After The Veto - What Now

What funding bill will pass?


  • Total voters
    3
  • Poll closed .
We pulled out of Vietnam because we could not win the war for the south vietnamise. It was dragging on and not looking better, only scraficing our troops to the north. Thats why we pulled out, because everyone knew it was inevitable that the North would fight forever until we caved in and dropped the nukes, which we couldnt do. We just straight up could not win for the south because of poor strategy and many other reasons.
If people like RSR ran the country, he would believe that the US could win any war. And that my friend, is wrong. We can not win every single war and if we always thought the way you did, we would STILL be in vietnam until our very last troop was killed! Pride does not win wars.

Iraq is different, we have won the war, now we are baby sitting a monster. Thats basically a waste of time, and proves we should not have went in to begin with, Suddam did a better job of babysitting.

There is no doubt that we had a major military victory in overthrowing Saddam Hussein's government and capturing him but now we are faced with a different enemy and it is one domestic to Iraq and it is this insurgency which we cannot defeat. This isn't defeatist instead it is to acknowledge that the only way the insurgency will be defeated is if the Iraqi's do it themselves and deal with the political implications of the Civil War in Iraq. Once they have done that it will be easy for them to address the problem of terrorists coming into Iraq and undermining the political process. Our troops being there will only result in more of them dying and increasing the number of insurgents.
 
The US can WIN any war we get into. The US has the best trained and best armed military the world has ever seen

The US NEVER lost a battle in Viet Nam. It is a fact

It is also a fact that innocent men and women who served in our military died in Vietnam and we lost quite a few of them, but shitheads like you don't think in terms of individuals who have families and lives that they want to return to after a war is concluded. There is no doubt that there couldn't be a complete victory in Vietnam anymore than the British could have had a complete victory in America during the American Revolution or War of 1812 and the reason is simple which is that they were fightin on our soil and we had the advantage and this is true of the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq just like it was in Vietnam. It was a truth that was known when we nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The losses that would have resulted from a ground invasion of Japan would have been astronomical. The suicide bombers i Japan proved that, and the patriotism and nationalism of the Japanese would have resulted in them doing what we would do if we were invaded which would be to repeal the invaders with clubs, bats, and kitchen knives if necessary. Yet, you being an imbecile cannot see this because you can't grasp the need for the Iraqi's to form a government and to build a national identity that is independent of us. Without that we will remain in Iraq for 10, 20, or 30 or more years acting as a go between between the insurgency and the Iraqi government we have installed. There wasn't a real constitutional convention, and there wasn't a real Iraqi Revolution and in the minds of many people in Iraq the Iraqi government isn't legitimate because it is seen as an American government and not an Iraqi led government. The only way to change that is to re-deploy and to allow the Iraqi's to resolve their political differences. This may require a constitutional convention and a real discussion of what the Iraqi's want but that must be done without any American involvement.
 
If Dems would have let the US militray fight the war the way it needed to be fought - the US would not have left before the job was finished

If you had your way a lot more of our young men and women would have returned home in caskets instead of the welcoming arms of their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and loved ones. These young men and women would not have gone on to get married, start families, and start businesses or careers. But of course they are simple numbers to losers such as you and not real people.
 
Before the job was finished? The vietnam war lasted over 12 years! How much time do you need to finish the job?!?!?

And it wasnt just occupation, and fending off insurgents. It was straight up fighting an ongoing 12 year war!

The question you should be asking is "how many Americans must for him to finish the job?"
 
Right, ultimate truth lies in an interview with one single person who is not the president of anything? And most likely did not pick up a gun and fight in battle. Why dont you pull out an interview of an american soldier DURING Viet nam?

I thought not.

These idiots will always find one person who has said something to support their position and will not take the whole picture into consideration. The North Vietnamese had one advantage that we did not which was that they were fighting on their own territory and in their own region of the world and their forces therefore had a strategic advantage that we did not. For example, take the American Revolution as an example. The British had to send their troops thousands of miles before they could fight and had to transport military supplies thousands of miles before they could be used while we only had to run into our towns, and fall into the civilian population and re-group. This is now what is happening in Iraq. The terrorists will run out and attack American troops and then disappear back into the Iraqi population to wait for the next time. This is something that the British learned the hard way. Simply put, they were shocked that the Americans did not come out in orderly lines to fight like they did in Europe instead Americans would dash out of the trees, make strategic hits and run back into the trees. This kind of fighting ultimately was their defeat and that is why they finally surrendered. They could have fought the American Revolution for 4, 5, 7, 10, 12 or 20 years but they would still have not won the war because we could hold out for 30 or 40 or even 50 years if necessary. It was the words of men like Patrick Henry of "give me liberty or give me death" that showd our determination and we are ignorant if we fail to take into account the determination of the Iraqi insurgency. It is with this in mind that we must use common sense and re-deploy out of Iraq so that the insurgency can be legitimately defeated by the Iraqi's and a real government established in Iraq by the will of the Iraqi people. The advantage the Iraqi's have is that they are fighting for their country and in their own lands. This is an advantage they ultimately will have over the insurgency that we do not. It is their determination that will change the course of the Iraqi Civil War.
 
These idiots will always find one person who has said something to support their position and will not take the whole picture into consideration. Oh yeah, like the NVA general wouldn't have a clue! The North Vietnamese had one advantage that we did not which was that they were fighting on their own territory (North Vietnam sure as hell was not fighting in their own territory!) and in their own region of the world and their forces therefore had a strategic advantage that we did not. (You apparently did not read the article either!) For example, take the American Revolution as an example. The British had to send their troops thousands of miles before they could fight and had to transport military supplies thousands of miles before they could be used while we only had to run into our towns, and fall into the civilian population and re-group. This is now what is happening in Iraq. The terrorists will run out and attack American troops and then disappear back into the Iraqi population to wait for the next time. This is something that the British learned the hard way. Simply put, they were shocked that the Americans did not come out in orderly lines to fight like they did in Europe instead Americans would dash out of the trees, make strategic hits and run back into the trees. This kind of fighting ultimately was their defeat and that is why they finally surrendered. (Nope, you need to read some military history. Guerilla tactics used by the colonists certainly were effective but not the biggest factor in the British surrender.) They could have fought the American Revolution for 4, 5, 7, 10, 12 or 20 years but they would still have not won the war because we could hold out for 30 or 40 or even 50 years if necessary. (nope, we needed the intervention of other European powers... like France.... to make victory possible.) It was the words of men like Patrick Henry of "give me liberty or give me death" that showd our determination and we are ignorant if we fail to take into account the determination of the Iraqi insurgency. (sadly, Americans no longer have that kind of spirit.) It is with this in mind that we must use common sense and re-deploy out of Iraq so that the insurgency can be legitimately defeated by the Iraqi's and a real government established in Iraq by the will of the Iraqi people. The advantage the Iraqi's have is that they are fighting for their country and in their own lands. (maybe, but they sure wont do it without outside help.) This is an advantage they ultimately will have over the insurgency that we do not. It is their determination that will change the course of the Iraqi Civil War.

You are partially correct.

The American people no longer have the gumption that folks like Patrick Henry displayed. American libs always look for the easy way out...
 
Pres Bush gets bill with no surrender date

Dems cave and pull surrender date

These are the same option with different wording.

Is that a joke?


Dems cave and pull surrender date, then Pres Bush gets bill with no surrender date
 
There is no easy way out of iraq. The easy part was getting IN. Iraq needs to develope its own border controll with the help of surrounding countrys that we (america) alienated since Bush came into office. Since we cant sit down and talk with anyone anymore. Iraq needs to build diplomatic relations with neighboring countrys to aid in its rebuilding of Infustracture and to controll its borders.
 
You are partially correct.

The American people no longer have the gumption that folks like Patrick Henry displayed. American libs always look for the easy way out...

Patrick Henry was a liberal while Alexander Hamilton was a conservative, and they are polar opposites. Patrick Henry's point was that the elected Parliment had no right to violate the rights of Americans and that liberty was more dear than life itself. This holds true of today's liberals who have been resisting the encroachment of conservatives on our rights and liberties since this country was formed. The same differences exist between the founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson, and the ideological founder of the Republican Party, Alexander Hamilton, who was a monarchist.
 
Patrick Henry was a liberal while Alexander Hamilton was a conservative, and they are polar opposites. Patrick Henry's point was that the elected Parliment had no right to violate the rights of Americans and that liberty was more dear than life itself. This holds true of today's liberals who have been resisting the encroachment of conservatives on our rights and liberties since this country was formed. The same differences exist between the founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson, and the ideological founder of the Republican Party, Alexander Hamilton, who was a monarchist.

Incorrect. Conservatives haven't encroached on anything. Conservatives seek to maintain the status quo. Liberals on the other hand, try to encroach on every moral, rule, and just about anything else they can find to try and change something, even when that change is for the worse.
 
Incorrect. Conservatives haven't encroached on anything. Conservatives seek to maintain the status quo. Liberals on the other hand, try to encroach on every moral, rule, and just about anything else they can find to try and change something, even when that change is for the worse.

You are correct that a conservative Alexander Hamilton wanted a monarchy, and you are correct that the liberal Patrick Henry wanted change. In every country and every society conservatives have consistently been opposed to our liberties, rights and freedoms. Generally speaking liberals boycotted the Constitutional Convention but had such men as Patrick Henry heard Alexander Hamilton get up and call for the appointment of a monarch in this country there would have been lynchings. Yet, forunately for us liberals prevailed in obtaining a Bill of Rights and to have a few of the most important ones enumerated even though every conservative opposed this. It was our fight to include some of these important provisions in the Constitution that has kept this country one of the freest in the world. Conservatives can cry about this all they want but we won in 1776, 1787, 1789, and 1791
 
Patrick Henry was a liberal while Alexander Hamilton was a conservative, and they are polar opposites. Patrick Henry's point was that the elected Parliment had no right to violate the rights of Americans and that liberty was more dear than life itself. This holds true of today's liberals who have been resisting the encroachment of conservatives on our rights and liberties since this country was formed. The same differences exist between the founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson, and the ideological founder of the Republican Party, Alexander Hamilton, who was a monarchist.


Technically Jefferson founded both partys, as it was the democratic republican party at the time, though it would later become the democratic party. The republican party was founded waaaaaaay later than the original democratic party. So i dont know why they call themselves the GOP.
 
Technically Jefferson founded both partys, as it was the democratic republican party at the time, though it would later become the democratic party. The republican party was founded waaaaaaay later than the original democratic party. So i dont know why they call themselves the GOP.

Technically, the Democratic-Republican Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson and that party still exists today in the Democratic Party. On the other hand, the Republican Party did not exist at that time in its current form but its history can be traced by to the Party that Alexander Hamilton founded because of the breakup of the Democratic-Republicans and the realignment of the parties.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top