Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Seriously. Anyone?
At one time, the vast majority of Americans believed Harry Reid. Where did they get that idea and are there any that still do?
YouTube - Harry Reid: "The Iraq War is lost."
Seriously. Anyone?
Yes. Because it is. Without an objective or any means of achieving any such positive, nebulous goal, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was lost practically the moment it started. It is not only unwinnable, but counterproductive as it fuels the very insurgency and anti-American violence we hope to eradicate. The sooner we get out, the better.
Seriously. Anyone?
Yes. Because it is. Without an objective or any means of achieving any such positive, nebulous goal, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was lost practically the moment it started. It is not only unwinnable, but counterproductive as it fuels the very insurgency and anti-American violence we hope to eradicate. The sooner we get out, the better.
You mean the US Left will stop it's insurgency and anti-American rantings once we pull out for Iraq? I doubt it, but as they say, "From your lips, to Obama's ears"
Seriously. Anyone?
Seriously. Anyone?
Yes. Because it is. Without an objective or any means of achieving any such positive, nebulous goal, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was lost practically the moment it started. It is not only unwinnable, but counterproductive as it fuels the very insurgency and anti-American violence we hope to eradicate. The sooner we get out, the better.
You mean the US Left will stop it's insurgency and anti-American rantings once we pull out for Iraq? I doubt it, but as they say, "From your lips, to Obama's ears"
From dictionary.com
in⋅sur⋅gen⋅cy
  /ɪnˈsɜrdʒənsi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-sur-juhn-see] Show IPA
Use insurgency in a Sentence
See web results for insurgency
See images of insurgency
noun, plural, -cies for 4.
1. the state or condition of being insurgent.
2. insurrection against an existing government, usually one's own, by a group not recognized as having the status of a belligerent.
3. rebellion within a group, as by members against leaders.
and from Merriam-Websters
Main Entry: in·sur·gen·cy
Pronunciation: \-jən(t)-sē\
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being insurgent; specifically : a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency
An insurgency is a revolt or armed insurrection against a recognized State. This is not something the US left has done since we've gone into Iraq. The last left-leaning movement that could be described as insurgent was during the Vietnam era. The US far right, on the other hand, has had quite a bit of support for an insurgency against the US government since Obama took office. It would probably help your thoughts and arguments if you understood the terms you used.
Policies that negatively affect America and Americans are by definition anti-American. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has cost America and Americans just shy of $700,000,000,000 accounted for dollars so far and is projected to cost at least twice that, in addition to the lives of at least 4355 fallen American servicemembers. In exchange for this enormous cost, America and Americans have seen no positive benefits and in fact have only exponentially increased the threat against them according to the military and intelligence community's own estimates and analysis. The occupation of Iraq is therefore an anti-American policy. Opposing the occupation of Iraq, ergo, is a pro-American policy.
So your question is based upon compounded false premises.
There's no winning an unnecessary war.
Who seriously still believes the Iraq war was necessary?
Seriously. Anyone?
The war was lost the moment Bush decided to invade and occupy Iraq and Afghaistan.
Anytime you get involved in an unwinnable situation you lose the moment you start down that path.
Seriously. Anyone?
When we have spent some $1.5 Trillion of tax-payers dollars over six years, and suffered over 4,000 soldiers dead, and yet there are still massive, coordinated bombings going on in Iraq (the last one killed some 155+ people at once), it's a bit difficult to call the war in Iraq an unqualified success, or even a worthwhile success.
While it looks like we'll eventually be able to leave almost completely - after a grueling and expensive eight- or nine-year occupation which will have cost probably $2 Trillion by the time we're out - the question begging to be answered is, "Was it worth it?"
Bush and Cheney originally said we were going into Iraq to "disarm" Saddam (Cheney at one point said, "There is now NO DOUBT that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"), and Cheney and Rummy said we'd be out of the country after about six months. Ultimately, only pressure from Senator McCain forced Bush to send more troops, which averted total disaster by bringing security to Baghdad.
But again - what did we gain? Iraq pumps less oil now than before we invaded, it turns out that Iraq didn't have any nuclear, biological or chemical weapons or even active programs to develop them, and we spent more on on that one war than the total cost of the International Space Station ($100 Billion) plus NASA's budget since it was founded, plus the estimated cost to return to the moon, PLUS the estimated cost of a manned trip to Mars.
And to top off all the insanity, a fair chunk of the money Bush & Cheney spent on this war was effectively borrowed from China, who we now owe roughly $1 Trillion
Other than the combat experience we got from the war, I can't think of a single positive thing to come out of it. We'd have been better off focusing on Afghanistan early, and ensuring a swift victory there, then trying to fight two wars "on the cheap" (the American people weren't asked to sacrifice anything other than their sons and daughters - Bush didn't even raise taxes to pay for the war, he just put it on the giant credit-card, with payments to China made annually...)
You mean the US Left will stop it's insurgency and anti-American rantings once we pull out for Iraq? I doubt it, but as they say, "From your lips, to Obama's ears"
From dictionary.com
in⋅sur⋅gen⋅cy
  /ɪnˈsɜrdʒənsi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-sur-juhn-see] Show IPA
Use insurgency in a Sentence
See web results for insurgency
See images of insurgency
–noun, plural, -cies for 4.
1. the state or condition of being insurgent.
2. insurrection against an existing government, usually one's own, by a group not recognized as having the status of a belligerent.
3. rebellion within a group, as by members against leaders.
and from Merriam-Websters
Main Entry: in·sur·gen·cy
Pronunciation: \-jən(t)-sē\
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being insurgent; specifically : a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency
An insurgency is a revolt or armed insurrection against a recognized State. This is not something the US left has done since we've gone into Iraq. The last left-leaning movement that could be described as insurgent was during the Vietnam era. The US far right, on the other hand, has had quite a bit of support for an insurgency against the US government since Obama took office. It would probably help your thoughts and arguments if you understood the terms you used.
Policies that negatively affect America and Americans are by definition anti-American. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has cost America and Americans just shy of $700,000,000,000 accounted for dollars so far and is projected to cost at least twice that, in addition to the lives of at least 4355 fallen American servicemembers. In exchange for this enormous cost, America and Americans have seen no positive benefits and in fact have only exponentially increased the threat against them according to the military and intelligence community's own estimates and analysis. The occupation of Iraq is therefore an anti-American policy. Opposing the occupation of Iraq, ergo, is a pro-American policy.
So your question is based upon compounded false premises.
"An insurgency is a revolt or armed insurrection against a recognized State." -- Textbook definition of Dems and LMSM campaign against Bush; they were very revolting
Seriously. Anyone?
When we have spent some $1.5 Trillion of tax-payers dollars over six years, and suffered over 4,000 soldiers dead, and yet there are still massive, coordinated bombings going on in Iraq (the last one killed some 155+ people at once), it's a bit difficult to call the war in Iraq an unqualified success, or even a worthwhile success.
While it looks like we'll eventually be able to leave almost completely - after a grueling and expensive eight- or nine-year occupation which will have cost probably $2 Trillion by the time we're out - the question begging to be answered is, "Was it worth it?"
Bush and Cheney originally said we were going into Iraq to "disarm" Saddam (Cheney at one point said, "There is now NO DOUBT that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"), and Cheney and Rummy said we'd be out of the country after about six months. Ultimately, only pressure from Senator McCain forced Bush to send more troops, which averted total disaster by bringing security to Baghdad.
But again - what did we gain? Iraq pumps less oil now than before we invaded, it turns out that Iraq didn't have any nuclear, biological or chemical weapons or even active programs to develop them, and we spent more on on that one war than the total cost of the International Space Station ($100 Billion) plus NASA's budget since it was founded, plus the estimated cost to return to the moon, PLUS the estimated cost of a manned trip to Mars.
And to top off all the insanity, a fair chunk of the money Bush & Cheney spent on this war was effectively borrowed from China, who we now owe roughly $1 Trillion
Other than the combat experience we got from the war, I can't think of a single positive thing to come out of it. We'd have been better off focusing on Afghanistan early, and ensuring a swift victory there, then trying to fight two wars "on the cheap" (the American people weren't asked to sacrifice anything other than their sons and daughters - Bush didn't even raise taxes to pay for the war, he just put it on the giant credit-card, with payments to China made annually...)
We gained another democratic nation in the ME favorably disposed to the USA, the polar opposite of the US Democrat ME Strategy which calls for handing over nations to Islamists
From dictionary.com
in⋅sur⋅gen⋅cy
  /ɪnˈsɜrdʒənsi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-sur-juhn-see] Show IPA
Use insurgency in a Sentence
See web results for insurgency
See images of insurgency
noun, plural, -cies for 4.
1. the state or condition of being insurgent.
2. insurrection against an existing government, usually one's own, by a group not recognized as having the status of a belligerent.
3. rebellion within a group, as by members against leaders.
and from Merriam-Websters
Main Entry: in·sur·gen·cy
Pronunciation: \-jən(t)-sē\
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being insurgent; specifically : a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency
An insurgency is a revolt or armed insurrection against a recognized State. This is not something the US left has done since we've gone into Iraq. The last left-leaning movement that could be described as insurgent was during the Vietnam era. The US far right, on the other hand, has had quite a bit of support for an insurgency against the US government since Obama took office. It would probably help your thoughts and arguments if you understood the terms you used.
Policies that negatively affect America and Americans are by definition anti-American. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has cost America and Americans just shy of $700,000,000,000 accounted for dollars so far and is projected to cost at least twice that, in addition to the lives of at least 4355 fallen American servicemembers. In exchange for this enormous cost, America and Americans have seen no positive benefits and in fact have only exponentially increased the threat against them according to the military and intelligence community's own estimates and analysis. The occupation of Iraq is therefore an anti-American policy. Opposing the occupation of Iraq, ergo, is a pro-American policy.
So your question is based upon compounded false premises.
"An insurgency is a revolt or armed insurrection against a recognized State." -- Textbook definition of Dems and LMSM campaign against Bush; they were very revolting
Cute, but a worthless dodge. You finding Democrats distasteful is obvious, but "revolting" ain't the same as a revolution and in the last 30 years it's only the far right calling in any significant number for an armed insurrection. Far moreso now that Obama's in office. In other words, you were talking out your ass and misusing a term.
When we have spent some $1.5 Trillion of tax-payers dollars over six years, and suffered over 4,000 soldiers dead, and yet there are still massive, coordinated bombings going on in Iraq (the last one killed some 155+ people at once), it's a bit difficult to call the war in Iraq an unqualified success, or even a worthwhile success.
While it looks like we'll eventually be able to leave almost completely - after a grueling and expensive eight- or nine-year occupation which will have cost probably $2 Trillion by the time we're out - the question begging to be answered is, "Was it worth it?"
Bush and Cheney originally said we were going into Iraq to "disarm" Saddam (Cheney at one point said, "There is now NO DOUBT that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"), and Cheney and Rummy said we'd be out of the country after about six months. Ultimately, only pressure from Senator McCain forced Bush to send more troops, which averted total disaster by bringing security to Baghdad.
But again - what did we gain? Iraq pumps less oil now than before we invaded, it turns out that Iraq didn't have any nuclear, biological or chemical weapons or even active programs to develop them, and we spent more on on that one war than the total cost of the International Space Station ($100 Billion) plus NASA's budget since it was founded, plus the estimated cost to return to the moon, PLUS the estimated cost of a manned trip to Mars.
And to top off all the insanity, a fair chunk of the money Bush & Cheney spent on this war was effectively borrowed from China, who we now owe roughly $1 Trillion
Other than the combat experience we got from the war, I can't think of a single positive thing to come out of it. We'd have been better off focusing on Afghanistan early, and ensuring a swift victory there, then trying to fight two wars "on the cheap" (the American people weren't asked to sacrifice anything other than their sons and daughters - Bush didn't even raise taxes to pay for the war, he just put it on the giant credit-card, with payments to China made annually...)
We gained another democratic nation in the ME favorably disposed to the USA, the polar opposite of the US Democrat ME Strategy which calls for handing over nations to Islamists
Iraq is "favoriably disposed to the USA"?!?!? Wow. Where have you been the last 6 years? Read any intelligence reports or military analysis lately? Anti-American sentiment has increased dramatically since our invasion and throughout our occupation and according to our own expert reports, the terror threat against us has multiplied exponentially. No wonder you support such terrible policies, you have no idea what's going on in the real world.
