going to sacrifice my life so that George W. can be spared the humility of withdrawing from Iraq under his watch.

if that isn't rooting for failure I don't know what is......

You beleive in the afghan war but are not a chickenhawk like me even though you aren't there fighting in it. You say you will not join up because you "can't choose to fight in afghan" and don't want to "get stuck in irak" because you do not want George W. Bush to be "spared the humility" of withdrawing under his watch.... [/b]

GGniner Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:Because you don't get to choose where you get deployed to, and I am not going to sacrifice my life so that George W. can be spared the humility of withdrawing from Iraq under his watch.

if that isn't rooting for failure I don't know what is......

You beleive in the afghan war but are not a chickenhawk like me even though you aren't there fighting in it. You say you will not join up because you "can't choose to fight in afghan" and don't want to "get stuck in irak" because you do not want George W. Bush to be "spared the humility" of withdrawing under his watch.... [/b]

Um, first of all its spelled Iraq.

Second of all, that is not rooting for failure. I mean, is that the best you could come up with? I really would love to see the diagram of how you get from A to B on that.

Its no secret that Bush does not want the pullout under his administration. He knows the pullout is inevitable, because no other president is going to sustain our presence there. He knows the pullout begins in February of 2009 regardless of who wins the election. The only reason he doesn't want that to happen 5 months earlier is because he doesn't want it to look like his legacy.

As to the chickenhawk comment -- well, the quote of mine you selected answers that. You don't get to choose which war you fight in.

And the thing is, I don't normally call people chickenhawks -- I think its a silly argument. We have civilian control over the military for a reason in this country.

But I do make an exception for people like you -- who question the patriotism and courage of others while not picking up arms themselves.

OUGwave Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:Because you don't get to choose where you get deployed to, and I am not going to sacrifice my life so that George W. can be spared the humility of withdrawing from Iraq under his watch.

if that isn't rooting for failure I don't know what is......

You beleive in the afghan war but are not a chickenhawk like me even though you aren't there fighting in it. You say you will not join up because you "can't choose to fight in afghan" and don't want to "get stuck in irak" because you do not want George W. Bush to be "spared the humility" of withdrawing under his watch.... [/b]

Um, first of all its spelled Iraq.

"halp us jon cary, we r stuck hare n Irak"

Quote:Second of all, that is not rooting for failure. I mean, is that the best you could come up with? I really would love to see the diagram of how you get from A to B on that.

you clearly said you want to see bush humiliated and forced to withdrawal on his watch. no two way's around it. And this isn't bush's war, its America's war.

RebelKev Wrote:

Tulsaman Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Let's start carpet-bombing cities. Let's roll through towns taking out buildings with M1A2s. Let's not worry about all this political correct bullspit that we do today. This war on terrorism would be over in no time.

The Patton theory? ;-)

No longer a theory. It works, just ask the Germans.

It wasn't the carpet bombing of cities that did it. From what I've read, even bombing industrial facilities (never mind just bombing civilians) didn't lead to decreased production in Germany until the very end of the war, when the Russkies had already turned the tide and the US was in Normandy.

Not only that, but you knew who the German soldiers were, where the front lines were. They bombed facilities, trains, and large troop concentrations. You really don't have much of that with these terrorists.
So I don't think carpet bombing will help much, if at all. I'm not against some serious bombing if we know where they are, and we can't be worried about some civilian deaths, as they are inevitable in any war.

OUGwave Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:my point about Truman, Lincoln and even George Washington is they were all unpopular at one time, they tried to fire George Washington at one point but are now looked at as great Presidents, because of their action.

You're comparing Bush to George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

Truman: defeated two imperial war machines on opposite side of the world with virtually no standing army on hand and the pacific fleet wiped out before we even started.

Time = 3.5 years.

Lincoln: saved the country from self destruction, held the union together. Defeated brilliant confederate military strategists whose territory was across the river from our nation's capital.

Time = 4 years

Bush: tin pot dictator with a joke of an army and no weapons of mass destruction, opening another country's civil war.

Time = over 4 years and counting, no end in sight.

I think that explains Bush's unpopularity pretty well.

George W. is many things. But Lincoln, Truman and Washington he is not.

I'm not sure you can credit Truman with anything beyond having the courage to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. The war was over in Europe and the US was fighting on Okinawa when Truman took office.

bearcat65 Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:my point about Truman, Lincoln and even George Washington is they were all unpopular at one time, they tried to fire George Washington at one point but are now looked at as great Presidents, because of their action.

You're comparing Bush to George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

Truman: defeated two imperial war machines on opposite side of the world with virtually no standing army on hand and the pacific fleet wiped out before we even started.

Time = 3.5 years.

Lincoln: saved the country from self destruction, held the union together. Defeated brilliant confederate military strategists whose territory was across the river from our nation's capital.

Time = 4 years

Bush: tin pot dictator with a joke of an army and no weapons of mass destruction, opening another country's civil war.

Time = over 4 years and counting, no end in sight.

I think that explains Bush's unpopularity pretty well.

George W. is many things. But Lincoln, Truman and Washington he is not.

I'm not sure you can credit Truman with anything beyond having the courage to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. The war was over in Europe and the US was fighting on Okinawa when Truman took office.

Fair enough, but I was working with what I was given.

GGniner Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:Because you don't get to choose where you get deployed to, and I am not going to sacrifice my life so that George W. can be spared the humility of withdrawing from Iraq under his watch.

if that isn't rooting for failure I don't know what is......

You beleive in the afghan war but are not a chickenhawk like me even though you aren't there fighting in it. You say you will not join up because you "can't choose to fight in afghan" and don't want to "get stuck in irak" because you do not want George W. Bush to be "spared the humility" of withdrawing under his watch.... [/b]

Um, first of all its spelled Iraq.

"halp us jon cary, we r stuck hare n Irak"

Quote:Second of all, that is not rooting for failure. I mean, is that the best you could come up with? I really would love to see the diagram of how you get from A to B on that.

you clearly said you want to see bush humiliated and forced to withdrawal on his watch. no two way's around it. And this isn't bush's war, its America's war.

No what I'm "clearly" saying is that prolonging the war until the end of his term is to keep him from looking like the one who withdrew. Look, we're going to withdraw. We're just arguing over the date. Bush wants the next President to do it so he doesn't have to. There's no further military victory to be had -- we're just policing at this point and trying to hold the country together. That's political work, not military work. We've gotten our victory already, so I don't see how you say I'm wanting us to lose -- lose what?

You can put your own mind through contortions to arrive at square the facts with your ideology, but please refrain from doing it with my words, thanks.

Can I also just say, if this is going to be your strategy in defending Bush's policy in Iraq -- calling people defeatists, cowards, and insulting their patriotism -- then you guys are going to get creamed in the polls.

Because you don't win elections insulting and bullying 60-70% of the American people.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

OU, Roosevelt also interred hundreds of thousands of Japanese-Americans. You game for that? With the Muslim-Americans?

Now wouldn't that be interesting if the Brits got to blast Iran before we did?

They'd be doing the world a favor.

ecu92 Wrote:Now wouldn't that be interesting if the Brits got to blast Iran before we did?

They'd be doing the world a favor.

I think given the movement of things at this point that won't happen. We're going to cave to the Brits wants us to release the Iranians we captured in Iraq and Iran will return the sailors. They will then parade the ones we captured on their TV and gloat about yet another victory against the great Satan.

This just makes me want to puke.

Drudge links to a Sky News article that Iran will pardon the British troops.

RebelKev Wrote:OU, Roosevelt also interred hundreds of thousands of Japanese-Americans. You game for that? With the Muslim-Americans?

I am

sailors to be set free
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/0...index.html