|
Al-Qaida No. 2 mocks Bush, Iraq pullout bill (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
I dunno.
Do you really give insurgents a date in which to stock up until US troops move out? |
I've asked this before, what is the flip side of this argument of not setting a date? That we'll pull back forces real secret-like so no one will notice? Or that we shall stay forever? Because setting a "date" as you say, has to happen one day or another. And besides, House Minority Leader John Boehner said back in January that we have a 60-90 day window to see if the surge will work:
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/..._three_months_0
Guess where we are now?
But not to worry, Boehner was clever enough to move those goalposts back to 3-4 months from now:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070506...go_co/us_iraq_2
This is what I'm ing tired of - moving the goalposts. Face up to the simply cold hard fact that this surge, like all other surges in the past with this war, has not and will not work. Any plan created by neocon dips (like this one created by AEI point man, Fred Kagan) has fallen to . I cannot continue to trust the neocons with this anymore.
Besides, setting a date can also let the Iraqi government know that our military assistance and patience for them to start holding themselves up is not infinite.
| quote: | | The Americans are at least trying to be responsible for their mess and they know it. |
I beg to differ. The American sentiment is by broad majority in every poll - set a timeline and get our men and women the home.
| quote: | The Left don't like this, yet while talking out the other side of their mouth, will conviently bring up the fact that this was the States' fault to begin with.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't... |
Give me a ing break. So now it's the Left's problem?
Sorry, bub, but this is Bush's war. He owns it. The Left is merely trying to do what the American public wants - get our ing people out of there, period. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I've asked this before, what is the flip side of this argument of not setting a date? That we'll pull back forces real secret-like so no one will notice? Or that we shall stay forever? Because setting a "date" as you say, has to happen one day or another. And besides, House Minority Leader John Boehner said back in January that we have a 60-90 day window to see if the surge will work:
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/..._three_months_0
Guess where we are now?
But not to worry, Boehner was clever enough to move those goalposts back to 3-4 months from now:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070506...go_co/us_iraq_2
This is what I'm ing tired of - moving the goalposts. Face up to the simply cold hard fact that this surge, like all other surges in the past with this war, has not and will not work. Any plan created by neocon dips (like this one created by AEI point man, Fred Kagan) has fallen to . I cannot continue to trust the neocons with this anymore.
|
We can't say this is a 'neocon' thing when everybody voted for it in the first place.
I agree with you on the moving of the goalposts though.
They must give better reasons as to why they keep moving them other than, 'there hasn't been enough time'.
How does one determine if it was successful or not anyways?
If there's no answer to that, they can make up any date they want.
| quote: |
Besides, setting a date can also let the Iraqi government know that our military assistance and patience for them to start holding themselves up is not infinite.
|
True and I wouldn't be surprised if that initial date hasn't already been given to them secretly.
Without a goal on the horizon, they'll just think they can rely on the States indefinitely and focus on loosing hope every time a bomb goes off.
| quote: |
I beg to differ. The American sentiment is by broad majority in every poll - set a timeline and get our men and women the home.
|
I think I answered this above...
| quote: |
Give me a ing break. So now it's the Left's problem?
Sorry, bub, but this is Bush's war. He owns it. The Left is merely trying to do what the American public wants - get our ing people out of there, period. |
I never said it was anyone's 'problem'. I simply stated that the Left likes their talking points and eat their cake too in this area. ;) |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
We can't say this is a 'neocon' thing when everybody voted for it in the first place.
I agree with you on the moving of the goalposts though.
They must give better reasons as to why they keep moving them other than, 'there hasn't been enough time'.
How does one determine if it was successful or not anyways?
If there's no answer to that, they can make up any date they want.
True and I wouldn't be surprised if that initial date hasn't already been given to them secretly.
Without a goal on the horizon, they'll just think they can rely on the States indefinitely and focus on loosing hope every time a bomb goes off.
I think I answered this above...
I never said it was anyone's 'problem'. I simply stated that the Left likes their talking points and eat their cake too in this area. ;) |
Fair enough, but I'd contend that not "everyone" voted for it. True, there were some Democrats but not the majority party.
More bad news: A leading Sunni leader is threatening to pull out of government and take 44 members with him if significant changes to the Iraqi Constitution are not made:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast...reat/index.html
Going, going, going......... |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
More bad news: A leading Sunni leader is threatening to pull out of government and take 44 members with him if significant changes to the Iraqi Constitution are not made:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast...reat/index.html
Going, going, going......... |
Lovely...taking his own country hostage and threatening to take his ball home him because they can't get their way?
I'd call that lame.
If they were serious, they would negotiation and find a resolution rather than subject their country and people to yet MORE division...
They'll do way more damage to the country with this kind of selfish approach than by negotiation.
:sadgreen: |
|
|
| LatinLover |
| quote: |
Sorry, bub, but this is Bush's war. He owns it. The Left is merely trying to do what the American public wants - get our ing people out of there, period. |
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:
Lets just let presidents from now on do w.e the polls indicate... oh and whenever America goes to war lets just call it " our presidents war"
Some people in this forum are truly frustrated leftists |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by LatinLover
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:
Lets just let presidents from now on do w.e the polls indicate... oh and whenever America goes to war lets just call it " our presidents war" |
Hell, I'll just settle for wanting a president to follow a little common sense, rather than firing his generals on the ground that don't agree with Kagan's surge plan and replacing them with more yes-men instead.
But that reality-based world does tend to escape our dear chimp at times.
| quote: | | Some people in this forum are truly frustrated leftists |
As is the majority of Americans right now? Gosh, don't you hate it when "Independents" such as yourself are out on a sinking remote island, supporting these failed ideas of this Administration?
I guess reality is nothing more than just a vast Left Wing conspiracy..... |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Lovely...taking his own country hostage and threatening to take his ball home him because they can't get their way?
I'd call that lame.
If they were serious, they would negotiation and find a resolution rather than subject their country and people to yet MORE division...
They'll do way more damage to the country with this kind of selfish approach than by negotiation.
:sadgreen: |
I really don't know what the hell their motives are at this point. I fully agree with you, but we're not in their shoes and I can't say for certain how they should or shouldn't feel and act about things. Surely they have to realize that dissolving their members is not a peaceful solution by any means, and will only lead to more uprising and violence.
What a ing mess. |
|
|
| _Ocean_Drive_ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Let's be honest; they'd be hounded to hell both from abroad and at home had they not.
(I'm assuming you're refering to their toppling of Saddam? Or were you refering to ealier than that?) |
Referring to the toppling of Saddam. Iraq had zilch to do with 9/11, and was merely to finish what daddy started. I'll admit that I was pro-Afghanistan, because there was some logic to that invasion. The bastion of terrorism, a brutal regime that had inflicted terror on another nation, and where arugably a large majority of terrorists and their leaders were based. Fine. But the US royally screwed up operations there. But Iraq? That should've been left alone. Like so many other countries and empires throughout history and has history as demonstrated time and time again, it would have crumbled from the inside, led by the people. Dictatorships have been taken down in other parts of the world without bombs.
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Sure they could have printed a real harshly worded letter (ala U.N.) but what would that prove other than giving a green light for terrorists to continue their agendas?
Nobody likes seeing foreign forces in someone else's backyard, but if the problem from abroad is because of you, then responsibility lies with those who created it.
|
Again, I repeat, Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Afghanistan and Iraq are two separate things in my opinion. The first was a legtimitate case, but botched beyond repair, the second was an aboslute SCAM that anyone with half a brain cell could've seen was the WRONG move. And whatever shred of 'right' there was about it, the troops should have been pulled out, immediately after Saddam was toppled. Sure, anarchy would have ensued, but it would've ironed itself out. But this doesn't get away from the fact that the US should not have gone there in the first place. The first Gulf war was legitimate for so many reasons, least not because Iraq had attacked another country.
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
They're paying for it may times over (that's an understatement) and hopefully next time, they'll think long and hard before supporting 'rebels' and 'freedom fighters' in another country again. |
George Bush is a 'Freedom Fighter'. What say you about sending North Korean troops over onto US soil to bring the US democracy? |
|
|
| LatinLover |
The dems are a joke... all they do is sit on capitol hill and wine all day. They bring no resolutions to the table, and they are the ones to blame for the division that exists in this country. I mean how can we win a war or better yet find an overall solution to our problems in the ME and such division exists? As someone mention its better for them to sit down and engage in constructive negotiations and not run around screaming withdrawal... they are just simply taking advantage over the fact that many Americans are tired of the war. But do Americans truly know whats in stake if we withdraw? I mean dems shout withdrawal.. how about if we engage in a national dialogue and explain to Americans about the aftermath of a possible withdrawal. I Guarantee that Americans would change their minds about a possible withdrawal.
As I always said some people have to take unpopular decisions to do the right thing. Clearly bush ed up in his strategy to invade Iraq, better yet the invasion was a big military success, but he wasnt prepare for the resistance that was coming his way. But yet the Dems use this war to make a political point. Our enemy is happy that our nation is divided. They know all they have to do is wait till we grow tire and retreat as it happened in Vietnam, thou this war is more complex than Vietnam in many angles. What pisses me off is that many individuals have forgotten that our troops are there to fight for America NOT BUSH! Our brave men and women are representing AMERICA not Bush. This is Americas war not Bushs war. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by LatinLover
What pisses me off is that many individuals have forgotten that our troops are there to fight for America NOT BUSH! Our brave men and women are representing AMERICA not Bush. This is Americas war not Bushs war. |
what exactly are they fighting for?war on terror?wmd?Iraqi freedom? I bet you they dont even know anymore.
How the is this Americas's war you jackass???almost everyone in the U.S wants the troops out,what does that tell you?:rolleyes: |
|
|
| LatinLover |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
what exactly are they fighting for?war on terror?wmd?Iraqi freedom? I bet you they dont even know anymore.
How the is this Americas's war you jackass???almost everyone in the U.S wants the troops out,what does that tell you?:rolleyes: |
Clearly commonsense does not exist in your world. First, how is this America's war? What uniform are our brave soldiers wearing? :rolleyes: In your world only because the American people want our troops out its no longer an American war is a bush war. So could the same have been said for Vietnam? :rolleyes: Lets just blame it on all the presidents that went through Vietnam... so lets call it a " U.S. Presidential Vietnamese war" in your world. |
|
|
| M.Johan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
We can't say this is a 'neocon' thing when everybody voted for it in the first place. |
Because American people had a super obsessions ,phobias and hysterias after 9/11
and as a result of that,the damn propaganda words (Like axes of devil or evil) had been spread.So Mr.Bush has decided to spread the peace & the democracy in the M.East.
but after 6 years everything is so clear,obvious and blatant like the bright sun. |
|
|
|
|
